History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedNukes

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Nukes
    Posted: 30-May-2009 at 19:54
How did killing tens of thousand of civilians stop Hitler or Japan.  It didn't, what did stop them was the military victories.  Attacking civilians is, and always will be immoral and illegal.  That is why the geneva convention was made.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 21:05
Originally posted by warwolf1969

How did killing tens of thousand of civilians stop Hitler or Japan.  It didn't, what did stop them was the military victories.  Attacking civilians is, and always will be immoral and illegal.  That is why the geneva convention was made.
 
The term civilian was relative in WW II. Mass production of weapons and equipment was neccessary to keep modern armies functional in the field as was constant reinforcement and replacement of fresh personel. All these came from the "civilian" populations mobilized into wartime economies. Those German and Japanese civilians weren't busy making peaceful consumer products to be sold for profit, they were busy building planes, tanks, cannons, small arms, ammunition and naval vessels and whatever else their empires needed to keep rolling over the rest of the world. Their kids were going into the military to learn how to kill the troops of the Allied nations.
 
As for the allied bombing campaign in Europe it had no significant effect on German wartime production till late in the war due to the inherent inaccuracy of high level bombing( for each 1,000 feet an unguided iron bomb drops it drifts about 50 feet off target) hence the area "carpet" bombing. What it did do was force the Nazis to redeploy significant forces for defence against the bombing campaign. Most of the Luftwaffe fighter strength eventually ended up defending German home soil and at its' height the German anti-air defences had over 1,000,000 personel. All those fighters, personel and flak guns weren't available for the eastern front where they could have been well employed shooting down the thousands of aerial flying tanks and tactical fighters of the Soviet airforce. At a time when the western allies lacked the ability to engage the Germans on a second front the bombing campaign helped draw off significant forces that might have turned the tide in the Germans favor on the Eastern Front. In a sense it was a second front.
 
The Geneva Conventions were made to codify treatment of combatants in war, IIRC treatment of civilians was secondary to that before 1949.


Edited by DukeC - 30-May-2009 at 21:11
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 22:20
Originally posted by DukeC

 
This also resulted in aggressive actions like violently crushing any independence movements in Eastern Europe and supporting wars in Greece and Korea.
The mess created by Americans in Vietnam cannot be even compared to "violent crushing" of Eastern Europe independence movements and supporting Greek civil war. And this is not the only example. Who is more agressive after all?
 
Who do you think was more responsible for the origins the Cold War, a former shoe salesman from Missouri named Harry...or a professional revolutionary who already had the blood of millions on his hands?
It was a result of geopolitical competition between two superpowers and had nothing to do with self defence.
.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 00:12
Originally posted by Anton

The mess created by Americans in Vietnam cannot be even compared to "violent crushing" of Eastern Europe independence movements and supporting Greek civil war. And this is not the only example. Who is more agressive after all?
 
I seem to remember a communist involvment in that conflict.
It was a result of geopolitical competition between two superpowers and had nothing to do with self defence.
 
A nice way to put a shine on the crap apple that was Soviet communism, please explain to me things like the Red Terror and the Great Purge before you ask me to take a bite. The Bolsheviks used terror from the start to impose what was little more than bloody anarchy on a population that didn't really support them and all else followed from there.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 01:05
Originally posted by DukeC

 
I seem to remember a communist involvment in that conflict.

What I remember is that USA caused more death of civilians than "Evil Empire" in postwar period.
 
 
A nice way to put a shine on the crap apple that was Soviet communism, please explain to me things like the Red Terror and the Great Purge before you ask me to take a bite. The Bolsheviks used terror from the start to impose what was little more than bloody anarchy on a population that didn't really support them and all else followed from there.
 
We were talking on the postwar period.  Otherwise why don't you remember brutal Oprichnina times or, for instance, how Peter the Great acted.
I do not try to defend Soviet Communism, my point is  -- while criticizing Sovient Union, western world did (and still do) their brutal things -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki, carpet bombings in Vietnam, other wars etc. etc. justifying their actions by human right violations in those countries and self defence. Typical demagogy in good old Soviet Union traditions. And honestly do not understand how people believe that.
 
.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 14:43
Originally posted by Anton

What I remember is that USA caused more death of civilians than "Evil Empire" in postwar period. 
 
I find that very debatably given the widepread destruction communist regimes caused wherever they tried to seize and hold power starting in Russia. Violence and terror were seen as acceptable and even neccessary to further the communist cause as far back Marx. It's probably why the ideology attracted sociopaths like Stalin, Mao and so many lesser murderers in the first place. You don't create equality and stability in a society through murder, torture, and widespread repression.
 
It was the destabilizing effect on the whole world that Soviet communism created that was behind most of the violence and upheaval of the Cold War. Americans are businessmen for the most part, they would have been just as happy selling cars, refrigerators and TVs to the rest of the world instead of having to fight a bunch of foaming at the mouth radicals bent on giving us a worldwide workers paradise even if it meant killing most of us. Whos' the aggressor anyway, a nation that for most of it's history was content to mind its own business or one that had violent and ongoing revolution that was supposed to be some sort of cathartic cleansing as a founding principle. I wouldn't be sitting in an independent Canada right now if the U.S. by nature was in constant and violent expansion. We're talking about a nation that for most of its history had the smallest military for a country of its size in the world. Before WW II its army was 19 largest in the world, smaller than Portugals. It took a massive suprise attack by Japan and a declaration of war by the Germans to change that, the American people who really run the country didn't want to participate in the violence engulfing the world even in late 1941. We wouldn't even be dealing with the subject of this thread if not for the rude awakening that occured against most Americans will. How is America the most violent and aggressive nation when given its own choice it would pick commerce over violence as a way of life.
 
Even after WW II it would have gone back to that pattern and was heading that way before events engineered from far away once again changed the course of the nation.
 
I don't think there is anything moral, justified or even desirable about the way of life communism and particularly the Soviet version offered. It robbed people of their freedom, dignity, health and often their lives in a misguided pursuit of a utopian ideal that was never and could never be reached. You want equality in a society, give people a vote that means something and let them have a free press. You want peace and a better world, don't kill off the most productive and motivated members of a society and then wonder why production plummits and millions starve to death.
 
It was the violence created by the Bolsheviks to, at first, hold power in Russia then expand it that was at the root of much of the conflict in the last century, the Americans were called on not once but many times to sort out the mess that "people" like Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and others were busy creating for their own limited gains. There's a reason the Soviet Union fell apart and it had nothing to do with western aggression. It was rotten from the start and represented what is worst in us as a species, not best.


Edited by DukeC - 31-May-2009 at 15:11
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 15:37
All this tirade has nothing to do with my point. My point was comparison of methods and justifications used by USA and USSR. They are very similar. Much more similar than you think. I do not defend communism at all. I agree with your assessment of communism but still American actions around the world were not different -- killings, destruction, massacres and military dominance required by some economical/geopolitical reasons. 


.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 15:48

It was the violence created by the Bolsheviks to, at first, hold power in Russia then expand it that was at the root of much of the conflict in the last century, the Americans were called on not once but many times to sort out the mess that "people" like Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and others were busy creating for their own limited gains. There's a reason the Soviet Union fell apart and it had nothing to do with western aggression. It was rotten from the start and represented what is worst in us as a species, not best.

This is funny. Take a look the methods they used to sort it out: Operation Ranch Hand, My Lai Massacre, Operation Menu, Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan etc. etc. etc. What kind of mess did they sort out by these methods? I would rather say, they only increase the mess there.




Edited by Anton - 31-May-2009 at 15:50
.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 16:37
Originally posted by Anton

This is funny. Take a look the methods they used to sort it out: Operation Ranch Hand, My Lai Massacre, Operation Menu, Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan etc. etc. etc. What kind of mess did they sort out by these methods? I would rather say, they only increase the mess there.
 
It still doesn't change my point that Vietnam and so many other conflicts never would have happened without the communist influence.
 
And there's no doubt that large standing armies do have a corrosive effect on democracies as I think Jefferson said and Ike reiterated in 1961. But what choice did the U.S. have, lie down and die or fight back, those seemed to be the two options when you examine the communist agenda and record closely and devoid of all the smoke and mirrors.
 
The U.S. today would have been a very different nation without the poisoning effect communism had on its development. It survived the conflict whos' roots were in the  paranoia and fear spreading out from the Kremlin for years, but not unscathed. You want to look for the source of much of the worlds woes, just turn your eyes northeastwards? from where you are.
 
 


Edited by DukeC - 31-May-2009 at 16:43
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 17:43
Originally posted by DukeC

 
It still doesn't change my point that Vietnam and so many other conflicts never would have happened without the communist influence.
 


USA started several wars after fall of USSR with the last one having clearly economical reasons -- control over large oil resources. It has nothing to do with communism and paranoia spread by Kremlin. I don't think your point is right. Besides, even though you think that Vietnam war wouldn't happen without communism ideology, those acts performed by Americans in Vietnam  cannot be justified by this logic. I shall remind you that for most cases nobody was convicted and thus many people nowadays suffer from this impunity.


Edited by Anton - 31-May-2009 at 17:49
.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 18:32
Originally posted by Anton

 USA started several wars after fall of USSR with the last one having clearly economical reasons -- control over large oil resources. It has nothing to do with communism and paranoia spread by Kremlin. I don't think your point is right. Besides, even though you think that Vietnam war wouldn't happen without communism ideology, those acts performed by Americans in Vietnam  cannot be justified by this logic. I shall remind you that for most cases nobody was convicted and thus many people nowadays suffer from this impunity.
 
Like I said, large standing armies are corrosive to democracies. They're also neccessary to deal with the kind of threat the Soviets posed to freedom of choice worldwide. Giving none to their own citizens, Soviet leadership felt it was their right to try and deprive us all.
 
 Vietnam was a brutal war on both sides. Ho may have apologized for the communist terror in the North after the defeat of the French that took thousands of lives but it didn't bring the dead back or stop his successors from doing the same thing in the south. Over 1,000,000 people fled south Vietnam to escape the communist violence after 1975, almost a third died in the attempt.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 20:54
"Giving none to their own citizens"???? Actually Soviet Union provided quite a lot for their citizens, although I agree that freedom is not among those things.
 
"Vietnam was a brutal war on both sides. "
Exactly! This proves my point -- there was NO difference between those two sides.
.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 11:56

This thread has been interesting from the beginning. Before I make a point I would like to quote some of the participants to highlight some opinions:

Originally posted by Adawolf

World War II was a total war, everything was a target. The point of the mass bombings was to cripple the Axis morale and production capabilities, and it succeeded.

Originally posted by Genghis

Necessity, enemy civilians are still the enemy.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

The Japanese Imperial authority did not direct surrender until AFTER the second device had been detonated. The tactic worked; the war ended.

Originally posted by DukeC

What we do know is that the bombs ended the war, all else is conjucture. I think given the level of technology and the drive by ALL sides to aquire weapons of mass destruction during the war it's inevitable they would be developed and if neccessary used.

Truman had a terrible choice to make, one that took many lives. But one that also saved many.

Originally posted by DukeC

The Japanese were waging unlimited warfare in the western Pacific long before the U.S. entered the war. Making an unprovoked, undeclared attack on Pearl Harbor gave the U.S. all the justification it needed to carry the war against Japan out on any terms it felt neccessary. Atrocities like the Bataan Deathmarch just hardened U.S. determination to end the war as quickly as possible.

Originally posted by DukeC

Yes, with power does come responsibility, and the first responsibility of the U.S. government was to defeat the powers that had been threatening the very existance of international law and respect for basic human rights with whatever means it had at hand.

Originally posted by pekau

Crime. Even if it was necessary, mass murder is mass murder. Killing most of the citizens and leaving the survivors to die a slow death by radiation is crime. Mass destruction for sake of others does not make it right, in terms of morality.

Originally posted by pekau

Total war or not, attacking defenseless is a crime by definition.

Originally posted by giordano

To kill civilians is a crime and it doesn't matter who did it.If your enemy killed civilians this doesn't give right of to kill civilians

Originally posted by warwolf1969

Crime. The US goverment knew the Japanise leadership was going to surrender when Russia declared war. They knew it and still dropped the bombs.

Originally posted by Zaitsev

The United States' decision had nothing to do with ending the war. The decision to use the nuclear arsenal against civilians was for the dual purposes of testing the power of nuclear devices for future reference, and to send a message to America's rivals across the globe, especially the USSR.

Regarding the morality of the incident, it is inexcusable. To employ weaponry of any kind directly targeted against civilian populations is reprehensible and shows a complete moral bankruptcy.

Originally posted by pinguin

The former allies should stop to claim for themselves WW II as a sort of religious cause for the good values of mankind, when it is well know allies commited lot of crimes against humanity during that terrible war: Dresde and Hiroshima are just two of those crimes.

Mass killing civilians is genocide, and that was what WW II was all about: massive genocide on civilians. Both sides were guilty of that, and the discussion can only go to determine which side was more brutal or which side started the first. Both sides should be ashamed of the largest massacre the world ever witnessed

Originally posted by Zaitsev

Again, the term total war is a fallacy invented for the purposes of allowing the targeting of civilians. At all times in history civilians have fed and equipped armies, nothing changed in the 20th century in that regard. The only change was that weapons had extended in range so that those people COULD be killed, and this needed to be justified.

In addition, ignorance is not an excuse for a gross violation of human rights. If the US cared about this issue, they could easily have tested the bomb more extensively, but this would have weakened the advantage they would gain internationally.

I selected these because I think they are more related to the topic than other. But the thing I find strange is that most of those who support the bombings show a quite restricted view on history and use some sort of twisted logic to justifiy that event.

In my humble opinion, the two nuclear shows were nothing than a political move. The Japanese surrendered after the bombings, yes, but did they do it because of the bombings? Or better said just because Hiroshima&Nagasaki? I think that the most important trigger was the USSR entering the conflict. Up until the end the Japanese goverment was hoping to make a deal with Stalin. Why is it that some people forget the fact that most of the Japanese forces were on the continent, not on the home islands?
One thing that constantly pops up when people are justifying the bombings is that Japan had been committing crimes all along the war. I think that's quite strange. Let's see, the Japs and the Jerry's are the bad guys because they are killing innocents from our side. Therefeore we should kill innocents on their side to show them that although we are the good guys, we can be worse than them. So USA is good just because it has more power. So WWII was not about good against bad it was just power. Mainly, the justification of killing the civilians comes from the idea that the "bad guys" did it first and the "good guys" had no other choice but to do the same in order to win the war. Is it so? Let's focus on some events.

The war in Europe started with the Germans apllying a new tactic. But the first to sistematically start bombing cities were not them. The Allies decided to do it in May 1940. Almost everywhere this is justified by two attacks of the Luftwaffe: Warszaw and Rotterdam. But these two were only episodes. And the bombing took place in the tactical theater. Both cities were bombed by the Luftwaffe while german ground forces were besieging them. Even in the BoB the Luftwaffe hardly targeted indiscriminately the British cities. But the Blitz also shows something people forget to realise: the fact that bombing civilians doesn't destroy their morale. I'm sure the English were affected by the loss of lives but did that had the effect of setting Britain out of the war? On the other hand the British were acutely aware that the Bob was in fact a close call because should the Luftawaffe had maintained an all out offensive against the Fighter Command bases in the South the outcome might have been different. So the facts were there: the most effective way to eliminate the enemy is to attack their military forces. But what was the decision? Build more big bombers and start a bombing campaign against German population. Boost results so that the people don't question the decision. Does anyone who is so fond of the strategic bombing campaign knows that by 1943 the RAF BC was in fact a waste of resources? Except for the death toll of bomber crews and German civilians, off course. Some say that in fact the strategic bombing campaign, especially after USAAF joined in, caused the fall of the Luftwaffe. But the fact is that the bombing were directed against the German (and their allies) cities. The Luftwaffe needed to engage the bombers but how many raids were directed against the German airbases? If the goal is to achieve air supremacy why attacking targets that are not directly related to the Luftwaffe?

The fact is that the Allies waged the bombing campaign because they could and because they were not afraid that their adversaries could retaliate. Not on the same scale, anyway. The fear of rtaliation was in fact what spared the civilians (and combatantas) on both sides to be submited to chemical warfare. We know for sure that the Germans and the Japanese were trying to develop biological weapons. They used humans for their experiences something that the other side could not because their were democratic, human, etc.etc.Maybe the fact is that we do not know yet if and how the Allies and/or USSR were researching bioweapons. Germany was also researching the possibility of developing a nuke. But with the resources available there was no chance to compete with USA. In the end the fact remains that a mass destruction weapon was developed and used by the "good guys". And it happend at a moment when the enemy was no more a real threat for the "free world". My personal opinion is that a demonstration of the power of the new killing toy would have had similar results.

To keep on saying that the bombs ended the war is not being aware of what those who are in power seek. Most likely it was just a game to justifiy the stupidity of "unconditional surrender". Great words. But these words were used by both sides to continue the slaughter. Hitler (Goebbels) rejoiced when they heard that. It was one of the most needed boosts they were looking for to keep their power. The same goes for Japan. If the goal was to punish those guilty for the war and for war crimes how come that such an enlighted character as FRD is portrayed couldn't come out with something more substantiate. He, and not just him, was only doing what he best knew: manipulating people to stay in power. The lives of US soldiers and citizens? They couldn't care less about them unless their chances to be reelected went down with them. The real problem is that people think that the number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was lower than the number of people that would have died in an invasion. The real issue is that an invasion would have resulted probably in Harry & Co. losing their power. Because they would have find it difficult to explain that an US soldiers must lose their lives for an "unconditional surrender" of Japan. That goes for Britain and the other too. The only one who would have gained if the war was prolonged was USSR. Actually, I think Stalin was more than happy with the stupidity of Roosevelt's sintagm.

Some say that the need for retaliation was what determined the Allies to begin their bombing raids. I can go for it but should they have kept on doing it after the war was beginning to look bad for the Axis? And while most people feel the need for revenge are we electing our leaders to act based on emotions? Those who want power more than anything thrive on emotions. Because it is way harder to be constructive than destructive. And much harder to keep control of the people without panem and circens (gladiators and blodshed included in the package). Japan was "evil". That doesn't automatically make USA "good".

This is bcoming really long so I would like to end with a problem:

You are the president of the USA. Russia has just launched a full scale missile (nuclear) strike targeting USA. Your choice is simple:

A. retaliate and the end of human life on Earth is almost certain.

B. do not fire back and give human race a chance to survive and maybe learn something.

What is your choice?

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 18:47

I didn't say the U.S. used atomic weapons based on the precedent created by the Japanese atrocities in China, I said they were used in part to stop the atrocities that had been ongoing there for more than a decade. There's a big difference.

I've said about as much as I'm going to say on this topic as I have limited online time now.
 
 

 



Edited by DukeC - 03-Jun-2009 at 17:54
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 18:25
Not only that but if you read a history textbook Japan and Germany were the aggressors, too bad that bombs were dropped on Japan i'm sorry for that comment. If your the aggressor you either win or you get severely punished for your folly in enacting war on any country,Japan was screwed from the beginning as Yamamoto once said "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant." If it was anyone's fault it was the Japanese govt. that forsook it's own people it is charged with protecting by striking another country especially for not even declaring war.

Bombing Japan was wrong and I am still ashamed that my country will always be known as the first to use nuclear weapons.

So what I am trying to get at is that although I will never praise my country for using the bomb to end the war for military and political reasons. No matter who you are if you hit first you are going to be hit harder because noone likes an aggreessor (bully) and it is one of the reasons why war is hell.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:19
Originally posted by Sun Tzu

If your the aggressor you either win or you get severely punished for your folly in enacting war on any country (...)
 No matter who you are if you hit first you are going to be hit harder because noone likes an aggreessor (bully) (...)
OH, really?
In 1938 Chechoslovakia was dismemered because Hitler (the bully) took advantage of France and Great Britain political ambigousness. Poland took part in the carnage and.
In 1939 Germany invaded Poland. Basically, Hitler hoped that F&GB would not dare to go to war especially since he knew that USSR would not. USSR too invaded Poland (agressorAngry!).
In 1940 USSR attacked Finland on matters similar to those that stood at the base of Germany invading Poland. Finland gets beaten and nobody does anything.
In spring 1940 Germany invades Norway, which was a neutral country. It was one of the accusations for "war crimes" at Nurnberg. The fact is that the Germans beated F,GB&Co. at invading Norway since we know that they too were on their way to invade that country. Both parts were agressors but only Germany lost the war.
In 1940 Italy too begins a series of agressions in Europe and in Africa. At the end of the war, although, Italy is considered a cobeligerant on the Allied side.
In 1940 Romania gets teared apart by Hungary and USSR. F&GB were no more able to offer guarantees. A political choice is made to side with the Axis because of what Hitler promised to Romania in exchange for resources and military support. For three years Romania fights beside Germany. Then, in August 1944, Romania changes sides and actively supports USSR against the Axis.  Unlike Italy, the cobeligerant status is not granted. Thus, without being the agressor we get a beating and almost 50 years of dictatorship.
Finland gets a similar treatment though less painful for their people since they manage to not be "turned red".
I could go on with examples of "agressors" not being beaten and "agressed" getting out really ugly.
Let's see: there are a whole lot of people who think that in 2003 USA commited an agression in Iraq. There are also lots of people who think US soldiers are commiting atrocities out there (actually it seems that not only there, does Guantanamo Bay rings a bell?). How about nuking two US cities to stop that? Off course, according to your logic and DukeC's if something like that will happen it would be US govt fault. 
 
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 02:10
There is a saying that says "Evil prevails when good men fail to act and sometimes evil prevails." It really is terrible that England and France failed to act early when they could. The U.S. should have acted early as well but most Americans did not want their sons dying for a foreign war.For some reason we don't seem have any respect for in the world anyomore with thousands of my countrymen that died for other people's petty disputes. I wouldn't want to die for another country would you?? especially when it doesn't seem to garner any respect for my country today.

Oh and do you really want to go on about Iraq?!?!?!?!?!?! I will agree that the war in Iraq was aggression. Waterboarding at Guantanamo is torture, another unpleasant thing that the U.S. has done but it is nowhere near to overtly conquering other countries and sending over 6 million to their deaths. Besides it is always easy to consider a country an aggressor especially when that country is larger and more powerful.

As for Iraq... when the U.S. starts sending martyrs out to blow themselves up to kill innocent people then I'll consider my country aggressive. As far as I'm concerned, The U.S. has it's own share of trangsgressions, but no where near other countries. Your from Romania right; well it is easy for you to criticize anyone. For one your country isn't the most powerful in the world. If almost anyone goes to war with Romania, Romania would be considered the victim. I'm really looking forward to the day the U.S. is no longer a superpower so that we won't be so easy to criticize.

So I would not call my country a "bully" you really have to look at the parameters of the situation and I would like to see the information about U.S. soldiers blowing up innocents. I would also like to hear what "atrocities that U.S. soldiers are committing." please write some facts that you know are true and from what sources you find these facts from.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Etnad View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 07-Jun-2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Post Options Post Options   Quote Etnad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 14:39
Necessity. Imagine what a ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in?

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 21:19
Originally posted by Sun Tzu



So I would not call my country a "bully" you really have to look at the parameters of the situation and I would like to see the information about U.S. soldiers blowing up innocents. I would also like to hear what "atrocities that U.S. soldiers are committing." please write some facts that you know are true and from what sources you find these facts from.
Haditha incident, Hamdania incident, Ishaqi, Mahmydiyah killing, bombing of wedding party in Mukaradeeb, Abu Ghraib prisoners abuse.
.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2009 at 10:49
Originally posted by Etnad

Necessity. Imagine what a ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in?

Imagine what a "negociated capitulation" instead of "unconditional surrender" would have resulted in?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.