# The ultimate warrior of all time



## Soren (Sep 25, 2007)

WAR !, an all out conflict, one which has raged on this planet since the dawn of man, and through the centuries it has given birth to some truly outstanding warriors. 

The question is however, who deserves the title *The Ultimate Warrior Of All Time* ? Who was the toughest, most disciplined, most skilled best equipped warrior of all time ? 

What should the contenders be ? I can start out with two..

*The Spartan Warrior*






*The Roman Legionaire*


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 25, 2007)

Lot's of contenders, but for me there is no doubt....

The citizen soldiers of the USA who have defended America for 231 years.

TO


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 25, 2007)

Those ten men teams of the B-17 always make great pictures. 

Here's some other warriors. 

The Knights of the First Crusade. The went through one of the toughest campaigns in history, and many couldn't survive it, but the most enduring left alive still took Jerusalem, and then defeated the Egyptians just a few weeks later. 








Napoleon's Old Guard. 





And to not make the British feel left out, the British Gunners at Trafalgar.






Green Beret, one of many US Army groups.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 25, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Those ten men teams of the B-17 always make great pictures.
> 
> Here's some other warriors.
> 
> The Knights of the First Crusade. The went through one of the toughest campaigns in history, and many couldn't survive it, but the most enduring left alive still took Jerusalem, and then defeated the Egyptians just a few weeks later.



Not only that, the Crusaders (which is actually a fairly modern term; back then they called themselves Pilgrims) had to fight in the desert, for the most part, in full armor in 100+ degree heat. I think most of us would've keeled over if we tried to do that. And, as you said, they not only took Jerusalem (and Acre and Tripoli and Antioch), but held it for almost 100 years.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2007)

In terms of 20th century soldiers it is IMO the battle-hardened German soldier of WW2, having seen both service in Russia, Afrika, and on the Western front, which is the toughest, most discplined (For sure), most skilled generally better equipped of his time. But since 20th century soldiers weren't subject to as brutal or barbaric forms of warfare as occurred in ancient times they IMO fall abit short in terms of toughness disciplin by comparison, however while this has been said war in the 20th century was very brutal as-well, most wars are. 

The point however is that war before the widespread adoption standardization of guns was a very up close and dirty business, and also one which was more physically demanding. (SoD Stitch's point about the circumstances under which the crusaders often had to fight being a good example of this)

The Crusader is a good choice, but there was a special member which fought more fiercely than anyone in the crusade, the Knights Templar Hospitaller. And while were talking the medieval ages the Teutonic Knight needs to be mentioned as-well, a very fierce, disciplined, skilled very well equipped soldier.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 25, 2007)

What about the Vikings ? They almost invented war, dammit.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 25, 2007)

Alien Warriors.
The 'evil' Daleks.


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2007)

The Vikings is a great choice !


----------



## mkloby (Sep 25, 2007)

Soren - I love that image of the Teutonic Knights charging. Had it up as my wallpaper for some time.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2007)

Ghurkas would be high on the list.

The Vietcong, very mobile, cagy and quick to improvise. They were never fully defeated by 2 vastly superior armies. 

Native American warriors who taught us Yanks many things about guerilla warfare. Brave, quick and highly mobile. Their only downfall was having a liberal immigration policy...

Special Operations forces of most countries are all pretty bad-ass with the US Navy SEALs, USAF PJs, British SAS and Israelis to name a few. (I know there are many more).

And no, Rambo is not on the list.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Sep 26, 2007)

The Templar Knights are a good choice and the article on wikipedia tells much about their contribution to many battles...Knights Templar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 26, 2007)

How about the Stormtrooper?


----------



## Soren (Sep 26, 2007)

Please guys take this seriously, jokes are always welcome but they need to b good ! 

mkloby, 

Yes its a great painting, here it is in a bigger size (Where did you get the wallpaper version ?):


----------



## The Basket (Sep 26, 2007)

Alexander TG.

Conquered the world.


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 26, 2007)

How about Genghis Kahn's Mongolian hordes? 

This is a tough call.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 26, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Lot's of contenders, but for me there is no doubt....
> 
> The citizen soldiers of the USA who have defended America for 231 years.
> TO




I gotta agree with TO..... the American fighting man, citizen soldiers,
professional military men (read: "lifers").... whatever you wanna call them.

If they had been allowed to fight, Korea would have gotten it's clock
cleaned. But, no.... you can come into my yard, but I can't go into yours.
Remember the 38th parrallel ? BS ! Ditto with Viet Nam..... you can't bomb
Hanoi ! Politicians.... bah !

Charles


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2007)

Soren said:


> Please guys take this seriously, jokes are always welcome but they need to b good !
> 
> mkloby,
> 
> Yes its a great painting, here it is in a bigger size (Where did you get the wallpaper version ?):



I'm sorry - it wasn't wallpaper size. That would be awesome if it was that size. I just adjusted it to fill the screen, with obvious negative effects on image quality.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 26, 2007)

talking about Crusades, why not remember the great 'enemy' Salah-al-Din (Saladin) and his troops?

Beside being a great warrior ("By the time he died in Damascus in 1193, he had liberated almost all of Palestine from the armies of England, France, Burgandy, Flanders, Sicily, Austria and, in effect, from the world power of the Pope") , he was the one who taught Chivalry to everybody, first of all the crusader knights.

Even the ultra-christian Dante put him not in hell but among the 'virtuos Pagan souls' in limbo...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I'm sorry - it wasn't wallpaper size. That would be awesome if it was that size. I just adjusted it to fill the screen, with obvious negative effects on image quality.



I have no idea what criteria would set the stage for 'best'.. but if it was to place your candidate in any time frame and give them a couple of months to adapt to the weapons and tactics - then give me SAS/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/Spetnatz - 

No question regarding ferocity and adaptability of the Viking, the Spartan, the Crusader, the Apache, the Mongol, the Marine, Roger's Ranger, Texas Ranger, Roman Legionairre.. so maybe the question is whether you could take a tough Viking and in six months turn him into a top SEAL? and vice versa?


----------



## Marcel (Sep 26, 2007)

The Frisians? They were one of the few who could keep out the Romans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2007)

I think in order to seriously debate something like this it has to be broken down into time frames. 

You cant compare modern soldiers to the Roman Legions or Viking and so forth. Different times, different wars, different reasons to fight...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think in order to seriously debate something like this it has to be broken down into time frames.
> 
> You cant compare modern soldiers to the Roman Legions or Viking and so forth. Different times, different wars, different reasons to fight...



This is the essential problem with any global/time 'comparisons' as well as the necessary distinction between horseman, sailor, infantry etc in what they were great at - then take into account fieldcraft.. an Apache for instance would be one hell of an adversary if firearms were banned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2007)

Agreed thats why I really can not choose anyone.


----------



## renrich (Sep 26, 2007)

"Lee's Miserables" more specifically the infantry of the Army of Northern Virginia and even more specifically, the 1st, 4th and 5th Texas, the 18th Georgia and the 3rd Arkansas, The Texas Brigade, Lee's Grenadier Guard. They were ill equipped, ill fed and outnumbered but they never quit and they almost always prevailed.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed thats why I really can not choose anyone.



Ditto - even with a Schmedley Butler with Two MOH in two separate wars or someone like Chesty Puller, there are too many KNOWN examples of ridiculous courage and skill to choose - how would we rank a Crusader, or a People's Republic of North Korea, or Soviet, or 'top' Mongol as the ultimate warrior?


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 26, 2007)

As a classical one for all times, I'd go with the Roman Legions. Hell they set down the basics of basically all modern military, in an age where half of mankind was still closer to barbarism, these guys made a model army with standardized equipment, standard procedures and standard training and standard infantry tactics. The first and most classic 'modern' army, and the only one in history for a good 1500 years after the Imperium Romanum fell...

Not to mention, pig headed as hell. What they got into their heads they achieved in the end, no matter how many setbacks and defeats it took.







That's the fortress of Masada in Judea. The enormous, almost 400 feet high rampart on the Western side was raised by the Romans to enable them to get to the walls. You can also see the remants of the standard layout Roman military camp on the right.. and it still stands today...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I have no idea what criteria would set the stage for 'best'.. but if it was to place your candidate in any time frame and give them a couple of months to adapt to the weapons and tactics - then give me SAS/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/Spetnatz -
> 
> No question regarding ferocity and adaptability of the Viking, the Spartan, the Crusader, the Apache, the Mongol, the Marine, Roger's Ranger, Texas Ranger, Roman Legionairre.. so maybe the question is whether you could take a tough Viking and in six months turn him into a top SEAL? and vice versa?



Just something to think about - can you take a SEAL, Ranger, etc and turn them into a proficient military pilot in a few months???


----------



## The Basket (Sep 26, 2007)

If you include the romans then you have to include Hannibal and Carthage. The battle of Cannae.

The number of dead in a day wasn't bettered until WW2.

From a English point of view...Ill go Agincourt 1415.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Just something to think about - can you take a SEAL, Ranger, etc and turn them into a proficient military pilot in a few months???



Short answer No.

A tough question, probably not in two months but... five to six months of intensive simulator and actual flight time - maybe. Depends on level of proficiency you want as a pilot versus level as SOCOM operator?

My hesitation pre supposes that a competent pilot being trained as back up team medico, combined with Demo/explosives theory and application for blowing modern bridges, combined with night HALO's, subsurface penetration and beach head mapping, night precision marches in dark w/cloud cover and nothing but compass and 30 inch pace, etc, etc.. how long will that take - not to pass a test but truly a Pro... I mean can she handle it? (remembering there are damned competent female pilots..)

If you scratch High G fighter pilot manuevers and stick to flying a C-130 or a AH-1 or KC-135, you could also be a diabetic with bad eyes and have heart problems and a vagina and still be 'proficient'...but you would never be on a SEAL team or survive BUDS or SAS training.

And, by the way not every SEAL will become a Master horseman or Long Bowman or Lance and Broadsword weilding Knight in a couple of months.

I would say it's easier to acquire all the skills to be a proficient pilot than a proficient SpecWar animal - and the specwar animal is probably more trainable faster as an Apache scout or Viking or Legionaire than a fighter pilot could adapt. 

Lord knows I do NOT denigrate fighter pilots as warriors, but I'm mentally putting this classification in the context of 100 different warriors from different times in individual combat, one on one, in a series of maybe 20 tests, one of which might be flying an airplane.. 

If the airplane qual was last he probably wouldn't be around very long? (If it was first he might win against everybody)

Peace Bro - this is an 'intellectual'?? exercise

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 26, 2007)

Pilots gotta stand G's. 

That picture of Masada looks great. It was certainly one of the best fortresses in History for mountaintop defence.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2007)

This was just an idea to throw out there... since everyone always thinks along the usual lines of socom and such.



drgondog said:


> A tough question, probably not in two months but... five to six months of intensive simulator and actual flight time - maybe. Depends on level of proficiency you want as a pilot versus level as SOCOM operator?


5-6 months Bill? Not a chance. You'd have a poorly trained pilot nowhere near a professional military aviator. I began flight school two years ago - and finally now have 5 more flights left... BTW - simulators are ok... they're best quality is training for instrument flight. They are VERY limited for everything else.



drgondog said:


> If you scratch High G fighter pilot manuevers and stick to flying a C-130 or a AH-1 or KC-135, you could also be a diabetic with bad eyes and have heart problems and a vagina and still be 'proficient'...but you would never be on a SEAL team or survive BUDS or SAS training.


I get your drift, although I would shy from saying that about skid drivers. Flying a helicopter with skill is a lot more difficult than flying fixed wing. And likewise - former socom guys have attrited from flight school... totally different type of training with a completely different skill set.



drgondog said:


> I would say it's easier to acquire all the skills to be a proficient pilot than a proficient SpecWar animal - and the specwar animal is probably more trainable faster as an Apache scout or Viking or Legionaire than a fighter pilot could adapt.


I would say you are probably right about that - but at least Marine naval aviators go through a year of infantry training prior to becoming pilots - unlike our sister services. (although a socom operator would work me over in a heartbeat!).


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I have no idea what criteria would set the stage for 'best'.. but if it was to place your candidate in any time frame and give them a couple of months to adapt to the weapons and tactics - then give me SAS/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/Spetnatz -



I disagree, and I'll explain why below.



> No question regarding ferocity and adaptability of the Viking, the Spartan, the Crusader, the Apache, the Mongol, the Marine, Roger's Ranger, Texas Ranger, Roman Legionairre..



The Marine Rangers aren't really contenders, unless you want to count in countless others from the 20th century who were even tougher, more disciplined and carried better equipment for their time. 



> so maybe the question is whether you could take a tough Viking and in six months turn him into a top SEAL? and vice versa?



A Viking/Spartan/Crusader/Roman Legionaire wouldn't be able to become a top special forces soldier of today in just six months, it would take him longer than that to just learn the new language. And a SEAL would never be able to become as tough disciplined as any of the ancient warriors above, and he'd need a lifetime to become as skilled proficient with a sword and shield, while on the other hand learning how to use a gun effectively is rather simple.

The ancient warriors wouldn't have any problem with any of the phsysically demanding stuff, they'd most likely laugh at the stuff a modern soldier has to endure, and they'd certainly need to learn nothing about disciplin or dedication neither. The area where the ancient warriors would begin to have serious troubles would be in terms of learning all the new tactics, how to best exploit terrain when you're no longer required to get up close to hurt the enemy, and knowing when to prioritize targets of importance.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 27, 2007)

Beserkers are my Fave and why we still have the word beserk in the lingo.

They were first wave Viking cannon fodder but had a violent reputation.

It is believed they were either drunk or on magic mushrooms or something. They would rush at the enemy with total disregard for their own lives and first into Valhalla.

They were so crazy...it is believed they could bite through their own shields. Just what ya need for a sucidal charge.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2007)

All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???

I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????

No way...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 27, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???
> 
> I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????
> 
> No way...



Did samurai ever engage dissimilar troops from outside Japan?

For the record I don't actually think us pilots are the "ultimate warriors of all time."

Dan - flying a cessna definitely is retardedly easy.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 27, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???
> 
> I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????
> 
> No way...


I completely forgot Samurai - and in the context of individual skills - he would be at the top of my list.

I agree all the points made regarding proficiency re: pilot made by mkloby. 
From my own perspective which predate the complex systems of today, being proficient in say a P-51 which is my only frame of reference, requires far more than being a good pilot with that aircraft in clear weather. My combined 500+ hours in the A-35 and 36, the Cessna 170, the At-6 and the 51 make me a marginal pilot relative to Judgement and confidence built around proficiency and experience. 

It is Judgement combined with situational awareness of the crisis and a quick check off of action/options that keeps you alive (maybe) when the 1% event jumps in your lap. That is what military training brings to the table - 

Being qualified to fly a P-51 is a far cry from being a fighter pilot and even farther from being an ace who survives many combats. So no, I'm not proficient by my own standards (or USAF or USN or RAF) even if I am by FAA standards.

I don't even know how to comment regarding how much time it would take to be a competent Knight or Legionnaire - but it seems like handling a Broadsword from horseback or foot or a shield and short sword is a couple of steps below using a bow competently from horseback, combined with the swordplay of a Samuari sword.

I don't know how to comment on relative 'toughness' or determination - but suspect that is where strength (physical and will) and adaptability and field craft come in. I'm not ready to buy into top Viking or Legionnaire or Spartan 'tougher' than top SEAL or SAS simply because I have zero idea what the training comparisons would be or the natural patterns of life are to shape the will - and is size a factor? 

I suspect that the average SpecWarrior is one hell of a lot stronger today - but could be wrong. I have yet to see a suit of armor built for a Knight (in England or France) that looked like the guy was taller than 5'-6".. I'm sure there were bigger guys but doubt stronger.

So, how do ya know? and any assumption can't be tested or proven - so we are sharing a lot of speculative air and ink. I think I'll go scratch a wolfhound ear and contemplate my navel


----------



## renrich (Sep 27, 2007)

Comparing warriors of today with ancient warriors is, to me, like trying to compare football players of today versus those of the 1950s. I was on the freshman team at a university that wound up ranked 12th in the nation(probably should have been ranked higher) We scrimmaged them often and the biggest men on the team were a couple of tackles that weighed around 235 lbs, probably ran the forty in about 5.5 sec and could bench(if we had any weights, which we did not about 225). Compare that with the behemoths of the day. Ancient warriors and that includes those of our Civil War were used to hardships but did not have the nutrition, size, speed or stamina to stand up to modern warriors.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2007)

Where's the native American Indian, the Aztec, the Inca and the Maya's....?


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 27, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Dan - flying a cessna definitely is retardedly easy.



Flying an aircraft is no challenge but knowing what to do when the S*** hits the fan is the skill


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 27, 2007)

What about:

Knight?

Klingon?


Dragon?


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I don't even know how to comment regarding how much time it would take to be a competent Knight or Legionnaire - but it seems like handling a Broadsword from horseback or foot or a shield and short sword is a couple of steps below using a bow competently from horseback, combined with the swordplay of a Samuari sword.



I can tell you that it isn't though. The double edged broad-sword was preferred in Europe for a reason, it was simply a all-round better sword. Long before the katana was ever made the Europeans had been using almost identical types of swords for warfare (In terms of shape), these swords, like the katana, specialized at cutting and slashing, but against armor they were at a disadvantage as they couldn't be used for thrusting attacks. And then there's the fact that the katana is heavier than the broad-sword, it is infact nearly as heavy as a zwei-hander (Two-hand sword), and it only has one sharp very hard cutting edge which is very vulnerable to chipping if it strikes metal. Against soft targets the katana is a great sword no doubt, but against armor its edge is too brittle. 

The double edged European sword also allows for more combination attacks, having two sharp edges to exploit. The sharpness of the katana compared to the European sword is also extremely small and completely irrelevant, while the European sword has a more durable blade capabe of striking armor without fear of chipping.



> I don't know how to comment on relative 'toughness' or determination - but suspect that is where strength (physical and will) and adaptability and field craft come in. I'm not ready to buy into top Viking or Legionnaire or Spartan 'tougher' than top SEAL or SAS simply because I have zero idea what the training comparisons would be or the natural patterns of life are to shape the will - and is size a factor?



You should really read into how warriors such as the Spartans grew up and were trained. Fact is their entire society focused only on military excellence, every Spartan having to be in excellent fitness condition, have excellent fighting skills, endurance strength.

Ever heard of the Agoge ?



> I suspect that the average SpecWarrior is one hell of a lot stronger today - but could be wrong.



I'm 100% confident that you're wrong. Think about it, the ancient warrior trained and fought with heavier equipment, often had to march for hundreds of kilometers, and the ancient warrior also absolutely prioritized physical strenght as fighting back then was very much about brute strenght - you had to physically hurt and bring down your opponent either by pushing, thrusting, bashing or wrestling him. 

For example recovered skeletons of english longbowmen feature abnormally thick arm shoulder bones and clear indications of how huge their muscles were. From examining the bones it is calculated that a trained longbowman from of the medieval age could pull up to 180-200 lbs with his one arm ! 



> I have yet to see a suit of armor built for a Knight (in England or France) that looked like the guy was taller than 5'-6".. I'm sure there were bigger guys but doubt stronger.



Medieval suits of armor for European Knights are generally made for men of 6" or taller, while Samurai armored suits are generally for persons of 5.5" in height.



> So, how do ya know? and any assumption can't be tested or proven - so we are sharing a lot of speculative air and ink. I think I'll go scratch a wolfhound ear and contemplate my navel



To get an idea of the physical strenght of an ancient warrior you need only look at the many statues made of them.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2007)

I want a pet dragon....


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2007)

Here's something to watch:

Chapter 1: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaWZrFNRME_
Chapter 2: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAZ3Cig3anE_
Chapter 2: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaWZrFNRME_


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2007)

Battle of Thermopylae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*300 vs 300,000 *


----------



## Udet (Sep 27, 2007)

Very interesting discussion you have here Gentleman.

I will agree the world has seen so many great warriors in the long course of history, but i´ll add my thoughts to the table.

Credit should also be given to the Macedonian Army under the rule of King Filippos II Makedonon -or Phillip II-, who brought the macedonian army up to world class standards leaving any army fielded by any Greek City State behind in a cloud of dust; after a long period of time of being nothing but a weak spot on the map, ruled mostly by a long list of timid, irresolute and incompetent Argead kings, it was Filippos who turned Macedonia into a world power.

I have heard people affirming the first professional army in the history of arms was that of the Romans; this is incorrect. It was Macedonia who first did it. Ever heard of the "Hetairoi" and "Pezhetairoi"? Filippos also improved the "phalanx".

When Alexandros III Makedonon -or Alexander III, or "The Great"- became King of Macedonia after the assassination of his father, he simply inherited a 100% professional, skilled and well equipped army. So the Macedonians under Filippos and Alexandros should also be mentioned.


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2007)

Udet, 

I agree we shouldn't forget the Macedonian army, but this is about the ultimate warrior of all time, and AFAIK the Macedonian army, while generally consisting of experienced men, didn't feature any out of the ordinary unit.

Now about the Roman Legionairy army and it being the first true proffesional army in the history of man, I disagree with this as-well, there were others before it. But the thing about the Roman Legion is it brought warfare to a new level, both in terms of unit deployment on the battlefield and unit training disciplin, it simply proved unbeatable for a very long period of time.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Flying an aircraft is no challenge but knowing what to do when the S*** hits the fan is the skill



Ha - just hop in a helo and skillfully fly it while on goggles... then we'll talk a little.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 28, 2007)

How about the Rebels?


----------



## Maestro (Sep 28, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> How about the Rebels?



In this case, we could as well mention William Wallace and his Scottish militia...


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 28, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Ha - just hop in a helo and skillfully fly it while on goggles... then we'll talk a little.


I didn't say helicopter and I did think of that prior to posting


----------



## mkloby (Sep 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I didn't say helicopter and I did think of that prior to posting



Ok - I misunderstood when you aid "aircraft" to be including all types not just airplanes.

So does anybody know if the samurai ever engaged a foreign and much differently armed opponent?


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2007)

Besides the mongols, not AFAIK.


----------



## Udet (Sep 28, 2007)

Soren, hello!

I agree with you...i just wanted to add something to discussion since i noticed Spartans and Romans, warriors of the ancient world, were being mentioned though; that is why i thought the macedonian warriors under the rule of Argeads Phillip II and Alexander III deserved being included too.

The "Sarissa" made the Macedonian phalanx a true horror to the enemy hoplites.


It is a tough call anyway...to many types of great warriors, from different parts of the planet, different cultures and customs...

The Samurai could possibly be the very best; putting aside their individual combat skills, we must consider the mindset and cultural background of those warriors...never surrender, never stepping back, never, ever.

Also the Waffen-SS...possibly the very best warriors battlefields have seen in recent times; tough, superbly trained, amazing mobility and endurance...to this add the fact so many of these great soldiers who served their nation, spending days, weeks and months roaming across battlefields, who saw their brothers in arms getting killed, wounded and crippled, were forced in the best of the scenarios to lower their heads and be subjected to brutal spitting and defaming of all sorts.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 28, 2007)

Udet said:


> Also the Waffen-SS...possibly the very best warriors battlefields have seen in recent times; tough, superbly trained, amazing mobility and endurance...



SS    

Think the 101st Screaming Eagles at Bastogne would not rate the SS as high as you; neither do I. They were tough, well trained soldiers, but I would take the American GI over them. What a soldier fights for makes him a most formidable foe, the SS fought for a twisted ideology, the American soldier fought for freedom.

TO


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2007)

Udet said:


> Soren, hello!
> 
> I agree with you...i just wanted to add something to discussion since i noticed Spartans and Romans, warriors of the ancient world, were being mentioned though; that is why i thought the macedonian warriors under the rule of Argeads Phillip II and Alexander III deserved being included too.
> 
> ...



Agree all the points except the last - their fate in general was far better man for man than the soldiers and civilians that surrendered to them.. 

One of my uncles was a thompson carrying doctor that liberated Dachau as part of 5th Rangers.(think it was Dachau - in front of Patton on way to Czechoslovakia). He says in retrospect that they should have disarmed them, then closed the gates on them for a couple of hours and come back to clean up. 

One of my other uncles was a 504PIR platoon commander who was hung up in a tree and set on fire by SS Troopers in Holland.. 

I respect them as skilled and non-discriminating murderers who also were skilled soldiers - but Warrior is too noble a name for SS (including Waffen).

I would say God was merciful in sparing the lives of any of them - hardly a proud tradition as warriors.

Udet - I gotta apologise about my emotional reaction to praise for the SS. My father and my Uncle were two of the kindest gentlemen post war that I have ever met.. but whenever that unit came into conversation in my presence the temperature of the room would drop 20 degrees... they never, never, never forgot and neither had any problem with German Wermacht or Luftwaffe.


----------



## Udet (Sep 28, 2007)

Doctor, hello!

No need to apologize, at all. I understand you very very well. Both my father´s and mother´s families have or have had persons who fought in the war and i understand certain issues stir deep emotions. It is horrible to know one of your relatives perished at the hands of thugs during the war. Believe me.

You are simply confirming my ideas, the Waffen SS are unavoidably associated with evil regimes and lust for crime. That´s precisely where the tragedy of those soldiers lies.

They have no right to respect, they have no right to pride; in the end the fate of those soldiers was so much much better than they could have hoped for, since they were not all shot or hanged when the war ended. They should thank God for such favors.

I will not add more to this, since there are several persons here whose knowledge and records i admire and respect and will not want to make comments that might offend them. With this i mean you are one of those persons whose knowledge i do respect and can also learn from it.


Toughombre:

i will not debate further into the ideologies for which soldiers of the involved nations fought, even if there are so many things that could be argued on that specific part.

Following your logic then it would be more than reasonable to assume the Brits and Soviets can make fun on the combat capabilities and endurance of the S.S., since both also belong in the winning side. The ordinary Brit and Soviet soldier are then much better than their SS counterparts.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 28, 2007)

First of all - if you think never surrender, never step back, ever is the supreme virtue of a warrior - you live in some alternate universe. If you mean retreat or withdraw by "never step back," then that is truly just foolish and detrimental tactically speaking.

Regarding the samurai - if they never dissimilar troops, how can anyone be so quick to tout their superiority???


----------



## Udet (Sep 28, 2007)

Right...as a clarification i should perhaps have mentioned that was one quality of the Samurai that i admire; not that i was referring to that as the epitome of virtue or as tactically wise.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 28, 2007)

I think that most soldiers mentioned was the ultimate warriors of their time...

The British.....otherwise they wouldn't have had the empire that they once had. The same goes for the Romans, Greeks, Samurai.... etc. Even the Vikings who came to North America almost 500 years before Columbus. They left a lasting impression in the history which we still see today. Doesn't the name Normandy come from Norseman, which the Vikings also were known as, after they settled there? I think that I read that somewhere.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 28, 2007)

Udet said:


> Following your logic then it would be more than reasonable to assume the Brits and Soviets can make fun on the combat capabilities and endurance of the S.S., since both also belong in the winning side. The ordinary Brit and Soviet soldier are then much better than their SS counterparts.



Think you might have misunderstood my post. I didn't say the American soldier was better than his SS counterpart because he was on the *winning* side. I'm saying that *any* warrior becomes more formidable when he believes in the cause he is fighting for. The example of American soldiers vs the SS in WW II is a stark comparison. In the American revolution the Continental Army and the civilian militia defeated a better trained and equipped British army and also defeated the Hessians who were mercenaries, fighting mostly for money.

Look what a handful of outnumbered Marines did at Wake Island. They were on the *losing* side but they kicked the Jap's ass in that fight.

TO


----------



## Udet (Sep 28, 2007)

Toughombre: ok, got it. Thanks!


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2007)

Udet said:


> Doctor, hello!
> 
> No need to apologize, at all. I understand you very very well. Both my father´s and mother´s families have or have had persons who fought in the war and i understand certain issues stir deep emotions. It is horrible to know one of your relatives perished at the hands of thugs during the war. Believe me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Think you might have misunderstood my post. I didn't say the American soldier was better than his SS counterpart because he was on the *winning* side. I'm saying that *any* warrior becomes more formidable when he believes in the cause he is fighting for. The example of American soldiers vs the SS in WW II is a stark comparison. In the American revolution the Continental Army and the civilian militia defeated a better trained and equipped British army and also defeated the Hessians who were mercenaries, fighting mostly for money.
> 
> Look what a handful of outnumbered Marines did at Wake Island. They were on the *losing* side but they kicked the Jap's ass in that fight.
> 
> TO



So you're saying the soldiers of the Waffen SS didn't believe in the cause they were fighting for ?? If so then thats just plain wrong. The Waffen SS wasn't made up of murderers thugs if thats what you think. The execution of civilians was carried out by the SS Totenkopfverbände Gestapo, these were the ugly fellars of the SS, not the Verfügungstruppe which were the combat troops and by far made up the bulk of the Waffen SS. Also please remember that crimes were made by every country militarily involved in WW2 - I'd dare to say that the biggest was dropping an A-bomb on a major city. 

Strictly talking battlefield effectiveness I would definitely prefer the Waffen SS over most Allied units, their battlefield experience and equipment would certainly prove more than a match for most Allied units. That having been said the best military units of WW2 were those belonging to the Wehrmacht and not the SS, the average Wehrmacht soldier recieving more than three times the training of British US soldiers. The soldier of the Waffen SS didn't recieve the same training as the Wehrmacht soldier, their basic training program mainly revolving around patrionism, dedication self-sacrefice for the führer motherland. The Waffen SS did very well on the battlefield partly because it was always given first priority to new weapons, equipment supplies, and later on (42/43) because it had become a very experienced unit.


As for your example about the marines kicking the Japanese army's ass, well the Waffen SS Wehrmacht did that to the Soviet army from day one of Op. Barbarossa till the end of the war, and seriously so. The Japanese army was of no greater quality than the Soviet army, it was infact much poorer equipped than the Soviet army.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Also please remember that crimes were made by every country militarily involved in WW2 - I'd dare to say that the biggest was dropping an A-bomb on a major city.



I was going to try to to rationally answer your reply until I read your above quote. 

*BIGGEST WAR CRIME OF THE WAR? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F***ING MIND?* Everybody was bombing civilian population centers in the war, the Atom bomb attacks saved more Japanese lives than American lives. That's right! 

But to defend the fighting prowess of the SS and at the same time accuse the USA of war crimes by dropping the Atomic bomb goes over the line for me. 

By the way, it was American and other Allied soldiers who kicked the German Army's ass from one end of Europe to the other. 

Just ask the Screaming Eagles, All Americans, Tough 'Ombres, Big Red One etc., etc., etc. 

TO


----------



## Maestro (Sep 28, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> *BIGGEST WAR CRIME OF THE WAR? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F***ING MIND?*



The worst part is, buddy, that Soren always been that way... I remember a long while ago having (me as well as Plan_D and may be some other members) a strong arguement with him over a subject that I don't clearly remember... All I remember is that he was proved wrong.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Waffen SS wasn't made up of murderers thugs if thats what you think. The execution of civilians was carried out by the SS Totenkopfverbände Gestapo, these were the ugly fellars of the SS, not the Verfügungstruppe which were the combat troops and by far made up the bulk of the Waffen SS.



That's absolutely not true. I digged up an example from my homecountry. The Dutch vlliage of Putten was massacred by the SS-batallion "Nothwest" which belonged to the Waffen SS. about 650 men were deported, only 15 returned. Biggest warcrime here in the Netherlands. Please be carefull defending these SS "warriors" without having a well founded knowlege.



Soren said:


> Also please remember that crimes were made by every country militarily involved in WW2 - I'd dare to say that the biggest was dropping an A-bomb on a major city.



The biggest was the killing of 6 milion innocent jews. While the A-bomb dropping was a horrible thing to do, it served a purpose, ending the war and preventing more killings. The "entlosung" was nothing more than a midless murdering without purpose, for the perverse joy and arrogance of the Nazi's.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2007)

More Japanese died from the firestorming of Tokoyo than the 200,000 from the bombs....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 29, 2007)

One of the worst things was Hitler commiting suicide. None of the Allies could interview him and find out what his brain was made of.


----------



## Soren (Sep 29, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> I was going to try to to rationally answer your reply until I read your above quote.
> 
> *BIGGEST WAR CRIME OF THE WAR? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F***ING MIND?* Everybody was bombing civilian population centers in the war, the Atom bomb attacks saved more Japanese lives than American lives. That's right!



Two bombs were dropped, not just one, and both on major civilian cities. The A-bomb could've been demonstrated for the Japanese in better ways than killing millions of civilians. The A-bomb ended the war thats true, but it could've been dropped elsewhere.


Perhaps I was abit hasty in calling it the worst crime of WW2, seeing how many Jews were murdered by the Nazi's and how many innocent people were murdered by the Soviets - but these took place over the entire course of the war, while dropping the A-bomb was a single event.

Perhaps one of the worst crime of the war was the oil companies financing it for all parties, not least Germany.



> But to defend the fighting prowess of the SS and at the same time accuse the USA of war crimes by dropping the Atomic bomb goes over the line for me.



I'm not trying to defend the SS, the SS committed many terrible war-crimes, there's no question about it, but the majority of the combat troops didn't. 

Soviet troops committed even worse crimes, annihilating entire civilian villages towns.

Bottom line is I agree that the SS carried out one of the worst crimes against humanity ever, the persecution of the Jews - it was murder and nothing else, and I despise what they (SS) did as much as most in here and everywhere else do.



> By the way, it was American and other Allied soldiers who kicked the German Army's ass from one end of Europe to the other.



Yet the German army achieved taking less casualties than the Allies in all theatres.

Invading Europe certainly wasn't a smooth cake run if thats what you think ToughOmbre.
_________________________

Now please ToughOmbre, cool it down will you.


----------



## Soren (Sep 29, 2007)

Maestro said:


> The worst part is, buddy, that Soren always been that way... I remember a long while ago having (me as well as Plan_D and may be some other members) a strong arguement with him over a subject that I don't clearly remember... All I remember is that he was proved wrong.



What exactly is it you're trying to accuse me of Meastro ??


----------



## Watanbe (Sep 29, 2007)

In my opinion, the Spartan warrior definitely takes the cake. He is incredibly well trained (leaving home at the age of about 8), he is a professional soldier, very well disciplined, well armed and equipped for its style of fighting, well commanded with excellent tactics. 

The Spartan hoplite was the ultimate warrior. The battle victories achieved by them are remarkable. As famously quote by King Leonidas at Thermopolyae when told the Persians would block the sun with arrows...."fine then we will fight in the shade". The Spartans fought to the last man, biting, kicking and punching their enemy until final defeat. 

I would class the Samurai as the most honourable and disciplined soldier of all time, but not the ultimate.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 29, 2007)

Watanbe said:


> I would class the Samurai as the most honourable and disciplined soldier of all time, but not the ultimate.



Everyone holds the samurai in such high regard that I find it almost ridiculous.

Honor is relative to each specific culture. Samurai have been documented as "taking no prisoners," which is an attitude that pervaded all the way into WWII.

Hardly what I'd call "honor." Definitely not according to any western ideal such as chivalry.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> More Japanese died from the firestorming of Tokoyo than the 200,000 from the bombs....



Dan - dead on.

There has never benn an 'official' accounting of the first low level March 1945 Raid on Tokyo.. estimates are as high as 200,000 for the first night alone in the 13 square miles that went up in total obliteration. I remember as a kid how much was still 'gone' in 1948-1950.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 29, 2007)

> Soviet troops committed even worse crimes, annihilating entire civilian villages towns.



German soldiers on occasion would do similar things. I have heard of at least two villages almost wiped out by the Germans, and both involved them putting all the people into a barn and setting it on fire. Then as the civilians rushed out in flames, the German's machine gunned them.



But I suppose you could argue that when all of Tokyo was burning the chance of survival was almost as bad.

Here is a thread about an SS officer who helped one of these raids.

It says:

"The Germans rounded up the village men, forced them into barns and machine-gunned them. The 241 women and 209 children were herded into the church, which was set afire with grenades and then shot at with machine guns."
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/ss-officer-1944-french-massacre-dies-9151.html


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> So you're saying the soldiers of the Waffen SS didn't believe in the cause they were fighting for ?? If so then thats just plain wrong. The Waffen SS wasn't made up of murderers thugs if thats what you think. The execution of civilians was carried out by the SS Totenkopfverbände Gestapo, these were the ugly fellars of the SS, not the Verfügungstruppe which were the combat troops and by far made up the bulk of the Waffen SS. Also please remember that crimes were made by every country militarily involved in WW2 - I'd dare to say that the biggest was dropping an A-bomb on a major city.
> 
> *A bigger crime would have been at Truman's feet if he had not ordered the use and 700,000+ GI and a couple of million (or more) Japanese die in the November invasion.*
> 
> ...



The equipment, particularly armor, was not a major factor in the jungles and islands of the Pacific. Until they bumped into the Marines at Guadalcanal they had whipped everyone else... then they were never again successful.


----------



## Udet (Sep 29, 2007)

As i seem to recall, and in accordance with the words of a recently retired member of the U.S. Army, the training manual and procedures used in the U.S. Army Rangers is almost a literal copy of the S.S. manual. My response to him was _"you got to be kidding me..."_, he simply replied: _"no...no kidding here son...if we copied their manual is for something don´t you think?".
_

Look guys, i´d invite you all to drop the "who committed more crimes" mode in this discussion; it would be better to affirm victors do not commit war crimes.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes for the simple reason the action was carried out by the U.S.A., a member of the winning club. I mean, it could not be easier than this. I´ve read tons of paperwork regarding the allied considerations to explain or justify the atomic bombing...too much effort invested to in the end conclude the unavoidable conclusion: victors of a war do not commit war crimes. Winners of wars embody some sort of automatic moral high ground; it upholds justice and goodness.

I´ll mention one case i studied closely a few years ago, General der Flieger Alexander Löhr.

When the war ended the Yugoslav hyennas stepped forward claiming their share of the jackpot -Yugoslavs leaded by another interesting figure supported by Good Guy Churchill, Josip Broz Tito who is responsible for the murder of God knows how many dozens of thousands of Croats immediately after the end of the war; read about the massacre of Croat civilians in Bleiburg, Austria-.

General Löhr was handed over to these revengeful Yugoslavs to stand "trial". If that was a trial then i will be the future King of England, forget about Prince Charles. So bow down before me and pledge allegiance to my Royal Banner.

To make the long story short, Löhr was subjected to a circus trial, and was condemned to death by firing squad. The sentece was of course carried out.

Among several charges, there was this one that was perhaps the more substantial of all: the murder of 17,000 Yugoslav civilians during the German attack against Yugoslavia during 1941, a few months before the launching of Barbarossa.

Further research showed the figure of 17,000 to be an entirely made up fact, guess by who? Who else could have been but the Noble and Venerable Churchill who would more than rival Goebbels and Ilya Ehrenburg in terms of disseminating lies and distortions; everything is possible and valid when it comes to defeat your enemy.

The estimates of what could have been a more accurate figure indicate ~4,000 yugoslav civilians killed by Luftwaffe operations in Yugoslavia, mostly in the capital city of Belgrade, which by the way represented a fair prize since a garrison of the Yugoslav army was active within the city. 

It was an invasion in course, therefore it was important to attack any places or areas where enemy soldiers were active, something that was happening inside Belgrade.

On the other hand we have another Noble and Honorable man, Sir Arthur "-Civilian- Bomber" Harris; under his command, direction and orders, RAF bombers killed and incinerated a number of German civilians that might surpass the A-Bombing of the two japanese cities.

Civilian Bomber Harris died a peaceful death.


----------



## Watanbe (Sep 30, 2007)

The Samauri could be brutal yes, but they honoured the warrior code with total disciplined. They would isolate an opponent on the battle field and engage in a one on one duel with them, following the laws and ethics of their code.

Even by WW2 it must be said that the Japanese still did follow this code. Never surrendering and kamikazes. The abuse of prisoner of wars and attocities are also linked to this i believe. 

Not saying that they acted in what we would class socially acceptable, honourable manner but they did follow their code and fight with total dedication.

btw spartan is still ultimate soldier.


----------



## renrich (Oct 1, 2007)

TO, suffice to say that your post re dropping A bombs is right on and to equate that to war crimes is as ridiculous as to say that millions of civilians were killed by them or that the war was financed by oil companies. Does that mean that the oil companies precipitated and perpetuated the second world war or the current Iraq War.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 2, 2007)

The Samurai were beaten by the Mongols...they had no flexibitlity or improvisation in combat so I wouldn't rate them highly as a combat force. They also kept the sword long after the musket had made it less important.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

God point basket, but the Mongols beat many of their opponents mainly because of their highly mobile horse mounted archers. But I agree that the Samurai didn't feature much flexibility and would have a darn hard time against an opponent carriyng a shield.


Now people lets stick to the topic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2007)

Udet said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes for the simple reason the action was carried out by the U.S.A., a member of the winning club.



Sorry but thats rubbish. Your entitled to your opinion, so I will go ahead and tell you mine.

If not for the A Bombs, the war would have lasted longer and the more US Soldiers and Japanese Soldiers and Civilians would have been killed. 

Simple fact...



Udet said:


> Who else could have been but the Noble and Venerable Churchill who would more than rival Goebbels



You dont actually believe this do you? Goebbels was a rat and nothing more...



Udet said:


> On the other hand we have another Noble and Honorable man, Sir Arthur "-Civilian- Bomber" Harris; under his command, direction and orders, RAF bombers killed and incinerated a number of German civilians that might surpass the A-Bombing of the two japanese cities.
> 
> Civilian Bomber Harris died a peaceful death.



So it was okay for the Luftwaffe to bomb London, Warsaw, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Stalingrad, etc...

Just to name a few.

I think your views are bit skewed if you ask me.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 2, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Samurai were beaten by the Mongols...they had no flexibitlity or improvisation in combat so I wouldn't rate them highly as a combat force. They also kept the sword long after the musket had made it less important.



I agree that samurai do not rate up there with the likes of Romans or Spartans.

Largely untested against dissimilar troops; I was not aware they were defeated by mongols.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 2, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Samurai were beaten by the Mongols...they had no flexibitlity or improvisation in combat so I wouldn't rate them highly as a combat force. They also kept the sword long after the musket had made it less important.



_In 1281, a Yuan army of 140,000 men with 4,400 ships was mustered for another invasion of Japan. Northern Kyūshū was defended by a Japanese army of 40,000 men. The Mongol army was still on its ships preparing for the landing operation when a typhoon hit north Kyūshū island. The casualties and damage inflicted by the typhoon, followed by the Japanese defense of the Hakata Bay barrier, resulted in the Mongols again recalling their armies.


Samurai and defensive wall at Hakata. Moko Shurai Ekotoba, (蒙古襲来絵詞) c.1293.The thunderstorms of 1274 and the typhoon of 1281 helped the samurai defenders of Japan repel the Mongol invaders despite being vastly outnumbered. These winds became known as kami-no-kaze, which literally translates as "wind of the gods." This is often given a simplified translation as "divine wind." The kami-no-kaze lent credence to the Japanese belief that their lands were indeed divine and under supernatural protection._

Basket - I believe the Mongols failed both times they tried to invade Japan but the Japanese were defeated twice by the Koreans in the late 1500's.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

Remember the Katana wasn't used by the Samurai in the 1300's and did not see service until the 1500's.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

Adler,

Although its OT, about the A-bombs, well they could've been dropped elsewhere. Dropping them on major civilian cities wasn't a very bright idea.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> Although its OT, about the A-bombs, well they could've been dropped elsewhere. Dropping them on major civilian cities wasn't a very bright idea.



Opinions are opinions, but you are just wrong.

Elsewhere? Where? 

Dropping the A-bombs 1) ended the war, 2) saved AMERICAN lives (most important reason) and 3) saved Japanese lives.

Sounded like a good idea to me.

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2007)

I agree TO.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 2, 2007)

The first Mongol invasion was too small and the second was prepared for. Weather was a major factor in the failure of both.

The Samurai were certainly beaten in battles of both wars...even with home advantage.


----------



## renrich (Oct 2, 2007)

An unintended consequence of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that the damage was so horrific that any further thought by any nation of all out war has become to horrible to contemplate there fore the Cold War was COLD. No telling how many lives were saved by those two bombs in the long run. A harmless demonstration would never have had the impact those two attacks on those cities had.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

renrich said:


> An unintended consequence of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that the damage was so horrific that any further thought by any nation of all out war has become to horrible to contemplate there fore the Cold War was COLD. No telling how many lives were saved by those two bombs in the long run. A harmless demonstration would never have had the impact those two attacks on those cities had.



Very true renrich. And if Japan would not surrender after the attack on Hiroshima (and obviously they didn't), there is *NO* way they would surrender after a detonation on some uninhabited Japanese island as some clueless historians have advocated for.

TO


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

Don't tell me it was necessary TO, dropping the A-bombs on some of the large military bases would've more than made the point - The destructive power of the A-bomb and the after effects would've been clearly visible as-well.

The only reason the US choose to drop the two bombs on Hiroshima Nagasaki was that the US was pissed at Japan and wanted to give it a real ass kicking. Stop thinking the Allies acted non other than as angels through the entire war, its far from reality. 

War is terrible, thats a fact.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

Now if we want to discuss the OT subjects any further then please some moderator make a thread for this specifically.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> The only reason the US choose to drop the two bombs on Hiroshima Nagasaki was that the US was pissed at Japan and wanted to give it a real ass kicking.




Soren, the fire bombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945, killed as many or more Japanese than the atomic raids. So don't tell me about "pissed" and "ass kicking" with regard to the nukes.

I don't give two S**ts about the number of Japanese killed in WW II. For me, the issue was saving *AMERICAN * lives, and that's what the Atomic raids did. And for a guy like yourself, who idolizes the Waffen SS, it's time to shut up  

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2007)

Allright everyone I think it is time to get back on topic here.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Allright everyone I think it is time to get back on topic here.



I knew you were gonna say that, and rightfully so.  

TO


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

What ?! 

I've never idiolized the Waffen SS ! And I've certainly never expressed myself any way where that could've been implied ! I despise what the Nazi's did to the Jews and I will always do so and have always done so, and AFAIK I've always made that very clear. But unlike you TO I look objectively at things, and I unlike you have long realised that the Germans weren't the only ones carrying out crimes during WW2. 

So please spare us all the idiotic last comments of your post, it has no place here.


As to the people killed by the A-bombs, well approx. 200,000 died, thats abit more than the 85 -100,000 who died during the firebombing of Tokyo, which btw was the worst most devastating firebombing in history.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

_A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes or crime against humanity and or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"_


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> I unlike you have long realised that the Germans weren't the only ones carrying out crimes during WW2.


 
Compared to who? The Japanese? That quote says it all Soren. 

Like Adler said, let's stay on topic.

TO


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

No it doesn't TO, all it says is that you're a very ignorant person who likes to spew out blanket completely unjust accusations.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 2, 2007)

Topic, anyone ??


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> No it doesn't TO, all it says is that you're a very ignorant person who likes to spew out blanket completely unjust accusations.



To Adler, and any other moderator/administrator of the forum, I apologise in advance for being off-topic one more time in this particular thread.

Soren, I take comfort in the fact that that my father killed lots of German soldiers, especially Waffen SS soldiers, in the ETO. I like to think that he helped contribute to VE-Day. And after he, and his fellow riflemen, became aware of the Malmedy Massacre, they took no SS prisoners at the "Bulge". They treated them like the dogs they were.

I'm done with you.

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2007)

5,4,3,2,1....

On topic or the thread closes.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

No need to close it, just move the OT stuff elsewhere - simple.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2007)

_Soren, I take comfort in the fact that that my father killed lots of German soldiers_

Just reading that along with the other things you have written gives me the impression you're no better than the SS yourself. You put American lives over Japanese ones as if American lives are worth more, and you take comfort in the fact that you grandfather killed lots of Germans (I bet he disagree's with you), which sounds VERY nationalistic, ignorant, arrogant and downright distasteful in my ears.

From what I gather your posts TO are no'more than a young persons rants.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2007)

Closed


----------

