# PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS



## ToughOmbre (Jun 26, 2008)

*If this doesn't make you want to go after the "revisionists", nothing will! *

From the New York Post 6/26/2008

PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS

IT'S ALL ONE 'WAR'

MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory. 

Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy. 

The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two. 

His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm. 

It is an illuminating viewpoint, and Ferguson does an effective job tying all of the century's mass deportations, enslavements, ethnic cleansings and genocides together so that you can't help being won over to his view that the violence of the 20th century was virtually never-ending. 

But it is Ferguson's revisionist view of the tactics applied by the Allies in World War II that is likely to raise the hackles of those who have always believed in the "necessity" of bombing German and Japanese civilians, culminating in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end a war we did not start. 

"I think it's very hard for those who have imbibed the idea of a 'great generation' that what the Allies did to defeat the Axis was in some measure to adopt totalitarian tactics," Ferguson says in a Q&A on PBS's Web site. 

"The aim of strategic bombing was . . . in large measure to kill German civilians by destroying the most densely populated parts of the country. And it only really worked when the level of destruction reached apocalyptic levels. It behooves us all to stare this reality in the face, by trying to understand what it was like to be on the receiving end of firestorms like the ones that engulfed Hamburg or Dresden." 

And once again, it is demonstrated that nothing is sacred - not even World War II. 

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2008)

Pinko idiots trying to re-write history.....


----------



## timshatz (Jun 26, 2008)

More crap from PBS. Used to watch Frontline and Nova. Back in the early 90s, they were good shows. Now, Nova is occasionally good (has held up better than most shows) but Frontline is pure crap. 

'Bout the only thing worth watching now is the 7pm market brief with Paul Kangas. 

Although my daughter likes the first minute of Sesame Street.


----------



## ccheese (Jun 26, 2008)

That TV show should prove interesting !!

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 26, 2008)

timshatz said:


> More crap from PBS.



And *OUR* tax dollars pays for that crap!

TO


----------



## seesul (Jun 26, 2008)

I´m happy we don´t have PBS here...


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Jun 26, 2008)

Of coarse the world would be a much better place if the Nazi's and Imperial Japan had won the war wouldn't it.
I'm sure there will be no mention of the deliberation and questioning of using these tactics by our leaders of the day. General LeMay said himself that if we had lost the War there was no doubt in his mind that he would have been tried as a War Criminal. This tells me there was a concience involved in the decision to bomb millions of civilians. Can that be said of the opposing side murdering millions of Jews and Chinese?
The thing that scares me most is all the uninformed people in the country, as well as others that will take this all as fact not question the underlying agenda behind it.
I'll probably try to suffer through this program, but most likely write a letter of disaproval to PBS once all is said and over.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 26, 2008)

timshatz said:


> More crap from PBS. Used to watch Frontline and Nova. Back in the early 90s, they were good shows. Now, Nova is occasionally good (has held up better than most shows) but Frontline is pure crap.
> 
> 'Bout the only thing worth watching now is the 7pm market brief with Paul Kangas.
> 
> Although my daughter likes the first minute of Sesame Street.


I think both shows are great , always watch NOVA and Frontline is pretty good as well maybe the best news show out there .Most of the stuff on Frontline is backed with interviews and transcripts etc it may not be what you want to hear but at least its an opposing view some thing to give you food for thought .


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Well let's also remember that the "true" Nazis aware of all that Hitler Himmler were up to numbered less than 15% of the entire German population. I find this fact particularly scary to think about, that so little could lure so many into such a pointless war.

Can't help but think a little about the Iraqi war when talking of this either, the governments putting so many good people in jeopardy to fight a war based on false information, and then there's the guantanamo camps. 

Let's not forget how Hitler came to power, he made the jews look like terrorists by setting fire to the Reichstag and then led a false investigation which concluded it to be jewish "terrorists" which were behind it, from which point on the German people saw jews pretty much the same way many westerners see islamists today.

I also find it abit disturbing that no'one has found Osama yet.. But then again he might be buried in some of the caves our special forces went out shooting rockets into.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2008)

Does anyone know the name of that German city that was bombed purely because of a civilian population? I can't seem to remember....Coventry? or.....

Out tax $$ hard at work.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Does anyone know the name of that German city that was bombed purely because of a civilian population? I can't seem to remember....Coventry? or.....
> 
> Out tax $$ hard at work.


Almost all the bombing done by Bomber Command was area bombing because the couldn't get accurate enough to hit specific targets


----------



## Torch (Jun 26, 2008)

Dresden and the fire storm might come to mind...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 26, 2008)

Torch said:


> Dresden and the fire storm might come to mind...


Interesting fact about Hamburg was the firestorm only resulted in 45 days of lost production


----------



## timshatz (Jun 26, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I think both shows are great , always watch NOVA and Frontline is pretty good as well maybe the best news show out there .Most of the stuff on Frontline is backed with interviews and transcripts etc it may not be what you want to hear but at least its an opposing view some thing to give you food for thought .



Frontline used to be great, but it fell apart in the 90s. The research and story line just tanked out. Totally. I've seen too many of them that were simply opinion pieces and little more. It's unfortunate, it used to be a great show but quality has declined, opinions became more one sided.

Nova did a much better job of holding it's objectivity. Matter of fact, it seems to have gotten better in that respect. WGBH usually does a very good job with it's programming.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 26, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Almost all the bombing done by Bomber Command was area bombing because the couldn't get accurate enough to hit specific targets



Or as Max Hastings put it, "The British precision bombed area targets and the Americans area bombed precision targets". 

Gives food for thought.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2008)

> Interesting fact about Hamburg was the firestorm only resulted in 45 days of lost production



Thats my point Pb, it was targeted because of some war production unlike the Baedekker raids which were based solely on a travel guide. If what has been posted about this show is correct, that right there shows its a load of cr*p.



> "The aim of strategic bombing was . . . in *large measure to kill German civilians by destroying the most densely populated parts of the country*. And it only really worked when the level of destruction reached apocalyptic levels. It behooves us all to stare this reality in the face, by trying to understand what it was like to be on the receiving end of firestorms like the ones that engulfed Hamburg or Dresden."



Thats what I was trying to show was ridiculus.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Thats my point Pb, it was targeted because of some war production unlike the Baedekker raids which were based solely on a travel guide. If what has been posted about this show is correct, that right there shows its a load of cr*p.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I was trying to show was ridiculus.


I've been around too long in this world to listen to someones opinion and I'll make my own opinion after viewing it . Which in IMHO is the only way . I've just finished reading to the Right of the Line and this show might not be all that farfetched at least as far as the airwar.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2008)

You mentioned that book before. I'll have to look it up.

I agree, after seeing the show would be the time for opinion.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

I don't think it's that ridiculous Njaco, the reason being that it's true. Why else bomb the major cities when it was well known that the factories weren't located there ? Hitting the population has its own crippling effect.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 26, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Pinko idiots trying to re-write history.....



Kinda like they rewrote the Civil War. Oooops, did I say that?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 26, 2008)

What do you mean ABW, like the Civil War was about slavery (modern interpretation) when in actuality it was about $$ ?? Never forget the power of the pen.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> What do you mean ABW, like the Civil War was about slavery (modern interpretation) when in actuality it was about $$ ?? Never forget the power of the pen.



It has been turned into the war over slavery. Yes, slavery was one of the reasons but that was somewhat later in the war when Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation. The present day media has pretty much suppressed the real reasons for that war. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel slavery is right, I do not believe it should be allowed in any way shape or form, but let's keep the history books correct.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 26, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Or as Max Hastings put it, "The British precision bombed area targets and the Americans area bombed precision targets".
> 
> Gives food for thought.



The statement of "precision bombing" in the 1940's was a fantasy...It never happened ...The US could not do it in day light ...And the Brit's could not hit the broad side of a barn at night..It was propaganda..And the start of the US's BS of a nice clean sort of war to make the American people feel good ..That's still happening to day in Iraq..

One thing to get this thread back on track...Did the Allies know the Stalin was such a butcher at the time .. Or did he show his colors after the war..Roosevelt was thinking he had Stalin all cover ...Stalin played him like a fidel

( not busting the Brit's balls its just with the tec they had at the time it was hard to do in day light ..Let a lone at night..Hats off to the hard fighting RAF flyers..)


----------



## wilbur1 (Jun 27, 2008)

War is war if they or you dont like it go start your own little country. what the germans at the time did was wrong and that is what EVERY AMERICAN fought against the japanese also did their own holocaust AGAINST THIER OWN PEOPLE! Say what you want against the US in ww2 ......but i will tell you 1 thing i will stand up and fight for what MY country did!



Im an american citizen and a soldier everybody else can KISS my a##


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> The statement of "precision bombing" in the 1940's was a fantasy...It never happened ...



617th squadron showed differently. They did some pretty accurate bombing on several occasions. It could be done when one had the opportunity and will to do so.


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 27, 2008)

You've got to remember that many of the folks that operate in the world of the university don't have that good a grasp on the real world and tend to lean a bit leftish. It's hard to find much good to say about a major war other than the results were satisfactory. As far as atrocities go, the folks in Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America could show us a thing or two.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> You've got to remember that many of the folks that operate in the world of the university don't have that good a grasp on the real world.



Now where did you get that idea? They are people living in the real world like you and me.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 27, 2008)

wilbur1 said:


> War is war if they or you dont like it go start your own little country. what the germans at the time did was wrong and that is what EVERY AMERICAN fought against the japanese also did their own holocaust AGAINST THIER OWN PEOPLE! Say what you want against the US in ww2 ......but i will tell you 1 thing i will stand up and fight for what MY country did!
> 
> 
> 
> Im an american citizen and a soldier everybody else can KISS my a##



I think I came across way wrong here.. ..I to am American and support my country ..And even the war in Iraq.. Just think the bomb was not as precision as history makes it out to be ..And my statements were not against the US in ww2 at all.. Its just with the tec at the time it was hard to get bombs that close..And "I" feel the the Germans and Japanese started it and they got what was coming to them to stop what they started...I to will and have on this forum stood up for what MY country did ...No shame here.. 

I'm one who would like to see us get the job done in Iraq ..This nice war gets more American kids killed ..Then if we would get ugly with them and I wish we would get it done ...And I'm agains the nice way of war .. Its sort of like nice jails ..Does not work...

Its called WAR for a reason...Sorry if I came across wrong and uppset you Wilbur..They started it and we did what it took to stop it ..


----------



## Hop (Jun 27, 2008)

> Almost all the bombing done by Bomber Command was area bombing because the couldn't get accurate enough to hit specific targets



45% of the bombing done by BC was area bombing, 55% attacks on precision targets.



> Interesting fact about Hamburg was the firestorm only resulted in 45 days of lost production



Bear in mind that Hamburg was the largest armaments centre in Germany, and that the city suffered an equivalent to _total_ loss of production for a significant period. As Middlebrook puts it:



> The general conclusion was that the Battle of Hamburg caused a loss of war production equivalent to the normal output of the entire city for 1.8 months of full production. Output returned to 80 per cent of normal within five months but full recovery was never achieved.



He gives as an example U boat production, with estimates that lost production accounted for 23 - 27 boats.



> I don't think it's that ridiculous Njaco, the reason being that it's true. Why else bomb the major cities when it was well known that the factories weren't located there ?



Factories were located in the cities. The German police report on the damage at Hamburg, for example, lists the following destruction:

Industrial and war-industry firms 580
Warehouses 7
Office buildings 379
Commercial premises (mostly shops etc.) 2,632
Banks, insurance offices etc. 88
Public utility premises 13
Transport premises 13
Public offices 145
Nazi Party offices 112
Military premises 80
Police, fire and civil-defence premises 197
Bridges 12

But the theory behind area bombing is that even the factories that aren't hit directly still lose production, because of disruption to water, gas and electricity supplies, blocked roads, scattered workers etc.

Middlebrook gives the example of Blohm und Voss shipyards in Hamburg, which suffered very little direct damage. 

Before the raids on Hamburg, Blohm und Voss had 9,000 workers show up each day.

The day after the heaviest raid, 300 turned up for work.

A couple of days later 1,500 were back at work.

On the 1st September, more than a month after the raids, 5000 were showing up each day.

1st October, 2 months later, it was 7000.

1st November, 3 months after the raids, 7500.

In Hamburg war industries as a whole, on 1st October, 2 months after the raids, the percentage reduction in workers:

German men - 37.7%
German women - 55.4%
Foreign men - 60.2%
Foreign women - 66.7%
Total - 47.7%

And the reduction wasn't because the workers had been killed. The total death toll at Hamburg was about 45,000 out of a population of about 1.5 million. That's about 3%.

Not only was the percentage decline in industrial workers much larger than the overall percentage killed, but it was much larger in absolute numbers. At the start of October, 2 months after the bombing, attendance at Hamburg's war industries was down from 634,000 to 331,300. Over 300,000 workers had disappeared.

The difference between bombing (on all sides) and the holocaust is that bombing was intended to win the war by attacking the enemy. The holocaust was intended to eradicate those _designated_ as enemies, even though they were doing nothing to help the enemy war effort.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 27, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> The statement of "precision bombing" in the 1940's was a fantasy...It never happened ...The US could not do it in day light ...And the Brit's could not hit the broad side of a barn at night..It was propaganda..And the start of the US's BS of a nice clean sort of war to make the American people feel good QUOTE]
> 
> Haz, you might want to read Max Hasting's "Bomber Command" which goes into great depth on the subject. While it is very true that Bomber Command had terrible results in the begining of the war, Hasting's shows that they got much better as the war went on. Using Target Marking, Master Bomber, Bomb Mix, Offset Bombing, ect, they managed to drop the mean target error for bombs dropped to less than 400 yards. It's a good read and goes over the details far better than I can in a short post on the board.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 27, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Does anyone know the name of that German city that was bombed purely because of a civilian population? I can't seem to remember....Coventry? or.....
> 
> Out tax $$ hard at work.



Dresden....



Soren said:


> Well let's also remember that the "true" Nazis aware of all that Hitler Himmler were up to numbered less than 15% of the entire German population. I find this fact particularly scary to think about, that so little could lure so many into such a pointless war.



I think the aftermath of the war would have been much different, Germany could argue that it was simply a conflict with UK Allies over power domination *except* that the death camps were so horrific that the Nazi regime was condemed as monsters



ToughOmbre said:


> *
> 
> PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS
> 
> ...


*

TO if they argue that the Allies bombing of civilian targets "crossed the line" then there is some justification to that argument, there were military leaders at the time that disagreed with the strategy, both on moral military grounds.

However to argue that the Axis were no worse than the Allies, after the Holocaust the Rape of Nanking, is absurd*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2008)

freebird said:


> However to argue that the Axis were no worse than the Allies, after the Holocaust the Rape of Nanking, is absurd



And don't forget the treatment of POWs by the Japanese but you summed it up perfectly!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 27, 2008)

freebird said:


> TO if they argue that the Allies bombing of civilian targets "crossed the line" then there is some justification to that argument, there were military leaders at the time that disagreed with the strategy, both on moral military grounds.



However, if the Allies refrained from bombing civilian targets and the war lasted longer than it did, and say 600,000 American soldiers died instead of 405,000, what is the moral obligation to those that were killed needlessly, and to their families. This would be my main argument to those that say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary. 



freebird said:


> However to argue that the Axis were no worse than the Allies, after the Holocaust the Rape of Nanking, is absurd



Absolutely!

TO


----------



## Freebird (Jun 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> However, if the Allies refrained from bombing civilian targets and the war lasted longer than it did, and say 600,000 American soldiers died instead of 405,000, what is the moral obligation to those that were killed needlessly, and to their families. This would be my main argument to those that say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary.
> 
> TO



Pardon me, I should have been more specific, *I was referring to the European bombing, which was known to have very little effect on Axis production,* and especially the most destructive raids in '44 '45 when it was clear the the germans were losing. The raids on the oil plants *were*
effective, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think "Dresden" etc was justifiable, as it didn't have much effect, compared to the cost in civilians. Just IMHO, there were arguments on both sides of the issue.


As for Hiroshima Nagasaki, I would have personally tried to blast an small military target, {Small base/port on the coastline} to demonstrate the power. 

*However, if it didn't work I would agree with your argument to use it on Hiroshima* to end the war {saving 100,000's of casualties on *both* sides} Also I suspect that the Allies did not know how deadly the radiation fallout would be.


As to the argument "did we ally ourselves with a brutal dictator?"

Yes we did. Was there another option? I don't think so.....


----------



## timshatz (Jun 27, 2008)

I don't know if "Allied with a brutal dictator" really holds. The Soviet Union was in the war before the US. While it is true, we gave material support to the SU, we did it on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". 

Seems more common sense than anything else. When in the fight of your life, looking for points of disagreement (ideological or otherwise) between yours and a potential Allied power is stupid and possibly suicidal.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 27, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I don't know if "Allied with a brutal dictator" really holds. The Soviet Union was in the war before the US. While it is true, we gave material support to the SU, we did it on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
> 
> Seems more common sense than anything else. When in the fight of your life, looking for points of disagreement (ideological or otherwise) between yours and a potential Allied power is stupid and possibly suicidal.




Who's we??   

I guess from the British Empire point of view, it was Hitlers choice to push Russia into the war, it more or less "dropped in our lap", and it made common sense from any way you look at it.

But that's one of the arguments that they use "But Stalin was as bad as Hitler"...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 27, 2008)

freebird said:


> Pardon me, I should have been more specific, *I was referring to the European bombing, which was known to have very little effect on Axis production,* and especially the most destructive raids in '44 '45 when it was clear the the germans were losing. The raids on the oil plants *were*
> effective, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think "Dresden" etc was justifiable, as it didn't have much effect, compared to the cost in civilians. Just IMHO, there were arguments on both sides of the issue.



I agree with your points about Axis production (mostly aircraft) and oil. However it would be hard to imagine that bombing the civilian population centers did not help to shorten the war. And morality (what morality is there in war anyway?) aside, that was what IMO what counted. 



freebird said:


> As for Hiroshima Nagasaki, I would have personally tried to blast an small military target, {Small base/port on the coastline} to demonstrate the power.



Maybe, but I think that would have been a waste of a bomb, and we only had two, I think. If they didn't surrender after the first attack on Hiroshima, there's no way they would have surrendered after an attack on a "small military target".




freebird said:


> As to the argument "did we ally ourselves with a brutal dictator?"
> 
> Yes we did. Was there another option? I don't think so.....



And what has proved to be true in history over and over, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

TO


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 27, 2008)

Hop said:


> 45% of the bombing done by BC was area bombing, 55% attacks on precision targets.
> 
> 
> 
> .


I believe thats wishful thinking just in 1945 alone Bomber command flew 67,483 sorties and dropped 181,000tons of bombs that is approx 20% of the total for the whole war and this is how the tonnage breaks down
Attacks on 
cities 66,482 tons 36.6%
troops and defences 26081 tons 14.4%
transportation 28102tons 15.4%
attacks on oil 47510tons 26,2%
naval 11149tons 6.1%
Luftwafffe 637tons .04%
specific industries 1236tons .07%
other 552 tons .02%


----------



## trackend (Jun 27, 2008)

IMO. What was bombed, not bombed, shot, nuked or anything else boils down to this. The Axis forces were determined to conquer as much of the rest of the world as possible the Nazis wanted to either exterminate or subdugate anyone they took a dislike to, as did the Japanese. The Allies did not invade and enslave most of Europe nor did the Allies walk all over the far East raping and killing indiscriminately. Nor did they start bombing cities full of civilians. The Allies did what the felt they needed to do in order to end the war as quickly as they could with the minimum of loss of life to their own people.
At the time Shooting Bombing, Burning and eventualy dropping the A bomb were all used to achive this. 
They did not give a s*** what some guy would say in 60 years time in fact the guy would have quite likely not been born to say it in the first place if the Allies had lost. 
When the A bomb was dropped very few people at the time said that it was a terrible thing and should not have been done. Most, especially the guys who had fought their way across a large part of Asia or Island hopped across the pacific and seen half their mates killed or the civilians whos cities had been Blitzed said whoopee we can live the wars over.
Hindsite is real easy 62 years later, but at the time it was a big different kettle of fish. 
As for Russia Stalin didnt give a toss about his people so like wise neither did his generals using millions of lives in order to win as quickly as they could.
20,000,000 dead I wonder how any nation would react to losses and atrocities on that scale. We like to believe a bit differently than those of the Red Army but we can only guess on that.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 27, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Haztoys said:
> 
> 
> > The statement of "precision bombing" in the 1940's was a fantasy...It never happened ...The US could not do it in day light ...And the Brit's could not hit the broad side of a barn at night..It was propaganda..And the start of the US's BS of a nice clean sort of war to make the American people feel good QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## seesul (Jun 27, 2008)

It´s always sad for me to see such a discussion...the agressor seems to be a victim and the victim seems to be an agressor?
Hey people, wake up! Once you start the war, you gotta count with effects...
Agressor build concentration camps...why?...just to kill the NATION,RELIGION or POLITICS...
Victim (and agressor as well) bombed the civilian cities...why? To show the power, to frighten the people and to make the war SHORTER (not the agresor).
The war is not a PC game and you gotta kill or to be killed only because of ****ing decision made by politicians...
I know few WW2 vets (both Allies and Axis) and all of them are friends of mine...why? Because they can speak to each other as a friends today and no one from them would fight anymore...****ing politicians toke them their youth away and teached them how to kill in a best way...shocking?...no, unfortunately reality 60 years ago...do you think it´s long time ago? I don´t think so...but sometime I feel people forget too fast...´cause they don´t care for the past.
But if you don´t care for the past, you can´t build a peaceful future...so wake up...

For those they know Willi Reschke here´s what he told me 2 years ago during his visit during the discussion in our museum:

_Dear friends, if I can, I wanna apologize for everything that Germans did to your nation during WW2. Today I know I helped Hitler to reach his target but back then I wanted to defence my land. When I hanged behind B-17, there were only 2 possibilities- to kill or to be killed...Anyway, though I was your former enemy, I´m as your friend here today and I hope we all will be friends forever...I´ll never forget these moments spent here with you._

and:

_Roman, I have never expected that I´ll visit this area again and I didn´t know what to expect here as a German fighter pilot. But I have to say that I still can´t get over. Why so many people came here, were so kind to me, asked me questions? I could kill their fathers or grandfathers in WW2 and they were so friendly to me...You know, in Germany, some skinheads used my name and pictures of me on their websites and lot of my friends thought I´m a nazi and I had a lot of problems with that. So that´s why I was so careful when you asked me if I could come here. Today I know it was one of my best decisions I ever toke..._

And that´s why I´m interested in the WW2 history...
More at: 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...joe-owsianik-meeting-after-63-years-9298.html
Warbird Photo Album - Willi Reschke


----------



## JugBR (Jun 27, 2008)

seesul said:


> It´s always sad for me to see such a discussion...the agressor seems to be a victim and the victim seems to be an agressor?
> Hey people, wake up! Once you start the war, you gotta count with effects...
> Agressor build concentration camps...why?...just to kill the NATION,RELIGION or POLITICS...
> Victim (and agressor as well) bombed the civilian cities...why? To show the power, to frighten the people and to make the war SHORTER (not the agresor).
> ...



100% with you man !


----------



## timshatz (Jun 27, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> timshatz said:
> 
> 
> > Looks if my point of view was off...I will do my home work on this ...
> ...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 27, 2008)

Everyone is worried that this show will be revisionist history well since none of us have seen it we a judging it on some guy we don't know have never met opinion of the of the show . Yes Seesul war is a brutal and unforgiving affair I have relatives residing in cemeteries in Europe . I also know many vets from both sides and they've been there and done that I know guys that did not enjoy the hospitality of the Japanese , I've met RCAF guys that were interned in Bergen Belsen , and these guys deserve all the respect we can muster . 
However I'll bet my ass that decisions made on both sides were sometimes the product of egos and vanity that caused undo hardship to the average guys on both sides suffered because of these vain fools


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 27, 2008)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> It has been turned into the war over slavery. Yes, slavery was one of the reasons but that was somewhat later in the war when Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation. The present day media has pretty much suppressed the real reasons for that war. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel slavery is right, I do not believe it should be allowed in any way shape or form, but let's keep the history books correct.



Amen brother. As ugly as the truth is, we should not undertake historical revision for the risk of incurring the wrath of ignorance. And that is the most scary power in the world.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm American ...And really did not get into the Civil War alot until just some time ago ..We learned about it in school and all (i'm 43)...Was always much more into WW2.. So I really did some looking around on WW2..( Not that I'm even in same league on WW2 as most of you here)... But I was always thinking that the Civil War was mostly about slavery...  ..

Once I did some looking it was not... .. So they most of been teaching us the BS in the Dark Ages when I was in school also...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> I don't think it's that ridiculous Njaco, the reason being that it's true. Why else bomb the major cities when it was well known that the factories weren't located there ? Hitting the population has its own crippling effect.



Was Hitler's motives different? With London, Amsterdamn, Warsaw, St. Petersburg, etc. for example?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was Hitler's motives different? With London, Amsterdamn, Warsaw, St. Petersburg, etc. for example?



Being Dutch and having lived there, I must correct you and say it was Rotterdam, not Amsterdam that was bombed ...  ...Sorry Chris, I just had to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Being Dutch and having lived there, I must correct you and say it was Rotterdam, not Amsterdam that was bombed ...  ...Sorry Chris, I just had to.



No problem, I was just naming off cities in allied countries.

I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.



All the way back to the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion bombed Guernica in 1937.

And the Japanese were dropping bombs on civilian population centers (Manila, Nanking to name a few) long before the first American bombs fell on the land of Nippon.

Payback is a bitch!

TO


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 29, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> All the way back to the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion bombed Guernica in 1937.
> 
> And the Japanese were dropping bombs on civilian population centers (Manila, Nanking to name a few) long before the first American bombs fell on the land of Nippon.
> 
> ...


go further cack to WW1 and the Zeppelins Gothas


----------



## Marcel (Jun 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.



Agreed, but I think it's due to the fact that the allies were so much better at it. Also Hitlers bombing doesn't make good the mistakes made by bomber command and the USAAF. I think they were on a thin line using a strategy like that. This doesn't take away the fact that the NAZI's easily stepped over this line, though.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 29, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Agreed, but I think it's due to the fact that the allies were so much better at it. Also Hitlers bombing doesn't make good the mistakes made by bomber command and the USAAF. I think they were on a thin line using a strategy like that. This doesn't take away the fact that the NAZI's easily stepped over this line, though.



Good point Marcel, I think the Allied bombing of German cities is harder to defend *because it had little military effect*. I have always felt that too much production was taken up by bombers, I think it would have been better use if they had made more fighters, escorts, ground attack maritime patrol.

But the heads of the British American Air Forces were big on Strategic bombing....


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

freebird said:


> But that's one of the arguments that they use "But Stalin was as bad as Hitler"...



Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.



stalin killed more than hitler, but mao tse tung killed even more. but sure, you have to pay ateption in the size of germany, size of soviet union and size of china. 

i believe 1° mao tse tung, 2° hitler, 3° stalin these are the top 3 psychos !


----------



## Marcel (Jun 30, 2008)

JugBR said:


> stalin killed more than hitler, but mao tse tung killed even more. but sure, you have to pay ateption in the size of germany, size of soviet union and size of china.
> 
> i believe 1° mao tse tung, 2° hitler, 3° stalin these are the top 3 psychos !




In no particular order. Also consider the time span in which they did it. I think Hitler was as bad as any of them.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jun 30, 2008)

I have read the book in question and it is actually a very interesting read. I haven't seen the programme but I can see where it's coming from. A lot of people see WW2 as if it were a 1950's movie - Brits and USA all good and virtuous, Germans all evil Nazis whereas soldiers from all sides committed war crimes. Of course the war crimes of Germany and Japan were on a far greater scale than anything the Western Allies ever performed, but as historians they have a right and duty to explore all aspects. 

The topic title is just sensationalism really as they do have a legitimate point. That said, it's my view (one which I would imagine is held by most people on here) that deportations, internment and bombing were a necessary evil and that in total war, normal rules morals and rights just don't apply


----------



## Freebird (Jun 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.



Oh I think he was! 

The point that I was making is that saying "Stalin was worse than Hitler" does *not* mean that "The Allies should not go to war with Germany"


----------



## timshatz (Jul 1, 2008)

Not sure if I agree with the idea that everyone committed atrocities as a common currency for all armies during WW2. Doing so is a step in the logic that the Allies were no better than the Axis. It is an arguement based more on inference than actual fact. 

While Allied troops did commit atrocities (Dachau, Stutgart, ect), they were isolated cases and not part of official policy. There were no orders written and signed by Ike, Monty or any other Western Allied General instructing the troops to massacre civilians or captured soliders. There were no orders calling for "extreme measures" or similar such as those sent to the Wermacht during the Battle of the Bulge (which were largely ignored by the German troops but not entirely ignored).

However, the Nazis exterminated civilians as a matter of course. The Sodercommando (sp?) were a unit designed to do just that. The objective was not done as an aim of winning the war (possible considered an unfortunate side affect of battle) but as an action of genocide. 

Compared to the war in the East, the war in the West was generally fought within the bounds of some rules of war. With exception of units such as the SS, there were generally limitations. However, the underlying conduct of the powers involved (Allied and Axis) was completely different. And it is here that the arguement that the Allies and Axis were the same completely breaks down.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 1, 2008)

I haven't read all of the tread, but here are my two cents...

Saying that the Allies are as bad as the Nazis is pure provocation. Of course there was war crimes commited on both sides, but ask yourself the questions :

Who started to bomb cities first ? Germans (First recorded bombing of a city in WWII being Wielun, Poland (September 1st 1939), destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people.)
Who started to kill P.O.W.s first ? Germans (Invasion of Poland, September 1st - October 25th 1939.)

So you know, as someone stated earlier, payback is a bitch. They "accidently bombed" (yeah, sure... who can thrust a Nazi's word ?) a civilian area of London in 1940, the RAF replied by bombing Berlin and then they started to bomb London, Liverpool, Portsmouth and so on...

Then, a few years later, the RAF/USAAF wiped out Dresden... In my book, it was not a war crime, it was justice. A blind justice, but still justice.

And now some Neo-Nazi @ssholes in Germany wants the Queen to apologize for that bombing ? Are they f*cking retarded ? If I was the King of Great-Britain, I would never apologize... Even worse, I would call in the media and say something like : "So you want me to apologize for Dresden ? Sit on it, bitch ! (Give the finger to the camera.)" But once again, I've never hidden the fact that I'm a scumbag... Anyway, I'm getting off-topic here...

For the record : I'm glad the Queen has not apologized for Dresden.

So the Allies did some nasty things... Who cares ? It was greatly justified.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 1, 2008)

Maestro said:


> So the Allies did some nasty things... Who cares ? It was greatly justified.



Don't get carried away. IMO *no* warcrimes are justified. Not the whole population of Germany was NAZI, in fact most of them were not. And as Dresden is concerned. Most of the people in the city were poor refugees, with no home, seeking shelter in the unbombed city, children, mother, fathers and grandparents. This was the real world and they were bombed to the dead. 
*There's absolutely no justification in that*

Saying "yeah, but they started it" is IMO just childish. I agree that appologies are also a stupid thing to do, just as blaming the Germans for what the NAZI's did in WWII.


----------



## trackend (Jul 1, 2008)

I am certainly not after looking for justification for Dresden on behalf of a previous generation who had the unenviable job of fighting the war. 
They kill us we kill them we win or they win its that simple.

I wonder how many people would be saying dont bomb that city its got civilians in it if they had been around during the war, bet not many, most would be saying lets nuke the bastards specially if half your cities had already had the crap bombed out of them and tens of thousand of your own men, women and kids killed.

Once again we get armchair morals 60 years after the real event a luxury they never had and also without a large helping of old fashioned revenge that was about in bucketfulls on all sides.

That was not an excuse for bombing cities just an attempt to understand the reasons why.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 1, 2008)

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. *War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."* 

*"War is Hell."*

- William Tecumseh Sherman 

My guess is that most, if not every, revisionist historian has never experienced war, and hasn't got a clue. They just want to sell books.

TO


----------



## kaigunair (Jul 1, 2008)

Its interested to see the pendulum swinging both ways in this forum. I too felt the gutteral reaction they were probably hoping to get with the title. But I also don't believe in the idea that "in war, anything goes". This also wasn't the perspective many of our top military leaders during the war, and one reason why I'm proud to be an american.

... a japanese-american, if such a qualification is necessary. and yes, I'm darn proud of what the japanese americans did during the war. and no, I don't think the situation they were put in was IN ANY WAY justified. but darn proud that through their actions, all those reasons for viewing and treating jpn-americans as traitors and sabatours were made NULL and VOID.

but I wouldn't be surprised if PBS aired a show saying the interment camps were justified. PO'd, ready to throw down, but not surprised....


----------



## JugBR (Jul 1, 2008)

Marcel said:


> ...*no* warcrimes are justified...



yes thats right agree with you mate 100%, but there´s no war wich doesnt had warcrimes by both sides, anytime !!!

war is dirty, it´s brutal, civilians always dies, womans usually are raped, national theasures are stolen, since 5.000 years to now, its the same thing, just changes the weapons and the strategies.

the war against hitler obviously wasnt 100% clean, like any other was. but was a fair war. thats the diference in mine opinion. some wars aren´t fair, because their reasons are not very specified or theres other goals behind, like the invasion of poland by germany, for sample.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 1, 2008)

The fine line between "justified violence" in war, and "warcrimes" has a name: winning. If you win, then what you did was "necessary, but distasteful". If you lose, then what you did was "warcrimes". As they say, history is written by the winners. Did atrocities happen on both sides? Yes. Do they happen in all wars? Yes. Are they avoidable? Not without changing basic human nature. Does that change the fact that, even though 90% of Germany did not agree with Hitler's policies, we needed to kick the crap out of Germany? Nope. Does that make it right? Nope. Does whining about it change anything? Nope.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 1, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Don't get carried away. IMO *no* warcrimes are justified. Not the whole population of Germany was NAZI, in fact most of them were not. And as Dresden is concerned. Most of the people in the city were poor refugees, with no home, seeking shelter in the unbombed city, children, mother, fathers and grandparents. This was the real world and they were bombed to the dead.
> *There's absolutely no justification in that*
> 
> Saying "yeah, but they started it" is IMO just childish. I agree that appologies are also a stupid thing to do, just as blaming the Germans for what the NAZI's did in WWII.



Agreed Marcel, and the fact that the city raids had a minimal effect on the Axis war effort removes the argument "we had to do it to win the war"

Yes Trackend, if people had their family killed in a bombing raid there would be a populist sentiment to round up all those with German Italian names and have them shot. But in civilized society we have to resist our baser impulses.



kaigunair said:


> Its interested to see the pendulum swinging both ways in this forum. I too felt the gutteral reaction they were probably hoping to get with the title. But I also don't believe in the idea that "in war, anything goes". This also wasn't the perspective many of our top military leaders during the war, and one reason why I'm proud to be an american.
> 
> ... a japanese-american, if such a qualification is necessary. and yes, I'm darn proud of what the japanese americans did during the war. and no, I don't think the situation they were put in was IN ANY WAY justified.



Good post Kaigunair, and welcome to the forum. Interesting to hear a Japanese American perspective.

To be honest, I can understand the government felt the need to move Japanese-born residents away from the coast. However it was certainly not justified to house them in tents in the freezing winter, and it was a terribly shameful act to sell off all of their property for cents on the dollar.

And while you might justify sending Japanese born residents away, I don't think you can in any way justify doing this to US born {or Canadian born} citizens of Japanese origin.


A very tricky question indeed, as it turned out almost 100% of the Japanese were loyal to the USA {or Canada}, but how could the Allies know that at the time? Especially as the west coast was going through an invasion scare.

Hope this post does not offend


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Fully agreed Freebird.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 1, 2008)

In my mind in 1941-1942 it would have been better use of the long range heavy bombers as Naval Patrol, or to bomb the Italian Mediterranean ports, as they are easier to target at night, and reducing capacity of usable transport to Rommel would have some solid effectiveness. In 1942-1943 they should have built more fighters, naval strike ground attack aircraft instead of so many heavy bombers.

Just a thought


----------



## kaigunair (Jul 2, 2008)

hey freebird, I appreciate the comments, no offense taken. However, one point I'd like to bring out, was the island of hawaii and the scope of the internment of the large japan-born and japanese-american popluation, or lack thereof. Here you had something like 30% of the population was of "japanese ancestry", plus large, important, and key military bases that had been actually attacked by japan. I think 1% or less were rounded up and sent to camps. A rational decision to move the japanese to camps would certainly have to logically include these "enemies".

Then you have "western strategic area" where you had a japanese population of <1%, and 100% were rounded up and put into camps. 

I'd have to say it was fear which was behind the relocation, and I can say it was a false fear, because the japanese americans demonstrated it by their actions. What made it hard for the jpn-americans is that there was no formal apology after the war...you have to remember these people lost their homes, farms, businesses. If it was wrong, why weren't these things returned? note: most had 24-72 hours to sell everything they owned, and had only what they could carry onto the trains.

An often missed reason for the interment is that the small japanese-american community was doing very well fiinancially. They bought junk land, spent years turning it into fertile soil...it was $$$. By law, japanese couldn't become citizens, so often the land was put in the names of their kids. Or, like the YWCA in San Francisco, put in the name of a organzation (fyi, who later sold it to China to become a Chinese embassy). Fear and fear mongering for profit - its why I don't ever plan to set foot in Hearst Castle based on principle.

Yes, there was the $10k and "formal apology" of the 1990's. I think its easy to see how it was sort of "too little, too late" thing, plus many never lived to see it. Many of those that did used it to self-publish books on their experience.

China is the up and coming superpower. Wonder what would happen to all the chinese and chinese americans living in the pacific coast. I sure it would be safer if they weren't all there, especially if there was a war on......

sorry, last thing, but one thing that has stuck with me is that most spies for the japanese weren't japanese or jpn americans. same with present day spies - I think these agencies have figured out its better to go with non-native looking people to hire on as spies. makes them less obvious? I could be wrong, since 007 seems to do blend in well in every country from africa, to asia, to the middle east...but oh, he's a fictional character...

(its late, and I've done a lot of personal study in this area, so its close to my heart).


----------



## Freebird (Jul 2, 2008)

kaigunair said:


> hey freebird, I appreciate the comments, no offense taken.
> 
> I'd have to say it was fear which was behind the relocation.



You are being polite here - you and I know that a major factor in their treatment was RACISM.



kaigunair said:


> What made it hard for the jpn-americans is that there was no formal apology after the war...you have to remember these people lost their homes, farms, businesses. If it was wrong, why weren't these things returned? note: most had 24-72 hours to sell everything they owned, and had only what they could carry onto the trains.



Yes I think the legacy would have been different if the government had simply held on to the property during the war, and then returned it afterwards {with an apology of course}

But selling it off at fire-sale prices was just a big rip-off,


----------



## Clave (Jul 2, 2008)

> War is Hell.



That is all you need to know...


----------



## seesul (Jul 2, 2008)

The war crimes were on all sides, there´s no doubt, that´s why we call it WAR.
But we know the reasons why all the sides fought-the difference was the idea what the soldiers fought for:
on Axis side to create 3rd Reich, control at least whole Europe and Asia, destroy Jews,Slavonians, homosexuals,hadiccaped etc...
on Allies side to get back the occupied territory and liberate the nations
Both sides did it on their own: concentration camps, bombing the cities,executing POW´s and civilians...which has nothing to do with the normal human mind. But people become annimals in the war and the human mind goes appart...
If you are attacked, you gotta defend yourself, your family, your country...would you do it with a peaceful smile on your face and peaceful thoughts in your mind?
*BUT NO WAR, NO WAR CRIMES,NO VICTIMS.
NO AGGRESSOR, NO WAR.*
*THE BIGGEST WAR CRIME IS THE WAR ITSELF*


----------



## Njaco (Jul 2, 2008)

25 June 1943 -

At Chequers, Churchill had been watching films taken during RAF raids on Germany. Suddenly, he sat up and said to his guest, the Australian cabinet minister Richard Casey: _"Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?" _Casey answered: "_We didn't start it. And it was them or us."_


----------



## starling (Jul 2, 2008)

goebels said....do you want total war....yes...came the answer.from an allied point of view,everyone imo is fair game,the factory,the factory workers house,the factory worker,the person who makes his sandwiches and the person who grew the food,the worker eats.fair game.yours,starling.


----------



## Haztoys (Jul 2, 2008)

They call it war for a reason ..Sad to say 

And we know now that there was know milatary stuff in some citys ...But did they know then......................????????

I hate it when people here say this and that standing in this time and space of info 60+ years later of info...????.. Stand in 1940 and see what it looks like about the japanese americans and dersden... sorry it happened ..But you (we) have know clue what they could see from the point in there time ..they do what they feel is right with the info on hand even todays war are the same


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2008)

Playing the devils advocate I qoute Churchill when he urged the Chief of Air Staff on Oct 20 40
"a wholehearted effort shall be made to cart a large number of bombs into Germany without prejudice to the accurate bombing of military targets"
and 
Churchill to Portal on Dresden on 28 mar 45 "that it remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing"
One poster stated that 90% of Germans were against Hitler that is revisionist history of the highest order i would suggest 90% were in favour up until the tide started to turn


----------



## JugBR (Jul 2, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> One poster stated that 90% of Germans were against Hitler that is revisionist history of the highest order i would suggest 90% were in favour up until the tide started to turn



if they was against hitler, how does he became chanceler ? remember, hitler does not conquest the power by a coup d'etat, but from the legal republican meanings of the german law. the nazi party had the majority of the chairs in the parliament, the voters chosen hitler as they leader !


----------



## seesul (Jul 2, 2008)

JugBR said:


> if they was against hitler, how does he became chanceler ? remember, hitler does not conquest the power by a coup d'etat, but from the legal republican meanings of the german law. the nazi party had the majority of the chairs in the parliament, the voters chosen hitler as they leader !



Don´t 4get the poor social situation in Germany after WW1 and in early 30´s. The reason why they voted for him was he promised and gave them a job in 30´s.
Another question is, how many Germans supported him and belived in him since the WW2 began...but who would tell it us today?...
And there was also Mr. Propaganda Goebels...and that was one of the strongest weapons Hitler had...


----------



## JugBR (Jul 2, 2008)

seesul said:


> Don´t 4 get the poor social situation in Germany after WW1 and in early 30´s. The reason why they voted for him was he promised and gave them a job in 30´s.
> Another question is, how many Germans supported him and belived in him since the WW2 began...but who would tell it us today?...
> And there was also Mr. Propaganda Goebels...and that was one of the strongest weapons Hitler had...



i agree 100% with you mate, germany was humiliated by the terms of the armistice in 1918. also came the economic crisis, in part by the heavy dutys germany should assume after the great war. 

we have also to recognize, besides the anti-jewish, anti-comunist, "anti-everyone-who-disagres-them", the nazi should re-build the german economy and industry. people supported hitler because they saw their country in the mud, after ww1 and then they saw the nazis as an solution since germanys already was hopless, the inflaton was 200%/month something like that, the allies doesnt care about the germans after the ww1, hitler does, for his own goals of course...


----------



## seesul (Jul 2, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i agree 100% with you mate, germany was humiliated by the terms of the armistice in 1918. also came the economic crisis, in part by the heavy dutys germany should assume after the great war.
> 
> we have also to recognize, besides the anti-jewish, anti-comunist, "anti-everyone-who-disagres-them", the nazi should re-build the german economy and industry. people supported hitler because they saw their country in the mud, after ww1 and then they saw the nazis as an solution since germanys already was hopless, the inflaton was 200%/month something like that, the allies doesnt care about the germans after the ww1, hitler does, for his own goals of course...



btw, do you have Bullock´s book Hitler and Stalin? Great book, IMO the best one about those 2 animals...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well let's also remember that the "true" Nazis aware of all that Hitler Himmler were up to numbered less than 15% of the entire German population. I find this fact particularly scary to think about, that so little could lure so many into such a pointless war.
> 
> Can't help but think a little about the Iraqi war when talking of this either, the governments putting so many good people in jeopardy to fight a war based on false information, and then there's the guantanamo camps.
> 
> ...



I suspect a.) he is alive, and b.) well protected in Nw Pakistan where only the Pakistani's have access.

I also suspect our Rules of Engagement have kept him alive.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 2, 2008)

he is not dead, i also believe he is in pakistan, maybe, when the coalition invaded the afghanistan, he probably wasnt there anyway.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2008)

seesul said:


> *BUT NO WAR, NO WAR CRIMES,NO VICTIMS.
> NO AGGRESSOR, NO WAR.*
> *THE BIGGEST WAR CRIME IS THE WAR ITSELF*


Amen to that!


----------



## Marcel (Jul 3, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> They call it war for a reason ..Sad to say
> 
> And we know now that there was know milatary stuff in some citys ...But did they know then......................????????
> 
> I hate it when people here say this and that standing in this time and space of info 60+ years later of info...????.. Stand in 1940 and see what it looks like about the japanese americans and dersden... sorry it happened ..But you (we) have know clue what they could see from the point in there time ..they do what they feel is right with the info on hand even todays war are the same



You're right, but I believe one has to learn from mistakes made in the past. It's not a judgement, but an objective way of looking at it and learn from it. That's why we must not shut our eyes for the faults made by the Allies. It is not to blame the Allies, as I'm living in a formal occupied country, I'm grateful for their fight. But they were no saints.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 3, 2008)

the war should have ever be the last rescue, you ever must try tho keep peace as long its possible.
but when you enter in the war, you have to focus your full strenght on that and dont concern about when it will finish.

looks like sun tzu !


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2008)

Bill,

I didn't want to make a direct comparison, cause there are differences, but it's still abit concerning when things even slightly seems to mirror what happened during WW2. 

As for Osama, well either he's dead or he's alive. To me there's a 50/50 chance. He might be living the sweet life in Pakistan or he might be buried somewhere in the caves our special forces blew to pieces some years back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I didn't want to make a direct comparison, cause there are differences, but it's still abit concerning when things even slightly seems to mirror what happened during WW2.



They do not even come close to comparing to what the Nazi's and the Japanese did in WW2 or even what Stalin and Mao did.

To say that they mirror it at all, is revising history and downplaying what the Nazis, Japanese, Mao and Stalin did.

Way to go!


----------



## seesul (Jul 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They do not even come close to comparing to what the Nazi's and the Japanese did in WW2 or even what Stalin and Mao did.
> 
> To say that they mirror it at all, is revising history and downplaying what the Nazis, Japanese, Mao and Stalin did.
> 
> Way to go!



YES!


----------



## Marcel (Jul 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They do not even come close to comparing to what the Nazi's and the Japanese did in WW2 or even what Stalin and Mao did.
> 
> To say that they mirror it at all, is revising history and downplaying what the Nazis, Japanese, Mao and Stalin did.
> 
> Way to go!



I think what Soren means (and only means) is that somehow, by many the whole Muslim world is seen as all terrorists, while it's only a very small minority. And he sees a parallel with Hitler as he also took the nature of a small minority of Jews and used that to raise hatred against a whole people. For the rest it not similar. 
While I find the comparison a little far fetched, I agree with his point.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 7, 2008)

The show is on tonight in my area - see how it goes.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I think what Soren means (and only means) is that somehow, by many the whole Muslim world is seen as all terrorists, while it's only a very small minority. And he sees a parallel with Hitler as he also took the nature of a small minority of Jews and used that to raise hatred against a whole people. For the rest it not similar.
> While I find the comparison a little far fetched, I agree with his point.



Exactly what I was trying to say..


----------

