Some time ago when we were on the Opera Forum and during a thread discussing mass deaths, etc in war and campaigns, I mentioned the massive numbers killed by the US in 1945. I was rubbished on this and ignored it even when I said I had read a book on it! Well now for those who always waffle about wanting links the following one will confirm what I argued all that time ago.
The US under Eisenhower's command exercised a shocking mass death in complete contradiction of rules and the moral principles the Allies aired. It is a disgraceful record and instead of moving to prepared camps hundreds of thousands had to live in the open air in all weathers. Suffering, violence, torture, starvation and deaths in the hundreds of thousands. US soldiers stole personal belongings including watches and anything they could lay their hands on. Charities and even the Red Cross were refused admittance to help. Occasionally an odd shocked US soldier would throw over a food ration he had but were repeatedly warned.
So here is the link to the vast numbers well into 6 figures done to death and where were the principles?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hbp61fOVFaE
I was rubbished on this and ignored it even when I said I had read a book on it! Well now for those who always waffle about wanting links the following one will confirm what I argued all that time ago.
For a book the author and title would suffice.
Being a European, it's the Asian-related stuff that I know less about (transcript here (http://io9.com/george-takei-describes-his-experience-in-a-japanese-int-1533358984)):
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn3k8mxjqY[/video]
I was rubbished on this and ignored it even when I said I had read a book on it!
I don't know what you read but I do know that there are books that make claims, and there are books that make counter claims.
You might be more specific. I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki the most horrid examples of what war produces. Over 225,000 died.
There's also this.
http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/ (http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/)
And this.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/torture-mau-mau-camps-kenya (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/torture-mau-mau-camps-kenya)
And lets not forget the "Irish Potato Famine".
The immediate effect on Ireland was devastating, and its long-term effects proved immense, permanently changing Irish culture and tradition. The Irish Potato Famine was the culmination of a social, biological, political, and economic catastrophe. In the colonial context of Ireland's domination by Britain, the root cause of the famine was perceived by many to be British policy, which reduced the amount of land available for feeding the Irish, and therefore stimulated the demand for political autonomy."
And...
Beginning 150 years ago this fall (1995), British "free trade" policy--the same policy Thatcher and her imitators still fanatically insist upon--caused the genocide of 2 million out of 8 million Irish subjects in four years.
War and bad policies are a bitch.
RJ, if you got ragged on back then it's because of the same thing you're doing now: Pointing out everything America ever does wrong while turning a blind eye on the British Empire doing the exact same kinds of things-- only worse sometimes.
Go back and see what the British Empire was up to when they thought nobody was looking, or if they were looking couldn't do anything about it. Hmmmm......... pot calling the kettle black, are we? Seems the UK has a history that is somewhat less than savory.
Now, before you go to screaming that this was all in the way-past and should be forgotten---- so was WW2, and frankly--- yeah, stuff happened on both sides of that conflict that make you wish to swear off membership in the Human Race. Despicable, just despicable.
It takes a Global Moderator to put thing straight.
Compare this -->internment camp (http://io9.com/george-takei-describes-his-experience-in-a-japanese-int-1533358984)
With this -->bataan Death March (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bataandeathmarch.htm)
This also a Good Topic ---> Romusha
hmm... Disregard Probability is bad habit .
--perhaps 'Mericans is just too good at Propagandas .
books
There is no Book that Genuinely free from politic , even holybooks .
mass deaths, etc in war and campaigns
Sir RJ , i think what you need is Different Perspectives .
so , Render this information .
My country is Ex - Colony of Spain , Portuguese , French , British , Netherland , and the last is Japan ( NAZI Coalition ) .
All of them are have the same pattern --> Expansionism
one does not simply .
to explain Why 'Murica not Colonize this country , when they can .
Note: i do not intend to defend 'Muricans.
since this country seems like always have tendency to Russia.
Something from history that decent Americans need to see.
As a student of human nature I'd have to ask why? It's not a national secret and it's been pointed out the very notion that people are deluded to the past isn't solely an American thing. (In fact more often Americans are criticized for doing very European things.)
So, one has to ask, why?
yeah, stuff happened on both sides of that conflict that make you wish to swear off membership in the Human Race. Despicable, just despicable.
But you can't. So the only thing to do is learn the lessons of past sins and move on.
There is no Book that Genuinely free from politic , even holybooks .
Sometimes especially holy books. Observe the Book of Revelation 13:18. "This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man." (NIV) Many scholars say that the man was Emperor Nero and the number of the beast equates to his reign in various ways. So it's propaganda against Nero and the Roman Empire. The Old Testament is politically one sided in favor of the Israelites. Given the conquest of Palestine and supposed orders from Jehovah slaughter all men in the Canaanite cities it's no wonder the Philistines weren't fond of them.
Well especially for jimbro and my groaning Chicago man especially let me remind of this. At the time I mentioned the book you were all waffling it away and as rubbish then I came across this by sheer chance as i did not know it existed. And what sensible answers to I get from the ex-colonies? Hype, body swerving and another saying the name of the book would have sufficed. No it wouldn't but I will search for the book which I still have. Meanwhile an answer to you over the water excuse men.
The Irish Famine was not a war. There was also a famine in northern Scotland and was a blight no-one in those days could have known was going to happen or do much about so what a weak argument. On the subject of every nation has a black spot yet another dance. So too is trying to diver to the British Empire and the conduct of a country that is supposed to be above this film is scandalous. The USA always brags about it's high standards of honesty, principles, rights and fairness but this film blows that propaganda right out the water. The US Army refused the Red Cross and charity food people - WHY? There was sheltered accomodation further on but mostly left out the equation -WHY? The majority starved and any US solider who felt guilt or worried about giving arny basic rations over the fence threatened with disciplinary action - WHY? UprivatesS in droves, searched and stole German prisoners personal belongings that meant much to them and got away with it -WHY?
I would suggest the main reasoning behind this disaster was that General Eisenhower hated not just Nazis but he actually hated Germans! How you intelligent Americans can watch that film and not feel guilty is beyond comprehension as it is certainly not made up. It flies in the face of what the country was meant to be and the torture, beatings (some on the film) lack of food, disease, deaths which the book gives better totals of are beyond arguing for. Yes the French worked with the Yanks on this but Germans who surrendered to the Brish Army were more fortunate. Even elsewhere i have watched documentaries where US soldiers battered German ordinary soliders as they surrendered on roads and sometimes with rifle butts.
In the past when i mention some big thing that is totally at odds for what the country says it stands for I am rubbished. I mentioned the book and scoffed off so I show a film and excuse made or utterly negative and not very good responses. When i find the book I will list it but the film is a very practicable description of something to be ashamed of. Bad enougt eh Soviets doing such but a civilised nation supposedly with ideals openly letting this happen and refuse evn the Ree Cross speaks volumes. Deal with the film and it' s obvious in the face truth.
I would suggest that General Eisenhower WAS German. But, don't tell anybody. It's a secret, OK? Just you, me and everybody else who bothers to check history.
So, for General Eisenhower to hate Germans, he'd have to hate his own parents, grandparents, any other relatives living or dead that had any connection to the old country. Got a problem there I think.
I would suggest that General Eisenhower WAS German. But, don't tell anybody. It's a secret, OK? Just you, me and everybody else who bothers to check history.
The name looks very much German with just a little bit of spelling adjustment, by the look of it, to preserve the sound value. Popular thing to do around the late 1800s to early 1900s ( especially the latter - world war I made Germans kinda unpopular in the US ). In fact it looks more German than mine :right:
The Irish Famine was not a war.
Even if the intent wasn't genocide, the results of British policy were. Ireland losses half it's population and the excuse is that wasn't a war? That almost makes it worse. Oh there was also a blight in Nothern Scotland? Was all the other food exported out and starving Scotts made to be lazy, stupid drunkards in England? Hitler and Stalin could have learned a lesson from the Brits on that one. The earlier invasion by the butcher Cromwell also halved Ireland's population. Was that not a war?
[The earlier invasion by the butcher Cromwell also halved Ireland's population. Was that not a war?
Everyone knows that was an anti-terror operation :right:
Kind of expected that irish-American body swerving guff from Sanguinemoon as he cannot justify what the US Army did in 1945. We also got this dance to Cromwell who was parcticing a reaction that ALL did back in those simple days before sophistication. May I remind that in the 1798 Irish Rebellion and events leading up to it there was a mass execution in Portadown of Protestants and elsewhere people spiked up into the air. A black flag carried with "MWS" (murder without sin) so it is a load of cobblers trying to harp back to bloody times and potato blights that were caused by nature NOT us. The same blight affected those loyal to Britain. So don't try and go back to elementary times we are dealing with a modern nation in a modern setting within many of our lifetimes and it was deliberately atrocious and despicable. You are as bad as sanguinemoon mjspsrt40 thinking it would not be possible for Eisenhower to hate Germans.
The German bund in the US leading up to the war was a very active and extensive thing and instead of purposing to the stated principles of the US Constitution fully supported a dictatorship style. So instead of trying to do a bodyswerve try and face the issue. It was deliberate and flew in the face of the Geneva convention which the Allies were supporters of. You lot moan when I raise something so when you get a long and detailed film you travel in a time machine to a different era than face the facts. Many of those Germans who survived probably wished they had surrendered to the British and they most certainly did not expect the barbarism they got from a supposedly democratic and rights county and it's army. It doesn't matter what you get as proof the arrogance comes through and instead of giving yourselves some sense of decency admitting it was a mistake we are hit with centuries ago.
The film makes it difficult for you to come up with answers because they do not give a good light. Shame on you.
Who's body swerving? I'm merely holding you accountable for holding all of America's sins to the spotlight and excusing those of your country. Now if you want to compared crimes committed during WWII, I don't think any of the major countries is innocent.
However, the claims of a million dead in those camps in the few months of their operation goes a step beyond being factually challenged to pure and utter bullshit, as you can read in Ike and the Disappearing Atrocities
(http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/ambrose-atrocities.html)
Eisenhower was an enthusiastic supporter of denazification, but not because he hated the Germans or believed in collective guilt. To the contrary, he believed that there were Germans who were committed to democracy and that the task of the occupation was to find them and bring them to the fore. In a speech in Frankfurt in 1945, he declared: "The success or failure of this occupation will be judged by the character of the Germans 50 years from now. Proof will come when they begin to run a democracy of their own and we are going to give the Germans a chance to do that, in time." This does not sound like a man who simultaneously was directing the death by starvation of one million young Germans.
Food from the Red Cross? No. Plenty of food in Europe? No.
An assertion that is central to Mr. Bacque's accusation is his contention that there was no European food shortage in 1945. He points to warehouses in Germany full of food. He says that the Red Cross had food available. One of his most damning pieces of evidence is that a train from Geneva loaded with food parcels sent by the Red Cross to feed German prisoners was forced to turn back.
This is shocking -- food was available, men were hungry and American officers ordered the train to return to Geneva. But there was a reason: the Allied Governments had decided that Red Cross food parcels would be used to feed displaced persons, of whom there were more than two million in Germany, and the orders to Eisenhower on this policy were explicit. So D.P.'s got those food parcels. It is painful beyond description to have to set food priorities in a hungry world, but it had to be done, and who could argue with the decision?
In his conference report on the food situation in Germany, James Tent of the University of Alabama-Birmingham says there was no question that there were severe shortages. Still, as Mr. Tent points out, there was food stocked in warehouses that was not distributed to prisoners living on a near-starvation diet. Again, this is shocking, until the reason is noted. The Allied Governments were fearful of famine in the winter of 1945-46, and they were stockpiling food. Even with the reserves, they barely got through the winter, and it was three years before the European food shortage was overcome.
Mr. Bacque's myth was Eisenhower's nightmare. No food shortage? Eisenhower wrote the Chief of Staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, in February 1945: "I am very much concerned about the food situation. . . . We now have no reserves on the Continent of supplies for the civil population."
As I said, 1,000,000 killed? Not even close.
With regard to another of Mr. Bacque's conclusions, he arrives at his sensational figure of one million dead through a system of analysis that has left almost everyone who has tried to check his statistics and methods befuddled. He did make one mistake because of a typing error by a clerk. He saw a figure of 70,000 prisoners in an Army medical report and then calculated the total death rate for all prisoners in American hands on the basis of that number and the 21,000 deaths also mentioned in the report. That is, he arrived at his most basic conclusion, a death rate in all camps of 30 percent, by dividing the 21,000 deaths by the 70,000 prisoners. However, the 70,000 figure should have been 10 times higher. All other figures in the document make it clear that the correct number of prisoners was 700,000. This would make the death rate not 30 percent but 3 percent.
In fact, as Albert Cowdrey of the Department of the Army's Center of Military History reported to the conference, the overall death rate among German prisoners was 1 percent. Mr. Cowdrey's conclusion, strongly supported by another conference participant, Maj. Ruediger Overmans of the German Office of Military History in Freiburg (who is writing the final volume of the official German history of the war), is that the total death by all causes of German prisoners in American hands could not have been greater than 56,000.
Not innocent, but nowhere near the claims.
But Bacque find the rest of his million? In people returned home and NOT killed.
the greatest number of "other losses" is revealed in the August 1945 Report of the Military Governor. (These monthly reports are in the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kan., in the National Archives in Washington and elsewhere; they are a basic source on every aspect of the occupation, including food shortages and prisoners; Mr. Bacque did not cite them and there is no evidence he examined them.) The August report lists the numbers of disarmed enemy forces discharged by American forces and those transferred to the British and French for forced labor.
The report continues: "An additional group of 663,576 are listed as 'other losses,' consisting largely of members of the Volkssturm [ People's Militia ] released without formal discharge."
It takes little imagination to see what happened here. The People's Militia consisted of older men (up to 60 years of age, mainly World War I veterans) and boys of 16 or sometimes less. American guards and camp authorities told the old men to go home and take care of their grandchildren, the boys to go home and return to school. Along with the transfers to other zones that Mr. Bacque ignores, these people account for all the "missing million."
.....
In short, Mr. Bacque is wrong on every major charge and nearly all his minor ones. Eisenhower was not a Hitler, he did not run death camps, German prisoners did not die by the hundreds of thousands, there was a severe food shortage in 1945, there was nothing sinister or secret about the "disarmed enemy forces" designation or about the column "other losses." Mr. Bacque's "missing million" were old men and young boys in the militia.
Nevertheless, Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue. He has challenged us to reopen the question, to do the research required, to get at the full truth. For that contribution, he deserves thanks. But as to how he presented his discovery, I turn again to Albert Cowdrey: "Surely the author has reason to be satisfied with his achievement. He has no reputation as a historian to lose, and 'Other Losses' can only enhance his standing as a writer of fiction."
Yup. the author of Eisenhower's supposed atrocities remains one of fiction.
People in the movie blame America for the German deaths. Of course there a lot of those. The real person to blame, however, is Hitler and his genocidal war.
The author of the article offers a bit of advice:
Under these circumstances, what is a lay reader to do? I suggest that he or she trust common sense. As when confronting the Holocaust-never-happened school, ask the obvious questions. If the answers aren't clear, the charges have not been proved. In Mr. Bacque's case, two such questions are: Where are the bodies? and Is this book consistent with our picture of Eisenhower's character as we know it from innumerable other sources? Ultimately, in cases such as this one, it is often the obvious questions that bring us closest to the truth.
In fact, it defies common sense that Eisenhower killed a million people in those few months, an efficiency far surpassing that of Nazi concentration camps.
It doesn't defy the "Hate America First" policies of a certain poster here, however.
Oh dear.kinfd of typical reaction from the nationalistic US mindset being shown.
Instead of just simply admitting what is actually SEEN and heard from those involved you just shut an eye and hope it will go away. If was to challenge say Nazi death camp figures all hell would let loose (even though the worst camp stats now sow a vast decline at Auschwitz from over 3 million to under 1! So much for 6 eh?Uh-oh that will give another chance to do a dance.
All you had to do is admit that as a civilised nation what you did in 1915 was a wrong. Ignoring the Red Cross, Geneva Convention, seeing beatings, an army living in all sorts of weather out in the open. Ridicule, ignorance, theft. Instead of practicing the common sense you inherently feel you have you think can do no wrong. So instead of sense we get mumbled nonsense in the face of reality.
i think some chlorpromazine will solve that irritated issues .
All you had to do is admit that as a civilised nation what you did in 1915 was a wrong.
It was wrong.
There. Somehow I knew this would boil down to a rather stupid point.
I have a wonderful idea. How about if we hold you, RJHowie, personally responsible for each and every despicable thing the British Empire ever did from the time they first colonized another country until---. You--- yes, you--- are called upon to explain and apologize for each and every mistake, depravity, taking of land that belonged to somebody else and so on. Think of it. That even makes you, personally, responsible for the American colonies and the way the Indians were treated by same before we became an independent nation. After all, the colonies were Crown colonies and therefore your personal responsibility.
You know there's an awful smelly pile of stuff the British Empire was responsible for. The Irish Potato Famine. The Opium Wars. Sacking and pillaging in the Caribbean back in the days of the Buccaneers. Many of those Buccaneers were at least initially Privateers, carrying "Letters of Marque" signed by English noblemen and sometimes by the Crown itself, so--- reckon that makes you, RJHowie, personally responsible for that. Hey, that's just the tip of the iceberg as they say. Clean up that mess, then come and help us clean our yard.
See, that's the problem with holding every American now living responsible for something that happened way back when. Hold our nose in dog-droppings from several decades back and you just might get somebody returning the favor. Seriously.
Do you think it's right to hold every German now living responsible for Auschwitz? There's only a handful left who were even alive back then, most Germans have to learn about Auschwitz the same way I do--- by reading history books. In the same way, I don't think holding every Japanese citizen now living responsible for the atrocities committed during WW2 is very workable. Again, how many Japanese now living were alive back then? A handful, and the numbers shrink every day. Of that number, the folk who actually were responsible--- are such a minute number that I doubt they would crowd your living room if they all got together. Most now living don't remember the Eisenhower presidency, much less have anything to do with what he may or may not have done way back when.
Now, this sort of thing really needs to stop. I mean right now. I'm sitting here remembering a thread that was deleted not too long back that poked some fun at the Queen. It needed to be dumped because it was, in fact, more than a little distasteful and I personally felt it was mean-spirited. I find it hard to justify a thread in return that seems to track dirt all over my carpet, kick my dog and tell my wife that she is of ill repute--- which this thread has that sort of feeling about it. Look, nobody requires you to bow down and worship America. If you really don't like us, that's your privilege. But, a sense of decency would be appreciated.
I have a wonderful idea. How about if we hold you, RJHowie, personally responsible for each and every despicable thing the British Empire ever did from the time they first colonized another country until---. You--- yes, you--- are called upon to explain and apologize for each and every mistake, depravity, taking of land that belonged to somebody else and so on. Think of it. That even makes you, personally, responsible for the American colonies and the way the Indians were treated by same before we became an independent nation. After all, the colonies were Crown colonies and therefore your personal responsibility.
You know there's an awful smelly pile of stuff the British Empire was responsible for. The Irish Potato Famine. The Opium Wars. Sacking and pillaging in the Caribbean back in the days of the Buccaneers. Many of those Buccaneers were at least initially Privateers, carrying "Letters of Marque" signed by English noblemen and sometimes by the Crown itself, so--- reckon that makes you, RJHowie, personally responsible for that. Hey, that's just the tip of the iceberg as they say. Clean up that mess, then come and help us clean our yard.
See, that's the problem with holding every American now living responsible for something that happened way back when. Hold our nose in dog-droppings from several decades back and you just might get somebody returning the favor. Seriously.
Do you think it's right to hold every German now living responsible for Auschwitz? There's only a handful left who were even alive back then, most Germans have to learn about Auschwitz the same way I do--- by reading history books. In the same way, I don't think holding every Japanese citizen now living responsible for the atrocities committed during WW2 is very workable. Again, how many Japanese now living were alive back then? A handful, and the numbers shrink every day. Of that number, the folk who actually were responsible--- are such a minute number that I doubt they would crowd your living room if they all got together. Most now living don't remember the Eisenhower presidency, much less have anything to do with what he may or may not have done way back when.
Now, this sort of thing really needs to stop. I mean right now. I'm sitting here remembering a thread that was deleted not too long back that poked some fun at the Queen. It needed to be dumped because it was, in fact, more than a little distasteful and I personally felt it was mean-spirited. I find it hard to justify a thread in return that seems to track dirt all over my carpet, kick my dog and tell my wife that she is of ill repute--- which this thread has that sort of feeling about it. Look, nobody requires you to bow down and worship America. If you really don't like us, that's your privilege. But, a sense of decency would be appreciated.
I second the enlarged portion. Cannot wait to read the load of "old cobblers" as Howie puts it, as he fiercely pecks away typing his response, "cottoning on" about how Diet Irn Bru causes the brain to go soft and how Cromwell was some kind of hero. :left:
Tut, tut laddie.
It is always the same when something in a more modernly history disaster happens with good ole US of A. They always try to avoid such subjects by trying to get at someone else or what they might have done eons ago. We are still in times with the Geneva Convention (oh maybe US soloders are not told about such then?) and here we had a leading light in the world (or so your country thinks) on human rights, fairness, decency, respect and all those other virtues. And what did you do? Starved, physical beatings, starvation, deaths in the legions. You are fallowing the usual US creed here and sidestep anything that doesn't fit into that false claim listing. Explain how that camp was any different from something under a Nazi punishment? The vast majority in it were not SS (they did get worse treatment) they were ordinary soloders some of them very young and used towards the end of the war.
So don't insult my intelligence or youre own by falling line with the dancing routine. If there had just been an admittance of what the film portrayed and you lot had said it should not have been that way that would have been fine but you cannot mentally do that over the pnd can you? Why do you think occasional US guards gave out some of their rations and felt concerned (and threatened with punishment)?
Every time i recount something negative about the land of the free I get smirked of with a link. You get a very long and practical one but still body swerve the truth . I am still hunting for the book I have on the subject but a damn film of the actuality is somehow untrue. The problem over there is even deeper than imagined and would get more respect if you accepted what is visible. Deat;s in just over twenty odd thousand? Pathetic and the book is even better at the actuals.
Shame on you for defending the indefensible Colonel.
Somehow I don't really expect any better of you, RJ. It's all fine to kick at the US and stick our nose in every smelly pile you can find, but let the tables be turned- as happened just a short time ago-- and we find out that you can't take the kind of stuff you so love to dish out.
Next time Smiley serves up something about the Royal House of Windsor, I'm inclined to say nothing. If you serve it up you'd better darn well learn to take it.
You are fallowing the usual US creed here and sidestep anything that doesn't fit into that false claim listing.
False claims? I know facts mean nothing to you, but the claim of 1,000,000 dead (turns out it was in the 4,000 to 6,000 range, not an unusual amount given the sheer number of prisoners) is so ridiculous that it throws all the other claims into doubt, calling into question the honesty of the entire film. Want side-stepping? When presented with ample evidence that accusations against Eisenhower are exaggerated, if not outright fabricated you merely put it down as nationalism. I suggest looking into the mirror for all your side-stepping needs.
If there had just been an admittance of what the film portrayed and you lot had said it should not have been that way that would have been fine but you cannot mentally do that over the pnd can you?
Admit to what as been demonstrated to be false? I even showed what Bacque's mathematical error in arriving at his numbers was, the overall food shortage in Europe at the time (even the Red Cross didn't have food for prisoners even though the film lies that it did.)
So don't insult my intelligence or youre own by falling line with the dancing routine.
I can't speak for mjmsprt40, but that film is an insult to my intelligence. I already gave objection to number of dead in the camps, but the main points of the film are intellectually insulting as well. On of the men speaks of 12,000,000 German soldiers dead in the war. First of all that number is wrong. See the chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). The real numbers were horrific enough, so why risk losing further credibility by exgratating easily checked numbers. Maybe because the film's audience is people like you, those willing to believe any horrible thing about America and lack critical thinking. Then the former soldier blames it all on the US. Certainly plenty of Germans were killed by American bullets and bombs, but what about the British and the Soviets. How about by Hitler himself exterminating the German Jews? A minor point, but you look at the chart carefully, you'll not that not all the German military deaths were actually Germans; but Spanish, Latvian. Estonian, Lithuanian, and of course Austrian. In summary of the paragraph, both the deaths in the camp and total German deaths were embellished greatly. The former by a factor of more than a 100 fold.
None of that goes to say there wasn't starvation in camp. That happened even in the European cities in a continent devastated by war. That was a war caused by Hitler and his NAZI goons, not by the US - the country that saved your British ass.
I am still hunting for the book I have on the subject but a damn film of the actuality is somehow untrue.
Of course the film is untrue. I know this is redundant for anyone but Howie, so my apologies. First of all common sense kicks in. Eisenhower kills off German soldiers in a camp much more efficiently than the Nazi concentration camps did their prisoners and keep in mind the Nazi camps were designed to kill off "undesirables"? Really? Why would he even do that? Germany was already defeated. However, a check of the numbers from various sources only confirms what somebody with a half a brain already knows - that it's bullshit.
And your point is.......? [Mod edit: removed a sentence or two. Please try to keep it civilized. Rule #16 "attack the ideas, not the poster"] No one here is on your side, does that tell you anything? This is beyond pathological for you to persist in this deviant behavior. You will eventually end up on some shrinks couch crying your bloody eyes out about the demon USA coming to get you. I worry about you now Howie, I mean that. You are not the complete idiot I thought you were--you are merely sick. You have to WANT help for it to work rj, think about this seriously before it is too late. Good luck. :worried: :knight:
You know there's an awful smelly pile of stuff the British Empire was responsible for. The Irish Potato Famine.
Incidentally, I don't know about Great Britain, but the Dutch government did officially apologize to Ireland a few years ago for not sending more aid during that famine.
I was rubbished on this and ignored it even when I said I had read a book on it!
You might be more specific. I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki the most horrid examples of what war produces. Over 225,000 died.
Dear Mrs Jones,
The war in the Pacific is almost over. Our victory over the Japanese is assured, but there are some battles still to be fought, and in one of those battles your son will be killed.
Your son will be killed, Mrs. Jones, unless we can shorten the war a little and not have to fight the battle in which your son is to die.
We can do it. We have a powerful new weapon that will kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese and save your son.
Should we use it, Mrs. Jones?
Mrs. Jones is deceased, but I'm her authorized spokesman. No, you dunce! What a question!
Dear Mrs Jones,
The war in the Pacific is almost over. Our victory over the Japanese is assured, but there are some battles still to be fought, and in one of those battles your son will be killed.
Your son will be killed, Mrs. Jones, unless we can shorten the war a little and not have to fight the battle in which your son is to die.
We can do it. We have a powerful new weapon that will kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese and save your son.
Should we use it, Mrs. Jones?
A cynical fairy tale, trying to legitimate a war crime. However, the new weapons had to be tested somehow...
The nukes didn't stopped the Japanese but the Soviets.
Ever heard of Manchuria?
Capitulation was the only way to prevent the Red Army from invading the islands.
I wonder. It was close as it was. Information came out long after the war that the Japanese military weren't ready to quit yet, and it was only because the Emperor managed to get the surrender message out to the people that it finally came to an end. If the Japanese military powers had successfully stopped that transmission, the war might not have ended "just yet". It was inevitable of course--- with the Red army coming through Manchuria and the Americans coming from everywhere else, Japan couldn't win. But, the Emperor's message stopped it from being a lot worse than it already was.
A cynical fairy tale, trying to legitimate a war crime.
We are just going to have to disagree on what a war crime is for the period.
More than 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians and an equal numbers of Chinese with 30 million other Asian peoples dead from German and Japanese occupations. You have to stretch things quite a lot to say something done in the effort to stop these regimes was too much. It is sad even two nukes can't compare. On that I'll agree.
* You wouldn't have to go too far back in time to where the complete eradication of the German and Japanese people would of been seen as fair play. We would no doubt look back now and say what a shame. But history has judged and convicted the defeated far worse in the past. Try to see the evolution of humanity in all of it at least.
A cynical fairy tale, trying to legitimate a war crime.
We are just going to have to disagree on what a war crime is for the period.
More than 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians and an equal numbers of Chinese with 30 million other Asian peoples dead from German and Japanese occupations. You have to stretch things quite a lot to say something done in the effort to stop these regimes was too much. It is sad even two nukes can't compare. On that I'll agree.
"there are worse people than me" is rarely a successful defence for some reason.
"there are worse people than me" is rarely a successful defence for some reason.
My grandfather fought in the pacific campaign. If it weren't for those bombs I may not be here to agree with that.
Mrs. Jones is deceased, but I'm her authorized spokesman. No, you dunce! What a question!
I take it you, too, have read a book!
If it weren't for those bombs I may not be here to agree with that.
You were lucky.
You could have been born as a Japanese child with some malformation, decades later...
Now all you have to decide is if you're going to hold that against me.
That statement was meant to confirm I don't have to agree with what happened to be the consequences of it. Saying it was wrong goes nowhere but appreciating what was gained can do good. Look at Germany and Japan today. Fine places and fine people, both praised for their unique culture and technical prowess. Am I supposed to hold that against them that they came out so good from a war so long ago?
When you say "Americans" don't assume I'm the one you have a problem with. But if you want to get your country to stop participating in and justifying my country's crusades it would be a lot easier for me to clean house. Don't get it twisted (hehe) you will be judged by all time. This isn't an anti-American campaign but a "for their own good " campaign. You have to do this with the highest of moral standards because I aim to judge your grandchildren on the results.
......... I also believe that President Harry Truman’s decision to use the atomic bombs against Japan almost certainly saved lives. This is undoubtedly true if one accepts the arguments of U.S. leaders at the time; namely, that not using the atomic bomb would have forced the U.S. to launch a full invasion of Japan’s home islands, and this would have killed far more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It’s impossible to know how many people would have perished if allied forces invaded Japan. However, given the stiff resistance U.S. and allied forces faced during the island-hopping campaign of the Pacific War, it would have been many, many times greater than the 200,000+ people that died from the atomic bombings.
In fact, the casualties from the U.S. strategic conventional bombing campaign greatly eclipsed the number of individuals who died from the atomic bombings. The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo alone killed some 120,000 Japanese. A ground invasion would have resulted in nearly immeasurable more casualties. As one scholar who studied the U.S. invasion plan, Operation Downfall, notes: “depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.”.............. continued (http://bit.ly/1Au64jh)
Now, for my personal point of view, I think those 2 bombings were exactly what should have happened to those Japs --- In a twist of fate, they were forced to suffer so the world could live.
For two (2) reasons, most importantly it saved countless American lives as noted above, & because it showed the world a horror beyond horrors that has kept actual Nuclear use to just a threat & a thought, rather than a horrendous reality, for the last 70 years.
If I had the luxury of seeing the future & knowing the outcome, if I lived back then, & it had to be done again, I'd say do it, & do it quick!
I don't feel one bit of pity for those Japs, they made their choice on December 7th., & in my bluntly honest opinion, they got exactly what they deserved for making that choice.
AFAIK , when Japs made alliance with NAZI they claim themself as the master race .
even NAZI also Claim themself as The master race .
and when Their Allies ( Italian and NAZI ) Defeated , Japs all alone .
so it seems , the decision to Bombard Pearl Harbour is made by the Japs , not NAZI order .
not to mention , in the certain level of insanity , the one is just understand consequences .
since their Logic is Fu***ed up .
and indeed , Appeal to consequences is Logical fallacy .
Btw , that was a war , NAZI - Italian - japs went all out , disregard all rules and law .
so does the alliance of British,Russia,mericans, etc .
what do you expect from a war anyway ?
Logic-full Polite People ? :rolleyes:
i think it is not important which side did the most collateral damage , war crime , etc ( Except thou are Rhetoric-ass Bigots-zealots-fundamentalist with Bully mentality - Herd mentality that loves to propaganda , cherry-pick , Appeal to emotion , etc )
see the Goal differences ..
The One That went to war To Dominate , Expand their territories , etc
and the one that Went to war to Gain World Peace . :monkey:
"there are worse people than me" is rarely a successful defence for some reason.
My grandfather fought in the pacific campaign. If it weren't for those bombs I may not be here to agree with that.
And if Stalin had invaded Japan things might have wound down differently in Europe as well.
Something from history that decent Americans need to see
:D There's no such thing as a
decent American. :D
That was a war caused by Hitler and his NAZI goons, not by the US - the country that saved your British ass.
The US didn't save anybody's ass, British included; the Russians did because of Hitler's ill-considered decision to take Moscow, where his troops suffered disastrously, 750,000 men, either dead, wounded, missing or ill.
The Russians had plenty of help. The British and Americans-- mostly the British-- made sure the Russians got supplies (the Murmansk convoys), and British and American troops opened up the Western Front and got it going. I don't know how long the Russians could have held out without Western involvement. Hitler's mistake was to get involved in a two-front war. His generals wanted to tell him that, but he wouldn't have listened.
Quite correct mjsmsprt40.
I know 3 decent Americans jimbro so is that an over the top statistic?? Don't want to be too imbalanced..... :whistle:
The Russians had plenty of help. The British and Americans-- mostly the British-- made sure the Russians got supplies (the), and British and American troops opened up the Western Front and got it going. I don't know how long the Russians could have held out without Western involvement. Hitler's mistake was to get involved in a two-front war. His generals wanted to tell him that, but he wouldn't have listened.
Britain put up hell of a fight, would have fell without the Americans. There goes the Murmansk convoys. Yes, Hitler's troop suffered disastrously but we're also talking an order of 20,000,000 Soviet deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union). In fact, even that staggering number is on the low side. USSR population 1941: 196,700,000 1946: 170,500,000.
Given such heavy casualties, could the Soviets have really "liberated" all of Europe basically by themselves? It seems doubtful. And if they did, they would have turned it communist like they did Eastern Europe. With the Western front taken care of with Britain defeated and Ireland not being much of a threat and Soviet citizens dying by the millions and the US not being in the picture at all, the most likely scenario is the Nazi and Soviets dividing Europe between them.
Fortunately, America's entry in the war was inevitable. That fact did save Howie's ass from living under fascism or communism.
Given such heavy casualties, could the Soviets have really "liberated" all of Europe basically by themselves?
Of course not. They didn't have to, given German mistakes; i.e., attempting to take Moscow.
It's so nice living in such civilized times, isn't it.
Now all you have to decide is if you're going to hold that against me.
That statement was meant to confirm I don't have to agree with what happened to be the consequences of it. Saying it was wrong goes nowhere but appreciating what was gained can do good. Look at Germany and Japan today. Fine places and fine people, both praised for their unique culture and technical prowess. Am I supposed to hold that against them that they came out so good from a war so long ago?
:up:
Typical redneck side of America we are the greatest piffle from Sanguinemoon. Thank goodnes there are the odd ex-colonsit thinking here that is not full of "we are the greatest" bore. Wasn't it Germany who declared war on you? And anyway you were feet draggers anyway and may I also remind you of practical history not your hollywood guff. Hitler needed Goring to destroy our air defences and instead the RAF blasted them in the Battle of Britain due to the RAF being superior. What you did do was make one heck of a profit out of us. Not surprised that Hitler aimed the battle of the Bulge at you know who-woo! It was running out of fuel that stopped the Germans from changing the war.
Yes in practical terms eventually being dragged into the war after a long time (even longer in WW1 where you were too gung-ho and generals sent loads into being slaughtered full knowing that a ceae-fire was announced.
Thank goodnes there are the odd ex-colonsit thinking here that is not full of "we are the greatest" bore.
:wait: wait for it...
our air defences and instead the RAF blasted them in the Battle of Britain due to the RAF being superior.
Not surprised that Hitler aimed the battle of the Bulge at you know who-woo!
**Irony meter explodes**
Are you sure you're not one of these "Americans". You act like how you say they do.
Nothing we can do appears to make RJH happy. Stay out of the war-- we're dragging our feet. (Which, in 20-20 hindsight, we should have kept doing and in fact, just let Germany and Japan do what they wanted. Turns out the ingrates we saved don't like us to this day anyway.) Get in, we're still bad (see above). RJ, next time your country wants to fight somebody else, I for one am inclined to stand aside and let you go at it. Hey, you don't need our help-- men, materials, food or anything else. You're big enough to handle it.
You -especially the republican leaning lot are something else. What other country beats it's chest so much has hundreds of military bases everywhere, spend half the planet's military bill, interferes so much in the affairs of other countries, if they don't agree with what you say is "democracy" or your ideas then heaven help them! You leave yourselves wide open for digs but for decades been brainwashed into thinking superior to all. Thrw in constant was footings and money for the big military corporates and the money me on the Hill. Instead oif answering what is in your face you like niggled children just fall back on groaning about being singled out. Most of the time you cannot even answer the things I have spoken on. By all means moan about me pinpointing the obvious and I can almost understand it the way things are drummed into you about being the greatest country on Earth.
May I remind you yet again mjsmsprt40 that you didn't automatically get involved in the 2nd WW it was Germany and Italy declaring war on you! Otherwise you would have stayed out and still made money out of the conflict. As for comments about us being liable to be taken over by fasicts the Italians were too far away! And shows how much you Yanks now about things when you consider that for decades you supported and funded fascist dictatorships all over South America. A wee bit of history is dangerous in an ex-colonist mind and select what is suitable! You tried to get us involved in the debacle you created in South Vietnam but we were very wise staying out of that disaster even though you had half a million there. The country should never have been lost and some of the antics there did not help either.
I have commented in passing a favourable point in being in WW2 but foloowing the usual limited mindset here suitably ignored. Why do you feel you have to keep sticking your nose into the running of other countries and go on about rights when things inside the greatest country on Earth (?) have piles of problems, poor and ignored? Ever since WW2 one has to think of all those young and decent Americans killed in one crusade after another and for what? Many of the times a mess has been left in the countries invaded or damaged. As for calling me names do feel free and it only confirms the fact that when unable to give a proper answer we get huffy-puffy stuff or that you are not appreciated. :lol:
So in summary, anyone whoever has power over another has a tendency to abuse said power when it benefits the one with power. Machiavellism is a real thing I suppose. Power makes people psychopaths. I wouldnt be surprised if every nation had some dirty laundry that I shouldnt be proud of.
Germany and Italy
Actually it was Japan. Yeah they did too, but that doesn't make a whole heap of sense inside your rant... :right:
I can't decide if you've been reading youtube comments or if that just sounds like a youtube comment. :sherlock:
Germany and Italy
Actually it was Japan. Yeah they did too, but that doesn't make a whole heap of sense inside your rant... :right:
I can't decide if you've been reading youtube comments or if that just sounds like a youtube comment. :sherlock:
He does claim to have read a book.
He thinks this is so remarkable that he punctuates his claim with a "!"
US didnt punish war criminals in japan after wwii in return for information from the japanese human experiment reseach. Oh well.
US didnt punish war criminals in japan after wwii in return for information from the japanese human experiment reseach. Oh well.
Yeah, I've wondered why that never shows in a rant. Hella rocket program we got too.
He does claim to have read a book.
:eyes: A book you say?
The poor chap makes it too easy. Of course Americans did some bad things. We've existed as an independent nation in one form or another since 1775, and in that time a nation made up primarily of European immigrants forcefully taking the land from its native inhabitants did a lot of nasty stuff.
Germany right after the war was a basket case, food was scarce and you had to make what you had stretch as best you could.
RJ, ever hear of "Triage"? In an emergency with multiple casualties, you have to make decisions on who you help and who you don't help for whatever reasons. Can't help dead people. Shouldn't devote help to dying people when there are others who can be saved. Of those that can be saved-- worst cases first, lesser cases as you get to them.
When you have the whole countryside in starvation mode, you're looking at a triage scene. You won't be able to help everybody no matter how much you want to. So--- you make hard decisions. Decisions which will not play well later when your enemies are looking for anything and everything to use against you. But, at the moment you do what you can with what you have, and triage methods have to be used to do it.
Of course none of that matters to you, RJ, since your primary concern is dumping on the US and calling us bad names every chance you get. You'll look for anything and everything to try to bring the US down, and frankly nothing matters to you until you have us wallowing in the pig-mire where you think we belong. The whole thing gets tiring after awhile.
US didnt punish war criminals in japan after wwii in return for information from the japanese human experiment reseach. Oh well.
Citation?
Citation?
Never heard of "Operation Paperclip"?
Wernher Von Braun - ever heard of him at least?
Wasn't it Germany who declared war on you?
This is basic history, Howie. America was supplying the allies but otherwise officially not in the war. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and that's what forced us into the war :faint: I have to give you the primary school version because you won't understand more detail and it will be a waste of time for me to type it out for you. Further, you'll be disinclined to read it just as you were about the idiocy that Eisenhower killed in cold blood a million a soldiers of a country of already beaten.
**Irony meter explodes**
Yup. I'm been checking Tiger Direct and Newegg to gets us an upgraded, heavier duty one for dealing with Howie.
Hitler needed Goring to destroy our air defences and instead the RAF blasted them in the Battle of Britain due to the RAF being superior.
On a one on one basis, maybe. But the Luftwaffe still rained destruction down on British cities and airbases during the Blitz and the RAF was unable to stop them. And I don't see Britain being able to pull of anything like D-Day without America. The scenario of Hitler and Stalin signing a peace treaty still stands. With the Soviet Union out the way, do you really think the UK would have held forever against the Nazi war machine?
The RAF got a break, too. German Luftwaffe, in one of a series of disastrous mistakes, turned away from blowing up RAF airfields and such aircraft manufacturing as they could hit, and began instead to bomb the cities. Had they kept up the effort directly against the RAF, the Battle of Britain might well have had a different outcome.
It's amazing when you look at history and realize the outcome of battle often doesn't depend on who has the most equipment and men, but on who makes the most serious mistakes. Germany had a bad habit of making serious mistakes.
Citation?
Never heard of "Operation Paperclip"?
Wernher Von Braun - ever heard of him at least?
Of course. That famous Japanese scientist.
Citation?
Never heard of "Operation Paperclip"?
Wernher Von Braun - ever heard of him at least?
Of course. That famous Japanese scientist.
Look up unit 731
Unit 731 link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) That's a fun one. :awww:
Unit 731 link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) That's a fun one. :awww:
Go vols nevertheless anywho
t's amazing when you look at history and realize the outcome of battle often doesn't depend on who has the most equipment and men, but on who makes the most serious mistakes.
Sir, you might have missed your calling: Your statement (above) is profound, and correct!
You might consider -after you "retire"- returning to school and becoming an historian… You might enjoy it! :)
Might I also recommend — anything written by Harry Turtledove? (I do so, with no qualms.) He
is a historian — and a talented writer.
The
What if…? books (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428) were good, too!
@ensbb3: You're welcome. Another fellow Tennessean I've 'crooted. What is that, like 5 of you now? :devil:
He's from the board I mentioned to you once before, SECTalk. Been a member there nearly as long as I've been a member here.
Been having a great discussion on Islam on there as well, @rjhowie. :left:
Go vols
Maybe in a year or two. It's getting better I hear. ;)
And welcome. :cheers: Always room for one more.
What is that, like 5 of you now? :devil:
Sounds about rite.
Been having a great discussion on Islam on there as well, @rjhowie. :left:
Ah-ha rj on a SEC board discussing Islam... Barrels of fun could be had with that now.
It's amazing when you look at history and realize the outcome of battle often doesn't depend on who has the most equipment and men, but on who makes the most serious mistakes. Germany had a bad habit of making serious mistakes.
It's been my general impression that at the start of the worst of WWII, namely Hitler's assault on Soviet Union, Hitler had been gradually climbing to the pinnacle of power. He was carefully consulting with advisors, including military advisors, naturally, so as to solidify his positions and secure the best success for the future. As Hitler grew more confident in time, he began listening less to his generals and then luck turned, such as under Stalingrad.
Stalin on the other hand had already been a monarch for a while. He had already performed at least one thorough round of purges in the midst of his party and among the overall population. Nobody questioned his power. He decided everything alone. That's why he initially lost enormously, until he was forced to find people who make the right strategic decisions. Stalin had to find good generals (he had killed off pretty much everyone except Budyonny who believed that horses were by far superior compared to tanks; so Stalin really had to find brand new generals) and give them sufficient powers to accomplish the task that had to be accomplished. And then they finally began making headway.
Churchill wanted Ghandi to die
Is this the reunion from the "I fought, we won" thread in old My Opera?
Britain put up hell of a fight, would have fell without the Americans.
Let's put up a timeline.
Prelude1900 Armies of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States invades Beijing
1902 The United States annexes the Philippines
1905 Imperial Japan take over Russian colonies in China; Britain transfer ownership of Papua New Guinea to Australia
1907 Netherlands completes annexation of Indonesia
1910 Imperial Japan annexes Korea
1914 Britain creates Nigeria
1931 Imperial Japan invades Manchuria after Manchurian Incident
1934 Fascist Italy completes colonisation of Libya
1935 Nazi Germany annexes Saarland after referendum; Fascist Italy invades Ethiopia
War1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Imperial
Japan invades rest of
China, these days often considered the real start of World War II
1938 Nazi Germany annexes Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia (the Munich Agreement), securing peace in our times
1939 Nazi Germany occupies the rest of Czechoslovakia; Fascist Italy invades Albania; Nomonhan Incident; Nazi Germany invades Poland, the traditional start of WWII:
Germany, Britain, France enters the war, British bomb Germany; Soviet Union invades Finland
1940 Nazi Germany invades Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France; Soviet Union annexes the Baltic States and other territory; Japan invades Vietnam
1941 Axis invades Yugoslavia, Greece; United States occupies Greenland and Iceland with Danish approval; Britain invades Iraq; Nazi Germany invades Soviet Union,
Soviet Union joins Allies;
land lease starts; Soviet Union and Britain invades Iran; Imperial Japan attacks United States, invades Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia.
The United States joins the war1942 Imperial Japan attacks Australia, invades Burma;
Mexico and Brazil enters the war; the battle of
Stalingrad, considered the turning point in the war.
1943-1945 The unravelling
Without the Soviet Union or United States joining the war Britain would have to seek a separate peace with Germany. Britain had Empire on its side (most of the time), but had a knack for losing battles they should have won.
Did the lend-lease turn the German Eastern Front? If the German forces had succeeded in at least one goal of Leningrad, Moscow, and ultimately Stalingrad they might have been in a less miserable position than they were. As is, by making the war in the East more bloody it made the war in the West less bloody in the 2 1/2 years of rollback.
On an earlier point, it would be very unreasonable to consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes. Whether they could reasonably be avoided is a different question.