For those of you don't vote....

[deerman]

Quote:
It was not the location they wanted.....They try to destroy the us navy warship , to control the seas in the far east. We where a threat to their control. With all the navy ships we had at te time.

Good thing they got some bad info.....most of the aircraft carriers were not docked, as they thought. Still we took sometime to get control of those seas.

Japan was taking all the islands in their area of the world, no one there to stop them. With control of the water none would have been able to receive help. Those days aircraft couldn't fly that far.

 

[deerman]

Back to the topic , yes alot of people died so you have the freedom to vote, but also to not if that is your wish.

Now to complain about someone who was elected ,when you didn't vote I think is wrong. If you didn't care enought to vote them in or out, why worry about what they DO. JMO
.
.
.
.

Now for those voting , they need to understand who really runs this country CONGRESS. They are the blame and need the credit. for the good and bad. Yes the President has more power of any single person.......but really one person doesn't run this country.

To blame one man for all our bad times is crazy, just like its not one man that sents us to war. Yes more power to him if he can get his wish , by getting congress to see thing his way

 

[BlackBart]

Quote:
I think they could only walk to Moscow in the summer. Ill equipped for the winter and problems with supply trucks in the Fall Winter and Spring road conditions. Not sure of the date the Allies entered Russia. Pretty sure France and another country (fighting for the Allies) entered Russia as well to flank the German invasion so the German troops were sort of surrounded. Cut off the supplies and they had a problem. But it was pretty much over by then.

Despite being told not to trust Hitler, Stalin still continued to supply Germany with raw materials. For some reason he did not believe Hitler would invade Russia, probably because of his cooperation and arrogance. By the time he realized he had been double crossed it was too late.
Stalin didn't learn much from the fall of Hitler and the exposing of the genocide and concentration camps. He used Hitler's Russian based concentration camps to intern his own people that dare to question him.

It is not really off topic in regards to voting when it comes to the overall reasons why some wars are started in the first place. Its complicated to explain. For me anyway

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I don't care if Japs isn't PC. I call Northerners Yanks, I refer to Native Americans as Indians. I say "black" rather than "African American." There's nothing offensive in it at all, and anyone who IS offended has seriously tender skin. Ain't it funny how no one has any problem referring to "whites" rather than "Caucasians?" Totally off topic, but I needed to point out how stupid being PC is. No good reason.

As for why Hitler couldn't make it further into Russia... Of course it was the winter. The Soviets, however, also had a LOT of warm bodies to throw at Hitler. If I'm not mistaken (and in this case I may very well be), Stalin's basic strategy when it came to tanks was to have 20 crappy tanks for every one of Hitler's dramatically superior tanks. Attrition, my friend. Do you seriously think a man as ruthless, heartless, and quite possibly soulless as Stalin would have any problem hurling hundreds of thousands of underfed soldiers at Japan, at least partly to get revenge for getting whipped in the last fight they had with 'em? It was The Bomb and Stalin.

Even if it was the nukes, since when is dropping an atom bomb on strategically irrelevant cities justified in any way? Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had been targeted for any kind of serious bombing, neither had major military bases, and The Bombs didn't touch the few factories that were there, as they were on the outskirts. In other words, the USA dropped nuclear weapons on the heads of two completely harmless towns just to show they could do it.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I believe they were chosen to show what devastation we could cause at random. Fear tactics.

You hear lots of people talking about the rules of war but how long has the Quote "all's fare in love an war" been going around.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
I don't care if Japs isn't PC. I call Northerners Yanks, I refer to Native Americans as Indians. I say "black" rather than "African American." There's nothing offensive in it at all, and anyone who IS offended has seriously tender skin. Ain't it funny how no one has any problem referring to "whites" rather than "Caucasians?" Totally off topic, but I needed to point out how stupid being PC is. No good reason.

As for why Hitler couldn't make it further into Russia... Of course it was the winter. The Soviets, however, also had a LOT of warm bodies to throw at Hitler. If I'm not mistaken (and in this case I may very well be), Stalin's basic strategy when it came to tanks was to have 20 crappy tanks for every one of Hitler's dramatically superior tanks. Attrition, my friend. Do you seriously think a man as ruthless, heartless, and quite possibly soulless as Stalin would have any problem hurling hundreds of thousands of underfed soldiers at Japan, at least partly to get revenge for getting whipped in the last fight they had with 'em? It was The Bomb and Stalin.

Even if it was the nukes, since when is dropping an atom bomb on strategically irrelevant cities justified in any way? Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had been targeted for any kind of serious bombing, neither had major military bases, and The Bombs didn't touch the few factories that were there, as they were on the outskirts. In other words, the USA dropped nuclear weapons on the heads of two completely harmless towns just to show they could do it.

I don't feel like looking it up, but one of the 2 cities, Hiroshima I believe. Had significant military targets in it as well as a large civilian population.

As for Stalin. Look at a globe if you have one. Then get back with me about Stalin. It would have been very difficult to get enough troops amassed to send them to Japan. The logistics would have been just about impossible. Stalin had all his troops on the western front and they were quickly being decimated. Japan was even trying to invade China.

You should not talk about thin skinned by the way. Crack your books open and do a little more than read crazy theories about WWII. Read some real history instead of what the conspiracy crackpots like to cook up to suck people in.

Just as an aside. I disagree with our dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However we lost a lot of men in WWII it wasn't like Iraq where we killed 500 people for every soldier we lost. We didn't have all the weapons we do now and the Japanese refused to give up. We had a choice of losing 250,000 men to try to occupy Japan or drop a nuke. It's real easy to read a book written by some guy and absorb all their opinions. Then stand up and start talking about what should and should not have been done. I wasn't born yet and your parents probably weren't even born yet. So I'm going to give America a pass on that one. By the way. You're right about Soviet doctrine. When I was in Germany the Soviets had 20 tanks for every one of ours. Some were from WWII. Of course some of our equipment was from the Korean conflict. They were still expected to run right over us if the balloon went up. There were 212,000 troops in Germany when I was there. They hoped we could hold them east of the Rhine until reinforcements were flown in.

I hope your still on this forum in 10 years. It will be interesting to see what experience does for your thinking.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Agree on most of that and you were right about why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. They were actually interested in trying to get more land in Asia. By controlling all the Islands in the Eastern Pacific they could build basses and protect what they had taken.

Presidents can start wars though. All they have to do is cook the books and put out a lot of false information. Iraq is proof of that. Invading Afghanistan had some justification. Iraq was just some kind of macho BS. I would believe the theory about building number 7 and Bush being involved in the dropping of the WTC before I would believe the theory about Pearl Harbor being set up.

 

[Sootsie]

mmm trying to work out what WWII has to do with voting today. Yes our soldiers fought for our freedom and won it and I would never say anything to devalue or disrespect them, or our current soldiers, i wear my poppy with pride, thanks and a thought for all those injured and not coming home whichever war they fought in past or present.

As for voting ive looked in the past at what the different party's have said and / or not delivered and have come to the conclusion they all screw it up, dont follow through the promises they made to get in power so no i dont vote if i discover a party that doesnt fit this stereotype i might reconsider. im in the UK so the political system works a little differently.

 

[Organics North]

OK WWII is what shaped our current political world to a large part. ...

So... Maybe we should have a WWII thread this is not the first time we have had some "fun" with the topic..

Alright Q9,
I do not buy the Stalin threat to Japan. (Sounds like something promoted by McCarthyism.) Which I do believe at least part of your "unique" education has been from materials/viewpoints in that Genre.

The bomb and the ethics of it? As Rebel said.. All is fair in love and war... For this reason I have great disdain for all war!!!

Look at dresden, yes conventional bombing but we bombed that civilian city so hard the pavement was on fire. (Hard to do with WWII technology.) Look at Iraq 1 with the bunker busters.

It is the American way.. We will do what ever it takes.. Right wrong or indifferent.

Again one of the many reasons I can never forgive those that promoted the false intelligence of missiles to justify the start of Iraq 2.

Dunkopf wrote: Just as an aside. I disagree with our dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However we lost a lot of men in WWII it wasn't like Iraq where we killed 500 people for every soldier we lost. We didn't have all the weapons we do now and the Japanese refused to give up. We had a choice of losing 250,000 men to try to occupy Japan or drop a nuke.

I actually in a selfish way appreciate the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is highly unlikely my father would have lived through a "D DAY" landing on Japan. (He was to be the in the first waves of soldiers dumped on the beach.)

(Keep in mind folks my WWII history opinion is based on what a 17 year old German/American kid saw and heard on the front. It is just personal opinion. What I believe the truth to be, varies significantly from the history books in some areas.)

ON​

 

[Q9]

Quote:
I don't care if Japs isn't PC. I call Northerners Yanks, I refer to Native Americans as Indians. I say "black" rather than "African American." There's nothing offensive in it at all, and anyone who IS offended has seriously tender skin. Ain't it funny how no one has any problem referring to "whites" rather than "Caucasians?" Totally off topic, but I needed to point out how stupid being PC is. No good reason.

As for why Hitler couldn't make it further into Russia... Of course it was the winter. The Soviets, however, also had a LOT of warm bodies to throw at Hitler. If I'm not mistaken (and in this case I may very well be), Stalin's basic strategy when it came to tanks was to have 20 crappy tanks for every one of Hitler's dramatically superior tanks. Attrition, my friend. Do you seriously think a man as ruthless, heartless, and quite possibly soulless as Stalin would have any problem hurling hundreds of thousands of underfed soldiers at Japan, at least partly to get revenge for getting whipped in the last fight they had with 'em? It was The Bomb and Stalin.

Even if it was the nukes, since when is dropping an atom bomb on strategically irrelevant cities justified in any way? Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had been targeted for any kind of serious bombing, neither had major military bases, and The Bombs didn't touch the few factories that were there, as they were on the outskirts. In other words, the USA dropped nuclear weapons on the heads of two completely harmless towns just to show they could do it.

I don't feel like looking it up, but one of the 2 cities, Hiroshima I believe. Had significant military targets in it as well as a large civilian population.

As for Stalin. Look at a globe if you have one. Then get back with me about Stalin. It would have been very difficult to get enough troops amassed to send them to Japan. The logistics would have been just about impossible. Stalin had all his troops on the western front and they were quickly being decimated. Japan was even trying to invade China.

You should not talk about thin skinned by the way. Crack your books open and do a little more than read crazy theories about WWII. Read some real history instead of what the conspiracy crackpots like to cook up to suck people in.

Just as an aside. I disagree with our dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However we lost a lot of men in WWII it wasn't like Iraq where we killed 500 people for every soldier we lost. We didn't have all the weapons we do now and the Japanese refused to give up. We had a choice of losing 250,000 men to try to occupy Japan or drop a nuke. It's real easy to read a book written by some guy and absorb all their opinions. Then stand up and start talking about what should and should not have been done. I wasn't born yet and your parents probably weren't even born yet. So I'm going to give America a pass on that one. By the way. You're right about Soviet doctrine. When I was in Germany the Soviets had 20 tanks for every one of ours. Some were from WWII. Of course some of our equipment was from the Korean conflict. They were still expected to run right over us if the balloon went up. There were 212,000 troops in Germany when I was there. They hoped we could hold them east of the Rhine until reinforcements were flown in.

I hope your still on this forum in 10 years. It will be interesting to see what experience does for your thinking.

I assure you, I didn't WANT to believe those "crazy theories" about WWII. Up until about a year and a half ago, I thought it was nuts. Then I found the McCollum Memo, and started doing more research into the matter. I make it a point of honor not to read "conspiracy crackpots" without taking it with a very large grain of salt. I try to keep it to mainstream; through that reading I have come to the conclusion that Stalin was the deciding factor. Also, call me crazy, but I thought Germany was defeated by the time the Bomb was dropped and Soviet troops were no longer being "decimated." The fact that Japan wanted to keep fighting until Stalin was preparing to enter war with them tells me that he was at least a factor. Of course, maybe another 100,000 civilians would have convinced Japan to give up.

I always believed the Bomb was justified until fairly recently. I've opposed Sherman's pillage-and-burn tactics for most of my life, but supported the use of the A-bombs. It dawned on me that I was contradicting myself - why should I apply one standard in one case, and a completely different one in another? Double standards have always infuriated me, yet I was using one. My position now is that indiscriminate killing of civilians and destruction of civilian property (esp. homes, stores, and farms) is wrong, in every case.

Just to make this clear for what feels like the millionth time, I make sure to get a variety of opinions and viewpoints. Stop making accusations when you know that you have no idea of whether it's true or not. That goes for you, too, ON.