American politicians attempt to intervene in internal politics of peaceful middle-eastern country.

[Humodour]

YOU DON'T ****ING AIM FOR CIVILIANS TO HURT YOUR ENEMY. THAT'S CALLED TERRORISM.

[Volourn]

"And by the way, the Japanese were ready to surrender by the time the bombs were dropped."

 

L0L I find this argument weak. 'Ready to surrender' means nothing. You meant surrender under THEIR terms.

 

Anyways, defending the mass murder of civilians isn't cool. I din't bring that up to say it was a cool thing for the US to do or it should happen more often because we all got lucky and it worked out in the LONG run.

 

 

"Japan and Germany were both doing extremely well prior to American dickery. Japan was competing with the British Empire in textiles in 1914 without tariffs. Germany had enough industrial and military power to damn near crush the French and Russians in WW1 (and, to a lesser extent, in WW2)."

 

Germany certainly wasn't. Afterall, that's a major reason why they were still so butthurt over WW1, and how Hitler managed to finangle power.

 

And, no Japan wasn't doing so well. Not if they were willing to join up with a country that had plans to eradicate or ensalve anyone not the same as them. LMAO

 

The point is, Japan and Germany managed to recover and regroup despite the ahrdships they face both pre and post war. Japan had to deal with the aftermath of nukes, and Germany had to live with the stigma stink of the Nazis. Not really easy things to do and they did it. With the heklp of the Amerikans in nation building.

 

Sorry, 'nation building' should not be the first option but it's not auto failure either.

 

 

"Japan attacked a military target."

 

Who, btw, they weren't actually at war with at the time. You don't start bombing a not quite enemy capable of counter attacking not expecting them not to do so.

 

Don't start something that you can't finish.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

Er, ok. So the nation building thats been wildly sucessful in Germany and Japan following WWII should just be ignored due to your comparion with the current wars that arent even over yet? And dont look now, but were just about out of Iraq and they seem to be doing just fine.

 

Good point. Nation building in Japan and Germany took more than ten years, just to get rolling. But by god it stuck.

 

LoF is as usual in lala land about how Japan was an economic collossus rivalling the USA, and Germany was secretly running a first class army, rather than a WW1 army with some WW2 trinkets nailed to it. But that's to be expected from a revisionist.

[Morgoth]

We should have nuked Berlin and Tokyo

Kotor 3, the good Jew!

 

[lord of flies]

Germany certainly wasn't. Afterall, that's a major reason why they were still so butthurt over WW1, and how Hitler managed to finangle power.

 

And, no Japan wasn't doing so well. Not if they were willing to join up with a country that had plans to eradicate or ensalve anyone not the same as them. LMAO

 

The point is, Japan and Germany managed to recover and regroup despite the ahrdships they face both pre and post war. Japan had to deal with the aftermath of nukes, and Germany had to live with the stigma stink of the Nazis. Not really easy things to do and they did it. With the heklp of the Amerikans in nation building.

 

Sorry, 'nation building' should not be the first option but it's not auto failure either.

LoF is as usual in lala land about how Japan was an economic collossus rivalling the USA, and Germany was secretly running a first class army, rather than a WW1 army with some WW2 trinkets nailed to it. But that's to be expected from a revisionist.

Japan was not an "economic colossus rivaling the USA," it was a nation that was on a steady and (relatively) quick path to industrialization. The accomplishment of reaching first world economic levels is a Japanese one, not a United States one. In 1914, Japan had a GDP per capita on par with Russia, but they grew much faster.

 

United States dickery in Germany started in 1917, remember (well actually before then since our relations were weighted towards the Entente already)? Or do they not teach you that in your history textbooks? Besides which, if Germany's WW2 army was so atrocious (it wasn't), then everybody else's was even worse. France fell to German force of arms, as did Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, North Italy, the Czechs, Poland, and large swaths of Soviet territory. It was industrial power and population statistics, not military discipline or officer corps, that allowed the Allies to defeat Germany.

 

I'm not pretending like fascism owns. But the standard of living in Germany and Japan is wholly a consequence of the German and Japanese economies which existed and expanded before WW1 and WW2.

If it was up to me I would have bombed Tokyo, and save the other bomb for Berlin. When they attacked us they became the enemy. The best way to take down an enemy is to tear about its foundation. The foundation of any military is its civilian support which the government can pull from to bolster its military. The point of war is to win. You cannot win by being nice to those who want to kill you.

"Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk."

[213374U]

Besides which, if Germany's WW2 army was so atrocious (it wasn't), then everybody else's was even worse.

Err... not quite. German troops weren't significantly better equipped or trained than their most direct adversaries. In some cases, their equipment was worse, in fact (T-34/Pz.Kpfw.IV, PPSh-41/MP-38, etc), and to further compound things, the Wehrmacht suffered material shortages from day one, which only got worse as the war progressed. German "Panzer" divisions were lucky to have a regiment worth of tanks.

 

 

France fell to German force of arms, as did Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, North Italy, the Czechs, Poland, and large swaths of Soviet territory. It was industrial power and population statistics, not military discipline or officer corps, that allowed the Allies to defeat Germany.

The fall of France seems to have been a bit more complex than that. German commanders charging without (or against) orders, a lack of Allied air reconnaissance essential to successfully account for and eventually counter the fast German breakthroughs, obsolete French doctrine and finally luck all played a role in the battle of France. Few in OKH believed that a war against France could go Germany's way. By all rights, Germany should have lost in September 1939 when France called off their offensive. Hitler gambled that he wouldn't be attacked in the West... and won.

 

And if you look at the numbers of Allied (especially American) troops deployed to fight Germany, you'll see that they never enjoyed the numerical superiority that Uncle Joe had in the East. So I'd say that troops quality did play a role, even if it wasn't the only or deciding factor.

Edited February 26, 2010 by 213374U

[HoonDing]

The civilians support the government and military, they are a whole an entity. Japan, as a nation and entity, attacked the US.

So the US bombing targets in Afghanistan & Isra

[Meshugger]

I think that a certain two people on this board are in need to watch Dr. Strangelove again.

[213374U]

The flick that showed us the dangers of Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

 

Never forget!

[Trenitay]

L0L I find this argument weak. 'Ready to surrender' means nothing. You meant surrender under THEIR terms.

 

They had one term and we refused to accept it.

[Killian Kalthorne]

So the US bombing targets in Afghanistan & Isra

[Killian Kalthorne]

YOU DON'T ****ING AIM FOR CIVILIANS TO HURT YOUR ENEMY. THAT'S CALLED TERRORISM.

 

It is war, Krezy. "Terrorism" is a buzz word that has been given a strong, and justified, negative meaning. War is war. It doesn't change if you use buzz words. It doesn't change if you are in a uniform or not. It is war. In war you defeat your enemy or you will lose against your enemy. All is fair in war.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I can understand bias against the Nazi's, but hatred of Germans in general is just stupid. And by the way, the Japanese were ready to surrender by the time the bombs were dropped.

 

 

I don't hate Germans in general. Just WWII-era ones, because they elected Hitler, making them- guess what?- Nazi scum.

[213374U]

I don't hate Germans in general. Just WWII-era ones, because they elected Hitler, making them- guess what?- Nazi scum.

In fact, NSDAP got only a little over 40% of all votes in the 1933 Reichstag election. If Hitler got where he did it was because of the other politicians' weakness and lack of resistance to intimidation - not to mention the post-WWI socioeconomic circumstances that allowed the rise in popularity of both Communists and Nazis.

 

Details, details.

 

Keep using the "I'm Jewish" schtick as a disclaimer for your willful ignorance, that's a great way to get people to respect Jews.

Edited February 26, 2010 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

I can understand bias against the Nazi's, but hatred of Germans in general is just stupid. And by the way, the Japanese were ready to surrender by the time the bombs were dropped.

 

 

I don't hate Germans in general. Just WWII-era ones, because they elected Hitler, making them- guess what?- Nazi scum.

 

Hitler got 33% of the vote, and there aren't any figures on how many voted on the nazis simply because they were not the established party. Which ones are you exactly talking about?

 

//EDIT: Numbersman got the right numbers, I was thinking about the presidential election, where he actually loosed against Hindenburg

Edited February 26, 2010 by Meshugger

[Morgoth]

YOU DON'T ****ING AIM FOR CIVILIANS TO HURT YOUR ENEMY. THAT'S CALLED TERRORISM.

 

It is war, Krezy. "Terrorism" is a buzz word that has been given a strong, and justified, negative meaning. War is war. It doesn't change if you use buzz words. It doesn't change if you are in a uniform or not. It is war. In war you defeat your enemy or you will lose against your enemy. All is fair in war.

Attacking citizens on purpose would clearly violate the Geneva conventions.

 

Many soldiers had to die to get the Red Cross and the Geneva conventions established, and any belligerent power in war better remembers that. That includes the USA, too.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I never said it was right, Morgoth. If it comes down to victory or to follow the Geneva conventions, I am betting the Geneva conventions will be tossed out, regardless of nation or organization involved in the conflict.

[Trenitay]

Osama bin Laden declared war on us. Does that make 9/11 justified?

 

I can understand bias against the Nazi's, but hatred of Germans in general is just stupid. And by the way, the Japanese were ready to surrender by the time the bombs were dropped.

 

 

I don't hate Germans in general. Just WWII-era ones, because they elected Hitler, making them- guess what?- Nazi scum.

 

Does that make you a socialist because America voted Obama in?

[Humodour]

The flick that showed us the dangers of Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

 

Never forget!

 

Amen.

[Humodour]

YOU DON'T ****ING AIM FOR CIVILIANS TO HURT YOUR ENEMY. THAT'S CALLED TERRORISM.

 

It is war, Krezy. "Terrorism" is a buzz word that has been given a strong, and justified, negative meaning. War is war. It doesn't change if you use buzz words. It doesn't change if you are in a uniform or not. It is war. In war you defeat your enemy or you will lose against your enemy. All is fair in war.

 

If everyone thought like you, all that might be true, but as long as humanity remains civilised and humane (i.e. different to the terrorist scum in the Middle East) it won't be.

 

I suppose you think "human rights" is a buzzword too?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Oh yes, war is so civilized and humane.

 

Human rights are great, worth fighting for, and instill in all people, but do not be naive. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy, to destroy him or her utterly so that the enemy can never threaten you again. There is no justice in war. There is no such thing as a civilized and humane war. There is only death, destruction, and hate. That is war.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Zoraptor]

L0L I find this argument weak. 'Ready to surrender' means nothing. You meant surrender under THEIR terms.

 

They had one term and we refused to accept it.

And the funny (well, if you're of the opinion that it wasn't meant as "back off, Georgian Joe, OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS" but a legitimately necessary part of war) thing is being that after the unconditional surrender that one term got honoured. Or in other words 150k people killed for no practical reason except being able to say the surrender was unconditional.

[Killian Kalthorne]

What do you expect? It was war. In war, the military loves to use its new toys and the atomic bomb was a very shiny new toy back then

Edited February 26, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Humodour]

Oh yes, war is so civilized and humane.

 

Oh, so because war already involves killing people, it doesn't matter who is killed or how they are killed? You're so thick.

 

Human rights are great, worth fighting for, and instill in all people, but do not be naive. The purpose of war is to kill the enemy, to destroy him or her utterly so that the enemy can never threaten you again.

 

No it isn't you overly dramatic buffoon. The purposes of war are often varied - they can be (and this list isn't exhaustive) to maintain order and control back home (typical of authoritarian regimes, and the success or failure against the enemy is of nominal importance), to liberate another people from an oppressor (the complete obliteration or defeat of the enemy is not the goal, simply their retreat is), to gain territory (the goal is the territory and holding it, not eradicating your enemy), or to prevent a threatening opponent from expanding or oppressing (e.g. the Korean and Vietnam wars - the purposes of these wars wasn't to kill all communists, it was to install democracy and/or prevent communist rule).

 

Terrorism, the type of war you are advocating (war against civilians to hurt your enemy), is extremely rarely employed by the world's civilisations and governments, and almost uniformly frowned upon.

[Killian Kalthorne]

The reason for war matters not for the dead. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this, Krezy.