# Moral objections on warfare.



## GT (Mar 17, 2005)

14 Dec 1942, Kommandeur of 1/JG51 Heinrich Krafft was shot down by Russian AA guns at Bjeloi, and as beaten to death by Russian soldiers. 

17 Dec 1943, Joachim Kirschner, IV/JG27, was hit during a dogfight with Spitfires over Croatia and bailed out, but he was captured by partisans and shot to death.

29 March 1944, Detlev Rohwer, Gruppenkommandeur II/JG 3 attacked some B-17s . His Bf 109 G-6 was hit by return fire from the bombers and he bellied near Ibbenburen and was strafed by P-38s and suffered severe wounds. He was hospitalized at Ibbenburen where he had a leg amputated. He died of his wounds on 30 March.

24 April 1944, Franz Schwaiger, Staffelkapitan 1./JG3 fought against US bomber formations and its escort. After scoring a P-51 his Bf 109G-5 ran out of fuel and he had to make a forced landing near Rain am Lech and P-51s strafed and killed him.

6 Sept 1944, Lt/Col. Quince L. Brown, 78th FG was attacking Vogelsland airfield and his a/c was seen hit by tracers and Brown baled out. He was seen to land safely in a field, 2 km west of Schleiden near the town of Weirmuehle and to run and hide in some long grass. He was shot in the back of the head at close range and killed by an SS officer and the officer informed the German authorities that the US pilot had tried to escape, but in 1946 a War Crimes court found him guilty of murder and ordered his execution. 

30 March, 1945, Lt. Erich Schulte was killed in his parachute by enemy fighters after bailing out. The Me 262 was claimed (and later confirmed as destroyed) by 2/Lt. Leonard A. Kunz and Capt. Robert F. Sargent, 339th FG.

4 april 1945, Gruppenkommandeur III./JG7, Rudi Sinner bailed out of his Me 262 after being hit by P-51s and landed in a plowed field. Two P-51s from 339th FG strafed him during the time he was dragged about 20 meters by the parachute and when the P-51s circled around for another pass, Sinner ran for about 25 m and the P-51s then strafed his parachute. The Me 262 was destroyed by 1/Lt. Robert C. Croker and shared with Captain Kirke B. Everson, 339th FG.

17 April 1945, Col. Elwyn C. Righetti, 55th FG Group CO was hit by flak near Dresden and he bellied-in his P-51D after strafing an airfield. He was killed by a furious mob of German civilians.

28 April 1945, Lt. Ernst Rudolf Geldmacher, II./JG7 was shot down as he took of from Ruzne airfield and was later beaten to death by a enraged mob.

Fighter pilots and sometime bomber crews were killed and beaten by irate civilians or German military personnel. The reason was often personal loss or the general devastation and casualties resulting from air attack generated this intense hatred. 

The last traces of moral objections to this manner of warfare had long ago been forgotten. The incidents should not be covered up and the sad story is that it happened on both sides. Even Capt. Richard Peterson, 357th FG admitted in an interview for Wings that he had made mince meat of an Bf 109 pilot who had flown from parachute to parachute, shooting at the bomber crews. - I just tore him up and that was the only time I did it, he said.

Regards
GT


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

but to be honest some of those are acceptable really, i mean it is a war, the gentlemanly encounters of the Great War were, for the most part, gone, and especailly on the eastern front the rulebook was completely torn up..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

I wouldn't call it acceptable, lanc. To a certain degree it's _understandable_, but not exactly acceptable. We're only human yes, but we need to maintain certain lines of accountability, even in warfare.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Im with Nonskimmer here.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im with Nonskimmer here.


Figuratively speaking, of course.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Mar 17, 2005)

I agree with Nonskimmer too. The stuff that GT mentioned is as bad as what happenened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

Apparently a B-29 crewman who got shot down over Japan was caged in Tokyo Zoo as an exhibit, now that is degrading


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 17, 2005)

Michael,

I notice that you said,"The stuff that GT mentioned is as bad as what happenened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Huh? Exactly what "stuff" are you referring to?


----------



## GT (Mar 18, 2005)

Yes, It is understandable and not many pilots did it, just because to most pilots there was no challenge to shoot and kill a helpless guy in a parachute.

I wonder what the Geneva convention says about it?


Regards
GT


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

GT said:


> Yes, It is understandable and not many pilots did it, just because to most pilots there was no challenge to shoot and kill a helpless guy in a parachute.
> 
> I wonder what the Geneva convention says about it?
> 
> ...



During WW2 there was no rule about not shooting at aircrew in parachutes.

German civilians did nasty things to airmen shot down over Germany.


----------



## GT (Mar 18, 2005)

That is also understandable, and the rage when an terrorflieger was captured
by civilians sometimes had that sad ending.

Regards
GT


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 18, 2005)

GT said:


> That is also understandable, and the rage when an terrorflieger was captured
> by civilians sometimes had that sad ending.
> 
> Regards
> GT



GT, my name sake was one of those _terrorflieger_ who did not come home. 

Not to say it did not happen but I don't recall the same happening to German aircrew shot down over GB during the Blitz.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

An Italian one used a captured P-38 in American markings to take out B-17's when they were least expecting it. One of the Radio Operators then Radioed the Italian, telling him he'd been having an affair with his wife  This angried him and he tried to take down some of the B-17's, but was shot down by another P-38. Ironically, the B-17 Radio Operator attended the guys funeral.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey, it worked for many weeks!


----------



## trackend (Mar 18, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Michael,
> 
> I notice that you said,"The stuff that GT mentioned is as bad as what happened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
> 
> Huh? Exactly what "stuff" are you referring to?



I believe David, Michael is referring to the images/allegations shown on ABC, 60 minutes and the Washington post.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

Here is the thing: No matter which side did it and all sides did it, it is a dishonorable thing to do. You dishonor yourself and your country and whole liniage of aviators. Also the civilians that did it were wrong and should be punished for it. Unfortanatly it happens. In the US us aviators are given what we call blood chits. It has a big American flag on it and has all the languages of the region we are flying in on it. The sayings basically say "I am an American, I mean you know harm, please take me to the nearest US soldiers and you will recieve a reward." Pretty much though what it says is please kill me. We always knew that if we went down over Baghdad or some place like it, it was over. Run for your life or fight to the death because it is better then what an angry mob is going to do to you (Remember Somalia).
At the same time it is a little understandable for the civilians. Dont take me wrong I think it is wrong but look at from this point. You are a civilian who works in a bakery and all you want to do every day is sell bread to people. You are not fighting the war and just living your life in a country that is fighting in the war. Everynight your city is bombed to a fiery hell and other civilians are dying. You certainly will begin to feel hatred toward these bomber crews. One day an enemy pilot is shot down and you see him. You most likely will want to kill the man for what he has done to you (he may not have taken part in the bombing of your city, however he is a pilot and you assosiate all pilots with the bombers). Ofcourse that is if you do not run like hell because you are scared and he most likely has a Colt .45. Please dont take me wrong I think it is a terrible thing to do, but I can sort of understand what these civilians were thinking when they did these things.
As for Abu Ghraib, and this is also coming from an Iraq Vet here. Yes treating prisoners is a bad thing, I do not agree with treating prisoners in such a way because in my opionion it tarnishes the good things that my army does. When I first heard about what happened it really pissed me off, however after serving in Iraq for a year I have seriously changed my mind after seeing and fighting these people. If I had been shot down and captured I would have certainly been tortured and my head cut off on TV for the world and my family to see. The Iraqi prisoners were humiliated and made fun of. Were they killed, were they harmed in anyway, not really. And if they had, I too am no longer worried. Ask the families of the reporters and other civilian aid workers who were tortured and had there heads cut off what they think about it. These same people who were humiliated like this, may have done worse to Non Muslims (And notise I said non muslims, these people would kill anyone who is not of there faith because they are the unholy and no I am not talking about all muslims but the fanatical ones like the ones that I was fighting in Iraq). Anyway that is my piece on that topic.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 18, 2005)

trackend,

I understand his point but disagree that it was "... as bad as what happened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Frankly, understand that the Brits quite enjoyed wearing women's panties on their heads.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> trackend,
> 
> I understand his point but disagree that ir was "... as bad as what happened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
> 
> Frankly, understand that the Brits quite enjoyed wearing women's panties on their heads.



So you think that Abu Ghraib was worse then killing downed pilots or pilots in there parachutes? Abu Ghraib was blown more out of proportion than it really was. Most of the Prisoners there are treated better then prisoners there were treated when Saddam was in power, trust me I have been to the prison and seen with my own eyes. They actually have running water now.


----------



## trackend (Mar 18, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> trackend,
> 
> I understand his point but disagree that ir was "... as bad as what happened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."
> 
> Frankly, understand that the Brits quite enjoyed wearing women's panties on their heads.



I agree but I do not understand your final comment could you please explain


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 18, 2005)

If I could just throw my 0.02 in...

ANYONE treating prisoners badly is doing wrong. If it's Germany, Russia, Abu Ghraib or Camp Breadbasket, those men who refuse to show proper respect for the rules of war bring shame on themselves and thier country. I was ed to see the reports of maltreatment at Breadbasket. Are we really surprised the Iraqis dont want us there when we treat them like that?

While I realise that civilians arent constrained by the same regulations as combatants, I find the treatment of Aliied pilots shot downover Germany abhorrent. I am not denying that Germans were treated badly by the Bristish; but I do hold by the point made earlier that the victims of the Blitz didnt feel the need to beat downed Germans to death quite so often as the Germans killed downed Allied personnel. In either case, I think it is a sad comment on humanity that we can do things that make us hate each other that much.

Anyways, I will step off my soapbox now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> If I could just throw my 0.02 in...
> 
> ANYONE treating prisoners badly is doing wrong. If it's Germany, Russia, Abu Ghraib or Camp Breadbasket, those men who refuse to show proper respect for the rules of war bring shame on themselves and thier country. I was ed to see the reports of maltreatment at Breadbasket. Are we really surprised the Iraqis dont want us there when we treat them like that?
> 
> ...



I think you took me wrong with what I said about Abu Ghraib. I did not condone what they did, but I do not condemn them. Have you ever had to deal with people that will torture and cut your head off if they capture you just because you are the enemy or colaborating with the enemy? Its not a good feeling my friend. All I am saying is that the way the Iraqi's were treated is far less then the way the soldiers would have treated by them had they been captured even if the whole Abu Graib thing had not happened. Do you remember the Philipean citizen who had his head cut off. I had to fly out to the river they found him in and pick him up. It was not a pretty sight. What did he lose his head for, you tell me. If I had been him I would have rather been humiliated. Humiliation and torture are not the same thing. 

I too do not agree with prisoner abuse though. Please do not take me wrong with what I just wrote above.

I am not trying to lessen what happened. It is a terrible thing when civilian kill down aviators. It is a shame and very dishonorable. I am also not trying to down play what happened to the allied aviators but I think that the killing of down aviators by German civilians is a lot less then you believe and are trying to make it out to be BombTaxi. It happened on all sides and it is terrible no matter what side it happened on.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 18, 2005)

I think we are more in agreement than we realise Adler. I understand you were not condoning what happened in Iraq. I also realise that both sides commited crimes against each other. All I was trying to get across (and looking back at that post, I realise I made a bad job of it) was that whoever is responsivle, all such incidents are abhorrent and a part of the human nature we would be better without.

Sorry again for the miswording of that last post!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

No worries man. I completely agree with what you just said.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet,

What do you mean by addressing my comment with "So you think that Abu Ghraib was worse then killing downed pilots or pilots in there parachutes?" I think you should go back and re-read this thread.

I never said that I thought that Abu Ghraib was worse then killing downed pilots or pilots in their parachutes. I was taking issue with MichaelHenley's comment that "The stuff that GT mentioned is as bad as what happenened ad Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq." 

trackend then tried to explain what MichaelHenley said by saying "I believe David, Michael is referring to the images/allegations shown on ABC, 60 minutes and the Washington post."

I then responded that I understand perfectly well what he meant but disagreed with his assertion and threw in a joke about one of the "abuses" at Abu Ghraib which was making the Iraqi's wear women's panties on their head.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 18, 2005)

trackend,

My point in posting that about women's panties was that making ther Iraqi's wear women's panties on their heads was one of the widely cited "abuses."

If Abu Ghraib was akin to GT's account of immoral behavior during WWII, then the Brits must have been forced to wear women's panties on their head. I just joked that the Brits would have liked that sort of thing.


----------



## trackend (Mar 19, 2005)

Got you. sorry Dave for being a bit slow on the up take  
I still am in agreement with you although the abuses by war standards are minor i think it was more about making the forces look undisciplined in the eyes of the world . Although unfair any thing nowadays such as camp bread basket etc is jumped on by the media and every squaddie gets tarred with the same brush which is very unfair on account of some stupid antics carried out by a handful of poorly disciplined personnel
Some of the old times that I remember would have gone ballistic if the regiment had been tarnished in anyway.
I also agree with your views regarding the different cultures eg if an Iraqi had a picture of me he could slap it with the sole of his sandal till his arm fell (come to think of it I may give him a hand I take a lousy photo ) but I couldn't give a toss. but do it to him and Oh dear what an insult. This does not mean I condone prisoner or civilian mistreatment as it shows a lack of moral fibre and it is correct that the perpetrators are bought to book.
I can also see Adler's point of view and it cannot not be easy to switch from nice guy to fighter like a light switch when confronted with a no holds barred enemy on one hand and ordinary civvys on the other trying to maintain your composure in fact I would say is the hardest discipline of all. 
I just hope the press gives as much coverage to Private Johnson Beharry winning the VC as it has done to knocking the forces as this shows that there are plenty of guys from all nations out there doing a first class bit of soldiering. lets hope they tar all the troops/marines ect with this brush.
In generally on this subject most of us (it seems) are in agreement but for my part I am not the greatest at putting pen to paper and explaining my views clearly so if I have caused any offense to anyone I apologize. It's me age you know senile dementia etc  "wheres my Zimmer?" "Oi Dolly break out the commode we have lift off"


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 19, 2005)

I'm not aware of the story of Private Johnson Beharry.

Perhaps you could summarize what he did. A good soldier is a measure of what it means to be a man.


----------



## GT (Mar 19, 2005)

Killing downed pilots or pilots in their parachutes is understandable, but wrong 

For example when Sinner was downed he had shot down a P-51D and the US pilots was revenging that in anger and an adrenalin rush.

The civilians killing Brown and Reghetti in both cases the pilots had been strafing and the revenge came probably because of the losses sustained. 

To show you all the horrors of strafing I will quote Zempke when he became POW and the train he traveled in were strafed by 2 flights of red-nosed P-47s not the 56th but probably from 1st TAF. 

Here´s what he said when he was at the receiving end of a strafing attack:

- Before my eyes splintered holes appeared in the wood panel opposite with a deafening whip-like crack. The little girl who had been beside me fell across my extended legs, the top of her head a bloody pulp. One of the soldiers opposite pitched forward, a bullet through his middle. People screamed and struggled to escape as, with a violent jolt, the train came to a halt.

(All got out) and Zempke then says:

The roar of aircraft's, burst of machine-gun fire and exploding bombs filled my ears, a fighter-bomber attack. The distraught mother of the two girls was up there crouching beside the train, pleading for someone to save her two children. Seeing another p-47was about to make an approach. I rushed up the embankment and grasping the woman by the arms unceremoniously dragged her down to the safety of the rocks. Sprinting back, the terrified younger sister was retrieved just before the next fusillade of bullets smashed into the train and ricocheted over the rocks. 

The hysterical woman kept crying out for her older daughter and attempting to get up. Pulling her down I said firmly, `Mother, your daughter is dead. For your own safety lie still. Such was her state of mind she still tried to go back to the train and I had to lie on her to keep her down when the next aircraft began its firing run. While other passengers tried to console the woman, more dashes were made back to the wrecked cars to help extract wounded or those too petrified to move. Having used up their ammunition and bombs or decided that this train was sufficiently wrecked, the Thunderbolts section finally departed from the scene.

People began to emerge from hiding places and soldiers attended to the wounded and dying in the shattered rail cars. Both my guards had disappeared and were not among the casualties in my proximity. Now, as I stood beside the train, I was conscious of a change of attitude among the passengers, their fear and panic gave way to anger and hatred. As the perpetrators of the dead were flown away their attention focused on the ”Terror Flieger” in their midst with ”Kriegsgefangener” emblazoned on his jacket. Threats were made and I saw two men pick up stones. Soon a small crowd of cursing and gesticulating civilians surrounded me. One man had a length of splintered wood and from what he said he was just about to use it. Realising the gravity of my situation my mind sought desperately for the best move to make. Suffice to say there were few options. To cringe before an unruly mob would probably unleash the impending violence. Faced with a steep cliff on one side and a battered train and river on the other, the only outlet to escape remained up or down the railway track. To many passengers stood along the track for me to attempt to run, and if I did, some aggrieved soldier would probably shoot me on the pretext of my trying to escape. Stymied, I waited for the first blow, not frightened but outraged that I was to finish as a lynching victim after all my other close brushes with extinction.

At that precise moment a tall German Wehrmacht Leutnant appeared from behind the crowd, drew his pistol and with a sharp command addressed my oppressors; ” Anyone harming this prisoner of war will be shot”. The directing a few soldiers who had been onlookers to surround me for protection, the Leutnant said I was to follow him up the track. .........

When you look at gun camera film of strafing trains think about this and for example the strafing of barges were the common thing is that the family owned the barge and lived on them. When the hail of bullet hits the barge can you imagine the scene inside?

War is hell but sometimes people makes it so much worse.

Regards


----------



## Soren (Mar 19, 2005)

Still it should be remembered that good deeds 'did' happen in war.

I remember an incident where a Spitfire pilot was shot down by a German 109 pilot, and after seeing the British pilot bail out safely, the German pilot drove out to get him after he had landed. When he found the British pilot, he toulk him to the nearby German airbase, and they celebrated "The German pilots KILL"  toghether. (These things actually happened quite often in "WW1", but not so often in WW2) 

True aerial chivalry if you ask me.


----------



## trackend (Mar 19, 2005)

Here you go Dave

VC Iraq hero sparks Caribbean pride

The Grenadian Prime Minister has congratulated his fellow countryman-turned-British soldier for becoming the first person to receive the Victoria Cross in over two decades.

Private Johnson Beharry, 25, who saved 30 colleagues by guiding them through an ambush in Iraq, insisted he was just "doing his job". He was struck by a bullet as he guided a Warrior armoured convoy through the flashpoint town of Al Amarah last May.

A month later, the young soldier saved more lives in a second ferocious exchange and suffered serious head wounds in a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) assault that left him in a coma.

Grenada's Prime Minister Dr Keith Mitchell said his actions would prove an inspiration to all his Caribbean compatriots.

He said: "Private Beharry's bravery and sense of duty have made all Grenadians very proud. Private Beharry's achievement will inspire the young men and women of Grenada, and should be used as a lesson which demonstrates that the most difficult challenges and trying times can be overcome."


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 19, 2005)

The first, and to my mind, the worst effect on war is it dehumanises the "enemy" and the soldiers that fight them, whoever they may be. Let me simply quote Mark Twain.



> The War Prayer
> by Mark Twain
> 
> It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.
> ...



Kiwimac


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 19, 2005)

You can read the official citation on the BBC's website


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 19, 2005)

Hats off to Private Johnson Beharry, VC!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Yeah , he deserves it!


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 19, 2005)

What Must be remembered is that it's Society that generates the rules of Life and Death or what is acceptable and what's not. At the turn of the century the average age of death was 47 for men and 30 something for women and life was proportionaly hard - death just was and fair play was an idea.

Prisoners were treated according to the rules of their society ie. Japan in WWII. However there are always those, Especialy in in positions that can exercise the lust to kill, who will step over the line and kill with out reguard to "Rights" or right or wrong. There are also those who will stop them if the opportunity comes up.

Togay lifespans have about doubled and life is sacred to most societies and the rules of todays warfare reflect this change in attitudes. Whats ok today is Much Much different than it was for WWII and WWI. This applies not only in who is a combattant (allowed to be killed) but in who and how many can be put at risk.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet,
> 
> What do you mean by addressing my comment with "So you think that Abu Ghraib was worse then killing downed pilots or pilots in there parachutes?" I think you should go back and re-read this thread.
> 
> ...



I do apologize I misread what you had written. Sorry about that.  



trackend said:


> I just hope the press gives as much coverage to Private Johnson Beharry winning the VC as it has done to knocking the forces as this shows that there are plenty of guys from all nations out there doing a first class bit of soldiering.



Here is the problem the media out there like CNN and most other news agencies only will broadcast and report on the bad things that happen because unfortunatly bad news is good news. They dont broadcast on the good things that happen. It really is a shame.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Well, here's my take on this topic... surely some will agree some will disagree.

Shooting at an aircrew while they are in a parachute or on the ground, well techinically speaking, they are not yet captives, so it is certainly acceptable and legal to do so.

In general I'd say that if the parachute is comming down in enemy territory (w.r.t. the man in the parachute), it is dishonorable to shoot at him, the odds that he will escape capture are small and thus his threat to your side is minimal. It is almost the same thing as shooting someone holding up a white flag.

If on the otherhand, the enemy aircrew is over friendly territory, then the odds of him returning to battle are high, and it makes sense to wound or kill him if you can. The pilot is at least as valuable to the enemy as his plane - if you do not kill or badly wound him, he will most likely return to the skies and quite possibly kill more of your comrades. He's just another man in uniform on the other side and a legitimate target, whether he is in a plane, floating in a parachute down to friendly ground, or running from a plane he has just bellied in.

Killing an enemy soldier after he's surrendered is a war crime, pure and simple. Anyone doing so should have been hanged after the war. And any town that had a significant number of its people participate in killing a downed airman should have been burned to the ground after the war and its people made homeless.

As for Abu-Ghraib, I think it shames us that our military conducts itself this way, even if it is only a small part of our military that does so. I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well. In the end, we will regret this part of how we are handling the WOT.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well.


How so? It's not a challenge, I'm honestly curious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, here's my take on this topic... surely some will agree some will disagree.
> 
> Shooting at an aircrew while they are in a parachute or on the ground, well techinically speaking, they are not yet captives, so it is certainly acceptable and legal to do so.



Actually no it is against the Geneva Convention today. However the only people who actually go by the Geneva Convention dont fight each other like the US and England.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Killing an enemy soldier after he's surrendered is a war crime, pure and simple. Anyone doing so should have been hanged after the war. And any town that had a significant number of its people participate in killing a downed airman should have been burned to the ground after the war and its people made homeless.



Agreed, except for the town part being burned, there was never a town where the whole population participated in it and if you burn down and town and make the people homeless for that reason you are no better then the fools who committed the crime and you too (the person who burned the town) should be burned to the ground.



RG_Lunatic said:


> As for Abu-Ghraib, I think it shames us that our military conducts itself this way, even if it is only a small part of our military that does so. I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well. In the end, we will regret this part of how we are handling the WOT.



Disagree but I am not going to get started on this one.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well.
> ...



Torture, of various degrees, is used routinely. Cultural humiliation is used constantly. No rights of any kind are accorded to the captives. To subvert our own laws on this subject, we conduct these actions on non-US territory. Even worse, we often hand over captives to other governments that we know engage in more severe forms of torture than we are willing to engage in ourselves.

I believe that first and formost, anything we are willing to have done in our name, we should be willing to do ourselves on our own soil. Second, I only believe torture should be used in cases involving imminent specific threat - example: you have captured a terrorist you have solid knowlege has placed bombs in unknown locations that have not yet exploded.

Even more than this, the intentional disrespecting of the captive's culture, by doing things like putting women's undergarments on their heads and smeering them with feeces, as a general practice, not to gain any specific information, is intolerable. Inevetiably these practices leak out and drive boarderliner's over the line and into the camps of the enemy, because they see it as insulting to their cultural and religious heritage.

And finally, because in the end very little of value is obtained through such practices. More than anything else, when all is said and done, these things are done out of spite.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, here's my take on this topic... surely some will agree some will disagree.
> ...



Well, in WWII it was certainly not against the Genevia Convention. And today, well, as you said only certain nations support and abide by the "rules of war". Those countries also are the ones who make the rules, and it serves them to have rules which protect their aircrews as much as possible while over enemy territiory since the enemy is extremely unlikely to ever have aircrews over their territory.

By any reasonable standard of war, all enemy combatants are legitimate targets of fire until they actually surrender or are otherwise taken into custody.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Killing an enemy soldier after he's surrendered is a war crime, pure and simple. Anyone doing so should have been hanged after the war. And any town that had a significant number of its people participate in killing a downed airman should have been burned to the ground after the war and its people made homeless.
> ...



Perhaps so - the price of such behavior is only born by the loosers. Again this comes down to active vs. passive responsibility, a topic we've already discussed. You would say that if there are 100 people in the town and 51 of them vote to kill the captive, only those 51 are responsible for their actions. I would say that all 100 are responsible, unless the 49 do all they can to prevent the killing. Simply saying "okay, we lost the vote, so he dies" is not sufficient. Of course, I'm being kind of extreme here, I suppose the proper thing to do would be to find out who commited the crime - but if the people of the town refuse to turn testify against thier neighbors, or are found to being lying, then of course their homes should be burned down too.



RG_Lunatic said:


> As for Abu-Ghraib, I think it shames us that our military conducts itself this way, even if it is only a small part of our military that does so. I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well. In the end, we will regret this part of how we are handling the WOT.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Disagree but I am not going to get started on this one.



LOL - yes it would probably be better if you and I did not get into a direct discussion on this topic.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Perhaps so - the price of such behavior is only born by the loosers. Again this comes down to active vs. passive responsibility, a topic we've already discussed. You would say that if there are 100 people in the town and 51 of them vote to kill the captive, only those 51 are responsible for their actions. I would say that all 100 are responsible, unless the 49 do all they can to prevent the killing. Simply saying "okay, we lost the vote, so he dies" is not sufficient. Of course, I'm being kind of extreme here, I suppose the proper thing to do would be to find out who commited the crime - but if the people of the town refuse to turn testify against thier neighbors, or are found to being lying, then of course their homes should be burned down too.



Again disagree 100% however I am not going to get started on this one either because this one is just plain stupid.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 19, 2005)

RG_Luntic: The 1929 Geneva Convention did apply to a downed flyer en route to earth via his parachute. Its application included:

*"... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ..."*


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG_Luntic: The 1929 Geneva Convention did apply to a downed flyer en route to earth via his parachute. Its application included:
> 
> *"... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ..."*



This except clearly does not tell the complete story. It is clear that shooting a enemy soldier that was wounded was perfectly okay if he was not also detained or otherwise fully cut off from his sides support. You were under no obligation to allow him to crawl back to his trench, even if you could see his arm had been blown off.

And that DOES NOT apply to a pilot in a chute, especially one over his side's territory. He is still combat capable, he may be armed, etc.. What is the difference between a man bailing out of a plane and one abandoning a pillbox and running away from the battle? They are both legitimate targets. Both, if allowed to escape, may return to the field of combat in the future. The rule you've sited clearly applies to the enemy when they are no longer capable of combat AND are within your control. I'm sure if the whole context of that statment were given, it would be clear that this is what is meant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 19, 2005)

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and *those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause*, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

On another note, you said: "You were under no obligation to allow him to crawl back to his trench, even if you could see his arm had been blown off." You also said, "I think that the way we are running Guantanimo and our handling of "detainee's" is shameful as well."

Will the real RG_Lunatic please stand up. I think it would be shameful to kill a man attemting to crawl into a hole, ostensibly to die, for any purpose other than to put him out of his misery. And yes, under the Geneva Convention of 1929, there is an affirmative duty to gather up and treat wounded soldiers from the other side. (Even a soldier with an arm blown off.)

At any rate, clearly the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanimo pales in shamefulness to the killing a man with a blown off arm (which you would defend), in shock and in abject terror, who is trying to instinctively crawl into a hole in the ground.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 20, 2005)

Further reading concerning international law on the subject as well as current U.S. policy::

The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
ARTICLE XX
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Rules of Engagement and Lawful Targets (LOAC aka "Law of Armed Conflict") as set out by the Staff Judge Advocate , Robbins AFB, Georgia:

DON'T SHOOT AT A PARACHUTE UNLESS IT HOLDS A COMBATANT
Consider individuals parachuting from burning aircraft helpless until they reach the ground. You should not fire on them while they are in the air. If they use their weapons or do not surrender upon landing consider them combatants. Paratroopers, on the other hand, jump from an airplane to fight . They are combatants and you may fire upon them while they are still in the air.

Also, from the Staff Judge Advocate, Columbus Air Force Base RE: Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

QUESTION: We know enemy combatants are lawful targets. Suppose an enemy troop is descending in a parachute. Can we shoot him?

ANSWER: It depends. If it is a paratrooper, the answer is yes (a member of the fighting force who is armed and ready to fight). If it is a pilot who punched out of an aircraft, the answer is no (the pilot has abandoned his or her weapon (the aircraft) and is defenseless).


----------



## trackend (Mar 20, 2005)

The Geneva convention had some very good ideals but such is the way of war rules always tend to go out the window the more agressive the conflict the futher they are thrown
on the Channel Island of Sark, some German soldiers were found with their hands tied behind their back. They had been shot. Their deaths were blamed on commandos who had raided the island
Hitler in his fury ordered that any commandos caught after this, should be summarily shot without a trial - the 'Commando Order'.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
> 
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and *those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause*, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
> 
> ...



You don't see the difference? The wounded soldier crawling for his foxhole or trench is not captured - he is still a combatant. If he makes it to his buddies, he may well heal from his wounds and continue to serve in whatever capacity. Certainly if he is not crawling for his lines, the obligation is to take him prisoner and provide medical assistance - but only after he surrenders or is otherwise captured.

The "detainees" have been captured. Therefore, they fall into that catagory and should be treated properly.

It's a very simple line. Captured/surrendered vs. not captured/surrendered.

And getting back to the original point, an airmen floating down in a chute behind his own lines is in no way captured or surrendering - he is a legit target! It's ugly but real war is ugly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Mar 20, 2005)

It has been an interesting discussion about this topic and that was my intention when I posted it. Many wisely words has been written and the morals about it. 

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> At any rate, clearly the treatment of "detainees" at Guantanimo pales in shamefulness to the killing a man with a blown off arm (which you would defend), in shock and in abject terror, who is trying to instinctively crawl into a hole in the ground.



And this is why I disagree with RG, and think it is stupid but okay I really am not going to get started.



RG_Lunatic said:


> It's ugly but real war is ugly.



And you would know?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > It's ugly but real war is ugly.
> ...



It is obvious to anyone but an idiot isn't it?

Very few people have lost more relatives this century to war than I. We have records of over 250 family members on my Dad's side at the turn of the century, by 1950 that number was down to less than a dozen.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



And how does that make shooting downed pilots parachuting the ground legit targets, when it strictly states that it is not and we are told not to in basic training when we learn the Law of War. I dont see where you are coming from. Davidicus is right when he says that it is really wiered that you will defend people that kill helpless aviators in there parachutes before they get to the ground but detainees that are treated not even nearly as bad are shamefull. I think it should be the other way around.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Very few people have lost more relatives this century to war than I. We have records of over 250 family members on my Dad's side at the turn of the century, by 1950 that number was down to less than a dozen.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



I am sorry for your losses but there are far more families like that than you think. The majority of my family was killed in WW2 and Vietnam as well. My Grandmother had 8 brothers alone and they were all killed and one is still missing from the war. In some countries like Russia and Germany and unfortunatly the Jewish people whole family names and generations were wiped out.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And how does that make shooting downed pilots parachuting the ground legit targets, when it strictly states that it is not and we are told not to in basic training when we learn the Law of War. I dont see where you are coming from.



But those "laws" have changed since WWII. Furthermore, they have been changed in a way that effectively benefits the USA/Britain/etc... because these nations are the ones most likely to have pilots in parachutes.

In WWII, there was no such specific rule/law. An enemy in a chute was as legitimate a target as any other. The idea that you have to let the enemy re-arm himself before you can shoot him is pretty darn silly. I think it is silly even today really.

What about paratroops in their chutes? Are they legit targets for aircraft?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Davidicus is right when he says that it is really wiered that you will defend people that kill helpless aviators in there parachutes before they get to the ground but detainees that are treated not even nearly as bad are shamefull. I think it should be the other way around.



The difference is simple. Those aviators were not in custody. If they reach the ground (espeically over friendly territory) they will surely continue to be combatants, and thus kill more of those your side. Once someone is in custody, the whole situation is totally different. Once another human being is in your custody, you have a responsibility for them.

You really don't see this difference?

I remember a Spitfire pilots comment on a documentary where they show his guncam footage. He shoots the 109 up, and the pilot bails out. He says (approximately) "I didn't have the heart to shoot him (which he clearly could have done right as he was bailing out) - but I should have. I later found out he was picked up by the Germans in the channel, and returned to shoot down two Spitfires".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> What about paratroops in their chutes? Are they legit targets for aircraft?


No actually I consider paratroops legit targets, they are armed and comeing to attack. The pilot bailing out is helpess and I believe it is dishonorable to take him out and I really dont see the relevence to the detainees at Guantano Bay.



RG_Lunatic said:


> You really don't see this difference?



No I dont. Maybe because I am a soldier I believe in fighting and dieing honorably but I guess that is hard to understand.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 20, 2005)

You can lead a horse to water ...

By analogy, consider the following:

You are LG_Lunatic, the certifiably insane captain and commander of a British Destroyer. You engage a German Destroyer within 3 miles of German territory. Your hits disable the German ship and it begins to list badly as it takes on water. German sailors are jumping over board to escape the flame ridden and sinking ship. Dozens are in the water.

Your first officer requests permission to fire on the Germans, in the water, as they tread water and attempt to swim the 3 miles to shore.

As Captain Lunatic, you are certifiably insane yet respect the Geneva Convention. You order that ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Yeap 
Wow interesting scenerio!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

Nope. Maritime rules of war were well defined during WWII. My obligation is to take them prisioner and render assistance. If they are in a lifeboat (lets assume one with a motor) and are trying to escape rather than be taken prisoner, they become legitimate targets.

I certainly see your point about the pilots in the chutes. But my point is that during WWII there were no "rules" concerning this, unlike maritime rules that did exist.

Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

i'd let them come on board, as soon as one pulls a gun though or breeches our trust they all go..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.



This is not about what is policy and what is not. It is about what is honorable and what is the right thing to do. I believe that German pilots that did this shamed themselves, but I also believe that USAAF pilots who did the same were no better and shamed themselves likewise.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, I'd point out that the USAAF policy was not to shoot at chutes. But after seing the German's do so on numerous occasions against US pilots parachuting over German held land, US pilots ignored that rule and their superiors looked the other way.
> ...



Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.

I do see a real problem with trying to associate the kind of "morality" that can be excercised in a conflict where your side totally dominates the enemy to one like WWII where things were much more even on the battle field. The fact is that in WWII there were many instances where you simply didn't take prisoners, that's the way it was. You could not afford too, if you did you could not complete your objective. If the enemy put out the white flag, you shot it. If he stepped out with his hands up, he got a bullet. It didn't become a war-crime until you accepted the enemy's surrender, and then shot them anyway.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.



That is what I am trying to say is that it is wrong no matter who did it and it was done on all sides but that does not make it write and it can not be justified for any reason.



RG_Lunatic said:


> I do see a real problem with trying to associate the kind of "morality" that can be excercised in a conflict where your side totally dominates the enemy to one like WWII where things were much more even on the battle field. The fact is that in WWII there were many instances where you simply didn't take prisoners, that's the way it was. You could not afford too, if you did you could not complete your objective. If the enemy put out the white flag, you shot it. If he stepped out with his hands up, he got a bullet. It didn't become a war-crime until you accepted the enemy's surrender, and then shot them anyway.



Again I understand what you are saying but you can not justify it, especially when you have not been in a situation like that.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 20, 2005)

Captain Lunatic:

I had to leave to go to a party before I could finish my hypothetical and was unable to get to the rules of naval warfare which you have quite obviously siezed upon. Let's try again.


You are LG_Lunatic, the certifiably insane captain and commander of a British Destroyer. You engage a German Destroyer within 3 miles of German territory. Your hits disable the German ship and it begins to list badly as it takes on water. German sailors are jumping over board to escape the flame ridden and sinking ship. Dozens are in the water.

Your first officer requests permission to fire on the Germans, in the water, as they tread water and attempt to swim the 3 miles to shore.

As Captain Lunatic, you are certifiably insane yet respect the Geneva Convention. Your first officer, aware of your lunacy, reminds you that the Geneva Convention and all other "maritime rules of war" concerning conduct of naval warfare have been suspended for unknown reasons that are not relevant here. Thus, the rules of engagement and conduct in naval warfare are currently covered only by the existing general provisions of the Geneva Convention. _(This makes the hypothetical an apples to apples situation since we are only dealing now with how the Geneva Convention would treat this matter.)_

Your first officer has an itchy trigger finger and cogently argues that the floating and swimming Germans should be shot. He reasons by analogy that if English flyers were shot down and parachuted over their friendly territory, that they would be fair targets on their way down. He believes that the provision "... those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, *or any other cause* ..." would not apply here for the exact same reasons argued by you on this thread.

There are no lifeboats here. The Germans are all either treading water or swimming towards land. Those who are treading water are being carried by the current towards land.

What are your orders Captian Lunatic? Is your first officer right? Should the floating/swimming Germans be shot?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:

I certainly see your point about the pilots in the chutes. But my point is that during WWII there were no "rules" concerning this, unlike maritime rules that did exist.

*The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
ARTICLE XX
When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent.*


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, when you've had bomber crews in their chutes being straffed by fighters what would you expect? I suspect the Germans that did this got in the habit on the E. front. But the fact is in WWII all sides straffed the enemy when they were in the silk. That's just the way it was.
> ...



Sure we can. Society makes judgments about situations like this all the time.

Besides, I'm not really trying to "justify" it, I'm saying that it is what was done and that, in WWII at least, it was certainly legal within the existing rules of war - especially if the chute was over the enemies territory.

I had an Uncle who was a Marine in the pacific. At first, they tried to treat Japanese prisoners humanely. But, after repeatedly finding the corpses of American prisoners things changed. They typcially found the corpses either beheaded, tied to a tree and having been beaten to death or bayoneted in the guts, or burned (apparently alive). When they did find an American alive, he'd been beaten/stabbed/shot and left for dead, and often starved too. By Iwo Jima, they would burry the prisoners upside down in the sand and wager on which one would kick the longest. Certainly not right, but I can understand it.

Where I really draw the line is in what the Russian's did after Germany's surrender. I assume you're aware of the "three days"?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Mar 21, 2005)

I think rules of war and honour in the context of WW2 are somewhat at odds with each other this was a war on a scale and unlike any before or since from calculated mass genocide that ran into millions of men women and children to emulsifing cities containing more non combatants than service personel. I can see RG what you are saying but do you think large numbers of these actions where done simply as revenge with 20 million soviets dead I am not suprised at the actions of the red army (this is not to say I condon it in any way). Having seen 30,000+ of your fellow flyers lost perhaps this may influence your moral jugment if in a simlar situation I'm just grateful it wasn't my call in that particular conflict as I cannot say what my reaction would have been but I suspect I would say bollocks to the bastards and pop a few out of revenge. I would imaging if any of us found ourselves with hundreds of thousands of our country men,woman children slaughtered perhaps out take on conventions would be different. Having said that I am not aware of anything carried out by the other allied forces on a scale as that done by the red army in Berlin ect.
Morally, yes I believe its wrong to kill non combatants , bailed aircrew, shipwrecked matlots or surrendered soldiers. but I can understand to a limited extent the actions that where carried out.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

I don not agree... In a war everybody says that everybodyelse is guilty and responsable for the actions they are forced to take... Why is thet... Why doesn't anyone just say...STOP...let's turn our weapons only against the ones who turn theirs against us... why take inocent lifes...why kill prisoners of war...take them to a prison camp an keep them there until the end of the war...this too a means of reducing the enemy's numbers...isn't it???
I heard about a Natzi(they were from the SS if my memory serves) that killed with cold blood the people of one Polish village, children, women, elders... no one was left behind...and this was all done for fun...while being drunk... Do you mean to say that this was something justified... did they deserve to die????????


----------



## trackend (Mar 21, 2005)

I assume that your comments Hellmaker are directed at me.
You are quite right the innocent do not deserve to die, but you also state why kill prisoners of war. So lets surmise that you, as a soldier capture some enemy troops in the polish village where this atrocity has taken place (you have relatives amongst the dead) they surrender to you and lay down their weapons are you going (as they are now prisoners of war) take them to a POW camp until the end of the war to reduce the enemy's numbers ? Id be very surprised if you could constrain yourself to that extent. This then makes you a killer of unarmed personel.
I basically was saying that people are people and there are times in the right situations where they perform very base acts. 
I take it also from your view point then Hellmaker that you would have not dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan.
As I said Morally it is wrong to kill non combatants but I can understand the reasons in some cases.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

Yes...I would take them as prisoners...and knowing what they have comitted I woud judge them as CRIMINALS OF WAR (COWS  )... Why become yourself a criminal when you can punish the ones responsable... Why become a Vigilante??? Do you create your own justice??? Is it fair??? Do you expect that every soldier in an army is there because he wants this??? Would you be the first to enlist in the event that a dictator takes control of your country an declares war on which ever country he thinks is of simillar cultur, stating he want's to eliberate them...??? Would you??? I know I woldn't..and I am not affraid...If someone was to threaten my country with such an idiot ideal I would enlist... Why should you counquer a state???


----------



## trackend (Mar 21, 2005)

hi Hellmaker 
I feel that you are more Idealist than Realist.
I was only intimating (perhaps not as clearly as I should have) that in my opinion given the right situation it is possible for anyone including perhaps even yourself to loose restraint and act in a immorally correct and rational fashion. (obviously not in a premeditated manner)
As for your enlistment question, If I believed fervently that the dictator was the best thing sliced bread as did many hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens in pre war Germany did or I had been brought up as a youth in the belief that Adolf Hitler was next to god then yes I most likely would have enlisted even in the event of him declaring war an another state.
One final question Hellmaker would you have dropped the A bomb?
(one question mark is quite sufficient thank you)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Sure we can. Society makes judgments about situations like this all the time.
> 
> Besides, I'm not really trying to "justify" it, I'm saying that it is what was done and that, in WWII at least, it was certainly legal within the existing rules of war - especially if the chute was over the enemies territory.



It was not legal in a moral way at all and the fact that is was done is a tragedy. It does not matter if the chute is over enemy territory or not. Here are the rules of air warfare:

The articals were never adopted



> The Hague Rules of Air Warfare
> The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
> 
> ARTICLE XX
> ...





RG_Lunatic said:


> I had an Uncle who was a Marine in the pacific. At first, they tried to treat Japanese prisoners humanely. But, after repeatedly finding the corpses of American prisoners things changed. They typcially found the corpses either beheaded, tied to a tree and having been beaten to death or bayoneted in the guts, or burned (apparently alive). When they did find an American alive, he'd been beaten/stabbed/shot and left for dead, and often starved too. By Iwo Jima, they would burry the prisoners upside down in the sand and wager on which one would kick the longest. Certainly not right, but I can understand it.



As I stated in an ealier post, I too can somewhat agree with it however I feel that it is wrong and it is morally wrong. Soldiers who commit these acts are no better then the people they are fighting against. As for the way Americans were found tortured and there heads cut off, that still happens today. Any American or as a matter of fact any Coalition soldier or civilian or really anybody that is captured in Iraq right now is tortured and has there head removed. Or they were dragged through the streets and burned alive. What I am getting at is how can you say that the way we are detaining prisoners in GITMO and the humiliation of a couple of Iraqis is a shame. Not that I am saying it is the right thing to do but it in no way compares to the what is being done to the soldiers. Lets see compare here: HUMILIATION OR DECAPITATION? HUMILITATION OR DECAPITATION? Which one do you think is worse and more wrong?




RG_Lunatic said:


> Where I really draw the line is in what the Russian's did after Germany's surrender. I assume you're aware of the "three days"?



I presume you are talking about the forced evacuations of German cities and towns in Eastern Europe and Germany, where mass executions and whole cities were killed and mass raping of women and girls was ordered by Russian Officers to be done? Yes I know of this, my wifes grandmother has told me several stories about it and how she lost the vast majority of her family and how she excaped being raped by Russian Soldier because an officer who had some compassion. She was 8 years old. As I stated in earlier posts I can understand a little while they did this after the German occupation of some parts of Russia, however actions like this are morally wrong no matter who they are done by. Also the fact that the war was over. It is kind of funny, after the war no one hears about the the attrocities committed by the Russians. I dont mean the ones committed just against German civilians but against all of Eastern Europe ie. Hungary, Poland, Romania etc. The Soviets committed a terrible holocaust of there own killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians throughout eastern Europe under Stalins iron rule. An estimated 2 million german civilians were executed by the Russians after the war had ended. I am not trying to take away from the Holocaust which is the most tragic attrocity ever commited in the history of the world but what I am trying to say is that it is wrong for anyone to do things like this even if you are the victor.



> The real victims of the Reich in April 1945 were the German people and, especially, the women. Readers will need a strong stomach to deal with the litany of atrocities. The Red Army, crazy for revenge and drowning in alcohol, cut loose in an orgy of rape. The ravages of Atilla and the conquests of the Mongols cannot hold a candle to it. Beginning in East Prussia in January 1945, reaching a crescendo in the two-week battle for Berlin and continuing after the end of hostilities, rape ran at epidemic levels.
> 
> The Red Army's officers had neither the will nor inclination to stop it. During the battle, 130,000 women were raped, 10 per cent of whom committed suicide. In the 1945 campaign in Germany, Beevor establishes, with unimpeachable scholarship, that at least two million women were ravished, many in gang rapes. Soviet soldiers violated all in their path, not just young German girls but women in their 70s, and even Russian prisoners.
> http://www.arlindo-correia.com/040702.html



Well anyway I am going stop now because it is wrong no matter who committs and it can not be justified in any way.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

Obviously, if he has no problem with shooting downed flyers, parachuting to safety, he would have no problem shooting the floating Germans in my hypothetical.

Of course, We all know (Captain Lunatic too) that he wouldn't shoot the floating Germans for the same reasons argued by us for not shooting downed pilots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

I think he would shoot them in there parachutes out of principle.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

Basically, under the hypothetical, he can:

1) Order that the Germans be shot, thereby making an ass of himself.
2) Order that they not be shot, thereby admitting he is wrong.

Another option is for him to refuse to answer, for reasons that will be clear to us all. (He knows he is wrong)

Finally, he might order that they be saved (illustrating that my hypothetical is not an apples to apples comparison since no such option exists for a downed flyer). Of course, I will just retool my hypothetical to include that he can only remain on the scene of the sinking Destroyer for 10 minutes without endangering his crew since the Germans may now know of his position. Ten minutes would not affford enough time to rescue them but would provide ample time to kill them.


STAY TUNED!


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
> You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
> BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?



You have to understand that the German people are a prideful people and they lost everything in the Versaille Treaty. Also the depression did not help matters and the people were poor and shamed. Hitler basically came along and made them feel pride in being Germany again and gave them self worth. Before he showed his true face and the his idea of world domination he was even made a Time's Man of the Year for the things he did for the people. If you were in the peoples situation you probably would have followed him also.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

I'm not blameing the germon people for anything... In those circumstances any other nation would have been confronted with the same problem... and every nation did have at one time such a leader that could turn people aginst one another(take Ceausescu). In such circumstances the promises of one man for a better and richer country would have been believed by anyone desperate enough...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

They should not be but at the same time you have to question what they were thinking, once they truely found out what was going on. Why did they not revolt and try and overthrow the government. No matter how many SS and Gestapo and Polizei you have there are still more people who could fight to take down Hitler. It is just a thing to wonder. I was watching a Documentary on Vox (A German TV station) last night called Als Das Krieg nach Deutschland Kam. And I ask my wife how? I would have said no and rather die for such things.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

I understand you completely... but take for example the time it took for the rebelion in the Eastern Block to take place... The comunists were at power for allmost half of century... why didn't anyone do anything in the meanwhile??? The answer might be because no one was confident enough in enyone... The SS had placed SPYES everywhere from the top of the Pyramid to the Bottom... It was very hard to plan something and get away with it... You could have lost everything including your own life and the lifes of you close ones without acheiving anything... This made you feel powerless... Even now there are being found dayly Files of Informers some of them which even their family didn't know about... So it makes your wonder... Who to trust??? Alone you couldn't stand a chance...


----------



## trackend (Mar 22, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> NO Trackend... I would definitely not have dropped it...
> You are right though... Those thousands of Germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
> BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?



In my opinion I don't believe the allies or the axis forces cared one iota if they where hated more or less by the enemy they just want them eliminated. 
If as you say Hellmaker you would not have dropped the bomb on Japan 
surely that means necessitating an invasion of the Japanese mainland with a total casualty figure (as estimated by Truman's advisers) running into the millions. A moral dilemma indeed , The bomb was the lesser of two evils .
There is no harm in being an idealist Hellmaker in fact its very laudable but that only works if everyone has the same ideals, in a perfect world it would be great if the need for armed forces or any weapons did not exist but all that's happened over the century's is that men have devised more eficient and vile ways in which to kill each other in ever increasing numbers.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

trackend said:


> If as you say Hellmaker you would not have dropped the bomb on Japan
> surely that means necessitating an invasion of the Japanese mainland with a total casualty figure (as estimated by Truman's advisers) running into the millions. A moral dilemma indeed , The bomb was the lesser of two evils .



I agree to this... But why choose such heavely non military populated areas... ? Why not bomb an army facility and show it's power were it would heart the most???

And further more... why the hell are we only good at finding more and more ways to kill other humans? It's no wonder no other civilization want's anything to do with us... In panic we would destroy ourselfs without not even clencing... Is it normal?


----------



## trackend (Mar 23, 2005)

I agree Hell A better target could have been allocatted but it would have had to be as large as a city so as to demonstrate the power of the weapon to the Japanese.

Are you when say other civilizations meaning from another planet because I cant think of any on this one that can be classed as particulrly civilized is it normal for the human to race destroy each other history says yes. unfortunatly


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes...that is what I mean... it would be a shame for us to be the only intelligent creatures in this entire universe... and also history has prooven that we are a distructive kind, and my guess is we won't change, and we'll slowly die by our oun hand...


----------



## trackend (Mar 23, 2005)

Well at least we can say our discusion was civilized Hellcat so there may be hope


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> I understand you completely... but take for example the time it took for the rebelion in the Eastern Block to take place... The comunists were at power for allmost half of century... why didn't anyone do anything in the meanwhile??? The answer might be because no one was confident enough in enyone... The SS had placed SPYES everywhere from the top of the Pyramid to the Bottom... It was very hard to plan something and get away with it... You could have lost everything including your own life and the lifes of you close ones without acheiving anything... This made you feel powerless... Even now there are being found dayly Files of Informers some of them which even their family didn't know about... So it makes your wonder... Who to trust??? Alone you couldn't stand a chance...



That I can agree with, look at North Korea, the people there will never stand up and say anything. 

As for the A-bomb in Japan. I agree better targets could have been picked but look at this way, the bomb did save a lot of lives both allied and japanese. An invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been devasting for both sides. Every man, woman and child would have come down to the beaches even with sticks and stones to fight the invasion force. It would have been terrible, so the bomb actually did save lives.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Ironic...isn't it...I'm shure it saved a lot more lifes than it took... but why not choose an appropiate target... a militarry faciliy, as I said, would have been a more efficient way of prooving the Japs that they were up againsta a superior enemy... Why take down 2 cities with no imediat connection to the war...

Is this what will happen in the event of a nuclear war??? "Let's take out the villages, then the cities, the metropols,and last(but by no means least) the army." Does this sound right to you???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

I would have to say, they chose cities because of the shock factor. What is going to shock you and your people more, a military barracks or a city full of people? 

And yes that is pretty much what would have happened had Russia and the United states gone into nuclear war. The targets were cities and other nuclear sites... Washington DC, Moscow, Los Angoles, Kiev, New York, St. Petersberg....etc.
and then Nuclear Winter, those who did not die in the attacks would die soon after. Basically the concept was if we are going to bestroyed lets take the rest of the world with us.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Yeah...I know the concept... It's sad...
On the other subject, would you surrender if you saw an innocent City in your country being evaporated by your enemy??? wouldn't this make you more and more angry? Wouldn't you be more and more determine you to fight...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes I would surrender if I knew that there was no way to win and all I would do is cause more death and suffering for my people. Japan did the right thing and surrendered and look they turned out all right and so did Germany.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

Well...you're right you know...  ... They both ended up being some of the best economic powers in our times... Interesting though... Once on the brink of collaption and now more powerfull then ever...  ... War sometimes has this abillity... It wakes you up to feel the hard cold truth...
An awakening no one espects...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Yeap that is true, plus the allies helped them both out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

well we didn't want a repeat of what heppend after WWI..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Very true, but I dont think that could have ever happened again anyhow.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

well i don't see how it couldn't have ever happened again...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

The rest of the world would not let it happen again. They will not stand by like they did in the mid and late 30's and allow someone to take power like that again and threaten the peace of the world.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 25, 2005)

They must have learned from their misstakes... Prime Minister Chamberlein(he was the one who signed the treatty with Hitler no???), did a huge misstake... Though I must admit... the way Hitler developed his army for the war was pure genius... Though he was forced not to have an army he researched for better aircraft, for example, pretending that he was researching for a new and more fast Airmail service... The Allies were stups not to investigate this and just simply take his word for it...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 25, 2005)

Appeasement is definitely not the way to go. Like the saying goes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile".
You'd think _everyone_ would have learned from this, wouldn't you?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

but in saying that you can't just jump straight into conflict...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 25, 2005)

It means that you take a stand, and that you don't simply back down. War may result, but the alternative is to set a precedent whereby you're inviting them to walk all over you. I don't see how that's preferable.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

Just curious Adler... is a trainer a legit target?

What about non-military aircraft? The Luftwaffe' shot down thousands of civilian aircraft in Poland, W. Europe, and then in the first week or so of Barbarrosa. I think these were even accounted as "kills" (but I'm not 100% sure of this).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 26, 2005)

Ah yes, the "total war" concept. Personally, I only feel that's justified if the civilians make themselves combatants, like what's been happening in Iraq. A threat is a threat, whether they're wearing a uniform or not. An assault rifle or RPG is just as deadly in those cases.

Granted, in an environment like that with civilians popping up with weapons aimed your way, it's difficult to pick the threats from the non-threats. It makes the troops understandably jumpy I think, and mistakes are going to happen.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

The Luftwaffe' were shooting down unarmed civilian transport, commercial passenger aircraft, and private planes. If it flew, they shot it down.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

this is just my opinion but i'd think trainer's are ok, to me they're military aircraft, as they're used by an air force...........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this is just my opinion but i'd think trainer's are ok, to me they're military aircraft, as they're used by an air force...........



How is a pilot in an unarmed trainer any more of a threat than a pilot in a chute?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

because that pilot in a trainer could turn up and shoot me down one day..........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> because that pilot in a trainer could turn up and shoot me down one day..........



So could the pilot in the chute, especially if he's floating down behind his own lines. In fact he's more of a threat since you know he's a combat pilot already, and a vetran at that.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 27, 2005)

The Geneva Convention of 1929:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms *and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause*, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 

----------

The above provision clearly applies to a pilot who has punched out of his instrumentality of war.

During the war crimes trial of Generaloberst Nickolaus Von Falkenhorst, conducted by the British Military Court, Brunswick July 29th through August 2nd, 1946, a directive issued by Adolph Hitler on December 18th, 1942 was entered into evidence. Hitler's directive is instrumental here as it contains a carve out exception reflected in the contemporary international law.

Paragraph 1

" For some time our enemies have been using in their warfare, methods which are outside the international Geneva Conventions. Especially brutal and treacherous is the behaviour of the so-called Commandos who, as is established, are partially recruited even from freed criminals in enemy countries. Their capture orders divulge that they are directed not only to shackle prisoners but also to kill defenceless prisoners on the spot at the moment in which they believe that the latter, as prisoners, represent a burden in the further pursuance of their purpose or can otherwise be a hindrance. Finally, orders have been found in which the killing of prisoners has been demanded in principle. 

Paragraph 2

" For this reason it was already announced in an addendum to the Armed Forces Report of 7th October, 1942, that in the future Germany in the face of these sabotage troops of the British and their accomplices will resort to the same procedure, i.e., that they will be ruthlessly mowed down by the German troops in combat wherever they may appear. 

p.21

Paragraph 3

“ I therefore Order, from now on all opponents brought to battle by German troops in so-called commando operations in Europe or Africa, even when it is outwardly a matter of soldiers in uniform or demolition parties with or without weapons, are to be exterminated to the last man in battle or while in flight. In these cases it is immaterial whether they are landed for their operations by ship or aeroplane or descend by parachute. Even should these individuals on their being discovered, make as if to surrender, all quarter is to be denied them on principle. A detailed report is to be sent to the O.K.W. on each separate case for publication in the Wehrmacht communique.” 

Paragraph 4

“ If individual members of such commandos working as agents, saboteurs, etc., fall into the hands of the Wehrmacht by other means, e.g. through the police in any of the countries occupied by us, they are to be handed over to the S.D. immediately. It is strictly forbidden to hold them in military custody, e.g. in PW camps, etc., even as a temporary measure.” 

Paragraph 5

“ This order does not apply to the treatment of any enemy soldier who in the course of normal hostilities (large scale offensive actions, landing operations and air-born operations) are captured in open battle or give themselves up. Nor does this order apply to enemy soldiers falling into our hands after battles at sea *or enemy soldiers trying to save their lives by parachute after battles*.” 

Paragraph 6

“ In the case of non-execution of this order, I shall make responsible before the Court Martial all commanders and officers who have either failed to carry out their duty in instructing the troops in this order, or who acted contrary to this order in carrying it out. 

Signed Adolf Hitler.” 

The above directive is remarkably harsh and unyielding. Yet, it carves out "safe harbors" that specifically include enemy soldiers parachuting from their planes in order to save their lives. Paragraph 5 is an "in spite of" clause. It is included so that the sweeping brutal directive will not invade the existing, recognized rule of warfare as it applies to pilots who have bailed out. This existing, recognized rule was set out in the 1929 Geneva Convention in Article 3, Paragraph 1(*and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause*).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

what if we said the pilot in the 'chute had a sidearm and was taking shots at us??


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 27, 2005)

I agree to the fact that any non-military person who takes action against military forcesshould be treated in the same manner as military personel... And yes... Trainers should be considered military aircraft...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

because they are!!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> I agree to the fact that any non-military person who takes action against military forcesshould be treated in the same manner as military personel... And yes... Trainers should be considered military aircraft...



Actually, non-military personel taking action against military forces are not accorded the rights of a soldier. I'm not sure this is entirely legitimate if the military force is an invader and they are defending their homes.

How is an unarmed trainer any different than a pilot in a chute floating down behind his own lines? He is just as "helpless".

And what about non-military aircraft? Again, the Luftwaffe' shot down droves of these at the start of their campaigns.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

i would shoot at a trainer, too me it is a military aircraft no matter how you look at it, the same goes for transports..........

and stop saying about the trainer being the same as a pilot in a 'chute, an no point did i say i would or would not shhot at one so stop saying they're no different!!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

That is exactly my point. In WWII the enemy was the enemy and was to be shot until he was either helpless and unable to ever resume combat, or he was a prisoner.

The idea that it was dishonorable to shoot at an enemy pilot in his chute while he floats down behind his own lines seems silly to me. He will just end up back in the air again soon and possibly kill more of your compatriots.

Shooting down passenger planes and private aircraft however.... that was dishonorable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

yes but i'd still shoot at military transports..........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but i'd still shoot at military transports..........



Of course... they may be carrying bullets to the front!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

i don't see how shooting at a trainer and a transport are different either.....


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, that's my point. If it was legit to shoot an unarmed trainer, why not legit to shoot a pilot in the silk behind his own lines?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 27, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Actually, non-military personel taking action against military forces are not accorded the rights of a soldier. I'm not sure this is entirely legitimate if the military force is an invader and they are defending their homes.
> 
> How is an unarmed trainer any different than a pilot in a chute floating down behind his own lines? He is just as "helpless".
> 
> ...



Yes...an invading force should treat resisting non-military force diffrent from military force... I agree to this... but military trainees should be considered part of the armed forces... This was their choice...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

Well, I think that until the invaded country surrenders, everyone in that country has a right, even a duty, to fight the enemy - whether they are in the military or not. Therefore, if they are captured or surrender, they should be treated as military combatants, not as spies or partizans.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Mar 28, 2005)

And it's the invading armies "right" to shoot on sight any one who takes up arms. 

Under the Geneva Convention, if you fight under civilian or enemy 'colours' then you're a spy or partisan and should be treated as one. What difference does it make anyway? It all depends on the person who captures you, uniformed or not many people were shot on sight after putting their hands up. 

Sorry to say, all war is total war. There's no rules or restrictions imposed on both sides. The only restrictions are those set by one side to its own troops. 

Personally, I'd shoot a man in his parachute, a civilian transport, a military transport, [definately] a trainer so on and so forth. If you don't shoot them, one day they're going to shoot you or one of your friends. Plus, with civilian transports, how do you know it's not carrying military equipment?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And it's the invading armies "right" to shoot on sight any one who takes up arms.
> 
> Under the Geneva Convention, if you fight under civilian or enemy 'colours' then you're a spy or partisan and should be treated as one. What difference does it make anyway? It all depends on the person who captures you, uniformed or not many people were shot on sight after putting their hands up.
> 
> ...



Well, basically I agree. But I think civilian planes, clearly not of a military orientation, is a bit dishonorable, especially during the first day of invasion. The German's shot down hords of such planes on the first day over Poland.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 28, 2005)

Yes... civil aviation should be spared. But... there is a catch... Think of the fact that Germany built it's fisrt fighterplanes stating that they were researching a more efficient Air MAILING Service... What about that? Who should you trust then?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Shooting down civilian aircraft is deffinatly a dishonorable act and should not happen or be condoned.

Shooting down trainers is perfectly allowed and legal. Many trainers are armed trainers. How is a pilot supposed to know that a trainer is armed or unarmed. Therefore since it is a military aircraft it is legal.

As for shooting civilians that take up arms against you. That is completely legal, they are trying to kill you and it is either you or them. I have no problem shooting at a civilian who is shooting at me, and I did not have a problem with it when I did it in Iraq. I am not going to let them kill me even if they are civilian. They are no combatants when they have a gun in there hands.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Shooting down civilian aircraft is deffinatly a dishonorable act and should not happen or be condoned.
> 
> Shooting down trainers is perfectly allowed and legal. Many trainers are armed trainers. How is a pilot supposed to know that a trainer is armed or unarmed. Therefore since it is a military aircraft it is legal.
> 
> As for shooting civilians that take up arms against you. That is completely legal, they are trying to kill you and it is either you or them. I have no problem shooting at a civilian who is shooting at me, and I did not have a problem with it when I did it in Iraq. I am not going to let them kill me even if they are civilian. They are no combatants when they have a gun in there hands.



Adler, the issue is how do you treat those civilians when they are captured, not whether they are legit targets when they are fighting you.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

well do you mean civilians you've captured after trying to kill you??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

Combatants. Treat them as such. No better.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Combatants. Treat them as such. No better.



Well, in fact they were treated worse. The Germans excuted them immeadiately.

My personal feeling is that until an invaded nation has surrendered, such civilian combatants should be accorded POW status. After the nation surrenders, if they fight they are partisians or spies, and do not merit POW status.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

Oh yes, I'm aware of how civilians, armed or not, were treated by the Germans _and_ the Soviets. My comment was simply meant to reflect my personal feeling on the matter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

My personal feeling on the matter is that if they are not taking arms up against you they should be treated as civilians and not harmed. If they take up arms against you they should be dealt with. If that means kill them then so be it. If they give them selves up, they should be treated as POW's and interned.

And yes RG it was not just Germans. All occupyers thoughout history have done so: Gehngis Kahn, the Romans, The English to the Scottish, The US to the Indians, The Germans to the Russians, The Russians to the Germans, The Japanese to the Chinease, the Serbs to the Bosnians and it will go on forever.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My personal feeling on the matter is that if they are not taking arms up against you they should be treated as civilians and not harmed. If they take up arms against you they should be dealt with. If that means kill them then so be it. If they give them selves up, they should be treated as POW's and interned.
> 
> And yes RG it was not just Germans. All occupyers thoughout history have done so: Gehngis Kahn, the Romans, The English to the Scottish, The US to the Indians, The Germans to the Russians, The Russians to the Germans, The Japanese to the Chinease, the Serbs to the Bosnians and it will go on forever.



Not arguing that Adler. Let's just not have the USA doing it in the present or future.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

I too hope it does not happen again, however what happened in Iraq (which is what I think you are getting at) has no relevence to anything from the past.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Not that it matters, but no I was not talking about the minor occurances in Iraq. What I am more afraid of is that if we suffer another serious terrorist attack the American attitude is ripe for a change in a bad direction.

As for the current situation, I think some changes in policy need to be adopted. Old men should not have their hands bound behind them, a hood placed over their heads, and then be loaded into a cramped back of a truck and driven for hours across the hot desert to an interrogation center. Evidently a surprisingly large number of such detainee's have died in transit in Iraq and Afganistan. Nothing breeds a terrorist faster than such treatment of their fathers and granfathers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 29, 2005)

I agree to that RG. Show them no mercy, and they will respond in the same way... And I agree to DerAdler... Shooting at a civilian that is shooting at you is Self Defence...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> And I agree to DerAdler... Shooting at a civilian that is shooting at you is Self Defence...



That was never really the issue. The issue is what is such a person's status if they surrender.

My personal feeling is, they are a POW if their country has not yet surrendered, and entitled to treatment as such under the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. However, if their country has surrendered, they are then partisans/insurgents and are entitled to no such rights.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 29, 2005)

Makes sense to me.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 29, 2005)

And what rights are those? How is he treated diffrent if he his a POW who's country hasn't surrendered yet... Which are his rights given the two circumstances...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> And what rights are those? How is he treated diffrent if he his a POW who's country hasn't surrendered yet... Which are his rights given the two circumstances...



A POW has rights under the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. A partisan/insurgent/spy has none.


----------



## Medvedya (Mar 29, 2005)

Of course the Geneva Convention is only any use if the capturing power is concerned about it. 

Quoting lumps of it to a Japanese POW camp commandant wasn't ever going to get you far. (probably an extra beating in fact)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

sad but true............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As for the current situation, I think some changes in policy need to be adopted. Old men should not have their hands bound behind them, a hood placed over their heads, and then be loaded into a cramped back of a truck and driven for hours across the hot desert to an interrogation center. Evidently a surprisingly large number of such detainee's have died in transit in Iraq and Afganistan. Nothing breeds a terrorist faster than such treatment of their fathers and granfathers.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



When I picked them up in my helicopter, I was glad they had a bag over there head and they were bound with zip ties to there feet and hands. They shoot at my comrads and use cowardice tactics of hit and run, they deserve no better to me. Just my opinion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

that's true, fact is they've tried to kill you, and could kill you, just because they're old this doesn't change things...........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

I still cannot understand why the Japanese officers and men involved with the Japanese POW system were not shot after the end of the war. In my opinion, unless a prisoner stood up for these Japanese (some were actually not so bad) they should have been shot or hung.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I will agree with you on this 100%.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree with Adler... They shouldn't be trusted... A few days ago 3 romanian reporters have been kidnapped by a terrorist group in Irak, which threathens to kill them all... What kind of a war is this???


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree with you on this 100%.


Make that 200% Adler never mind about bleeding Knights of the Bushido
I'd give them bloody Knights, more like night nights with a bullet through the swede and I mean it too. To treat POW's and Civillians as they did warrants nothing less than termination from the face of this planet. Is there honour in using a trust up POW for bayonet practice or burying women and kids alive or worse. Even now if they are found they should be topped same goes for those pigs from the concentration camps.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

What I think is wiered is why is there not search for these Japanese prison guards like there is a search for NAZI concentrations camp guards or criminals. I saw a documentary on this there are more than 24 on going cases right now in the United States and a trial going on in Munich, Germany right now against Nazi war criminals however you never hear anythign about the other bad ones from Japan or Russia. I think they should be accounted for also.


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

Dead right mate just because there old men is no excuse. I wonder as you do what makes the Japanese immune from justice I can understand to a certain extent in the case of Russia as for many years it was a closed society and even things like the Katyn Woods crimes only became acknowledged relatively recently by Gorbachev so tracking WW2 criminals would be very difficult. But Japan is an open democracy these days, or do you think Adler it,s only open from 1946 onwards?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

I think Japan should have been open in 1946. They too lost the war by uncoditional surrender.


----------



## Udet (Mar 31, 2005)

Trackend:

Are you in favor of applying the same penalties you describe here in such an intense fashion, on those British soldiers who commited war crimes during WWII?

I mean, there are still British vets of WWII alive in present-day England; you clearly stated being real old means nothing if someone did nasty stuff: so, would you support a cause to indict British war criminals who have not been prosecuted?

Following your logic, I am sure England has some people living there who would deserve being shot or hung.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 31, 2005)

Oh, without a doubt. There were British, American, Canadian servicemen who committed wanton acts of outright murder. It happened.
I agree wholeheartedly that _anyone_ found to be guilty of war crimes ought to be punished accordingly. _Anyone_.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

I tend to see some difference between acts committed in the field and those committed against the interned.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

Yes Udet. If they commited a crime as repugnant , irrespective of nationality whats the point of fighting the war if you then allow your own side to degenerate to the level of these people.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

but at the same time you have to see it from their pij t of view, they see these people killing their friends, this is gonna make them angry and in the heat of the moment it's understandable why they'd commit a war crime.............


----------



## evangilder (Apr 1, 2005)

You can't claim the moral high ground if your troops are committing war crimes, regardless of the reason for it. I agree that it is a reason that some of these things happened, but it is not right, or excusable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

i never said it was, i said it would be "understandable"............


----------



## evangilder (Apr 1, 2005)

Okey doke, just wanted to be sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

trackend said:


> Yes Udet. If they commited a crime as repugnant , irrespective of nationality whats the point of fighting the war if you then allow your own side to degenerate to the level of these people.



This is how I see it also.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> trackend said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Udet. If they commited a crime as repugnant , irrespective of nationality whats the point of fighting the war if you then allow your own side to degenerate to the level of these people.
> ...



I generally agree. The exception would be "on the spot" retribution. You capture a Concentration camp or Japanese POW camp for instance... your men end up shooting or hanging some or all of the officers and gaurds, even though they have surrendered.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

I agree RG perhaps if I had walked into Belsen or Dachau I dont think I could have had that amount of self discipline to accept their surrender, war crime or not and I think you would probably get away with it as indeed lots did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

And I will agree with you on that also. They deserved to die anyhow and wheather they died then or by a tribunal who gives a %*#@


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

And of course this is why the "line" is so blurry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

I will agree that it is blurry however there is a difference between killing known criminals and just killing civilians and prisoners.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

Well, of course I agree. I certainly could see pulling the trigger on any German concentration camp gaurds. But then what about the SS troops stationed nearby? Or regular army barracks'd within a mile or two? Or townspeople within a mile or two even?

The point is, once there is any discretion, where is the line? Who says where the line is?

For myself, it's drawn at immeadiate pertrators caught red-handed. They get no mercy - they have no rights. Everyone else is entitled to some kind of "due process".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

What about the townspeople a mile or 2 away. I dont care whether they are German, Polish, French, British, American or Russian. It is not even a question. There is a distinct line drawn there. You dont kill civilians. The line is very clear, if you can not see it then you are nothing more then a monster yourself.

I will agree with you though if cought red handed, they should be punished immediatly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

it's ok if the civilian's got a weapon and you think they're about to start, or already are shooting at you though yeah?? i'm not making a point i'm just asking..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What about the townspeople a mile or 2 away. I dont care whether they are German, Polish, French, British, American or Russian. It is not even a question. There is a distinct line drawn there. You dont kill civilians. The line is very clear, if you can not see it then you are nothing more then a monster yourself.
> 
> I will agree with you though if cought red handed, they should be punished immediatly.



Whe the local towns people were ignoring the obvious evil perpetrated by their government, I could see troops on the spot not treating them very well. I would not condone going so far as to shoot them, but I might certianly treat them with an utter lack of respect and compassion. I might not worry too much if they were hungry or cold, or try to hard to get them medical attention for anything but the most grevious of maladies. I would certainly take any food, clothing, or medicine they might have to give to the surviving prisoners, and would march them through the camp so they could never deny what had happened there. I'd burn any business that profited in any way from supporting such a camp, such as supplying food to the gaurds, to the ground.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's ok if the civilian's got a weapon and you think they're about to start, or already are shooting at you though yeah?? i'm not making a point i'm just asking..........



Yes thats what I said above and besides if they are doing so, they are no combatants.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Whe the local towns people were ignoring the obvious evil perpetrated by their government, I could see troops on the spot not treating them very well. I would not condone going so far as to shoot them, but I might certianly treat them with an utter lack of respect and compassion. I might not worry too much if they were hungry or cold, or try to hard to get them medical attention for anything but the most grevious of maladies. I would certainly take any food, clothing, or medicine they might have to give to the surviving prisoners, and would march them through the camp so they could never deny what had happened there. I'd burn any business that profited in any way from supporting such a camp, such as supplying food to the gaurds, to the ground.



I agree with you on most points however this is where I disagree. Yes I believe that food, medicine, and and supplies should be given to the prisoner but not all of it. Why should an innocent child in the town suffer for what they had no control over. If you allow that or condone that then you are nothing more then the scum who committed the crimes. When you say the local town people ignore what the government as done. What do you expect them to do. 250 old women, men, and children too young to wear a uniform (cuz mind you basically every able bodied man was wearing a uniform and fighting on the front, dont deny this I know this is true) Do you expect those 250 women, and children to storm a camp and fight soldiers who are armed with machine guns? Sorry RG but you would not have done anything either so dont try and make yourself out as a hero who would have. And lastly burning down someones store? Come on that is completely wrong. If that store owner had refused to give food to the guards and so forth they would have found themselves shot or worse in the camp themselves. Yes RG you too would have fed the guards.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

I'm saying the towns people would only get food after the former prisoners had all been fed. If someone had to go hungry (not starve) then it would be the townspeople.

I'm not saying it would be entirely "fair", but that's the breaks. Had the bad guys won the war, those towns people would have prospered as a result. And you can bet they would have happily accepted their ill-gotten gains.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I'm saying the towns people would only get food after the former prisoners had all been fed. If someone had to go hungry (not starve) then it would be the townspeople.
> 
> I'm not saying it would be entirely "fair", but that's the breaks. Had the bad guys won the war, those towns people would have prospered as a result. And you can bet they would have happily accepted their ill-gotten gains.
> 
> ...



And you are saying you would not have? Basically you would have defied everything and fought the government and been the hero right?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

No, you are missing the point.

I am simply saying that, if the decision were mine in such a situation, the former prisoners needs would come first. If the choice is between a former prisoner eating or a townsperson, the townsperson would go hungry. Simple as that.

As for what I'd have done in Germany, I'd have either left the country or been imprisoned and probably killed back in the mid 30's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As for what I'd have done in Germany, I'd have either left the country or been imprisoned and probably killed back in the mid 30's.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



If by leave the country you mean in the 30's that I can believe and understand. But please come back down to reality here, do you really think the whole population of Germany could have immigrated. No I dont think so, where would they have gone? 
As for being imprisoned and killed, again come down to reality and dont try and be a hero. You know you would not have. Even as a soldier who risks his life everyday I would not have done something that foolish and gotten myself killed. Come back down to earth RG.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > As for what I'd have done in Germany, I'd have either left the country or been imprisoned and probably killed back in the mid 30's.
> ...



Umm... I don't think I'd have had much choice about it. They'd have slapped a gold star on my coat and shipped me to to a camp.

But, even if not for that, I'd have been amoung the opposition to the Nazi party in the early 30's, and for that I'd probably have been imprisoned or killed by the mid-30's. I speak out against injustice where and when I see it - not after its entrenched.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2005)

Well in that case you are correct but if you had been on the German side I dont think you would have done a thing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

i mean think about it, you're just coming out of a huge economical depression, things are real bad, but then suddenly a man comes along promising work and a car, a real chance in life, hell if i was in that posistion i'd proberly vote for him too............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i mean think about it, you're just coming out of a huge economical depression, things are real bad, but then suddenly a man comes along promising work and a car, a real chance in life, hell if i was in that posistion i'd proberly vote for him too............



Even if he is a proponent of racism and has published a book explaining his position w.r.t. the "inferior" races? Hmmm.... I thought you Brits had more spine than that!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Yeah, we'd vote for the other guy, after all, the Brits are supposed to love an underdog!


----------



## Udet (Apr 6, 2005)

Well, from what I read here i am learning this forum has got some potential beasts, not too different from the ones they allegedly loathe so much.


RG:

I am afraid you do not have any right to accuse Hitler of being rascist and of "classifiyng" races.

Your country -millions of white of its inhabitants involved- still did consider black people inferior when WW2 was still being waged. Or are you going to deny this fact?

Did black people in the USA had the same rights the white creatures had well after world war 2?

Have you ever heard of the civil rights movement of the mid-late 50s in the USA?

Just like the nazis did with jews, the USA segregated black people in a not too different fashion. 

Black people in the USA continue to fight for their civil rights to be recognized well after world war two had been terminated.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Udet said:


> Well, from what I read here i am learning this forum has got some potential beasts, not too different from the ones they allegedly loathe so much.
> 
> 
> RG:
> ...



Sure I do, because he did. Not only did he classify them, but he advocated violence against them and later instituted violence against them.



Udet said:


> Your country -millions of white of its inhabitants involved- still did consider black people inferior when WW2 was still being waged. Or are you going to deny this fact?



Not at all. However, many people have stood up against such beliefs which is how change is brought about. More change is still needed.



Udet said:


> Did black people in the USA had the same rights the white creatures had well after world war 2?
> 
> Have you ever heard of the civil rights movement of the mid-late 50s in the USA?
> 
> Just like the nazis did with jews, the USA segregated black people in a not too different fashion.



You are joking right? America did not round up the blacks with the intention of externimating them.



Udet said:


> Black people in the USA continue to fight for their civil rights to be recognized well after world war two had been terminated.



Yes, and people with character, such as my parents, openly supported their stuggle even though it was not in their own personal best interests to do so.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

I am not excusing racism in what ever form it takes but to try and compare events in USA with Nazi Germanys campaign against the Jewish/Gypsy/Homosexual mentally ill population is streaching things a bit Udet after all this was state organised slaughter on a huge scale.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

It amazes me how Germans can even consider these things as being in any way eqivalents. I fear it is part of their denial syndrome w.r.t. the holocaust - they really don't believe it happened, or if they do, they don't really accept the scope of it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

I do not believe the German population either denies its scope or that it happened RG as you seem to be implying , the only people I have seen who talk like that are the Neo Nazi's that can be found in many country's around the world including the UK and the USA and to be honest the less said about them the better, they are obviously not right in the crust. I can understand Udet's referral to the events that happened in the USA in terms of racialism. but I do not believe it is comparable to Nazi Germany.
I would also understand if somebody mentioned that the First Concentration camps where invented by the British during the Boer war and resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Woman and Children.(a very black period in British history). But it was the scale and the methods employed for the implementation of the atrocities in WW2 that in my opinion sets it apart from any events that I can think of.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i mean think about it, you're just coming out of a huge economical depression, things are real bad, but then suddenly a man comes along promising work and a car, a real chance in life, hell if i was in that posistion i'd proberly vote for him too............
> ...



Sorry RG but you would not have done a damn thing. You would have gone along with everything like the Germans did because you would have been no more a hero as anyone else. Give it up, trust me you would have been to damn scared to do anything.



RG_Lunatic said:


> It amazes me how Germans can even consider these things as being in any way eqivalents. I fear it is part of their denial syndrome w.r.t. the holocaust - they really don't believe it happened, or if they do, they don't really accept the scope of it.



This is where I draw the line and I am going to leave this converstion before I get mad because right now I would beat the crap out the person who dares to cower behind there computer and say such things as this. Not a soul in Germany denies it, not a soul in German pretends it does not happen. We have all learned about it in Germany and we have all learned about it in our schools for years. Dont tell me I have not or that my countrymen have not. There are still daily articles with pictures printed in magazines and news papers daily here in Germany. My relatives walked through a camp and looked in awe. Dont tell me my family is in disbelief, dont tell me my country is in disbelief. YOU KNOW ALOT LESS ON THIS SUBJECT THAN YOU THINK YOU DO! There I am finished now because I am not going to discuss such matters with ignorant people such as you.




trackend said:


> I do not believe the German population either denies its scope or that it happened RG as you seem to be implying , the only people I have seen who talk like that are the Neo Nazi's that can be found in many country's around the world including the UK and the USA and to be honest the less said about them the better, they are obviously not right in the crust.



And you are the first person here who seems to make some sense of this. Thankyou trackened. And as for this subject here on Neo Nazi's, RG_Lunatic, did you know that there are more Neo Nazis brewing in the United States then there are in Germany. Atleast they are illegal in my country. You let them run around in the mountains of Montana and spread there hatred.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

well said alder i'm with you on this one.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Thankyou, I am really going to have to stop reading posts that he makes and stop responding to them before I go crazy or something.


----------



## Udet (Apr 6, 2005)

Ciao!


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm not sure Adler but I think he may be (as we say in the UK) a wind-up merchant but I can appreciate your feelings and I have to admit if I was in your boots I would bite probably much worse than yourself mate.
As my family saying goes Adler. Don't let the */.,';@,. grind you down.


----------



## trackend (Apr 6, 2005)

Udet I believe you will find there was a squadron of very successfull coloured Aviators in WW2 (guys could you inform Udet for me please as it appears I am talking Crap and only just discovered I have a functioning brain)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Adler,

I recently saw a documentary showing that something like 50% of German 16 year olds had no idea what the Holocaust was, and that something like a third of 30 year olds did not believe anywhere near 6 million Jews were slaughtered. I know it makes you angry to hear this, but this is what researchers have found is the truth of the matter.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 6, 2005)

Also, if you want to point at an American disgrace, the annihilation of the Native Americans in the 1700's and 1800's is a better example.

I have to wonder what America would be like today had smallpox not wiped out over 90% of the Native American population.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## hellmaker (Apr 7, 2005)

I agree... the way the european settlers dealled with native americans was disastrous... And the deseases they brought with them from the continent were devastating for the defenceless natives...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

Right now THC is running a series on this very topic, showing how the "white man" mistreated the native Americans in each quadrant of the country. And another series, I think called "Birth of a Nation - Death of a Nation" or something like that, will be shown soon - they've been running adds for the series for a few weeks now.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Adler,
> 
> I recently saw a documentary showing that something like 50% of German 16 year olds had no idea what the Holocaust was, and that something like a third of 30 year olds did not believe anywhere near 6 million Jews were slaughtered. I know it makes you angry to hear this, but this is what researchers have found is the truth of the matter.
> 
> ...



And you believe every goddamn thing that is ever written. Who went to German school, you or me! Deffinatly not you prick! Second of all the documentary you probably saw was written and filmed by either Michael Moore (what a joke) or some disillusional person like yourself! This is what researchers found? What researchers? Probably american researchers like yourself! YOU ALWAYS ASK FOR SOURCES WHAT ARE YOUR SOURCES BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT AND FULL OF SHIT! My wife just read your post there (she is German) and she laughed at hour ignorant you are and all she could say was "Typische Ami". Do you know what that means? It means "Typical American!" Thinking they know everything better! Mind you she went to a German School for 13 years so I think she is a better source then you can come up with anyday!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

again i'm with you here alder.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Thankyou somepeople just dont see anything but what there narrow minds will allow them to see and what they wish to believe whether it is wrong or not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

yes and those poeple are normally british 

but i know how you feel it is extremely annoying and sometimes i'm ed by people's arrogance.........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

I would have SERIOUS doubts about those numbers quoted. I think the Germans have had quite an abundance of information about what the Nazis did. The problem is that there are still people that blame anyone who speaks German for what happened. 

RG, this is one debate it might be wise to drop.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes and those poeple are normally british
> 
> but i know how you feel it is extremely annoying and sometimes i'm ed by people's arrogance.........



I am feeling the same way right now.

No one is worse then the French though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

I agree


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

i've never actually met a frenchman............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Mr Larose...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I would have SERIOUS doubts about those numbers quoted. I think the Germans have had quite an abundance of information about what the Nazis did. The problem is that there are still people that blame anyone who speaks German for what happened.
> 
> RG, this is one debate it might be wise to drop.



I apologize to most of Americans out there and to you evanglider when I say this and when I posted what my wife said about "Typical Americans" because many Germans like myself and most germans as a matter of fact have nothing against Americans. Hell if I had a problem with Americans I would not have a US passport or be in the US Army today however people like RG give a lot of Americans a bad name. Many Germans like my father in law who has never been to the states has only had to work with Americans who come to Germany and act with the same attitude as RG and I can not blame him when he tells me he as a sour taste in his mouth. Much of the world unfortunatly throws all Americans into the same pot because of people like RG.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

however unfortunatly as long as there are people like him around we will still have that image of americans.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

I am sure you have the same problem in England. I really think it is a shame because I want my wife to meet the good ones and not just bad ones and most of the soldiers over here are the bad ones, I hate to say it.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

No offense taken, Adler. I know exactly what she means, the "ugly American" syndrome. I have always made it a point to not be one of those. As an aside, when I was travelling in England once, I was dressed to blend in, shetland wool sweater, Andy Capp hat, NOT wearing tennis shoes! I was sitting in a pub one day, and this bloke sits next to me and says:
"You know, mate, I really don't like those Americans."
I played it cool, looked at him, and in my best English accent, I replied:
"I know what you mean"
Fortunately, he didn't say anything more. I wasn't sure I could keep the accent long enough to be convincing! 

I had seen too many Americans do the things that make us disliked in Europe to be one of those people. Because of that, I was welcomed into many British homes and treated like family. One family even had me spend Christmas with them, they insisted since I was so far from home.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

wow nice story and i so wanna hear an american try the english accent......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> No offense taken, Adler. I know exactly what she means, the "ugly American" syndrome. I have always made it a point to not be one of those. As an aside, when I was travelling in England once, I was dressed to blend in, shetland wool sweater, Andy Capp hat, NOT wearing tennis shoes! I was sitting in a pub one day, and this bloke sits next to me and says:
> "You know, mate, I really don't like those Americans."
> I played it cool, looked at him, and in my best English accent, I replied:
> "I know what you mean"
> ...



And that is they way things should be. You dont see people visit the United States acting as "Bad Japanese" or "Bad Australians" and most dont have the kind of attitude that RG displays repeatedly in this forum.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 7, 2005)

It ain't that difficult, lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

but you live in a part of canda that's quite british.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

I can do american accents pretty good. I do the image of a fat ignorant guy from Texas best though


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you live in a part of canda that's quite british.........


Not _that_ British, believe me! 
There are elements of British culture that remain apparent, but it's mixed with a lot of other stuff as well. We call it: *Nova Scotian*.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

Well, Lanc, my sister married a guy from Stoke on Trent and he and his parents said that I could fool most Brits! But then, I spent most of my three years in England hanging out with Brits, not Americans. I kind of observed and listened to the different dialects and could generally figure out where in the UK they were from. I correctly identified a Jordy lad, who looked very stunned that I picked up where he was from just by the way he spoke!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Identifying Geordies is simple, mainly because they wear t-shirts all the time, even when its -8 degrees Celsius


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

Similar to the Irish in that they wear black pants and shoes with white socks too!

Adler, if you get out my way, you and your wife can see some non-ugly Americans. Plus I am sure that you would be well received by our museum folks. Veterans are always welcome and we even have some German members if you get homesick to speak German! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I can do american accents pretty good. I do the image of a fat ignorant guy from Texas best though



Gee I wonder who that could be, the guy who choked on a pretzel!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Never thought of it like that before! 


Anyway, im off watch Mad Max  Night all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Good night and enjoy.


----------



## trackend (Apr 7, 2005)

Well I can honestly say hand on heart my philosophy is I take as I find not what I'm told if a blokes an arse hole then he's an arse hole I don't care if he's French, British, American, German, or what ever. If conversely he's a nice fella then he's a nice fella what ever his nationality. I'm not the most widely travelled chap but Ive met plenty of people in my time and I've met both sorts in quite a few country's for example last year I went to Koblenz on the Rhine (sorry if the spellings wrong Adler) to learn about some Infra red detection equipment that uses funnily enough the old Sidewinder technology
nearly every one I met was very friendly and kind but one prat was the most arrogant git I have ever met It was if he thouht he was the bleeding master race or something and I was a turd on his boot ( I was forced to point out the error of his ways) verbally I may add as Ive given up rolling around in the dirt. Now there is no way I would call all Germans arrogant gits just because of this one bad apple like wise what ever anybody says on here is just an opion nothing more I may disagree strongly but its not going to make me paint every one from that country with the same brush no more than meeting that twit in Germany is .
Blooming heck that was a long waffle.
Hope that makes some sort of sense fellas


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

trackend said:


> Well I can honestly say hand on heart my philosophy is I take as I find not what I'm told if a blokes an arse hole then he's an arse hole I don't care if he's French, British, American, German, or what ever. If conversely he's a nice fella then he's a nice fella what ever his nationality. I'm not the most widely travelled chap but Ive met plenty of people in my time and I've met both sorts in quite a few country's for example last year I went to Koblenz on the Rhine (sorry if the spellings wrong Adler) to learn about some Infra red detection equipment that uses funnily enough the old Sidewinder technology
> nearly every one I met was very friendly and kind but one prat was the most arrogant git I have ever met It was if he thouht he was the bleeding master race or something and I was a turd on his boot ( I was forced to point out the error of his ways) verbally I may add as Ive given up rolling around in the dirt. Now there is no way I would call all Germans arrogant gits just because of this one bad apple like wise what ever anybody says is just an opion nothing more I may disagree strongly but its not going to make me paint every one from that country with the same brush no more than meeting that twit in Germany is .
> Blooming heck that was a long waffle.
> Hope that makes some sort of sense fellas



You are absolutly correct and that is the way it should be and that is why I think it is a shame when this happens but at times when I talk to people like RG I can understand why others think this way and unfortunatly a lot of people in the world do think this way.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

Makes good sense, trackend. Being an arsehole knows no national boundary. Unfortunately, Americans sometimes have a tendency to be dumbasses in foreign places. When enough of them come through, it sets an expectation that the next Yank is going to be an idiot too. I was given the advice to act like you are an ambassador for your country. That was the best piece of advice I got about travelling in foreign places.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

That is what they tell us also, that you are an ambassador but unfortunatly there a lot of bad apples.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 7, 2005)

Heh! It's kinda funny, but can you guys spot Canadians in an airport? It's easy. A lot of them sew Canadian flags to their backpacks, ball caps, just about anywhere. You know why? It's because they don't want to be mistaken for Americans when they travel abroad. 

In a way I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but it's not a practice I've taken up. I personally have absolutely no problem with Americans. I certainly know a few assholes who happen to be Americans, but then again I know far more of them who happen to be Canadians.

And what a lot of Canucks don't seem to realize is, we're not really half as liked around the world as what they'd like to believe anyway. 

You are what you are, no matter where you hail from.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

Sad that it has come to that. But with our current situation, we are not as well liked as we used to be. But when travelling abroad, I think it is prudent to blend in as much as possible. Carrying a Canadian flag certainly doesn't help one blend! 

You're right though, assholes come from everywhere!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 7, 2005)

Except Nova Scotia. 

Yeah, I wish!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Adler,
> ...



My apologies Adler, it turns out it was a BBC report about British knowlege of the Holocaust. I goofed because the narrator interviewer on the TV documentary was German and I was not really watching the show, it was just on THC or DTIME. However, part of that documentary also covered German opinions about the war and the Nazi atrocities and it was clear that most dismissed it as an unimportant part of their history.

Here's a related article:



> *‘Look to Germany to learn lessons of Holocaust’*
> 
> 
> Ambassador claims British can learn from his country’s approach to its past
> ...




Again, my apologies. It seems the Germans do undertake a serious effort to educate their people about what happened.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 8, 2005)

> quote="Nonskimmer"] And what a lot of Canucks don't seem to realize is, we're not really half as liked around the world as what they'd like to believe anyway.


Well you still have an advantage over me Skim my missuss don't think much of me nor do the kids in fact when I look in a mirror im not too keen on myself either.  

I think alot of British have come to terms at being not liked much as we have to take the flak for our ancestors and the days of Empire , slavery, invading 3- 5ths of the world, Taxation without representaion , burning Washington, the Irish potatoe famine numorous wars with just about everyone at some time or another, not to mention all the gun boat diplomacy ect,ect,ect. 

The one thing that bugs me more than anything are the Brits who go abroad then start saying "ooo they would'nt do that in the UK"or "havent they got a fish and chip shop or a decent pub?". 
Why the F;',....g hell do they bother going abroad for if all they want is the UK. And the final straw are the expats who emigrate to Australia or Canada ect then start wanging on about the bleeding mother country.(and it happens with people emigrating into the UK as well).
I cant think of a worse insult to give a country that has accepted you into its society fed you given you a job and sheltered you. As far as im concerned if I emigrated my loyalties would be 100% too that country no question about it. Same as it is to my own country now.
When I visit other countrys then as far as im concerned what ever they have as laws/rules ect then thats it, if I disagreed with them then I wouldnt go in the first place. If I really wanted go to say Umbungo Land and their law requires you to walk about with a feather up your arse. Its their country so show me the way to the Ostrich.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

well thank you for admiting that RG..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Heh! It's kinda funny, but can you guys spot Canadians in an airport? It's easy. A lot of them sew Canadian flags to their backpacks, ball caps, just about anywhere. You know why? It's because they don't want to be mistaken for Americans when they travel abroad.
> 
> In a way I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but it's not a practice I've taken up. I personally have absolutely no problem with Americans. I certainly know a few assholes who happen to be Americans, but then again I know far more of them who happen to be Canadians.
> 
> ...



My friend who is from Ottowa says the same thing and even though he flies for the US Army he wears a Canadian Patch on the back of his flight helmet. But you are correct assholes come from everywhere.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Again, my apologies. It seems the Germans do undertake a serious effort to educate their people about what happened.



Apology accepted. It is more learned about then you think. When I was in school we took trips to Aushwitz and Dachau. We went to the German Holocaust Museum in Berlin, we spent many years learning about it. No one in Germany wants to forget it or say that it never happened, however the younger generation of Germans say the 20 years and younger dont want to be thrown into a pot and blamed for what happened and that is understandable.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2005)

There is no reason for anyone who wasn't alive at the time to be blamed for that. To be honest, there are very few alive today that are to blame for it. The most important thing is that it is over and people learn about it so that it doesn't happen again.


----------



## trackend (Apr 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> There is no reason for anyone who wasn't alive at the time to be blamed for that. To be honest, there are very few alive today that are to blame for it. The most important thing is that it is over and people learn about it so that it doesn't happen again.



Here Here Evan.I think the best way to honour the dead is as you rightly say is not to let it happen ever again.

How far back do we go blaming the people now for what previous generations did. Lets pick on the decendants of the Romans after all they nailed the son of God to a wooden cross. its a nosensical thing to even contemplate.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> There is no reason for anyone who wasn't alive at the time to be blamed for that. To be honest, there are very few alive today that are to blame for it. The most important thing is that it is over and people learn about it so that it doesn't happen again.



I absolutely agree. But I think it is important that we also acknowlege the sins of our forfathers and accept the fact of our darker nature. What happened in Germany has been done by the USA (w.r.t. the Native Americans) and by the British (w.r.t. any number of colonies), and by many other nations.

In order to stop such behaivor, it must be squashed at the onset of the kind of thinking that allows it. This basically means that any time someone tries to claim some other class of people are inferior or not deserving of basic rights, YOU need to stand up and say something!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2005)

trackend said:


> How far back do we go blaming the people now for what previous generations did. Lets pick on the decendants of the Romans after all they nailed the son of God to a wooden cross. its a nosensical thing to even contemplate.



I basically feel that such things go back only as far as the overlap of Generations. For the most part, that means you bear some responsibilities for and have rights to redress for acts committed by or against your Grandparents, maybe your Great-Grandparents, but no further back than that.

This is why I do not support Israel's claim to the land in Palestine - it is based on a grievance that goes back far too far to redress. I think Israel should pay the Palestinians for their land.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 8, 2005)

In my opinion RG any generation is totally blame free for what their fathers or grandfathers did to me its like saying because you fell out of this womb its your fault that your mother was a mass murderer feeling guilt is understandable as im not too proud of some of the things carried out in the name of Britain but as I was not born at the time I refuse to take the blame for them but I do understand the point you are making that as a gesture somethings can be done by the current generations to reconcile errors that may still be happening Im thinking along the lines of things like Swiss banks with holding money that was taken from the Jewish community by the Nazi's.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

trackend said:


> In my opinion RG any generation is totally blame free for what their fathers or grandfathers did to me its like saying because you fell out of this womb its your fault that your mother was a mass murderer feeling guilt is understandable as im not too proud of some of the things carried out in the name of Britain but as I was not born at the time I refuse to take the blame for them but I do understand the point you are making that as a gesture somethings can be done by the current generations to reconcile errors that may still be happening Im thinking along the lines of things like Swiss banks with holding money that was taken from the Jewish community by the Nazi's.



Well, I'm not sure we are of differing views. I should explain better.

I do not believe any "criminal" liability should transfer from one generation to another, or to relatives, etc... However, some "civil liability" should.

As an example, when I was working at DUKE University, I knew a black man who was quite resentful of the fact that he worked in a textile factory owned and run by a family that's wealth came from their great-great-grandfather who made the money by exploiting, and often killing, his anscestors. I can certainly see his point - can't you? That family runs a large area based upon ill gotten wealth, and still control the lives of many of the descendants of their ancsestors victims through their ecomomic domination. But, given how many generations have passed, I'm not sure how such a thing could be fairly redressed.

Is it right that a father should be able to kill and steal and profit from it and then pass that wealth to his son and then that son should not be made to return it? I think he should not benefit from his fathers ill deeds. My personal feeling is that such civil liability should go back about 2 generations, to the Granfather, because usually the child and the Granfather's life spans have significant overlap. A man might undertake acts of evil to profit his son or Granson, I think it unlikely that he would do so to profit his Great-Granson however (by the time his GGS is born, he's pretty damn old!).

Anyway, I believe there needs to be redress for such wrongs, but also their has to be some kind of statute of limitations. Otherwise every piece of property on earth would be contested by dozens of parties.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

You explained that very well RG, and I can certainly see your point. I would have to agree with it. Like you say though, a statute of limitations of some kind would need to be in place. Otherwise, we non "Native North Americans" might as well pack up and leave.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 9, 2005)

Then what happens to companies like Bayer, Krupps, Telefunken, etc. They all used labor from the camps and are still in business. I don't think that these companies should be sold off to recompense the victims, it would serve no purpose. No amount of money can bring back the dead, or replace them. Things happened as they did and it can't be taken back. As generations move forward, they cannot be made responsible for the sins of the father.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

Obviously we're into an area where principle meets practice. If companies built their success on the backs of slave labourers then they should absolutely be held responsible, at least in _some_ fashion! But like you say evan, how do you put a monetary value on that kind of loss and suffering, beyond a token offering? Damned if I know.
One could also argue about the medical advances that came from experimentation on concentration camp inmates and POW's. We certainly can't put the genie back in the bottle.

In principle, I agree with RG here. Today's generations are _not_ to blame for the sins of their fathers, but the fathers have left a legacy that should not be simply ignored.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 9, 2005)

I agree that it should not be ignore, nor forgotten. But to get into compensation is crazy, because no one will ever be satisfied. There is only so much anyone can do. My grandmother was a good example of this line of thinking. My grandfather was hit and killed by a drunk driver in 1977. My grandmother was offered all kinds of legal services to take the mans house, car, earnings, you name it. 

My grandmother asked how anyone can put a value on life. If she sued for 2 million, is that all her husband was worth? She knew that his conscious was going to be his own thing to have to deal with for the rest of his life. Her only judgement, burial expenses for my grandfather. Her words were; "You killed him, you should have to pay to bury him". That was the end of it.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Then what happens to companies like Bayer, Krupps, Telefunken, etc. They all used labor from the camps and are still in business. I don't think that these companies should be sold off to recompense the victims, it would serve no purpose. No amount of money can bring back the dead, or replace them. Things happened as they did and it can't be taken back. As generations move forward, they cannot be made responsible for the sins of the father.



So you are saying that if they benefit from the sins of their fathers, that is right and good?

Well, that is an interesting question (about Bayer, Krupps, etc...). In general, I'd say that their profit from their mis-deeds should be estimated (on the high side) and that is their liability. The issue would of course be, what was their "profit" from their wartime behavior - did any of it persist into the post-war?

Really, I think this applies more to wrongdoings of the victors than the vanquished. As an example, I think the USA and Britian needs to track down the displaced families from Diego Garcia and compensate them.

As another example, is it really right that the family of Marcos should keep billions of stolen Fillapino money? That his decendants should be forever rich and powerful based upon his thievery and killing while the Fillapino's are, for the most part, a very poor peoples?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 10, 2005)

Just as a slight aside, it seems that wartime atrocities are all too well remembered in the Far East.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4429809.stm


----------



## evangilder (Apr 10, 2005)

I didn't say it was right or good. What I said is that compensation is a tricky thing. Some of these companies have paid some amount of compensation. But again, what price can you put on a life? 1 million, 100 million, more, less? A written apology, maybe a college tuition fund for survivors or descendants, a memorial. 

What Marcos did was criminal, but you cannot pay everyone back what was taken from them. Yes, it would be nice if that could happen, but that is unrealistic. They didn't just steal money and then keep it in a vault. They spent it, obviously. 

Yes, wrong things have been done and there should be some form of "punishment" for the perpetrators, but compensation is a slippery slope that could lead to even worse situations. I do believe that Germany was saddled with war reparations after WWI. See where that lead?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

This is pretty much how I see it. Yes something should be done to companies that used slave labor or things of that nature like Krupp and Bayar, however I think that it should have been done earlier. You can not ask someone today who works or owns these companies to pay for what was done 60 or more years ago. That is like demanding that a man who nows lives on the property that his grandfather once used as a plantation give his house to a descendent of a slave. Or that a grandson of a concentration camp guard should not be allowed to live a normal life or be required to pay restitutions is also wrong. He had nothing to do with it. I dont think anyone who was born to someone who has done wrong is wrong. I do believe though that as was said it should not be forgotten and prevented and this is what you see now in modern germany, the future of Germany does not deny it they are just tired of being blamed for it. They were not alive and should not be.



RG_Lunatic said:


> As an example, when I was working at DUKE University, I knew a black man who was quite resentful of the fact that he worked in a textile factory owned and run by a family that's wealth came from their great-great-grandfather who made the money by exploiting, and often killing, his anscestors. I can certainly see his point - can't you? That family runs a large area based upon ill gotten wealth, and still control the lives of many of the descendants of their ancsestors victims through their ecomomic domination.



As for this one no offense but I have no sympothy for his man because he chose to work there. If he does not like it he can work someplace else.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

Yes Japan is very bad about owning up to what they did. It pisses me off when, every year, the Japanese condemn the USA for the A-Bombings, when they don't even know their own history.

When asked about Japan's roll in WWII, most Japanese respond that Japan was a "not very agressive" nation that the USA conquered. Their schools do not cover the slaughter in China and the Philapines, the sex-slaves, or how the Japanese treated prisioners. No mention of Unit 731 is presented at all!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is pretty much how I see it. Yes something should be done to companies that used slave labor or things of that nature like Krupp and Bayar, however I think that it should have been done earlier. You can not ask someone today who works or owns these companies to pay for what was done 60 or more years ago. That is like demanding that a man who nows lives on the property that his grandfather once used as a plantation give his house to a descendent of a slave. Or that a grandson of a concentration camp guard should not be allowed to live a normal life or be required to pay restitutions is also wrong. He had nothing to do with it. I dont think anyone who was born to someone who has done wrong is wrong. I do believe though that as was said it should not be forgotten and prevented and this is what you see now in modern germany, the future of Germany does not deny it they are just tired of being blamed for it. They were not alive and should not be.



So they are rich based upon the doings of their fathers and the victims are poor and that is okay with you?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > As an example, when I was working at DUKE University, I knew a black man who was quite resentful of the fact that he worked in a textile factory owned and run by a family that's wealth came from their great-great-grandfather who made the money by exploiting, and often killing, his anscestors. I can certainly see his point - can't you? That family runs a large area based upon ill gotten wealth, and still control the lives of many of the descendants of their ancsestors victims through their ecomomic domination.
> ...



But the problem is that that family owns almost all the major businesses in the area. Schooling is poor. Finances are minimal. It is not so easy for the people who have lived there for generations to just pack up and move somwhere else with nothing.

I agree, something should have been done long ago. But is that a reason nothing should be done today? Is it right that a family should persist in holding billions of $ of assests dating back to the mid 1800's which were bought with profits from slavery and none of it should be used to compensate the families of those who actually did the work?

The fact is that where you end up in life is almost always dependant upon where you start. Yes there are a few exceptions, but statistically they are a minute percentage. The rich tend to get richer, the poor stay poor. When wealth is based upon evil acts, redress should be enforced. Don't you see that there is something wrong with the idea that if the wrong doers are politically/socially powerful enough to delay redress they get to keep all of their ill gotten gains?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > This is pretty much how I see it. Yes something should be done to companies that used slave labor or things of that nature like Krupp and Bayar, however I think that it should have been done earlier. You can not ask someone today who works or owns these companies to pay for what was done 60 or more years ago. That is like demanding that a man who nows lives on the property that his grandfather once used as a plantation give his house to a descendent of a slave. Or that a grandson of a concentration camp guard should not be allowed to live a normal life or be required to pay restitutions is also wrong. He had nothing to do with it. I dont think anyone who was born to someone who has done wrong is wrong. I do believe though that as was said it should not be forgotten and prevented and this is what you see now in modern germany, the future of Germany does not deny it they are just tired of being blamed for it. They were not alive and should not be.
> ...



I dont think you understand what I am trying to say. I am saying that someone who owns a family business that did some wrong doing lets say in 1829 should not be responsible for what happened back then. You can not condemn or ask for restitution from people that were not alive 200 years ago. I do not feel any guilt for anything that my country may have done during WW2. Just like you should not feel guilty for what the US did to the Native Americans. I feel that what happened in both cases is extremely wrong and should be condemded as they have and that restitutions should have been made and I pray that these very very evil things never happen again but neither I or you were responsible for it nor were the people who own the companies. As was stated before we just have to make sure things like this never happen again.



RG_Lunatic said:


> But the problem is that that family owns almost all the major businesses in the area. Schooling is poor. Finances are minimal. It is not so easy for the people who have lived there for generations to just pack up and move somwhere else with nothing.
> 
> I agree, something should have been done long ago. But is that a reason nothing should be done today? Is it right that a family should persist in holding billions of $ of assests dating back to the mid 1800's which were bought with profits from slavery and none of it should be used to compensate the families of those who actually did the work?
> 
> The fact is that where you end up in life is almost always dependant upon where you start. Yes there are a few exceptions, but statistically they are a minute percentage. The rich tend to get richer, the poor stay poor. When wealth is based upon evil acts, redress should be enforced. Don't you see that there is something wrong with the idea that if the wrong doers are politically/socially powerful enough to delay redress they get to keep all of their ill gotten gains?



Again this situation needs more information. You can not blame the education system or Lack of Jobs. This person very well could have had paid more attention in school, gotten better grades and gotten a better job then they would not have to work for this person. This employer again should not have to take any blame for what happened. I see this all the time in Columbia, Carolina where my sister lives. (She went to the University of South Carolina and then married an American and lives there now). Much of the population lives in poverty and do not even recieve high school educations. They blame it on the society and the government but then what are people like myself supposed to say when we see these people in there yard everyday drinking 40's and playing basket ball even though they are only 15 and should be in classes. I feel they are to blame for there own actions not society, ethnic groups or the government, but they still find a way to put the blame on others. I can not say this is the case with the man you are talking about because I do not have eneogh info to make an opinion but based off of what I believe, his employer can not be blamed for this.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> No mention of Unit 731 is presented at all!



What's Unit 731?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > No mention of Unit 731 is presented at all!
> ...



Makes the German concentration camps look like a stay at a resort.

http://roswell.fortunecity.com/skulls/37/unit731.htm
http://www.technologyartist.com/unit_731/
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NMU731.html
http://www.ww2pacific.com/unit731.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/16/japan.war.crimes/

These are about the textbook screening suit, which was filed by a Japanese man against the Japanese government for specifically excluding all mention of Japanese mis-deeds from Japanese text books:

http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/center/english/Courtcas.htm#2
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/law/y.fujita/ts/p95_0.html

This is a good general link on the overall issues:

http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/center/english/index-english.htm

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 12, 2005)

Well the Chinese have certainly never forgotten about it!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

The problem is the Japanese seem to think that because they paid off a few corrupt politicians their liability is over with.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

HOW TRUE!


----------



## trackend (Apr 13, 2005)

RE: RG's post I cant fathom the mentality of people who would do such atrositises they are beyond any words of contempt I may write here they just make me heave and to dismise it as it appears from your posts these vile creatures are an insult to the human race.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

They really bastardized the Bushido code and the whole honor thing. I think it is still partly an honor thing why it is not more common knowledge to the Japanese. They may be and should be ashamed for the many atrocities against just about any indigenous people they came across and their enemies as well.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

It is what happens when you accept the concept that all men are not created equal. That some have a natural or God given superiority and therefore the right to rule over the lesser humans. Once this is accepted, the de-humanization naturally proceeds until the "lesser" peoples are considered no better than animals. And then, because of the guilt they feel in their hearts, the self-proclaimed "superior" humans tend to inflict even more cruelty upon the "inferior" humans than they would even upon animals.

This is why you must stand up and oppose any form of racism the moment you see or hear it. A little racism is never okay - that slope is steep and slippery and it is surprising how far people fall once they go even a little over the precipice.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 13, 2005)

Morning Evan.It makes me even more grateful to all those guys and girls who fought against the axis powers imagine what the world be like if these monsters had succeeded in their conquests.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

Agreed, trackend. It would indeed be a much different world. But we have to remember that in WWII, the Japanese were de-humanized by the Americans as well. The propaganda posters of the era either portray the slant-eyed, buck-tooth stereotype, or the dark and sinister Jap, as they were called in those days. It is an unfortunate side effect of the war. I can certainly see how it happened as the stories of the atrocities done by the Japanese started to become known.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2005)

The only thing I do not agree with is the way the Japanese Americans were interned in camps like they were criminals even though they did nothing wrong just because they were of the same ethnic group. At the same time I think it is quite amazing how the Japanese Americans stood up and fought for the US after there families were treated so. The unit was the 442nd and they became the most decorated unit in WW2 for the United States. For me they are true heroes and should never be forgotten.

442 Regimental Combat Team in World War II

Individual and Presidential Citations Over 18,000 
Distinguished Service Cross 52 
Distinguished Service Medal 1 
Silver Star 560 
Silver Star with Oak Leaf Clusters 28 
Legion of Merit 22 
Bronze Star 4,000 
Croix de Guerre 12 
Purple Heart Approx 9,500 
Deaths Over 700 

This whole unit was made up of Japanese Americans!



> After the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was a backlash against all Japanese living in US. In repsonse, a battalion of Nisei volunteers (second generation Japanese-Americans) was organized from units of the Hawaiian National Guard and designated the 100th Battalion (Seperate). This unit was sent to Camp Shelby, MS for training in 1942. There were many skeptics that did not think the Nisei would be remain loyal to America. All the officers were haole (Hawaiian for white).
> President Roosevelt was impressed with their training and on 1 February 1943, he directed the formation of a regiment that was designated the 442nd Infantry Regiment. With the addition of the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion and the 232nd Engineer Battalion, along with the orignal 100th Battalion, the 442nd Combat Team was established at Camp Shelby.
> The 442nd Combat Team went in combat in Italy. Just the 100th Battalion entered combat with the 34th Infantry Division on 27 September, 1943. Soon after the fall of Rome on 4 June, 1944, all the units of the 442nd Combat Team were together. They continued to fight in Italy and then in Southern France. The 442nd Combat Team, less the 522 Field Artillery Battalion, returned to Italy in April 1945, where they were attached to the 92nd Division.
> The Nisei proved their loyality and their bravery. The 442nd Combat Team was one of the most highly decorated units in WW2. However, no members had earned the Congressional Medal of Honor by the end of the war. Some suggested it was still due to prejudice. After a review of their records in June 2000, President Clinton awarded an additional 20 Medals of Honor to members of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Included in this group was U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who had his right arm shattered by a grenade while successfully destroying three German machine gun nests in April 1945. Motto: GO FOR BROKE
> http://members.aol.com/ItalyWW2/442RCT.htm


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

There is an interesting section on them in the Japanes American museum in LA. There is also a movie about them. I believe it was called Go for broke, after the unit.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only thing I do not agree with is the way the Japanese Americans were interned in camps like they were criminals even though they did nothing wrong just because they were of the same ethnic group. At the same time I think it is quite amazing how the Japanese Americans stood up and fought for the US after there families were treated so. The unit was the 442nd and they became the most decorated unit in WW2 for the United States. For me they are true heroes and should never be forgotten.



Well, that is a hard issue. The fact is that there were many Black Dragon members amoungst the Japanese/American population, especially in Hawaii. Spying, and especially sabotage, were a serious concern and it would only have taken a very small percentage of that population to do very serious harm.

Also, there is another aspect to this internment. The Japanese/Americans were not really safe from vigilantees during WWII. If they had not been interned many would have died at the hands of lynch mobs.

For many years I had a GF who was half Japanese, and I heard some stories about the internment camps from her father, uncle, and granparents. While it was certainly no picknick, it was no concentration camp by a long shot. And, this "wrong" has been righted as best as it can be, internment victims have been financially compensated and they have recieved an official appology.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

I worked with a guy who was interned during WWII. He was at the camp by Bishop CA. I think he got $75,000 around 1992. He remembers the camp and said that he felt it really wasn't that bad, although he was a child at the time. His family managed to get their home back after the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

That is good atleast they got there home back. Dont take me wrong I would never compare it to anything like a Concentration Camp or something of that nature I just think it was a wrong thing to do. However yes atleast they were compensated.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Yes Japan is very bad about owning up to what they did. It pisses me off when, every year, the Japanese condemn the USA for the A-Bombings, when they don't even know their own history.
> 
> When asked about Japan's roll in WWII, most Japanese respond that Japan was a "not very agressive" nation that the USA conquered. Their schools do not cover the slaughter in China and the Philapines, the sex-slaves, or how the Japanese treated prisioners. No mention of Unit 731 is presented at all!
> 
> ...



This angers me also! If I had my way their history book would be filled with pictures such as this


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

Yeap things like this anger me also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

I once wrote the Mayor or Hiroshima over a damming paper he wrote about the US Nuclear Arsenal and how Americans need to think about what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki every day.  I wrote back and pointed out Japan's "rape" of Korea and China, the treatment of POWs and other war crimes, and you know what his response was? WE TEND TO REMEMBER HISTORY IN WAYS THAT SUIT OUR CAUSE!  

WELL I HAVE A CAUSE FOR YOU! :fist:


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 14, 2005)

Typical!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Unbelievable! That from a politician...sheesh!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

COULD YOU IMAGINE IF A US CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR SAID THAT?!?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

You'd have an angry mob outside their office, I am sure.


----------



## GT (Apr 14, 2005)

Well! 

The Pacific War became was what could be referred to as a Colonial War. Were the Japanese threatened to take all of the colony's of France, Holland, Britain.... and the US oil embargo and scrap-metal embargo was a response to Nippon's advance i China, thus forcing the Japanese to react quickly before their small amount of oil would be gone. 

They had no option left, Japan was forced to go to War, but they had a option to be mercy-full to POWs. The Bushi-Do did not allow them to do that and that's why all these atrocities happened. Another fact is that the US did not have to A-bomb Japan because negotiations was under way, but the US decided to go ahead just because they wanted to test the bomb. The war in ETO was over and the best way to really test the bomb was on the "yellow monkeys".

Cheers
GT


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 14, 2005)

_ Another fact is that the US did not have to A-bomb Japan because negotiations was under way, but the US decided to go ahead just because they wanted to test the bomb._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

That is totally untrue!  After Okinawa, Siapan, Iwo Jima and the other island campaigns where the Japanese fought so ferociously, dropping the bomb was the only logical choice. It saved millions of lives, Amercian and Japanese - I'm sorry GT, but that's the same line the Japanese who want to avoid responsibility for their actions take. Some members of the Japanese Military still wanted one last battle after bomb was dropped "Just to Save Face." 

*THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT THE JAPANESE DID DURING WWII. THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRADE PEACEFULLY AND RESPECT THEIR NEIGHBORS, BUT EMBRACED WAR AND BRUTALITY - IN THE END THEY PAID THE PRICE!*


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

I'm with Flyboy on this one. They wanted to negotiate a surrender when it was clear that unconditional surrender was what was demanded. Had Operatin Olympic been launched it could very well have been the end of the Japanese people and culture.


----------



## GT (Apr 14, 2005)

Dwight Eisenhower said: - Secretary of War Stimson, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. 

It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude. In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson: - The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't´t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Admiral William D. Leahy The Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman said: - It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Furthermore the people at the Manhattan Project recommended the President not to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was not only the Japanese that committed atrocities it happened on both sides!

Cheers
GT


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

As the pilot of the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, Tibbets has heard the critics who consider it a barbaric act, but the 89-year-old retired Air Force brigadier general says it was necessary to prevent more bloodshed.

"People don't seem to realize how fast people get killed in war," Tibbets said Wednesday at EAA AirVenture. "In my mind, I thought, 'Let's stop the killing' " by dropping the bomb and ending the war as early as possible.

"The war is now over. The revisionists are still there, and they aren't going to give up."

Now 83, he said President Harry S. Truman made the right decision to drop the bomb to shorten World War II.

"He believed it would save more lives than it took," Tibbets said.

Estimates are that a mainland invasion of Japanese might have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, American, and Allied soldiers.

"I have no regrets _ none," Tibbets said about his role in flying the Enola Gay, a plane he named after his mother.

One man who benefited from the shortened war was Independence resident Harold Smith, 78. He served in the U.S. Army as staff sergeant and was certain he was going to meet hostile and dedicated Japanese soldiers during the invasion of the Japanese mainland _ even after Tibbets and the Enola Gay`s crew bombed Hiroshima, and a second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on Aug. 9.

"After they dropped the bombs, we didn`t think they would surrender," he said.

"Right up until they announced their surrender, I thought we might have to go," Smith said.

He believed the Japanese might not ever give up. He saw the suicide bombers and the Japaneses` dedication to defending their country while fighting in the Philippines.

He expected them to not surrender until they were annihilated or until they won, he said.

"It wasn`t the Germans defending France. It was the Japanese defending Japan," Smith said.

Truman announced the end of the war on Aug. 14 and declared a two-day holiday.

In hindsight, Smith wonders if the bombs should have been dropped. In August 1945, though, Smith emphatically believed Truman`s order on Aug. 5 was the right decision.

"It would save the lives not only of us in the military, but it could save the deaths of a lot of Japanese civilians," he said. "The sooner it was over, the less casualties there would be on both sides."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

Most of the Japanese Military Chiefs of staff were NOT going to surrender no matter what - this was well documented after the war. (David Jablownski, Wings of Fire)  

*Potsdam* - The Japanese were told to surrender - *they had the opportunity!*
There was even a planned coup so the fighting could continue!  

*BUT THE REAL DEAL-IF THE JAPANESE WANTED TO SURRENDER, WHY WERE THEY PREPARING FOR THE ALLIED INVASION?!? * :evilbat: 

You have a right to your opinion GT - I had family that fought and were captured by the Japanese. If you would of left it up to them (who before the war held non-military jobs unlike 90% of their adversaries) they would of dropped 10 atomic bombs on Japan!  

Atrocities?!? The allies, on their worse day were girl scouts compared to the Japanese when they were in a GOOD mood!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

it's not always the magnitude of an atrocity that defines how bad it was, fact is, they shouldn't happen at all, if you're telling someone about a loved one lost in an "atrocity", fact that it wasn't a bit atrocity won't change anything...................


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

Yep - Just ask this guy!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

My family also fought the Japanese in the Pacific and the horror stories that I have heard are incredible. My Uncle Jack was on Saipan, Iwo and Okinawa. He always firmly believed that the atomic bomb was the only way to stop the slaughter. He also said that if it had not been dropped, he probably wouldn't have survived the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

which was true for millions of men............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

I'm not really sure it was a "wrong" thing to do.

Many Japanese/Americans on the W. Coast, and especially in Hawaii still had strong ties to Japan and believed the Emperor to be devine. Less than half spoke English. The Black Dragon tong was known to have significant membership in America.

This, coupled with the danger to Japanese/Americans from the general population dictated that something had to be done quickly at the start of the war. Interning these people made sense in many cases.

If they'd not been interned, many would have died at the hands of the public. The Black Dragons would surely have undertaken acts of sabotage, which would have spurred even more acts of violence against the Japanese/American's by the public.

I do think however, that the conditions of internment should have been better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

GT said:


> Well!
> 
> The Pacific War became was what could be referred to as a Colonial War. Were the Japanese threatened to take all of the colony's of France, Holland, Britain.... and the US oil embargo and scrap-metal embargo was a response to Nippon's advance i China, thus forcing the Japanese to react quickly before their small amount of oil would be gone.
> 
> ...



That is not true, they did have another choice. They could have chosen not to continue their territorial expansionism.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> _ Another fact is that the US did not have to A-bomb Japan because negotiations was under way, but the US decided to go ahead just because they wanted to test the bomb._



That is total BS.

The conditions for peace were clear - "unconditional surrender". The Japanese were trying to negotiate a less than unconditional surrender, and that was unacceptable.

At the same time, the Soviets were entering the war against Japan, and were well poised to occupy most of China and at least the northern islands of Japan. Every week that went by meant more territory under the Soviet thumb.

Finally, there was no reason to have any measure of confidence in any negotiated peace, even if it had been acceptable which it wasn't. The Japanese political situation was so splintered that it was not clear any surrender negotiated by the politicians would be accepted by the military leadership.

The A-Bomb was the best thing that could have happened to Japan. Without it, their country broken into a soviet held region and a US held region, and the cold war would have been focused in Japan even more than it was in E/W Germany. The Emperor would surely have been hanged, and Japanese cultural would have been totally and utterly destroyed. The A-bomb forced them to surrender and surrender immeadiately with no conditions or delaying tactics.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 14, 2005)

RG, if you re-read my post and GT's right before it, you will see that I was quoting GT and added a  at the end indicating that I too found this to be "BS" for lack of a more descriptive and appropriate term.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

One thing about the Bushido code. It is very honorable. What the Japanese military in WWII did with the Bushido code was bastardize it completely. The ones who truly followed Bushido before them probably rolled in their graves.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DAVIDICUS said:
> 
> 
> > _ Another fact is that the US did not have to A-bomb Japan because negotiations was under way, but the US decided to go ahead just because they wanted to test the bomb._
> ...



*WELL SAID RG!*


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> RG, if you re-read my post and GT's right before it, you will see that I was quoting GT and added a  at the end indicating that I too found this to be "BS" for lack of a more descriptive and appropriate term.



Sorry, I think I mis-edited the quotes and sub-quotes within it. My appologies.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Apr 15, 2005)

The Japanese did not have another choice after the embargo was put to affect They could only have chosen not to continue their war in China before that. 

The atrocities that happened was totally wrong, don´t get me wrong on that subject! One can not defend one smaller magnitude atrocity against a larger one. They should not had happen at all.

The war was still basically a colonial war and Hawaii had been annexed on 7 July 1898, and this action was the culmination of more than 50 years of growing US commercial interests in the Hawaiian islands. What happened after the war was that the colonist countries discovered that all of their colonies wanted to be free and some became free after a war with the suppressing colonial countries, one of the last being free was Vietnam. Hawaii the one and only not to become free and instead becoming the 50th state to the US on 29 Aug 1959.

The decision to drop the bomb was a atrocity of an magnitude never equaled in modern history just because of the reasons that I have stated above and can repeat again.

The Japanese was defeated the had no oil and scrapmetal to continue the war effectively and almost the entire war machinery was gone. The only reason for the A-bomb was that it was the only way to test the bomb as the war in Germany was over and that there was No Way the US would have used the bomb in ETO anyhow!. That fact is that one has to understand in the minds of people and military at that time, let´s try it on the Japs! 

It was the US military that pressed for the A-bomb to be tested instead of some other wise and by the wars end accepted methods. There were many that opposed the droppings of the A-bomb at high level but they were ”bulldozed”.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Most of the Japanese Military Chiefs of staff were NOT going to surrender no matter what - this was well documented after the war. (David Jablownski, Wings of Fire)
> 
> *Potsdam* - The Japanese were told to surrender - *they had the opportunity!*
> There was even a planned coup so the fighting could continue!



I may have misunderstood you but Potsdam is in Germany not Japan. Sorry if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

There were also many at the high level that supported it. You can choose to disagree with the decision to drop the bomb, but calling it an atrocity is just not true. They may have been low on gas and scrapmetal, but they would have fought with bamboo spears. We are not talking about the Germans here, we are talking about the Japnese, who were intensely proud and it was a honor to die for the emperor. 

To think they would have given up easily is inaccurate. Out of 20,000+ defenders on Iwo Jima, there were 200 prisoners. Only 200 were either captured alive or gave themselves up. They fought with incredible tenacity against a numerically superior enemy (3:1) with no supplies coming from the sea. This scenario played out on Saipan and Okinawa as well. They would have fought even harder for the homelands.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

The other thing I have to say is I dont think the US had any other choice but to drop the bomb. Believe it or not the bomb saved lives. Had they invaded the Japanese main island it would have been slaughtered. 10's of Thousands of US killed and many more Japanese including woman and children.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

This is info on the battle of Okinawa, which was the prelude to an invasion of Japan. The casualties are tremendous, for both sides. It would have been worse the further we went into Japanese territory.

_Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle. 

The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded. Navy casualties were tremendous, with a ratio of one killed for one wounded as compared to a one to five ratio for the Marine Corps. Combat stress also caused large numbers of psychiatric casualties, a terrible hemorrhage of front-line strength. There were more than 26,000 non-battle casualties. In the battle of Okinawa, the rate of combat losses due to battle stress, expressed as a percentage of those caused by combat wounds, was 48% [in the Korean War the overall rate was about 20-25%, and in the Yom Kippur War it was about 30%]. American losses at Okinawa were so heavy as to illicite Congressional calls for an investigation into the conduct of the military commanders. Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later. 

Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered. The Japanese lost 7,830 aircraft and 16 combat ships. Since many Okinawan residents fled to caves where they subsequently were entombed the precise number of civilian casualties will probably never be known, but the lowest estimate is 42,000 killed. Somewhere between one-tenth and one-fourth of the civilian population perished, though by some estimates the battle of Okinawa killed almost a third of the civilian population. According to US Army records during the planning phase of the operation, the assumption was that Okinawa was home to about 300,000 civilians. At the conclusion of hostilities around 196,000 civilians remained. However, US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm_


----------



## Mabuhay (Apr 15, 2005)

Have to say that many of you dont know what in fact happened to the japaneese prioners. That is the problem when discussing our war. I habe lived with the memories that my famili told me about my relatives fate in the hands of the americans


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

Bad things happened on both sides.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

I have heard some of the stories. It was a brutal war in the Pacific and both sides de-humanized each other. We can only hope that it never happens again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

I agree as was stated by just about everyone here, the best way to pay respect to them all is by ensuring that it never happens agains.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the Japanese Military Chiefs of staff were NOT going to surrender no matter what - this was well documented after the war. (David Jablownski, Wings of Fire)
> ...



It was at Potsdam where the allies met and told the Japanese empire to surrender or else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

Oh my bad, I thought you were talking about bombings of Potsdam. Excuse me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

GT said:


> The Japanese did not have another choice after the embargo was put to affect They could only have chosen not to continue their war in China before that.
> 
> The atrocities that happened was totally wrong, don´t get me wrong on that subject! One can not defend one smaller magnitude atrocity against a larger one. They should not had happen at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## GT (Apr 15, 2005)

There is a film from 1944 that includes scenes of American soldiers shooting Japanese soldiers as they are lying wounded on the ground. And there are scenes of a US soldier that dragging a wounded Japanese soldier from his hiding place. The Japanese soldier then has his ankles tied together but the US soldier fires 2 bullets into his knees and when the Japanese soldier screams in pain the American shots him first in the chest and only then in the head. 

There are scenes in the film of American soldiers using bayonets to hack at Japanese corpses while they are looting them, taking the dead Japanese soldiers gold teeth which was by the way a widespread practice amongst the US soldiers in the Pacific war and sometimes the Japanese soldier was alive. More examples of atrocities that was committed is that the Gurkha's in Burma collected Japanese ears and heads being collected by Nigerian Soldiers.

When I visited Hawaii for the 3rd time I went to Charles Lindbergh's grave and this is a picture that I took on the lovely island of Maui were he is buried. In his.diaries from the Pacific war, Lindbergh was ed and horrified what he witnessed of atrocities that the US soldiers did and he documented some of it during the several months that he spent there. He wrote: - We have always been told that the Japanese soldier fought to the death, that's why there were so few prisoners. The truth of the matter is that we would not allow a Japanese to surrender ! ! (witch meant that they were shot on sight) There are so many cover ups that all of you really have get of the Internet and travel to the places, the people and really read the witnesses reports and read the Now official documents concerning the issue. They were of course classified as Secret after the war.

In the ETO it was also common tho shoot Germans trying to surrender and sometimes POWs were shot and there a also pics that shows US soldiers shooting German POWs.

The truth of the matter if one can look through the cover up to justify the A-bombings is that Japan had been defeated and were starved by the Naval blockade, and could have been like in Rabaul, left to wither on the vine. 

Japan was facing a severe starvation and the truth of the matter is that the US knew this. As I told you before the US Navy and many wise high ranking officials was opposed both to the A-bombings of Japan and the invasion for that reason.

Cheers
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

GT said:


> There is a film from 1944 that includes scenes of American soldiers shooting Japanese soldiers as they are lying wounded on the ground. And there are scenes of a US soldier that dragging a wounded Japanese soldier from his hiding place. The Japanese soldier then has his ankles tied together but the US soldier fires 2 bullets into his knees and when the Japanese soldier screams in pain the American shots him first in the chest and only then in the head.
> 
> There are scenes in the film of American soldiers using bayonets to hack at Japanese corpses while they are looting them, taking the dead Japanese soldiers gold teeth which was by the way a widespread practice amongst the US soldiers in the Pacific war and sometimes the Japanese soldier was alive. More examples of atrocities that was committed is that the Gurkha's in Burma collected Japanese ears and heads being collected by Nigerian Soldiers.
> 
> ...



OH GIVE ME A BREAK! - 3 YEARS BEFORE THOSE AMERICAN SOLDIERS WERE HACKING APART AND SHOOTING WOUNDED JAPANESE SOLDIERS AS YOU SAY, THEY WERE IN HIGH SCHOOLS AND WORKING TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES. GO BACK 2 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT AND I'M SURE YOU'LL FIND MANY OF THOSE POOR JAPANESE SOLDIERS RAPING AND MURDERING INNOCENT KOREAN AND CHINESE CIVILIANS - YES CIVILIANS!

YES - THE JAPANESE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO SURRENDER, HAVE YOU ASKED YOUR SELF WHY?!? BECAUSE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, NUMEROUS US FORCES ATTEMPTED TO RENDER ASSISTANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION TO SURRENDERING JAPANESE SOLDIERS, AND MANY JAPANESE SURRENDERED WITH A GRENADE IN THEIR HAND, KILLING OR MAIMING THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WERE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE THEM PRISONER. I CHALLENGE YOU TO TAKE 5 US POWS THAT WERE HELD BY THE JAPANESE AND TAKE 5 JAPANESE HELD BY THE AMERICANS, I GUARANTEE YOU THE JAPANESE LIVED IN LUXURY COMPARED TO THEIR AMERICAN COUNTERPARTS. MY FACTS DON'T COME FROM THE INTERNET, I HAVE FAMILY AND FRIENDS THAT WERE THERE AND WITNESSED THESE THINGS.

BOTTOM LINE, THE TYPICAL AMERICAN DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT THE JAPANESE, BUT WHEN WE DID WE DISCOVERED A BRUTAL AND INHUMANE INDIVIDUAL AND WE FOUGHT THEM THE WAY THEY CONFRONTED US. WAS THAT RIGHT?, WE COULD ARGUE THAT POINT AS WELL. YES YOU COULD TRY TO JUSTIFY JAPANESE ACTION BY THE WAY AMERICAN SOLDIERS ALLEGEDLY BRUTALIZED CAPTURED JAPANESE (AND GERMAN AS YOU SAY) SOLDIERS, THE REAL FACT IS, THAT IS MORE OF THE EXCEPTION THAN THE RULE. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN SOLDIER OF WWII WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SOLDIER, WANTED TO GET THE WAR OVER WITH AND GET HOME! I ONCE ASKED A FORMER ARMY MASTER SERGENT WHO FOUGHT AT NORMANDY ABOUT THE US BEATING OR SHOOTING SURRENDERING GERMANS, AND HE TOLD ME "WE HAD MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO!" HE ALSO TOLD ME THAT AT LEAST IN HIS COMMAND, CRIMES AGAINST GERMAN MILITARY OR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL WAS NOT TOLERATED AND USUALLY RESULTED IN A FIELD COURT MARSHAL, WHICH MEANT YOU COULD BE SHOT ON SITE!

I WOULD NEVER OFFER AN APOLOGY FOR AUGUST 1945 AND THOSE JAPANESE WHO WANT TO WHITEWASH HISTORY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE WHO COMMITTED THOSE ATROCITIES 60 YEARS AGO!

YOU COULD VISIT LINGBERGS OR TOJO'S GRAVE ALL YOU WANT, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS IN AUGUST 1945 A TRUE EVIL EMPIRE WAS DESTROYED AND IF THE JAPANESE DIDN'T ATTACK PEARL HARBOR, TWO OF THEIR CITIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCINERATED!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

GT said:


> There is a film from 1944 that includes scenes of American soldiers shooting Japanese soldiers as they are lying wounded on the ground. And there are scenes of a US soldier that dragging a wounded Japanese soldier from his hiding place. The Japanese soldier then has his ankles tied together but the US soldier fires 2 bullets into his knees and when the Japanese soldier screams in pain the American shots him first in the chest and only then in the head.
> 
> There are scenes in the film of American soldiers using bayonets to hack at Japanese corpses while they are looting them, taking the dead Japanese soldiers gold teeth which was by the way a widespread practice amongst the US soldiers in the Pacific war and sometimes the Japanese soldier was alive. More examples of atrocities that was committed is that the Gurkha's in Burma collected Japanese ears and heads being collected by Nigerian Soldiers.
> 
> ...



Yes what are you pointing out is very wrong also however you have to look at the large picture Japanese soldiers were doing the same, German soldiers were doing the same and Russian Soldiers were even doing so. It is wrong and should not go unpunished but what the US did to Japanese soldiers is a lot less in comparison to what Japanese soldiers were doing. 2 wrongs to not make a right though and yes US soldiers doing so should have been punished (for the most part they were punished for doing such things) also however you can not compare it to what Japanese soldiers were doing.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

Look, we can tit for tat about the horrors of war, but the simple fact of the matter is that a wounded Japanese soldier was even more dangerous than one who wasn't. They were fanatical to their deaths to kill American soldiers. Have you read the reports or talked to veterans who found their comrades that had died after days of torture by the japanese, with their eyes gouged out, their tongues cut out and their genitals removed and stuffed into their mouth??? Believe me, you see something like that and you are not going to be humane in your treatment of the ones who did this.

But that is another issue altogether. After the battle of Okinawa, it was clear that continued war against the Japanese mainlands were going to be equally, if not MORE bloody than Okinawa. More Japanese died on Okinawa than in the atomic bombings. You can't tell me that the next island was going to be any easier. 

Atomic bombs are messy and horrible, no doubt, but continued battles against the Japanese would have been bloodier and more costly. After the war, there was more Japanese weaponry found stashed away to defend their homeland than originally thought by the allies. It would have been worse than the atomic bombings in terms of costs of lives, way worse.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Look, we can tit for tat about the horrors of war, but the simple fact of the matter is that a wounded Japanese soldier was even more dangerous than one who wasn't. They were fanatical to their deaths to kill American soldiers. Have you read the reports or talked to veterans who found their comrades that had died after days of torture by the japanese, with their eyes gouged out, their tongues cut out and their genitals removed and stuffed into their mouth??? Believe me, you see something like that and you are not going to be humane in your treatment of the ones who did this.
> 
> But that is another issue altogether. After the battle of Okinawa, it was clear that continued war against the Japanese mainlands were going to be equally, if not MORE bloody than Okinawa. More Japanese died on Okinawa than in the atomic bombings. You can't tell me that the next island was going to be any easier.
> 
> Atomic bombs are messy and horrible, no doubt, but continued battles against the Japanese would have been bloodier and more costly. After the war, there was more Japanese weaponry found stashed away to defend their homeland than originally thought by the allies. It would have been worse than the atomic bombings in terms of costs of lives, way worse.



AMEN!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

And I agree completely. Well said Even.


----------



## GT (Apr 15, 2005)

I think that you should stop writing in Big Letters as you know that is the same as shouting and you only make a fool of yourself.

There are so many cover ups that occurred after the Pacific War that you really have speak to the people and really read the witnesses reports and read the Now Official Documents on both sides,( I have!!), concerning the issue and they were of course classified as Secret after the War.

The cover up was only to justify the A-bombings and it is true that Japan had been defeated before and that they already were starving and that was the result of the US Naval blockade. Japan could have been easily like in Rabaul, left to wither on the vine if US wanted. 

The truth is that it was a racial decision to bomb Japan, it would never happened in Europe. And as I told you before the US Navy and high ranking officials was opposed both to the A-bombings of Japan and the invasion of Japan for that specific reason. They knew and you don´t know only because you are blinded by what happened to your relatives.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

Whatever the issue was it saved lives my friend.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

*NO - I WRITE IN BIG LETTERS TO GET THE POINT ACROSS - AND IF YOU THINK I'M SHOUTING SO BE IT! THIS IS ONE SUBJECT I MAKE NO APOLOGIES TO NO ONE - I COULD BE BLINDED BY WHAT I READ IN A BOOK OR WHAT IS ACTUALLY WITNESSED, BUT LET YOU SEE THE EXPRESSIONS ON THE FACES OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO EXPERIENCED THIS WAR AND I THINK YOU'LL COME AWAY WITH A DIFFERENT FEELING!*

Peace!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

I am not going to argue with you on that matter. I had members on both sides of the war and they both witnessed how it was the worst hell this world has ever known. Stories from both of them makes me cringe some times.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

I am not blinded. Sure there were some that opposed it. There will always be those that oppose any action in war. But obviously there were enough who did not to oppose it. Look at the casualties of Okinawa alone. Continued war would have made those numbers pale in comparison. To starve them out like on Rabaul would likely have prolonged there surrender by a year or more. After four years, it was time to put the war to an end. When the enemy is on the ropes and reeling, you finish them off, period. To let up means that they could do something desperate and turn the situation in their favor. You cannot state definitely that they would give up if left to starve. How many millions would die that way before they gave up?

They were a very proud people and only gave up when they realized how desperate their situation was when faced with the bomb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

True also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

PEACE TO ALL!


----------



## GT (Apr 15, 2005)

( Whatever the issue was it saved lives my friend) 

My reply to that is that the lives would be spared anyhow and all of the unnecessary casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be avoided as they were civilians.

I agree that the Bushi-Do was used in the wrong way but there were sometimes that the Japanese that showed mercy and one of these incidents was when my good friend Sakai spared a transport plane. I can not tell you what type it was as my notes are at my "Blue Heaven" in The Big Apple. But he saw some civilians looking at him by the windows of the transport and decided not to shot it down.

Cheers
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

Sabru Sakai - Now theres a class act! I met him in the 1970's, the most interesting and compassionate individual you could meet!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

Certainly there were compassionate Japanese as there were Americans as well. Both sides had their share of animals.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

YEP - PEACE TO ALL !
:BIG:


----------



## GT (Apr 15, 2005)

Yes! I will agree to let there be Peace instead of War and don´t let him rule no more.

Cheers
GT


----------



## trackend (Apr 15, 2005)

I firmly believe the dropping of the bomb was the correct action I also believe the reason for the second bomb on Nagasaki was two fold One the delegation that was sent to report back on the destruction of Hiroshima to the Japanese government was delayed due to air transport problems this added an extra day to the trip also The Russians had begun a massive thrust in Manchuria with plans to claim large areas of the far east Truman used the Second bomb to hurry up the Japanese surrender and to warn the Russians.
The Axis forces wanted to enslave or exterminate millions upon millions of people and they butchered millions upon millions in attempting it. I'm not saying that atrocities where not committed by the allies but what ever way you look at it the Nazis and the Japanese carried out the most revolting acts the world has ever seen from Nan-king too the Bel-sen from Manchuria too Yugoslavia would the allies even have thought of going too war had it not been for the aggression of these nations I don't think so. I'm getting a bit fed up with people trying to say yes but look what the allies did. The Nazis and the Japs bloody well started it and the allies finished it and the world is a dam sight better off because of it most of us wouldn't even be around if bleeding Adolf and the Sons of Nippon had had their way. In the end they dragged the world into the gutter where morality was a very poor second to victory.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

GT said:


> The Japanese did not have another choice after the embargo was put to affect They could only have chosen not to continue their war in China before that.



Why? They could have chosen to stop their expansion in China at any time. It was not that they could not, it was that they would not. The greed of Japan's leadership dictated their behavior.

The fact is Japan simply wanted the resources from China and were unwilling to trade for them - they wanted to steal them. When the USA and Britain acted to stop them with the embargo/blockade, after numerous diplomatic appeals which were ignored, Japan opted for war with the USA and Britain.



GT said:


> The war was still basically a colonial war and Hawaii had been annexed on 7 July 1898, and this action was the culmination of more than 50 years of growing US commercial interests in the Hawaiian islands. What happened after the war was that the colonist countries discovered that all of their colonies wanted to be free and some became free after a war with the suppressing colonial countries, one of the last being free was Vietnam. Hawaii the one and only not to become free and instead becoming the 50th state to the US on 29 Aug 1959.



It is not true that "all of their colonies wanted to be free". Some did not. Some are protectorates to this day, having judged the benfits outweight any costs.

The World was a very different place prior to WWI. With WWI, the rules changed. One big difference was the nature of communications and transportation had made the World a "much smaller place". A new age of accountability and human rights had dawned, and an end to Colonialism had been mandated in 1928 per the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, where more than 60 nations including both Germany and Japan pledged not to resort to war in furtherance of national goals. A pledge it violated just 6 years later by invading China and SE Asia.

If you read the terms of the Atlantic Charter (1941), which was by-and-large dictated by FDR, the following assertions clearly show the American position:

_Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect *the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live*; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, *victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;*_

Interestingly, while Churchill all to willingly agreed with FDR and signed the charter, after the war, he claimed that the right of self-determination was to apply to the colonies of the "bad nations" such as Italy, but not to those of Britain or France.



GT said:


> The decision to drop the bomb was a atrocity of an magnitude never equaled in modern history just because of the reasons that I have stated above and can repeat again.
> 
> The Japanese was defeated the had no oil and scrapmetal to continue the war effectively and almost the entire war machinery was gone. The only reason for the A-bomb was that it was the only way to test the bomb as the war in Germany was over and that there was No Way the US would have used the bomb in ETO anyhow!. That fact is that one has to understand in the minds of people and military at that time, let´s try it on the Japs!
> 
> ...



First of all, the A-bomb had already been tested. Your contention that the choice to drop the bomb was in order to test it is nonsense.

Second, despite being beaten, the Japanese would not surrender. As far back as about Oct. 1944 the Japanese had sought a negotiated peace with the USA, but this was unacceptable. Any negotiated peace would leave Japan too capable of rearming itself and then re-initiating war. It made no sense to give Japan a "time-out" so they could recuperate, and the USA did not want to have to maintain a large military force on the boarder with Japanese territories.

You are right, Japan was beaten. And they knew they were beaten. But they would not surrender. They made their intention to inflict as much harm on the USA as possible, and their disregard for the lives of the Japanese people, all too clear in numerous battles including Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and through the use of Kamikazes. There was no sign that Japan would surrender unconditonally, and without the use of the A-bomb an invasion would be required. There was also much reason to believe that any such negotiated peace would not be honored by the Japanese military leadership anyway. The Japanese had two main terms in their peace offerings; First that the Emperor would remain untouched. Second that there would be no occupation of the Japanese mainland.

And again, the Soviet situation dictated the use of the bomb. It was absolutely necessary to prevent Soviet expansion into SE Asia. Without Japan's immeadiate surrender, more than half of China and the northern Islands of Japan were likely to fall to the Soviets. Even had Japan surrendered the Soviets might well have claimed these lands. The use of the A-bomb was a signal to the Soviets as well as the Japanese. The Japanese were far better off having suffered the relatively small losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than to have had the Soviets occupy the northern islands.

I don't see what the whining over the use of the A-bombs is all about. More people were killed by conventional bombing of Japanese cities, something like 400,000 in Tokyo alone in a single raid. The A-bomb just made it undeniably clear that failure to surrender meant utter destruction. No argument that the Japanese could somehow hold out for a negotiated peace could be taken seriously anymore.

Finally, what right do the Japanese have to complain about how they were treated? At every opportunity they showed nothing but contempt and loathing for non-Japanese. They had no regaurd for non-japanese human life. There is absolutely no doubt that if the Japanese had developed the A-bomb they would have used it in a heartbeat. And, even though they were beaten, they were still trying to coordinate a biological attack against the USA which they knew would only inflict suffering on civilians and achieve no military objectives.

The Japanese were a vile culture prior to WWII. Bushido is promoted as some kind of honorable code - it was not. It was a way of life that justified the terrorizing and slaughtering of innocents at the whim of the noblility. It was a means to subjigate responsiblity for ones own actions. It was the ultimate institutionalization of the "I was only following orders" excuse for totally unacceptable behavior. Wrapping evil in a pretty box of ritual and cerimony does not change what it is.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 15, 2005)

RG said,

"_Bushido is promoted as some kind of honorable code - it was not. It was a way of life that justified the terrorizing and slaughtering of innocents at the whim of the noblility._"

"_Wrapping evil in a pretty box of ritual and cerimony does not change what it is. _"


Well said.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

GT said:


> I think that you should stop writing in Big Letters as you know that is the same as shouting and you only make a fool of yourself.
> 
> There are so many cover ups that occurred after the Pacific War that you really have speak to the people and really read the witnesses reports and read the Now Official Documents on both sides,( I have!!), concerning the issue and they were of course classified as Secret after the War.
> 
> ...



You're full of crap GT. You have not read the primary source documents or you'd not be saying what you are saying. I have read them, I may even dig some of them out and photo and post them for you soon.

Even the behavior of the Nazi's pales beside that of the Japanese.

Your contention that we could wait and starve out the main Islands of Japan is foolishness. They would simply never have surrendered. In the meantime, the requirements of maintaining a blockade would have required the USA to maintain a huge military presence in the region - something we did not want to do. Our soldier's wanted to go home!
Or are you suggesting that we should have continued to bomb the crap out of them with conventional weapons however long it might take for them to surrender?

And you ignore the situation with the Soviet's entirely. By the end of October it was projected that the Soviets would have held all of Mongolia,

I suggest you familiarize yourself better with this topic. 

The Final Months of the War With Japan; Signals Intelligence, U.S Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb decision and the War-time intelligence document on the same site are a good place to start.

Peering through
Different Bombsights - Military Historians, Diplomatic, Historians, and the Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb is a good "looking at it from all sides" article.

The following map depicts hypothetical positons of the major powers had USA followed your thinking and not dropped the A-bomb in early August 1945.






The Soviets actually were well positioned to invade Japan via 50 km Soya Strait from the Island of Sakhalin to the Northern Japanese Island of Hokkaido, which they held most of throughout the war (Japan never contested it). From Hokkaido the main Island of Honshu could be easily invaded.

The Soviets would probably have reached Tokyo first, and we would have ended up with Japan being split into an E. Block vs. West situation and an occpuation which would have totally and irrevocably destroyed Japan as a culture. The A-bomb was critical to keeping the Soviets out of SE Asia, espeically the Japanese home Islands.

The dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best thing that could have happened to the Japanese given their situation and unwillingness to accept it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 16, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *NO - I WRITE IN BIG LETTERS TO GET THE POINT ACROSS - AND IF YOU THINK I'M SHOUTING SO BE IT! THIS IS ONE SUBJECT I MAKE NO APOLOGIES TO NO ONE -*
> 
> Peace!


I like this man! 

Btw, that's an interesting hypothetical map RG.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

trackend said:


> The Nazis and the Japs bloody well started it and the allies finished it and the world is a dam sight better off because of it most of us wouldn't even be around if bleeding Adolf and the Sons of Nippon had had their way. In the end they dragged the world into the gutter where morality was a very poor second to victory.



And this I agree with! Well said. 



GT said:


> My reply to that is that the lives would be spared anyhow and all of the unnecessary casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be avoided as they were civilians.




And please explain how this would have happened.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > *NO - I WRITE IN BIG LETTERS TO GET THE POINT ACROSS - AND IF YOU THINK I'M SHOUTING SO BE IT! THIS IS ONE SUBJECT I MAKE NO APOLOGIES TO NO ONE -*
> ...



*THANKS FRIEND - YOU KNOW I ONCE LIVED IN CANADA!*


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 16, 2005)

Where exactly?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Where exactly?



Montreal and St. Catherines Ont. Spent a lot of time in Halifax, "Winterpeg" and Moncton NB.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 16, 2005)

St. Catherines, the home of Popeyes (not the chicken place  ). Great peeler bar! 
You say you lived here. Did you actually live in Halifax? If so, when?

I'm not looking for your life story, I'm just curious.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

I visited Halifax quite a bit 1983-1988. Had to visit a company that manufactured P-3 parts. Live in St, Catherines 1986-88.

Yea - the peelers in Canada can't compare to anywhere.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 16, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea - the peelers in Canada can't compare to anywhere.


Obviously you never stopped in at the Lighthouse while you were in Halifax! 
I think they used to grab bag ladys off the street!  
Fortunately, they tore it down. Ralph's ain't a bad spot though.

And now folks, back to "Moral objections on warfare". Didn't mean to sabotage another one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

TODAY'S NEWS!

*New Anti-Japanese Protests Erupt in China *

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer 

SHANGHAI, China - Chanting "Japanese pigs get out," protesters threw stones and broke windows at Japan's consulate and Japanese restaurants in China as some 20,000 people defied government warnings to protest Tokyo's wartime history and its bid for a permanent U.N. Security Council seat. 

Peaceful protests were reported in two other cities. Beijing remained calm. Police stood guard on Tiananmen Square to block a planned demonstration in the heart of the capital, a day ahead of a visit by Japan's foreign minister. Paramilitary police surrounded the Japanese Embassy, where protesters smashed windows last weekend. 

Japan's Embassy said two Japanese were injured in Shanghai after being surrounded by a group of Chinese, Kyodo News agency reported. The extent of their injuries was not immediately known. 

The third weekend of anti-Japanese protests erupted despite government demands for calm. The nation's communist leaders apparently worry that the protests might do more damage to relations with Tokyo, which are at their lowest point in decades, or encourage others to take to the street to protest corruption or demand political reforms. 

Tensions between Tokyo and Beijing have been fueled by disagreement over the U.N. Security Council, gas resources in disputed seas and *new Japanese textbooks that critics say minimize Japan's wartime offenses*. 

In Shanghai, protesters gathered around the Japanese Consulate. Police in riot helmets kept them away from the building but let protesters throw eggs and rocks. A group of young men broke the windows of a Nissan sedan and flipped it onto its roof. 

In a nearby street, protesters broke windows of about 10 Japanese-style noodle shops and bars, many of them Chinese-owned. Others broke the windows of a police car, chanting "Kill the Japanese" after a rumor spread that a man sitting inside was Japanese. The car drove away before the crowd could grab him. 

The violence followed a march from City Hall to the consulate by about 5,000 people. They carried banners written in English that said "Say No to Japan in the Security Council" and chanted "Japanese pigs get out!" 

Japan filed an official protest, complaining that Chinese authorities failed to stop the violence. 

"Even though information was available beforehand to infer that there would be a demonstration, nothing was done to prevent it ... and we strongly protest to the Chinese government," Japan's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 

About 2,000 people marched through Hangzhou, southwest of Shanghai, shouting slogans condemning Japanese militarism, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. In Tianjin, east of Beijing, about 2,000 protesters held a peaceful one-hour march. 

Police also blocked a protest in the southern city of Guangzhou, shooing away people who tried to gather at a stadium. 

In Japan, meanwhile, police were investigating an envelope of white powder sent to the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo. China's government said it lodged a formal protest with Tokyo following the incident with the envelope. 

Japan's Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura was asked by reporters if he planned to cancel a trip to Beijing on Sunday. 

"That option is not out of the question, but at present we are proceeding as planned," Machimura was quoted as saying by assistant press secretary Akira Chiba. 

Japan warned its citizens in China about possible danger in advance of the protests. The United States issued a similar warning. 

Mazda Motor Corp., Suzuki Motor Corp. and Toshiba Corp. were canceling nonessential business trips to China, while other Japanese companies told employees in the country to take safety precautions. 

Some suggested Beijing permitted the protests last weekend to support a campaign to block Tokyo's Security Council bid. 

Beijing is alarmed at a proposal to give a permanent Security Council seat to Japan, which it regards as a regional rival. Such status is now held by only five governments — China, the United States, Britain, France and Russia, which wield veto power. 

"I think that permitting the demonstrations provides leverage by creating a very public symbol of the depth of anger among the Chinese people toward Japan," said Murray Scot Tanner, a China specialist at the Rand Corp. in Washington. 

Premier Wen Jiabao cited the protests Wednesday when he said during a visit to India that Tokyo wasn't ready for a Security Council seat until it faced up to its history of aggression. 

But other Chinese officials tried to distance the government from the protesters. A Cabinet official quoted Friday by Xinhua denied that it supported "extremist actions." 

Beijing is eager to preserve economic relations with Japan, which the Chinese Ministry of Commerce says has $47.9 billion invested in China. 

On Friday, police in Beijing warned that protesters could face legal action. Police appealed to the public to trust the Communist Party to deal with Japan and not to threaten "social stability." 

In Shanghai, police didn't try to stop the protest, though state newspapers said no one had received permission to hold one. At one point, police posted a sign saying "March route this way." 

The march in Shanghai was the first in China's commercial capital in the recent wave of anti-Japanese protests. 

"The Chinese people are angry," said one marcher, Michael Teng, a graduate student at Donghua University. "We will play along with Japan and smile nicely at them, but they have to know they have a large, angry neighbor."


----------



## GT (Apr 16, 2005)

[”First of all, the A-bomb had already been tested. Your contention that the choice to drop the bomb was in order to test it is nonsense.”]

- What I meant was that the US wanted to test the A-bomb on a City and its occupants and that was the only opportunity that they had.


”The dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best thing that could have happened to the Japanese ”

- Tell it to the surviving victims with their cancer and their children that are born with cancer!!


- I believe that you have read some other documents than I have, so I will not insult you as you did! This is some quotes from that report:

”The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”

”Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

”We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender."

Regards
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

No Sweat!


----------



## GT (Apr 16, 2005)

[Sabru Sakai - Now theres a class act! I met him in the 1970's, the most interesting and compassionate individual you could meet!]

Yes, Saburo Sakai, A humble man that I meet May 1982 in California and one time in Hawaii, the one eyed ace was playing golf better than the next guy. I was sad when he died on 22 Sept 2000, a great man had left us.

Cheers
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

GT said:


> [”First of all, the A-bomb had already been tested. Your contention that the choice to drop the bomb was in order to test it is nonsense.”]
> 
> - What I meant was that the US wanted to test the A-bomb on a City and its occupants and that was the only opportunity that they had.



That simply is not true. The USA had two motives behind dropping the A-bomb:

1) Force the Japanese to accept immeadiate unconditional surrender.

2) Demonstrate to the Soviets both that we had the A-Bomb and that we were willing to use it. This was necessary to stop Soviet agression and territorial expansion in Asia and in Europe.



GT said:


> ”The dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best thing that could have happened to the Japanese ”
> 
> - Tell it to the surviving victims with their cancer and their children that are born with cancer!!



Cancer rates are not as high as one would expect, though they are higher than other populations. It might be noted also that a large number of people who worked and lived around the Oakridge and other nuclear materials locations suffer higher than normal cancer rates too.

This has to be weighed against the cost in lives of continued conventional bombing, which would have outmeasured this several times over. It has to be weighed against the cost had the Soviets ended up occupying at least part of Japan as well.




GT said:


> - I believe that you have read some other documents than I have, so I will not insult you as you did! This is some quotes from that report:



GT, I think you have read only one side of the argument. The way you presented your argument is insulting.



GT said:


> ”The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”



The Japanese decision to seek a surrender through the Soviets was mis-guided. The Soviets had no desire to see Japan surrender before they were fully embroiled in that theater of the war. What the Japanese were talking with the Soviets about is totally irrelevant because the Soviets were not trying to broker a peace with the USA on their behalf. How can use the Japanese attempt to have the Soviets broker a peace with the USA as an argument why the USA should not have used the A-bomb on Japan when the Soviets never approached the USA on Japan's behalf?



GT said:


> ”Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”



You should have started this paragraph with the sentance "Based on a detailed investigation of all evidence _after_ the facts". The testimony of those Japanese leaders is also highly suspect, and besides that it was not available to US leadership at the time so it is irrelevant anyway. Japan had stated over and over that they would never surrender - that it was against thier code of honor to do so - and that they would die to the last man, woman, and child in defense of the Emperor.

It is not fair to hold US leadership accountable for not having considered information that was not available to them at the time.

Besides, had it taken until mid-November to secure an unconditional surrender:

1) many more Japanese would have died from conventional bombing than died from the A-bombs.

2) the Soviets would surely have occupied all of Manchuria and Korea, and probably Hokkaido and perhaps part of Honshu as well.

Adding these two things together, Japan would surely have suffered at least an additional 2 to 3 million casualties, mostly civilian. But more than that, the cost in terms of the future of Japanese society would have been tremendous. It probably would not have survived.



GT said:


> ”We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender."
> 
> Regards
> GT



This last bit is pure BS. Again, I think you need to study Japanese history a little more. Japan was effectively ruled by the victors of a military coup with the Emperor acting as their sometimes willing and sometimes not so willing puppet. Most of Japanese leadership wanted to continue the war until the USA agreed to a less than unconditional surrender. They wanted at the very least protection for both the Emperor and themselves from post war retribution, and they wanted to prevent or minimize any occupation of Japan. Your last sentance says it all....

"_The only remaining problem was the timing and *terms* of that surrender._"

This shows an utter lack of understanding of the situation at the time. The only "terms" of surrender were _no terms at all!_ And that was not going to change. Nothing short of unconditional surrender was acceptable.

This was critically important. The USA had declared and insisted this be the goal both against Germany and Japan. In this way, after the war, the German's and Japanese could not deny the generosity of how they would be treated. They would not be enslaved, even though they sought to enslave others. Their economies would be rebuilt, even though they sought to tear down and pillage the economies of others. And in the case of Japan, the Emperor would be spared, not because the USA had to spare him as part of a negotiated peace, but simply as a sign of respect for the Japanese culture and as bridge to quell the animosity of a proud but vanquished peoples.

The Marshall plan was the most generous treatment of vanquished foes in history, but it required uncondtional surrender. And it required that Japan surrender without being invaded, otherwise US losses would have been far too high for the American people to ever accept rebuiliding Japan as an industrial power.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Apr 17, 2005)

The quotes were from United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report, Pacific War and if you think that is BS it´s up to you. I think it it obvious who is BS.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

GT said:


> [”First of all, the A-bomb had already been tested. Your contention that the choice to drop the bomb was in order to test it is nonsense.”]
> 
> - What I meant was that the US wanted to test the A-bomb on a City and its occupants and that was the only opportunity that they had.
> 
> ...



Please use the quote button GT like I have here. It is easier to read your posts. If you do not know where it is at there is a button that says *Quote* on it.  



GT said:


> Tell it to the surviving victims with their cancer and their children that are born with cancer!!



Small price to pay to end a war. How many more generations do you think would have been lost had the bombs not been dropped. Sorry my friend but the Japanese were too pridefull to surrender. The war would have dragged on and more lives including many more innocents would have been lost. Was it neccessary for more to die?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

*CHINA IS PISSED! MORE OF JAPAN'S PAST COMING BACK TO HAUNT THEM!*

China Rejects Japan's Demand for Apology 
By JOE McDONALD, Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING - China on Sunday rebuffed Tokyo's demands for an apology after sometimes violent anti-Japanese demonstrations, while new protests took place in several cities over perceived efforts by Japan to gloss over its wartime history and to gain a permanent U.N. Security Council seat. 

*Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing instead pointed a finger at Tokyo for the heightened tensions, which have been fueled by anger over Japan's wartime aggression and anxieties about Tokyo's military and diplomatic ambitions.* 


*"The Chinese government has never done anything that wronged the Japanese people," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told his visiting Japanese counterpart. *

Li said Japan, instead, was to blame for "a series of things that have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" *over issues such as relations with rival Taiwan and "the subject of history" — a reference to new Japanese history textbooks that critics say minimize Tokyo's World War II-era atrocities. *

*Many Chinese believe Japan has never truly shown remorse for its prewar invasion of China. *

Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura appealed to Li to protect his country's diplomats and citizens. Tokyo denounced Saturday's violence in Shanghai, where police stood by as 20,000 rioters — some shouting "Kill the Japanese!" — threw stones, eggs and plastic bottles and broke windows at the Japanese Consulate and damaged restaurants and cars. 

"I wish the Chinese government would sincerely handle this matter under international regulations," Machimura said, apparently referring to treaties obligating Beijing to protect diplomatic missions. 

Japanese public broadcaster NHK quoted Machimura as saying Sunday in Tokyo that he would warn Beijing that relations, "including on the economic front, could decline to a serious state." 

Relations between the Asian powerhouses also have soured amid disagreements over Taiwan, Japan's bid to join China as a permanent member of the powerful Security Council and gas resources in disputed seas. 


Earlier this year, Japan and the United States appealed in a joint statement for a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's future status. Tokyo had sought to avoid direct involvement in the dispute over the self-ruled territory, which split from the communist mainland in 1949. 

China's legislature last month passed a law authorizing the use of force if Taiwan moves toward formal independence. 

In the southern cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, thousands of protesters called for a boycott of Japanese goods, a Japanese diplomat said. Smaller, peaceful rallies were held in nearby Dongguan and Zhuhai and in Chengdu in the west. 

In Shenyang in the northeast, about 1,000 protesters marched to the Japanese Consulate but were kept away by police. The crowd threw stones but did not break windows, said consulate official Shoji Dai. The protest ended in about 90 minutes, he said. 

In Shenzhen, two groups — one with up to 10,000 people — marched past a Japanese-owned Jusco department store calling for a boycott of Japanese goods, said Chiharu Tsuruoka, Japan's vice consul general in Guangzhou. 

Another 500 protesters were outside another Jusco branch in Guangzhou, Tsuruoka said. 

Earlier Sunday, police tried to block a planned protest in Guangzhou, shooing people away from a stadium where a march was to start. Police stood guard outside Japan's Guangzhou Consulate. 

Some have suggested that the Chinese government, which wields tight control over its population, permitted earlier protests to undermine Tokyo's Security Council campaign. Beijing regards Tokyo as a rival for regional dominance and is unlikely to want to give up its status as the only Asian government with a permanent seat and veto power on the Security Council. 

But Beijing last week called for calm, apparently afraid of causing more damage to relations with Tokyo or encouraging others to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption or demand political reforms. 

The Communist Party newspaper People's Daily called in a front-page editorial Sunday for the public to "maintain social stability." 

It did not mention the protests but said "frictions and problems of various kinds ... can only be settled in an orderly manner by abiding by the law and with a sober mind." 

Japan's Trade Minister Shoichi Nakagawa warned the violence would hurt China's reputation and economy. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce says Japan has $47.9 billion invested in China. 

"People around the world are wondering whether it's all right to pursue economic activity (in China)," Nakagawa was quoted as saying by Japan's Kyodo News agency. 

On Sunday, the Japanese consulate in Shanghai, China's commercial capital, was ringed by hundreds of police, some armed with shields, but there was no sign of new protests. The consulate's walls were splattered blue and black from paint bombs. 

Last week, protesters also smashed windows at the Japanese Embassy in Beijing.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

GT said:


> The quotes were from United States Strategic Bombing Survey
> Summary Report, Pacific War and if you think that is BS it´s up to you. I think it it obvious who is BS.
> 
> Cheers
> GT



That is not the point. The point is that evaluation is post-war. It is BS to try to it as the basis of your argument. A report issued in June of 1946 is irrelevant to the decision making process of Sept/Aug 1945.

Furthermore, that report, especially the claim that even without the A-bombs Japan would have surrendered by the end of 1945, and probably two months earlier, is nothing more than opinion and speculation. If I recall correctly (its been a while since I read that report), it is based upon the belief that the Supreme War council, which was split 50/50 on the issue of accepting unconditional surrender, had the power to negotiate a peace. There was no guarantee the Japanese military, who only regaurded the War council as an advisory body, would accept even a reasonably generous (for the Japanese) conditional surrender, and it is quite unlikely they would accept an unconditional one.

Another little peice of history to consider. In early Oct. 1945 a viscious Typhoon ("Louise") hit the W. Pacific and specifically Okinawa. Losses were significant, consisting of "A total of 12 ships were sunk, 222 grounded, and 32 damaged beyond the ability of ships' companies to repair" (link).

Lets suppose the USA had not dropped the A-bombs, forcing the Japanese surrender in mid August in the hopes the Japanese might surrender on Nov. 1st. The US fleet would have still been present at Okinawa, and typhoon Louise would have easily done at least 10 times the damage it did. And the aircraft based on Okinawa would have been a total loss. The Japanese would have seen this as a "sign from heaven", and the war would not have ended. US plans for an invasion in mid November would have been scrapped.

End result: Japan would be a Soviet puppet state even today! So would Manchuria and Korea.

Your 20/20 hindsight fails to account for any number of unpredictablilties which might have resulted in disaster for the USA, and inevitably for Japan as well.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *CHINA IS PISSED! MORE OF JAPAN'S PAST COMING BACK TO HAUNT THEM!*
> 
> China Rejects Japan's Demand for Apology
> By JOE McDONALD, Associated Press Writer
> ...



It is going to be interesting to see how this one pans out, I just hope to be out of the army before anything bad happens.


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

All I can say is GT I respect your view but i'm really glad you where not around in 45 and in a position of power you would have killed millions.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Within a decade China is going to invade Taiwan. This is just a prelude to that - they must have poor relations with Japan to undertake such an action.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

trackend said:


> All I can say is GT I respect your view but i'm really glad you where not around in 45 and in a position of power you would have killed millions.



This I agree with.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Within a decade China is going to invade Taiwan. This is just a prelude to that - they must have poor relations with Japan to undertake such an action.



This is also what I believe. My wife today asked me what I think is going to happen and I actually told her within the next 5 years we would be at war defending Taiwan because we have sworn to do so. A war with China will be UGLY!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

I suspect it will be longer than that, but maybe not.

We will know it is comming when China pulls the rug out from under the US economy by withdrawing its investment. This will happen at least a year before they invade Taiwan.


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

I hope you and RG are wrong Adler. I just wonder if the Chinese feel they have more to loose than to gain by invading Taiwan and a lot of what is going on at the moment is sabre rattling, After all at the moment their economy is the fastest growing one in the world Hong Kong has been a real money spinner for China the same won't be true if they use force on Taiwan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

And I hope you're right Track, but an interesting note:

although we know their capabilities, China has not fought a major conflict in many years. Shortly after the fall of South Viet Nam, China and now united Vietnam had a pretty nasty border clash where the Vietnamese utliized a mix of Soviet and US equipment, if I remember correctly, the Chinese had their butts handed to them!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

China considers Taiwan a rouge province that they have a right to reclaim. They have stated their intention to do so many times.

As for the growth of the Chineese economy through exploitation of Western markets, that is going to change very soon. Perpetual motion is just as impossible in economics as it is in physics. The Chineese cannot continue to loan the USA money so that we can buy their products forever.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

Thing is RG its the world their selling their labour too and building a manufacturing base on the proceeds everything from lawnmowers too Japanese cameras are being assembled in China and big business is investing heavly in China. Hong Kong is part of China and that on its own has Reserves of about $118 billion which aint bad for such a small place.
As you say however some things could cause economic instability problems, with an industrial growth rate of I think around 30% but imports of fuel running at over a million barrels a day greater than the exports it may eventually force a down turn and the bubble could as you say burst which as we know often means carrying out populist acts to divert attention away from the home grown problems. EG Galtieri and the Falklands.
Both yourself and Adler may be right but as I say I really do hope you're both wrong only time will tell.


----------



## GT (Apr 18, 2005)

Well! 
I am aware and educated about Japanese culture through my Japanese friends and the conditions that were in place Before and during the entire Pacific War.

I respect all of you and your opinion on the subject. I am well aware off the horrendous and unprecedented atrocities that the Japanese committed during the whole era from 1931 to 1945. 

I am with you all the way on this matter, it is only the final moments of the Pacific War that I and many with me is convinced that the A-bomb was an unnecessary act.

The Secret reason behind this was to test the two A-bombs on some some convenient City's and as the public racial opinion that was in place since 7 Dec 1941 and well before, it was an easy decision to make. The two bombs were of course of different kinds and the test would evaluate the results.

The many objections to the bombings from many wise people who knew the true state of the matters, was bulldozed and even the Manhattan Project was against it. 

If one knows what the Americans thought before the war about the Japanese that they could not be good pilots !!! 

The belief was because of racial myths, of course. It is therefore easy to understand the decision to bomb an inferior race. Please bear in mind that the American public really did not know to much about Asia in those days.

The atrocity's committed by the Japanese is inexcusable and can not be overlooked and I have during my travels around Oceania found many evidence of it and on the Internet when it became available, which many of you like to check I understand (not the best way for sure, but so be it)

For example: In Manila the Japanese soldiers went on a bloody rampage just before the US liberated the city and I have spoke to a few witnesses to that.

The Cemetery in Manila for the 17 206 American soldiers that made the ultimate sacrifice is worth to see for the one that is interested.

The pictures I took at Corregidor May 1982 shows the remains of the tough fighting that occurred during the 27 days of fighting and I am sorry that I can´t show any pics of the killings of civilians in Manila that the Japanese Army did.

Battery Geary was hit in the center magazine and it eighth 12-inch mortars was totally destroyed on 2 May 1942.

Battery Way and Geary was completed in 1913 and they had 12-inch mortars (Way had four) that were capable of firing up to 14 610 yards in any direction at the rate of one round per minute per mortar.

In building the railway Siam-Burma (best know in the movie ”The Bridge over the River Kwai”) there was so many atrocities made that is hard to apprehend.

The next pics are from Kanchanaburi museum with memories from the Burma-Siam railway were during construction more than 16 000 POWs died, about 38 POWs died for every kilometer railway built.

The pic of Ply/X2518 Marine R Varty. RM was taken at Kanchanaburi Cemetery and he was on board H.M.S. ”Prince of Wales” when she was sank together with H.M.S ”Repulse” by Japanese torpedo aircraft's on 10 Dec 1941. Prince of Wales was hit by 5 torpedoes and sank with 327 hands including Admiral Phillips, of the crew about 1 285 men was saved and Varty was one of them. He and the others was brought to Singapore and when Singapore surrendered on 15 Feb 1942, he became a POW. Varty comes to The River Kwai and builds the Siam-Burma Railway and dies on 8 Aug 1943 at 23 years of age. May he rest in Peace and I prayed for him on my knees and to all victims of the second World War.

War Is Hell But Do Not Make It Worse Than It Has To Be!! (Is Valid On Both Sides)

Cheers
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2005)

READ SURVIVING THE DAY

This was written by my wife's grandfather:

Frank Grady's memoir was authored by Rebecca Dickson after more than thirty interviews over the course of six months. Attached to MacArthur's headquarters in 1941, he moved from Manila to Corregidor with the General's staff as the Japanese marched across the Philippines. When General Wainwright ordered surrender of Corregidor, Grady marched from Malinta Tunnel into captivity. His status as cryptograhic officer betrayed by another POW, he was singled out for special interrogation by the Japanese and eventually shipped to Japan. There he survived brutal conditions, harsh weather, and deadly Allied bombing attacks. After the war he returned to Japan to testify in the war crimes trials. Colonel Grady died in 1991 before his memoir's publication.


----------



## GT (Apr 18, 2005)

Send my understandings to him, and the Pacific War was a Hell of a time to grow up and to understand the truth of it all.

Cheers
GT


----------



## trackend (Apr 18, 2005)

I understand and respect your reasoning GT but I am still convinced that the bombs saved more than they killed if they did not drop the bomb then two scenarios are left. One an all out sea borne invasion and I know of no body who does not believe (and this includes Truman's advisors at the time) that the total civilian and military death toll would have been in the millions or. Two leave them to stew this would have resulted in millions of civilian deaths as the leaders would have been quite prepared to let the population starve to maintain their forces viability.
The Japanese may say they intended to pack in to put themselves in a better light but they had no intention of surrender. In a Supreme Council meeting on 9th August 1945 after Tojo resigned only three ministers favoured surrender Shigenori Togo the reinstated foreign minister being one.
This may have been due to the reluctance of the allies to allow anything but unconditional surrender thus the Japanese believed the emperor's dynasty would end.
However I believe it to be a false hood Hirohito was only ever a figure head used by Tojo and later after he resigned his followers to help control the show. Okinawa gave the world a small insight into the mind set of the Japanese population military at the time. Multiple it ten thousand fold for mainland Japan. 
Wasn't it only in the 70's on a small island somewhere that they managed to make the last soldier give up and only then after his old commanding officer had spoken to him personally.
I am yet to be convinced that any action was available at the time to end the war as quickly and with minimal losses. 
I shall read others views with interest


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 18, 2005)

They could have shwon the Japanese it's effect on an uninhabited area of Japan and said, if you don't surrender this'll be your cities. Would that have worked?


----------



## trackend (Apr 18, 2005)

I saw on the box last week Mossie that Truman thought that if they did that the Japanese would retaliate by butchering POWS as a show of defiance and that a terrible shock like Hiroshima would stand more chance of instant surrender


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I hope you're right Track, but an interesting note:
> 
> although we know their capabilities, China has not fought a major conflict in many years. Shortly after the fall of South Viet Nam, China and now united Vietnam had a pretty nasty border clash where the Vietnamese utliized a mix of Soviet and US equipment, if I remember correctly, the Chinese had their butts handed to them!



The problem with fighting a war with Japan is the fact that there are so many of them. I think the main thing thing they would have against them besides the fact that our technology is greater is the fact that I think there oil reserves would not allow them to withstand all out war for a long eneough time to hold us off especially after we bombed them back into the stone age first. 

Chinese armed forces: People's Liberation Army (PLA), founded in Nanchang, Jiangxi Province on August 1st, 1927.
General Introduction of PLA and National Defence
Central Military Commission
PLA Daily
Chairman of Central Military Commission: Jiang Zemin
Ministry of Defense
Total Army Members *2.5 million *(Source: TIME Feb. 1, 1999)
Budget of National Defense in 2000: 120.5 billion yuan RMB (about 14.5 billion US$) a 12.7% increase over the year of 1999) (Source: NPC news release, Mar. 2000)
General Information about PLA (www.china-military.org)
Budget of National Defense (Unit: billion yuan RMB/billion yuan US$, and the exchange rate between USD and RMB is about 1 :8.3)

*Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)*
Commander: QIAO Qingchen

*Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces 453 helicopters)*

*Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)*
Commander: General ZHANG Dingfa

With numbers like these it would be an ugly war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> They could have shwon the Japanese it's effect on an uninhabited area of Japan and said, if you don't surrender this'll be your cities. Would that have worked?



that might have been a bit of a waste, they were expensive weapons and they didn't many, and they couldn't be sure the japs would go for it.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

I dont think the Japs would have. They are very proud and stubborn people.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> They could have shwon the Japanese it's effect on an uninhabited area of Japan and said, if you don't surrender this'll be your cities. Would that have worked?



The schedule of A-bomb availablility really didn't allow for that. There were the two available in early August, there would be one more in late August or early September, another in early to mid October, another in late October, and another in late November or early December. After that, it was going to be something like May 1946 before the next one was ready. I believe these were two uranium bombs and 4 plutonium bombs by the end of 1945. It was not 100% clear that the plutonium bomb would actually work, it was not tested first.

Given the limited availability, the A-bomb attack was somewhat of a bluff, both to the Japanese and to the Soviets. Dropping two bombs in quick succession was necessary to convince the Japanese that we could and would destroy their cities at will so they would capitulate quickly - as they did.

GT - the scientists of the Manhatten project were not privy to all the issues involved in the decision to drop the bombs, so their opinions are of limited importance.

But, lets suppose the decision had been made not to use the A-bomb. In that case, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have immeadiatly moved to the top of the saturation bombing list. In both cities more people would have died as a result.

Interesting you have no comment about the effect of typhoon Louise on the situation had the Japanes not yet surrendered. When you factor that in, it is very very unlikelyt the Japanese would have surrendered before Spring 1946. Also it is interesting and disappointing that you refuse to respond to how the Soviets would have been dealt with or the consequences to Japan of a Soviet occupation.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The problem with fighting a war with Japan is the fact that there are so many of them. I think the main thing thing they would have against them besides the fact that our technology is greater is the fact that I think there oil reserves would not allow them to withstand all out war for a long eneough time to hold us off especially after we bombed them back into the stone age first.
> 
> Chinese armed forces: People's Liberation Army (PLA), founded in Nanchang, Jiangxi Province on August 1st, 1927.
> General Introduction of PLA and National Defence
> ...



Which is why I think such a move will come in the 7-10 year range rather than sooner as you've suggested. This will give China time to close the tech gap, and also allow a couple of years of world wide depression to weaken the West.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

But even with the tech gap they would still have a very large ground force that could drag a war out. Right now is the perfect time for them to attack. We are bogged up in other parts of the world...Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, East Africa, Cuba....etc. Right now it would be hard for us to sustain a force large eneogh to do anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

I must make a correction. I said Japan up there in my post I meant China. As if we had to fight a war with China. I apologize.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

Supposedly China is at least equal to the USA and perhaps ahead in nanotechnology - the next frontier in weapons systems design. Given another 5 years, this might start producing real weapons.

I also suspect China is rather confident that the USA will be embroiled in the war on terror for at least the next decade. The longer it waits the less and less capable the US will be to afford a conflict with China and the less willing the US people to fight for what are percieved as the intrests of others. This will be expecially true if Japan tries to exploit the US debt situation in any way.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Apr 19, 2005)

War against China?

It is likely to happen. After all, wars are not waged for the fun of killing. Killing is just a mean never the ultimate goal.

The ultimate goal of war is economic-political power.

In view of the economic growth of China and the overall financial position of other powers, USA or course included, it could happen.


The USA and allies, for instance, did not invade Irak to implement democracy. It is a tale no one on earth buys, but let´s not forget politicians know how to chump on garbage -they are proffesionals at it-. They will continue to repeat their rubbish for as many times possible to convert lies into truth.

I hardly watch any TV, however, and by a mere coincidence I happened to be near a screen showing Sir Tony "Trafalgar Square Punk" Blair being interviewed. With a great smile on his face, his reponse to some question regarding the aftermath of the invasion of Irak was:

"Let´s not forget that present-day Iraki citizens have the absolute freedom of will and liberty to take the paper, chose their preferred politician and to deposit their vote in the box."

Yes, sure that might be happening now in Irak. 

Still, this individual, the expression on his face lacked any authenticity. He sounded so untrue, so false and so pretending i found the view completely obscene.

Sure. Sure Mr. Blair had countless sleepless nights worrying on the absence of democracy in Irak.

Scene: At Mr. Blair´s residence, some night well before the invasion of Irak:

His wife, noticing some noise in the bedroom, opens lazy eyes, reaches out for her husband, but he is not in the bed. Turning the lights on, she sees her husband standing still looking through the window.
"Dear? It is 3 a.m. and you are not asleep? What is wrong?"
Worried Tony responds:
"Just to have the view in my mind of those poor people of Irak... they can not vote for God´s sake! I will never rest until i see them voting in freedom".

Laughable or upsetting, or both.


Now a China-USA military clash...let´s hope it never happens.
I ve been told most people in the USA army, when the Vietnam conflict was at its initial stages called the Vietnamese "rice chumping apes wearing black pijamas". In the end, the USA army fled Vietnam with the tail between the legs.

China is the kind of regime where high casualties would not be that relevant. The USA, loyal to a long tradition, does not tolerate casualties nowhere near the "moderate" range.

China has a large army, their soldiers are well trained and equipped: jets, heavy tanks, artillery, missiles, etc.

The sole similarity present-day Chinese soldiers could share with those Vietnamese who fought against the USA in the 60s would be the absolute fierceness in combat and utter commitment to annihilate the enemy.

You might immediately burst out to point out the fact Chinese military technology can be still well behind the USA´s.

I would not be so sure on that particular issue. China has been sending "armies" or fleets of spies to roll across the earth; most countries have them, either first world or developing nations, to steal all kinds of "know-how" on virtually every matter you can think of. The mission is to gather, record and steal all classified information they can get their hands on.

And they have been trained to make things happen. Trained to get their hands on almost anything.

Military technology, of course, is a relevant target of those fleets of Chinese spies rolling across the earth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> Now a China-USA military clash...let´s hope it never happens.
> I ve been told most people in the USA army, when the Vietnam conflict was at its initial stages called the Vietnamese "rice chumping apes wearing black pijamas". In the end, the USA army fled Vietnam with the tail between the legs.
> 
> I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE IN 1973 BUCKO BUT THE NORTH VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT SIGNED A CEASE FIRE WITH THE US AND SOUTH VIET NAM THUS ENDING US INVOLVEMENT IN VIET NAM. PRIOR TO THAT NIXION WAS BOMBING THE NORTH VIETNAMESE INTO THE STONE AGE DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1972! ONCE THE PEACE ACCORD WAS SIGNED IN PARIS IN EARLY 1973, *THE US WITHDREW 99% OF ITS FORCES FROM A CONFLICT THE POLITICIANS ROYALLY SCREWED UP AND THE COMMON SOLDIER WAS MADE TO PAY FOR*. BECAUSE OF THE TYPICAL POLITICAN OF THAT DAY, THE US ARMED FORCES WERE MADE TO FIGHT A CONFLICT WITH BOTH HANDS AND A FOOT TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS!
> ...


----------



## Udet (Apr 19, 2005)

What a particularly funny response.

Actually I had never seen any images of that Saigon evacuation thing.

But what i ve read are many accounts of countless USA platoons returning from their missions decimated in complete moral disarray.

Yeah, the USAF might have dropped countless hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs over enemy territory, still they never managed to decipher the combat style of the elusive enemy they met over there.

Yeah, the politicians might have contributed with their foolishness, but if you want to affirm the USA moved out of Vietnam for the fundamental reason of having unskilled politicians that is your sole business.

To me it appears more the dumbness of the politicians was more the consequence of a military situation that had gone beyond the bearable limits.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> But what i ve read are many accounts of countless USA platoons returning from their missions decimated in complete moral disarray.
> 
> And you know why that is? Because the US military wasn't allowed to fight in Viet Nam. The Navy and Air Force wasn't allowed to bomb certain targets. The Army and Marines were not allowed to cross the DMZ and take out NVA positions supporting the Viet Cong. Search and destroy missions were conducted with limited resources against an enemy who had the geographical, political and physiological advantage over an adversary (US) who's majority of fighting men knew they should of been there to begin with! But when it came down the the nitty gritty and when the North Vietnamese attempted to dispose of US Forces by force, those dis-grunted dope smoking US soldiers fought back and totally repulsed each attempt of the NVA to drive them out militarily. Read about the TET offensives. The US Military, considering the enemy it was up against, considering the stupidity of the leaders calling the shots in Washington, and considering the political climate back home fought very well when the last combat units left in 1973.
> 
> Did the US Military loose the Viet Nam War -No, the US Politicians did!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

Udet that is really not true.

In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.

Troops were demoralized because of the senselessness of their orders. They'd fight and die to take some hill, then be withdrawn the next day, then a week later be ordered to take the same hill again.

There is little doubt the US military could easily have defeated the VN and conquered North Vietnam. There is also little doubt that had they done so the Chineese would have entered the war, quite possibly forcing a nuclear confrontation. Therefore, the US military was fighting a holding action waiting for the South VN army to become strong enough to defend themselves from the North - but it became increasingly apparent this would never happen. Therefore, the prospect was an unending holding action, and even given the 1:20 or lower relative combat causalty rates, the USA was not willing to endure such losses forever.

Einsenhower was an idiot - it's as simple as that. He forgot the principal we fought for in WWII - the right of a people to self-determination. In violation of the principals set down by FDR in the Atlantic Charter, Eishenhower supported the French attempt to re-establish their colony in Indochina, a colony they had always ruled harshly and unfairly. It is no wonder the VN people were not willing to accept such foriegn rule, and they could see no difference between the French and the USA given the way things progressed.

Eisenhower (and Truman before him) could have prevented the whole fiasco by simply telling the French to screw themselves and making a deal with Ho-chi-mein to establish a unified VN Democracy in the early to mid 50's, something he was more than willing to do - actually wanted to do! Instead, we forced him into bed with the Commies. The whole thing was stupid and wasteful of both resources and human life.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Udet that is really not true.
> 
> In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.
> 
> ...



 *RG - YOU'RE DA MAN!*


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2005)

And he's so well mannered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

I bet he dresses well to 8)


----------



## Udet (Apr 19, 2005)

I know what the approximante total losses of the US Army were in Vietnam.

Bear in mind such casualties were suffered fighting an enemy that had no air support: no fighters, no bombers, no recon. The vietnamese also had no artillery and no significant navy other than some fast river or coastal crafts. The USA had tanks, although there were many parts where tanks were simply useless. The VC lacked tanks.

It was pure personal weapons: AK-47s, bombs, personal rocket launchers and lots of deadly traps the US soldiers faced.

From such perspective the losses of the US Army while in fact not high were not low either.

Well of course the Vietnamese took far greater losses illustrating they were relentless on attempting the destruction of the enemy.

Present-day Chinese soldiers have a not too different way of fighting. They are far better equipped than the vietnamese men of the 1960s were.


The US soldiers fought the crocodile in the water during the Vietnam.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

Actually during TET, the NVA brought out tanks on a coupe of occasions. Here's a link; http://www.thebattleofkontum.com/phase1.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> Actually I had never seen any images of that Saigon evacuation thing.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Udet that is really not true.
> 
> In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.
> 
> ...




Im with you all the way on this one !

-------------------------------------------------

The U.S. forces were much superior in both training and equipment compared to the VC, and it clearly shows in the loss records for both forces. 

The VC wouldnt have lasted long if the tactics used by the U.S. wasnt so damn inefficient against Guerilla style tactics. 

It was for political reasons the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, not because their forces had been defeated or weakened in any way. Actually this should be quite obvious, as the U.S. power of production was MUCH superior to that of the VC !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 19, 2005)

Soren said:


> Actually this should be quite obvious, as the U.S. power of production was MUCH superior to that of the VC !



As a matter of fact, the only reason why the North Vietnamese agreed on a peace in 1973 was because Richard Nixon got tired of the "Paris Peace Talks" going nowhere. The NVA and Viet Cong attempted a mass offensive in late 1972 and basically got their butts handed to them. Over North Vietnam, B-52s were reducing Hanoi to an ash tray and by this time the US ground forces actually got a handle of the Viet Cong's guerrilla tactics. This is quite evident in the amount of US casualties during this period. Had the North Vietnamese not negotiated a cease fire, they probably would have been so undermined that even the corrupt and ill-disciplined South Vietnamese Army could have kept them in check. Although the NVA was being pummeled, they knew to cut their losses and wait. With the fall of Nixon during Watergate, it was just a matter of time before the NVA could re-coupe and march right into South Viet Nam.

Without American assistance, each South Vietnamese province fell like a deck of cards. Even the NVA was surprised how easily the south fell! By the time the NVA made it to Saigon, much of the South Vietnamese Army defected.

I am 46 years old, had 6 family members fighting in Viet Nam from 1966-1972, so I remember this time very well. I thank god they all made it back, some scared physically, some scared mentally, but they all got home! The bottom line, when the US left the battle in 1973, South Viet Nam was still standing. I blame its fall squarely on the sholders of the South Viet Nam Corrupt Government and the Ivy League US politicians who thought Viet Nam was the way to contain communisum!


----------



## Udet (Apr 19, 2005)

You guys are sort of missing the point.

I dislike clarifications but in view of the comments from the many of you here they go:

(i) Who has ever even suggested Vietnam was "outproducing" the military industry of the USA?

(ii) Who has suggested losses for the USA had been very high?


It does not matter how much casualties the US Army inflicted on the Vietnamese. Does not matter how low USA casualties were.

The fact is the US Army spent over a decade in the region, spending billions of dollars along with the lives of some 50,000 men, in military operations that never came close to bring the enemy down on his knees.

Political stupidity may have well played its role for the embarassing outcome of the Vietnam war but you can not deny the kind of warfare waged by the Vietnamese turned out a nightmare for the troops of the USA.

No nation of earth, no matter how big and how powerful might be, can endure 10 or more years of military operations even if the enemy causes it "low" casualties or poses a "minimum" military threat.


You are basically suggesting the military scope of the Vietnam War was succesful or bound to be succesful, aren´t you all?

Kind of suggesting had the politicians been smarter and the war been protracted for some more time (how much longer?) the US Army could have accomplished the task, aren´t you?

Very unlikely. But to be generous i will say we will simply never know.

If the US could have stayed in the region for more time, i see the VC soldiers continuing waging their fight accordingly.



The Soviet Union had its turn in Afghanistan. An incredible similarity with the experience of the USA in Vietnam. 

A massive army with heavy tanks, mechanized units, heavy artillery, large air force, missiles, blah, blah, blah...against an enemy the had nothing but personal toys to fight the enemy. The Afghan warriors proved extremely tough enemies to deal with as well, and the communists had to let go and return to their nearly crumbling nation.


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

In the case of Afghanistan it was the Russians not learning from the past, 
the British fought with the Afghans for years in the 1800's and got no where It was the Afghans home ground and they used hit and run tactics. The same tactics as those employed by the Afghans where used by Tito in Yugoslavia with a very small force he kept thousands of German troops tied up for years (I've been too the mountains there and you could hide 5000 men up in the forests easily) There are times when technology is no substitute for the old foot soldier winkling out the opposition most conflicts cant be won at arms length.
The US and allied forces proved this with their progress across the Pacific Islands Burma, Malaya etc each island or Jungle requiring close quarter contact to weed out the enemy the problem of course in these particular campaigns it become a very costly business going against a do or die enemy such as the Japanese.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

Udet said:


> The fact is the US Army spent over a decade in the region, spending billions of dollars along with the lives of some 50,000 men, in military operations that never came close to bring the enemy down on his knees.
> 
> Political stupidity may have well played its role for the embarassing outcome of the Vietnam war but you can not deny the kind of warfare waged by the Vietnamese turned out a nightmare for the troops of the USA.
> 
> ...



Again, I disagree - in the sping of 1973 North Viet Nam *WAS* on their knees - Although they put up a good fight an attempted to propagate an offensive in the South, they had no choice but to sign a cease fire in Paris - Hanoi was on the brink of total destruction, and even with Soviet and Chinese assistance, the NVA was running out of SAMS and MIGS and couldn't hold out much longer.

Was the military scope of Viet Nam met? - Initially YES, in the summer of 1973 when hostilities ended, The US military pulled out, POWs were exchanged and everyone seemed to go on their merry way - Was the long term political mission that was supposed to be supported by 10 years of fighting going to succeed? - HELL NO. That was the failure of ill conceived Viet Nam POLITICAL policy, and its utter failure came to pass in 1975 when South Viet Nam totally collapsed. My point is when hostilities ended the *US Military didn't leave Viet Nam with their legs between their legs. The fighting stopped and remained almost non-existent until 1975 when North Viet Nam knew the US was not coming back!* Despite appalling conditions, ignorant political intervention, poor morale and an extremely determined enemy, the US military fought well in a situation that was doomed to failure.


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

That in my opinion sounds bang on Fly I always thought it was a shame that all those lads went through something that in the end did not really achieve much. I can only say what appeared in the media coverage that I saw over here in the UK but the impression was that the returning service personnel got a rough deal at the hands of the politicians and media despite have carried out the wishes of their leaders.
Almost like it was not good for your politically career if you showed too much in the way of praise or support for the guys.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

Thank you Track! - Its a shame when politicians of any nation ask soldiers to fight, put almost impossible restrictions on them, and then have the same soldiers take the wrath of the media or from other "critics" for not completing the mission. 

I'm proud of the Viet Nam Vet, he fought well and no way came home with tail between his legs. 

I'm ashamed of the politicians who got us there to begin with, especially former Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara - I hope his days in hell consist of a never-ending combat patrol in the Mekong Delta in 3 feet of water!


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

Unfortunately Fly I think it goes with the rank of largest power around nearly all super powers through out history have sent there forces into no win situations at some time or another. It may unfortunately one day happen again, but of course as always its not the politicians who have to do the fighting or the dieing.
Perhaps if a pre-requisite of taking office was that if you start a punch up you have to lead the first engagement they may think more before they leap.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

AMEN! [-o<


----------



## evangilder (Apr 20, 2005)

Good thought, trackend. I have often thought that veterans should form their own political party. While there are liberal and conservative veterans, they would at least know that the military option is the last one and once unleashed, they should be allowed to fight as they should without intervention. I'm not talking about a fair fight either, I am talking about an overwhelming force. Get it done, then bring them home. Veterans know that the decision to send troops into the danger zone will cost lives and will think long and hard before doing it.


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

That's so true Evan. Churchill was a great politician but nearly every time he poked his nose into military affairs he F... it up from Gallipoli in WW1 too Norway in WW2. If I wanted a kids party organizing I wouldn't ask the SAS to provide the entertainment likewise if I get some nutters take hostages I ain't going to send for Cocoa the bleeding clown.
As you rightly say if you,re going to do it then do it don't piss about 
there's no such thing as half a war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

A Comment about Robert McNamara's bio:

"Robert S. McNamara is trying to salvage how 'history' is going to remember him. Unfortunately (for him) he's going to be judged on the facts. McNamara and his 'wiz kids' were an unmitigated disaster.They didn't understand war. Didn't understand people. Foreign cultures. Instead of observing reality and adjusting policy according to what worked and what didn't, they tried to force reality to fit their computer projections."


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

What a Steaming Twonk he turned out to be but I bet he had a comfortable life style


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

Udet said:


> War against China?
> 
> It is likely to happen. After all, wars are not waged for the fun of killing. Killing is just a mean never the ultimate goal.
> 
> ...



I am not even going to get started on this one.



evengilder said:


> Good thought, trackend. I have often thought that veterans should form their own political party. While there are liberal and conservative veterans, they would at least know that the military option is the last one and once unleashed, they should be allowed to fight as they should without intervention. I'm not talking about a fair fight either, I am talking about an overwhelming force. Get it done, then bring them home. Veterans know that the decision to send troops into the danger zone will cost lives and will think long and hard before doing it.



As a veteran I completely agree.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Thank you Track! - Its a shame when politicians of any nation ask soldiers to fight, put almost impossible restrictions on them, and then have the same soldiers take the wrath of the media or from other "critics" for not completing the mission.



And this is exactly what we experience in Iraq. They want us to fight a war with our hands behind our backs, and then all we here about is the bad stuff that happens.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

"I don't object to its being called "McNamara's war." I think it is a very important war and I am pleased to be identified with it and do whatever I can to win it." 
Robert S. McNamara, 1966

I put a great majority of the Viet Nam Tragedy on this man!


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

I don't think I could do modern soldiering Adler. My mate whose not that long back from the Gulf said one minute you're involved with a fire fight the next you,re expected to be Mr Plod the policeman. My switch would never have worked like that I could police an area or I could get stuck in but not both in the same place.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 20, 2005)

FBJ and Adler, i highly recommend a book for your guys. "About Face" by David Hackworth. He is a highly decorated soldier who calls it like it was with Vietnam. He is also acctive today as a reporter that is looking after the troops. One hell of a guy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2005)

Sounds Great!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

Will deffinatly check it out. Sounds like a decent reporter if he looks after us.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 20, 2005)

He does. He also has a website at www.hackworth.com. He writes a weekly column that usually hits the mark. The folks in the pentagon hate him because he usually has the straight skinny and pulls no punches.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

Good man!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

MORE JAPANESE/ CHINESE INFORMATION!

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Japan's prime minister apologized Friday for his country's World War II aggression in Asia in a bid to defuse tensions with regional rival China, but a Chinese diplomat dismissed the remarks, saying "actions are more important" than words. 

Just hours before Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi apologized, a Cabinet minister and more than 80 Japanese lawmakers made a controversial visit to a Tokyo shrine dedicated to Japan's war dead. China's Foreign Ministry criticized the visits, expressing "strong dissatisfaction over the negative actions of some Japanese politicians." 

A spokesman for Chinese nationalist groups that helped to mobilize three weekends of sometimes-violent anti-Japanese protests in China said the communist state would not be satisfied until Koizumi stopped visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which also honors Japan's executed war criminals. 

Koizumi's expression of "deep remorse" at a summit of Asian and African leaders in Jakarta did not go beyond what Japanese leaders previously have said. 

But its delivery at the international gathering clearly was aimed at easing an escalating row with China over Tokyo's handling of its wartime atrocities and its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. 

Relations between the two Asian powers have plunged in recent weeks to a three-decade low. 

"In the past Japan through its colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering for the people of many countries, particularly those of Asian nations," Koizumi said at the summit's opening ceremony. "Japan squarely faces these facts of history in a spirit of humility." 

China's Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Koizumi's remarks. 

However, China's ambassador to South Korea, Li Bin, said: "Of course, words are important. But I believe actions are more important." 

Lu Yunfei, a spokesman for Chinese nationalist groups, said Koizumi's comments did not go far enough. 

"It's a sign of some progress, since this is the first time a Japanese leader has offered this kind of statement in an international forum," Lu said. "Still, this is far, far from enough." 

Lu criticized Koizumi for failing to mention China by name and for what he called ambiguous language in the apology. 

"China was the biggest victim of Japan's invasion. The suffering was immense," he said. 

About 80 Parliament members made the pilgrimage to the shrine, which honors Japan's 2.5 million dead from World War II. The group visited in observance of an annual spring festival. Internal Affairs and Communications Minister Taro Aso, a Cabinet minister, visited the shrine alone later. 


In response, China's Foreign Ministry called on Japan to take actions that are "more conducive to improving and developing Sino-Japanese relations," citing the "current severe situation." 


Koizumi said he was hoping for a one-on-one meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Jakarta on Saturday, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported. But China says it's still considering the proposal. 


Massive anti-Japanese protests erupted in major Chinese cities this month after Tokyo approved a new history textbook that critics say whitewashes Japan's wartime atrocities, including mass sex slavery and germ warfare. The protesters also have targeted Tokyo's Security Council bid. 

Tensions also are fueled by disputes over gas-drilling in disputed waters and Koizumi's repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. 

A Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman said in an interview in Jakarta that Koizumi's speech clearly shows Japan's regret, a core point he was hoping to convey to the delegates. 

"We are not just rich people hanging around giving out money. We are doing this because our whole attitude is based on remorse," Akira Chiba said. Tokyo is one of the world's largest donor's of foreign aid. "I do hope that the Chinese will hear this message, too." 

He said Japan still expects "a formal apology for what happened ... because it's against international law what they did." The demonstrators have smashed windows of Japan's diplomatic missions and damaged Japanese restaurants. 

The Chinese government insists that Japan is to blame for the troubles. 

"It's not bad for us (if China does not apologize). It's bad for them. It's in the interest of both sides, not just our side," Chiba said. 

Also on Friday, Singapore accused Japan of straining relations with its neighbors by rendering a "strange interpretation" of World War II in history textbooks. Tokyo has approved a textbook that critics say plays down Japan's wartime atrocities, including mass sex slavery and germ warfare. 

The issue "has strained relations between Japan and its neighbors, in particular China and Korea. This is not in the interest of the entire region," Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. 

Japan's Kyodo News Agency said Koizumi's remarks were based on a 1995 speech made by Tomiichi Murayama, the prime minister at the time, marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

This one is deffinatly going to be interesting how it panns out. As for the Japanese cabinate going to the memorial for Japanese soldiers of WW2. As long as they were going to pay respect to the fallen I see no problem with that. No fallen soldier should be forgotten, well unless they were convicted of atrocities and then in my opinion they are monsters not soldiers. However if the visit was meant for other reasons then the cabinet was wrong and is not respecting them but dishonoring them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This one is deffinatly going to be interesting how it panns out. As for the Japanese cabinate going to the memorial for Japanese soldiers of WW2. As long as they were going to pay respect to the fallen I see no problem with that. No fallen soldier should be forgotten, well unless they were convicted of atrocities and then in my opinion they are monsters not soldiers. However if the visit was meant for other reasons then the cabinet was wrong and is not respecting them but dishonoring them.



You're on the money my friend!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

I actually find that a lot of the communist countries or former ones such as the Soviet Union actually made some of the best monuments to there soldiers. The best though that I have found is the WW2 monument in Washington DC. It is wonderful. Oh well I went off topic there for a second, sorry about that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I actually find that a lot of the communist countries or former ones such as the Soviet Union actually made some of the best monuments to there soldiers.


I've noticed that too. They never seem to forget their living veterans either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

That is true, unless they are killing them in the war themselves!


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 22, 2005)

Have the Japanese ever made any formal apologies to any Western countries? I know that here alot of ex POW's have been trying to get compensation from the Japanese Government for years but have gotten no-where. I'm pretty sure a few have also tried to get it from companies such as Mitsubishi who used and abused them for slave labour, but again have gotten zip.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is true, unless they are killing them in the war themselves!


Heh! Good point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

They seemed to have a habit of it. 

Wildcat I am not sure.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 22, 2005)

On the topic of memorials, if you ever get the chance, visit the Australian war Memorial in Canberra. This place is fantastic. They have the wall of honour which has the name of every Australian killed in every war, The beautiful tomb of the unknown soldier, an aircraft hall which contains a Lanc (G-George), Me262, Zero, Spitfire, P40 and a Mossie(I think). This place has so many artifacts it would take you a good two days to check everything out proper. One of my favourite exhibits is the Japanese midget sub that attacked Sydney harbour. Truely an awesome place!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

A genuine midget sub, eh? I'd really like to see that.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 22, 2005)

Yeah I think it was made out of the remains of the three subs that were sunk after they attacked Sydney.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

Yeah that would be neat to see.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

hey, there's a german E-boat that's just come into cornwall, yes CORNWALL to be restored, cool or what..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

Yeah, cool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

Good stuff.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

did i mention it's in CORNWALL??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 24, 2005)

Plymouth, by chance?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

plymouth's in devon............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 24, 2005)

Oh. I thought it was just on the Cornish side of the border. My mistake.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

no it's just on the devon side of the border, no i can't remember where in cornwall the Eboat is but it's further down the county.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

See if you can get some pics.


----------



## trackend (Apr 25, 2005)

Heres some info on that E-boat restoration Lanc. and a couple of pics for you Adler. 
E-boat to be restored at Marchwood: German WW2 torpedo boat (Schnellboote) S-130 - known as an E-boat (Enemy War Motorboat) - has been towed from Germany and is now at the British Military Powerboat Trust's base at the former Husband's Shipyard, Cracknore Hard, Marchwood for refurbishment.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 25, 2005)

Is that an early or late war scnellboot?
It looks like an early war one but I'm not sure


----------



## trackend (Apr 25, 2005)

She was Built in 1943 Mossie


----------



## hellmaker (Apr 25, 2005)

Nice pics Trackend... lame post for me, I know, but it's been a while since I've been here and I have to reaccomodate... chat you later ppl... Nice to see you all again...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

Do you have any info on its history, such as what it was doing the last 60 years?


----------



## trackend (Apr 26, 2005)

Have a butchers at this Adler its where I found the Pics and artical http://www.bmpt.org.uk/boats/S130/index3.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

Very long and interesting history she has. She finally deserves to be put to rest and used as a museum piece in my opinion.


----------



## GT (Apr 28, 2005)

Hello all of you!!!

I have been fishing and will shortly reply on the many replies on this specific topic. It is very interesting to read Fly-Babe:s posts on the Vietnam-War which really was not a declared war and instead was a couple of Presidential Bulldozer decisions.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

You are correct it was a conflict but it was the Vietnam War. Any conflict where my brothers in arms before me fought and died on a daily basis is war to me. Just like the conflict I came home from, the "war" ended about 2 months before I got there but well over a thousand fellow soldiers died while I was there and are still dieing. To me and to most other people it is still a war.


----------



## GT (Apr 28, 2005)

Well !! 

I was not a declared war and the US should not have stepped in after the colonist country of France had lost its colony at the battle of Dien Bien Phu with its French Foreign Legion trying to maintain and suppress the will of the Vietnamese people.. 

The Vietnam Conflict that followed was just a big and sad story to the soldiers that was killed on both sides. 

Cheers
GT


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 28, 2005)

There was nothing dishonorable or wrong about using military force to protect South Vietnam from a Communist (radical left wing socialist) land grab and thus contain the spread of communism on the Asian continent. 

As I recall, Britian declared war on Germany over the issue of a Nazi (radical right wing socialist) land grab that would have led to the necessary spread of Naziism.

Both land grabs of functioning, legitimate and sovereing powers were viewed as jeopardizing the respective geopolitical position and security of the U.S. and Britain.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

I agree with your point on the US attack on the Vietcong. They were stopping the aggression force of the Communist North. I don't agree you comparing it to the declaration of war Britain made against Germany in 1939. 
Britain declared war for the sole reason that she had a mutual protection act with Poland. A pact that Britain wasn't going to break, she entered the war out of principal. That pact was also the reason Britain was more worried about the Soviet Union than America was.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 28, 2005)

I think you're playing with semantics. The United States acted in self -defense of its own security and did so in a manner consistent with its stated obligations in that region.

*Letter from President Kennedy, December 14, 1961*

Dear Mr. President:

I have received your recent letter in which you described so cogently the dangerous condition caused by North Vietnam's efforts to take over your country. The situation in your embattled country is well known to me and to the American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your country. Our indignation has mounted as the deliberate savagery of the Communist program of assassination, kidnapping, and wanton violence became clear.

Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown - that the campaign of force and terror now being waged against your people and your government is supported and directed from the outside by the authorities at Hanoi. They have thus violated the provisions of the Geneva Accords designed to ensure peace in Vietnam and to which they are bound themselves in 1954.

At that time, the United States, although not a party to the Accords, declared that it "would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the Agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security." We continue to maintain that view.

In accordance with that declaration, and in response to your request, we are prepared to help the Republic of Vietnam to protect its people and to preserve its independence. We shall promptly increase our assistance to your defense efort as well as help relieve the destruction of the floods which you describe. I have already given the orders to get those programs underway.

The United States, like the Republic of Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of peace and our primary purpose is to help your people maintain their independence. If the Communist authorities in North Vietnam will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defense efforts will no longer be necesary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case, we are confident that the Vietnamese people will preserve their independence and gain the peace and prosperity for which they have fought so hard and so long.


*President Johnson's address to Congress, August 5, 1964 *

Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime has given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. *Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were further defined in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty approved by the Senate in February 1955. This treaty with its accompanying protocol obligates the United States and other members to act in accordance with their constitutional processes to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties or protocol states. Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions: 1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments. 2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us. 3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area. 4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence. The threat to the free nations of southeast Asia has long been clear. The North Vietnamese regime has constantly sought to take over South Vietnam and Laos. This Communist regime has violated the Geneva accords for Vietnam. It has systematically conducted a campaign of subversion, which includes the direction, training, and supply of personnel and arms for the conduct of guerrilla warfare in South Vietnamese territory. In Laos, the North Vietnamese regime has maintained military forces, used Laotian territory for infiltration into South Vietnam, and most recently carried out combat operations - all in direct violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1962. In recent months, the actions of the North Vietnamese regime have become steadily more threatening... As President of the United States I have concluded that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met, and that the United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom. As I have repeatedly made clear, the United States intends no rashness, and seeks no wider war. We must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area. We seek the full and effective restoration of the international agreements signed in Geneva in 1954, with respect to South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, with respect to Laos... 2. Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964 (Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom. Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress*.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 28, 2005)

Well that little "police action" in Korea some years back was never technically a declared war either. It was all about land grabbing and people dying, so I fail to see a big difference.
For that matter we've been working under nothing but an extended truce for the past fifty-two years, and border incidents still occur now and then in which soldiers die. Whatever you choose to call it or however it began, if the fighting men (and women) of opposing nations are slugging it out and killing each other, you're in a war.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2005)

You take the words of Americans to compare the reasons for war with Britain and Germany, with those of America and North Vietnam? 
They were entered in complete different circumstances. Britain entered on a matter of principal because it held a mutual defence pact with Poland. America entered for no self-defence but for the stop of an agressive Communist state. Just like Britain and America did in Korea, and just like Britain did in Indonesia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

GT said:


> Well !!
> 
> I was not a declared war and the US should not have stepped in after the colonist country of France had lost its colony at the battle of Dien Bien Phu with its French Foreign Legion trying to maintain and suppress the will of the Vietnamese people..
> 
> ...



*Well!!* (I can do that too, ha ha!!)

Dont get your panties in a bind because people see it differently then you. Any conflict where soldiers are being killed on a day to day basis is war. Yes the conflict is a sad story just like any *WAR* is. However you are wrong my friend. 

Also the war in Vietnam can not be compared to anything in WW2. The reason behind both conflicts were completely different.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

plan_D said:


> They were entered in complete different circumstances. Britain entered on a matter of principal because it held a mutual defence pact with Poland. America entered for no self-defence but for the stop of an agressive Communist state. Just like Britain and America did in Korea, and just like Britain did in Indonesia.



There is a distinct difference between WWII and Korea/Vietnam/Malaya situations. The Allies in WWII entered the war because of either pre-war pacts or because they were attacked first. As far as I'm aware there weren't any similar pacts with Korea, Nam or Malaya.

N.B. the only one of there where communism was completely removed was Malaya because the British forces had no restraints on what they could attack


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2005)

Mosquito man, you just repeated exactly what I just said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

AAAHHH Get out of his head!

The only possible way you can compare them is the fact that they were wars against aggressive backwards governments. WW2 = Hilter and Fachism trying to reshape the world. Korea/Vietnam = Communism trying to reshape the world. The comparison stops there. Different reasons, different times, different wars.


----------



## GT (May 2, 2005)

For those who wasn't´t born in those days like I was, here are some information about the whole matter:

PART 1:

Nippon planned during 1940 to use Vietnam as a base. The French Indochina Colonists Had no support from their occupied home country, at that made it impossible to resist the Japanese. 

The Vietnam Liberation Army wanted National Independence and moderate reforms and not Communist aims. It was organized from a broad National Front-Group called Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh and built up their Liberation Army well ahead and in preparation for the Pacific War to end and the that Nippon Army would leave. When Nippon surrendered, the Vietnam Liberation Army declared the independent republic of Vietnam.

The French Colonists would not give the Vietnamese their independence, and in late 1945 they took control over the Southern provinces from retreating Viet Minh and other nationalist forces. 

In France 1946 negotiations to seek a compromise solution were held but they failed to resolve the existing differences and when Vietnam Liberation Army attacked French Colonists positions in Hanoi, the war was a fact.

The French Colonists formed a rival Vietnamese Government under Bao Dai, the last emperor of the Nguyen dynasty and that happened only after failing to capture Ho Chi Minh and destroy the Liberation Movement, 

The US recognized Bao Dai’s government and began to provide military and economic aid to the French. Bao Dai abdicated the throne in favor of Ho Chi Minh´s Republic. The Vietnamese Liberation Movement was not strong enough to defeat the French Colonists Army but the Movement had grown in popularity amongst the Vietnamese people and that prevented a French victory.

In March 1954 Vietnamese forces attacked the French Military outpost of Dien Bien Phu which was defended by the French Foreign Legion. France agreed therefore to hold Peace negotiations at Geneva, Switzerland. On 7 May ,however Dien Bien Phu fell to the Vietnamese Liberation Forces. 

The French agreed at Geneva to a compromise which called for the withdrawal of French Colonists Troops and a temporary split of Vietnam into 2 separate zones and elections were to be held in 1956 which were intended to bring about a reunified Vietnam.

For the first time in many years (5 years) a period of peace followed. In Hanoi, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party lay the foundations towards a National Reunification by holding elections, which were widely expected to favor the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party which were leaning over to communism.

In South Vietnam, Dai was replaced by Diem, an well known Anti-Communist Catholic who refused to hold National Elections as promised at Geneva. The US who was sympathetic to Diem´s Anti-Communist beliefs and Diem´s claim that Vietnam’s French Colonial oppressors had negotiated the agreements. 

After elections that only took place in South Vietnam, Diem became the president of the Republic of Vietnam and a new constitution was written with the support of the US.

Diem´ regime tried by any means to crush the growing support for the Viet Minh in South Vietnam and that triggered a growing hostility from many South Vietnamese towards Diem, his actions and his regime. During that time Diem’s economic and social programs failed and therefore North Vietnam adopted a policy of Revolutionary War with the main goal to topple Diem’s government and bringing about National Reunification. 

The US provided military assistance and advisers to help Diem’s regime but conditions worsened and Diem became more and more unpopular. That was the main reason for the Viet Cong to gain control of much of the countryside. 

Dissident elements in the Army launched a coup in Nov 1963 to overthrow Diem with US approval, and he was killed in the attack. In the political confusion that followed, the security situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate, putting the Communists within reach of total victory. In early 1965, faced with the South’s imminent collapse Lyndon Johnson ordered the intensive bombing of North Vietnam and the dispatch of U.S. combat troops into the South.

Cheers
GT


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

Vietnam did have a long history of war even before the war against the United States. For the longest time it is all that the people of Vietnam new.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are correct it was a conflict but it was the Vietnam War. Any conflict where my brothers in arms before me fought and died on a daily basis is war to me.



Very well put - my earlier point was outside the politics behind the Viet Nam War. The vast majority of US soldiers who were sent there fought well. Many were conscripts, made to do a job with little or no clear military direction and then taking political the fall for the ill conceived brainchild of members of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. I believe those folks wanted to show the Communist world they were tough, but just went short of direct confrontation. In any case people like my brother were scoffed and spat at when they returned from Viet Nam. Personally I have deep contempt for both Kennedy and Johnson.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The vast majority of US soldiers who were sent there fought well. Many were conscripts, made to do a job with little or no clear military direction



Another problem with this is the NCO Corps as we know it today (Seargent through Seargent Major) was not the same. The Corps was not as trained as it is today in leading soldiers and taking care of them on and off the battle field. It was not until after the Vietnam War that the US Army realized how valuable this was and set up real NCO Acadamies as we know them today. The soldiers today are led better by there NCO's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

Another problem with this is the NCO Corps as we know it today (Seargent through Seargent Major) was not the same. The Corps was not as trained as it is today in leading soldiers and taking care of them on and off the battle field. It was not until after the Vietnam War that the US Army realized how valuable this was and set up real NCO Acadamies as we know them today. The soldiers today are led better by there NCO's.[/quote]

You bet, today we see many NCOs with all kinds of degrees. During the Viet Nam era I bet there were still a sizable number of NCOs without a high school diploma!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

You are very correct. Most were just promoted over time or as slots became available in there units which in the case of combat was not very good because the soldier did not have eneogh experience to truely lead men into combat and get them out alive.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

Bringing it back to World War 2 for a moment here. The American NCO system seemed to work in the elite units of the American army, the Rangers and Airborne. Combat promotions gained from combat experience normally gave a good, if not great, NCO. 

The Germans commented on the British and Americans about their NCOs. Their combat reports showed the British to be great at camoflauge and organisation. Their junior officers excellent in theory but clumsy in practice and their NCOs the carrying force in any combat action [these are good points]
The Americans were basically the same but no comment was made on camoflauge. They did say American troops were quick to destroy anything that was suspected of enemy presence (good thing in total war). 

Yes, but anyway, the NCOs were the driving force in most conflicts in World War 2. It seems to me that in best units these NCOs were good...but that's probably why they were the best units.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

For the most part you are correct. During WW2 it tended to work that way. The most experience of the enlisted would recieve a field promotion to an NCO rank usually SGT. Due to his real combat experience he tended to be a great leader. 

However during Vietnam the problem took into account is the fact that due to the draft there was no experience to field promote to NCO. Vietnam was a different conflict then WW2. In WW2 the soldiers knew what they were fighting for. In Vietnam, the good old hippie days the average soldier did not understand what he was fighting for nor did he want to be there. The average age of an enlisted soldier in WW2 was 26, in Vietnam it was 19. Overal experience was less in Vietnam. AFter Vietnam the NCO corps was dessimated and the Army realized that they needed to give formal training to soldiers before they became NCO's. Today it is know as PLDC (Professional Leadership Development School). It teaches you everything from how to lead troops in combat, to how to take care of them back home. A happy soldier will give you everything.

The junior officers still today are the same way. They have great theoretical technique coming from some great schools such as West Point but they have no practical experience. They are quite clumsy in the field and tend to get people killed (not literally) during field exercises more then often, but then again that is how you learn in the field so that it does not happen on the real battle field. A good junior officer will always listen to his NCO's.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

Very true Adler. The good officer listens to his NCOs and learns. Senior NCOs are seasoned professionals, and it is rare that a junior officer would question a senior NCO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

One of the best things I ever heard was before we went into Iraq my Flight Sgt telling our Flight Leader that if he wanted to come home alive he will listen to him. He is now a damn good Cpt.


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2005)

Fortunately, he heeded the advice. Good man!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Yeap I feel the same way.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2005)

You can advance to Corporal without extra training in the British Army but you required Sergeant training to go any further. Basically teaching the same things as your PLDC, I imagine. 

The RAF need to be tested at every rank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Same in the US Army you dont need any school to become a Corporal but before SGT. Which the army has changed recently and you have one year after promotion to go to the school.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You can advance to Corporal without extra training in the British Army but you required Sergeant training to go any further. Basically teaching the same things as your PLDC, I imagine.


That's basically the same for us in all three of the services (we have no marine corps), as we're a unified military. That is, the army, navy, and air force all fall under a joint command structure as the "Armed Forces". The difference is that the extra training begins at the master corporal rank (master seaman for the Navy). It falls between corporal and sergeant.

However, the Army does receive a lot more leadership training all around. Three separate leadership courses must be passed in order to qualify as an Army master corporal, and then the qualifications increase with rank from there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I dont know how it is in other branches of the US military.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2005)

In the US Navy you're tested in your "RATE" and you're promoted on how well you did on the exam. If there are 100 E-5s, Petty officer 2nd Class slots, the top 100 got promoted, if you scored in the top 10 or 20, you're paid for the new rank right away, if you're on the lower end, it may take 11 months before you're being paid for your promoted rank. Between 2nd Class and 1st Class you must go to an NCO academy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I feel that is the way it should be. In the army you get promoted by promotion points and I really dont like this system


----------



## GT (Jun 2, 2005)

War is Hell for soldiers and airmen, but sometimes there is no justification for what they do.

Regards
GT


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

GT said:


> War is Hell for soldiers and airmen, but sometimes there is no justification for what they do.
> 
> Regards
> GT



Civillians? I've seen this clip before. Those guys were hiding weapons and bombs along the roadside and were being followed during the whole operation. That's why they and their vehicles were wiped out.

I know Apache pilots who flew during the Gulf War and in Iraq. The last think they want to do is shoot civillians and will not take a shot until they know what the target actually is.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

They're not civilians! They were loading weapons into the ground! I've seen the whole gun camera footage of that incident, they're insurgents hiding weapons! 

It's people like you that haven't a clue about military actions. The Coalition don't just go shooting civilians for a laugh!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

There is also no justification for making a claim like that without the facts. That clip is already up on this site in at least 2 other locations. It is NOT what you claim, these are enemy combatants.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

You watch the whole footage and Command order them to kill them after the Apache has been watching them for a good 5 minutes. Anyone with a bit of sense knows that the air crews can't open fire without confirmation of the order to do so from Command. 

Even if the pilot spots a whole Iraqi armoured column, he'd have to report back and ask permission. Which, of course, would be given once they'd be identified as foe. 

Then, Hellfires and Hydras rip the place to pieces.


----------



## GT (Jun 2, 2005)

Peace man! 

If you think that I don´t know about military ops so then I really have to tell you, I do. (more than I will disclose here). 

The clip speaks for itself as they did not wear arms and didn't´t fire at the chopper and the second guy waves to surrender with some kind of clothing. The third guy hides and is wounded by the salvo and is crawling wounded on his back when he is killed. 

What are the Rules of engagement for the Apache? Hardly to kill defenseless civilians.

Regards
GT


----------



## evangilder (Jun 2, 2005)

These are NOT defenseless civilians. The entire clip is longer and shows what these guys are up to.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

GT said:


> Peace man!
> 
> If you think that I don´t know about military ops so then I really have to tell you, I do. (more than I will disclose here).
> 
> ...



I could tell you that this circulated in the military community first. I happen to work for the military and served as well. These were very bad people and the only thing I have to say, if you think the guy waving is surrendering, fine, we gave him something better, a meeting with Alah!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

They were insurgents loading weapons into the ground for future use. They're not part of a military organisation but they're certainly not innocent civilians. 

They fight under civilian clothing, under the Geneva Convention they are considered spies and should be executed as spies. I would certainly hate to have a person like you in the foxhole next to me in any battle situation...

"Don't shoot him, he's a civilian" - "Why has he just shot at one of our helicopters?" - "He's still a civilian and he isn't threatening us, you can't shoot him" 

Do you see AH-64Ds radomes painted bright blue while the rest is white with big black letters saying U.N on the side? No, you don't so that means it's going to kill you before you kill it, it's not going to wait to be shot at or it's not going to wait until they use those weapons before they kill them. 

Those Iraqis were given a fair trial in those 5 minutes the Apache crew and Command said "They have been charged with spying and insurgency under the Geneva Convention...how do they plead? GUILTY!"


----------



## GT (Jun 2, 2005)

I would like to know, is it OK for you to kill somebody who is willing to surrender or is unarmed? I hope that you don´t recommend such behavior.

It is just that kind of mentality that brought about the My Lai massacre!

Cheers
GT


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 2, 2005)

Hashing out the written word of law as far as treaties and conventions are concerned is unfortunately the job of diplomats and politicians. Those people in the video *were* insurgents, terrorists, murderers. Was the second guy waving to surrender? Possibly. It all happened so fast. Once the threat was ID'd and the orders received, those boys in the Apache went to work. I might feel a little worse for those chopped up terrorists if actual innocent civilians weren't being mercilessly beheaded over there. I'm just a bit funny that way.


----------



## trackend (Jun 2, 2005)

GT said:


> I would like to know, is it OK for you to kill somebody who is willing to surrender or is unarmed? I hope that you don´t recommend such behavior.
> 
> It is just that kind of mentality that brought about the My Lai massacre!
> 
> ...



It is not a black and white situation GT, in the cold light of day it is probably correct that if someone is surrendering or unarmed you are right (I am not commenting on the particular video as I have not seen it)
But in some situations I can understand it for example you lose your mates attacking a position and the enemy comes out with their hands up I can see that killing them is although perhaps wrong very understandable. Turning ones emotions on and off in these situations is not as easy as typing one of these posts.
Disposing of a know threat IE IRA terrorists (Gibraltar 7/5/1988) in the process of carrying out a covert operation that will lead to the detonation of an explosive device amongst civilians this too I believe to be a justified operation where decisive force was applied and required. 
The my lai incident as far as my memory goes was indeed an unwarranted attack on civilians although I'm sure some of the other guys on here are more informed on the circumstances surrounding the events at the time as I only remember it from the news articles of some 35 years ago.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2005)

The action of the Apache crew was to prevent future violence and the death of either U.S troops or innocent civilians. It was a justified act. My thoughts of any situation would be to drop them before they drop you or anyone else. 

Command and the crew knew they were insurgents and future threats. The threat was destroyed. That man _might_ have been surrendering but what do you expect the Apache to do? Bring itself into a hostile situation to pick up a surrendering insurgent...? That would put the life of the gunner at risk, your own life at risk, the helicopter at risk and it would be immensely stupid.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

GT said:


> I would like to know, is it OK for you to kill somebody who is willing to surrender or is unarmed?
> 
> Cheers
> GT



Sure, If Hitler, or in today's world Osama Bin Laden surrendered to me, I'd take them prisoner and then rip their genitalia out through their nose!  

Soldiers on the battlefield who surrender should be treated in accordance to the Geneva convention. Those people in those videos would like to think they are soldiers. They are far from being soldiers and from what happened to them it shows they aren't even good terrorists! I consider them the lowest scum of the earth and what happened to them was probably too good for them.  

Although no combating Armies could ever walk away from a major battle and state that no atrocities were committed on the battlefield, at least the coalition forces in Iraq HAVE ATTEMPTED to identify wrongs committed, punish those who commit acts in violation of the Geneva Convention and attempt to correct them so they don't occur again. Those people in those videos are rewarded by their leaders for killing civilians and wouldn't dream of acting rational in western terms if ANY person surrended to them. Until such time when they could remotely honor a document like the Geneva Convention, they have no compassion from me!


I remember My Lai. It was horrible. Those responsible were punished. I also remember 9-11, the jury is still out!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

Ahem............

First of all, GT, lemme say one thing first........ If u served in ANY military, in ANY country, and u can sit there and say to this board that u think that the US Army is just flying around the desert killing civilians for fun, U ARE FULL OF SHIIT!!!!!!!!! 

Either that, or ur either an ass-pumping faggot, or some sorta leftwing, still suckling on my mothers teat retard.....

No one, and I repeat, NO ONE who has worn a military uniform and has an IQ atleast over 86, can honestly say that...... It staggers my mind to hear this kind of vomit spewing crap here......

"Oh, the USArmy is so EVIL... They go around gleefully killing unarmed civilians in helicopters and steal the peasants chickens and eat their children........"

Please.......

If u believe ANY of those above little statements, u deserve a 9mm slug to the mouth......

This pussy bulllshiit non-informed crap makes me wanna throw up....

Are u gonna say that if u saw Bin Laden just walking through Al-Semaqua Market, and in ur hand u had a pistol, that u would not shoot him dead where he stands???

PLEASE DO YOURSELF AND ALL OF US A FAVOR AND DON'T REPLY TO THIS THREAD ANYMORE....... Youll just make it worse on urself..........

Infact, im about ready to lock this thread up....... Of all the things to say......... Jesus, im still amazed....


----------



## unpunk01 (Jun 2, 2005)

I don't like the fact that we are over there...AT ALL! 
BUT I've seen the video and they were completely justified taking those combatants out! 
GT, can you honestly say that if you patrolling those streets the next morning you wouldn't have appreciated that pilot pulling that trigger? Think about that before you answer.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

> I don't like the fact that we are over there...AT ALL!


I agree, BUT.....

I feel we shouldnt be there ANYMORE.....



> you wouldn't have appreciated that pilot pulling that trigger?


Great reply dude.... Just think, if he didnt, those RPG's and whatnot could have done what these sonsofbitches did in the vid clip below, kill American or Coalition troops...

******WARNING*******

This clip is not a normal clip...... I would NEVER post this clip for any other reason... I post this clip only to prove a point. THAT IS ALL...... Do not, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, view this clip if u have a problem watching a terrorist video clip...... Mothertrucking Bastards........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 2, 2005)

So the "innocents" do indeed have teeth, don't they?

Bastards!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2005)

Im so glad that i was able to send a few of these assholes to meet Allah....


----------



## GT (Jun 3, 2005)

Lesofprimus !

I have never said that the US Army is just flying around the desert killing civilians for fun, nor am I a left wing and I´m happily married with two son´s and they are themselves married.

I have also never thought of the US-Army as the Evil-side going gleefully killing unarmed civilians, it happened this time and the Apache could easily blown up the hidden weapons and taken the civilians as prisoners and that has happened before.

The other statements that you made: 

1. ass-pumping faggot, 

2. still suckling on my mothers teat retard. (your mothers teat?)

3. 9mm slug to the mouth

4. this pussy bullshit

Those statements tells me more about you then you´ll ever know.

I´m amazed that you are an Administrator on this site and can not behave in a better manor. 

There is one thing to have different point of views and there is another thing to pour out ones hatred. I still believe that the incident could have been solved in a different way.

Regards
GT


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 3, 2005)

"What are the Rules of engagement for the Apache? Hardly to kill defenseless civilians."

"there is no justification for what they do."

"Apache helicopter murder civialians.mpg"



> I have never said that the US Army is just flying around the desert killing civilians for fun,


Yea u did Meatball..... Maybe not the fun part, but u did........

Listen up dipshit... There are people here who spilt blood for our country, and would do it again if asked.. Dont sit there insult us by saying that kind of crap again.... Its not needed here, and it certainly didnt promote a good conversation..


> I have also never thought of the US-Army as the Evil-side


Im sure u do every single evening while drinking ur warm milk.....

Heres an idea, before u spout off about some shiit that u have no idea wtf ur talking about, research it alittle bit and become more informed........

I notice u didnt respond to ur so-called "Military Service"... Figures...



> it happened this time and the Apache could easily blown up the hidden weapons and taken the civilians as prisoners


THEY WERENT FUCKKIN CIVIALIANS MORON!!!!!! Cant u read???

In case ur too stupid to realize this, and as further proof of ur lack of military service, that vid clip was taken at night...... I suppose ur saying that the Apache shoulda landed in the dark and try to apprehend 3 insurgents who are hiding and carrying RPG's and AK-47's...

Gimme a freakin break....


> still suckling on my mothers teat retard. (your mothers teat?)


Yea my mother, and shes been in the ground for almost a year now, so Im sure ull love it even more.....



> Those statements tells me more about you then you´ll ever know.


LMFAO. Yea right tough guy, or should i call u Docter Phil.........



> I´m amazed that you are an Administrator on this site and can not behave in a better manor.


God i wish I had a dollar everytime someone said that..... Since when does making u an Admin make u a more polite assshole???


> and there is another thing to pour out ones hatred.


Yea hatred. Blood coursing through my veins hatred. Hatred for those bastards that kill innocent women and children in the streets of Haifa and Baghdad... Hatred for all u pussified retards that think, "Oh be nice, he dont have a gun..."

Go find another board pal.... The pussification of the world shall not be felt here........


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2005)

I think this might be a good place to lock this. Obviously there is a difference of opinion here.


----------

