Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)
Kevin Hurst
advisor), Saburo Sakai.
To quote my source...
"On September 22 legendary Zero pilot Saburo Sakai died of a heart
attack, aged 84, hours after attending the American Navy Commander Fleet
Air Western Pacific 50th Anniversary dinner at the Atsugi naval base in
Japan.
The son of a poor farmer, Sakai joined the Imperial Navy in 1933,
passing the rigorous aviator exam only after his 3rd attempt. After
graduating at the top of his class, he transferred to the 12th Air Group
in China and had his first taste of combat. On one of his most notable
missions, on October 3 1939, he single-handedly chased 12 DB-3 bombers
for 150 miles after a surprise attack on Hankow, shooting one down.
Moving to Japan's elite Tainan air Group in June 1941, Sakai
participated in all the early battles in the Pacific. In April 1942 the
group transferred to Rabaul, and on August 7 on a mission to
Guadalcanal, he was severely wounded by gunners from Dauntlesses, but
made it back to base in a 4hr flight.
In June 1944, after duty as an instructor, the navy ace-who now had only
one good eye-took part in the air battle of Iwo Jima. After his unit
took heavy losses, he returned to his homeland and moved into the 343rd
Air Group ending the war with 64 kills."
Kevin Hurst
Ryan Cowley
injured my Grandfather in a B-17, who then was a POW for 3 years, forced to
eat rats for sustanance. A man who spilled the guts of many young
Americans. At the end of your quote, my friend, this "legendary Zero pilot"
ended "the war with 64 kills" I needant remind you that those 64 kills were
friends, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers.......Americans. An ace and a
hero he may be, compadre, but not here, not in my heart, and I dare say not
in this country.
Kevin Hurst wrote:
--
Capt. Ryan "Kosmo" Cowley
Training and Operations Officer
187th Avengers VFW
T...@187th.org
www.187th.org
Objective Man
What about all the Japanese airman that had thier "guts spilled" by
American and British\Commonwealth Aces? Need I remind you that Saburo
Sakai is one of only a handful of surviving Japanese Aces. He
witnessed the deaths of his friends and was crippled in combat. His
pain and mourning was no less than any other mans.
"An ace and a hero he may be"
Damn straight.
Just because he wasn't American does NOT mean he deserves any less
respect for his personal achievements.
ALL of the men who served in WWII deserve respect and recognition.
When ANY of them pass it should be a time to reflect and a time to
remember.
Steven Dickson
the Pacific Theatre with 26 victories, had no problem respecting Saburo
Sakai. In fact, they became great friends after the war. Perhaps you can
learn something about human nature from that? No, on second thought, you
probably can't.
Chuck <c...@c.com> wrote in message
news:ouJM5.61096$d57.5...@news4.aus1.giganews.com...
> Should have thought about that before they bombed Pearl Harbor.
>
> True, the guy was a legend.............but you try and sell a Mitsubishi
TV
> set to a WWII vet that served in the Pacific Theater. But he's no
> hero........not in my book. Sure he fought for his country during the war,
> like millions of other people did.......but he was on the wrong side of
the
> fence.
>
> Admire the man's accomplishments.......yes. But respect and treat as a
> hero.....no thanks.
>
>
> "Objective Man" <te...@test.com> wrote in message
> news:lql60t4t6pcm68h4b...@4ax.com...
M
Alex Pavloff wrote in message
<79170t06vfv2b9v6h...@4ax.com>...
>And THAT'S why he deserves our respect.
>
>--
>* Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net *
I loved him on Star Trek.
:-)
Pasha
Kraits Seeker
He turned into the embodiment of what your Grandfather was fighting for; an
enlightened former enemy turned ally.
In truth, his descendants will/should mourn your Grandfather too. Again,
that's what it's about.
seeker
"Ryan Cowley" <ko...@vii.com> wrote in message
news:3A034CE3...@vii.com...
> Am I supposed to morn the passing of a man whom shot down and severly
> injured my Grandfather in a B-17, who then was a POW for 3 years, forced
to
> eat rats for sustanance. A man who spilled the guts of many young
> Americans. At the end of your quote, my friend, this "legendary Zero
pilot"
> ended "the war with 64 kills" I needant remind you that those 64 kills
were
> friends, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers.......Americans. An ace and
a
> hero he may be, compadre, but not here, not in my heart, and I dare say
not
> in this country.
>
Kevin Hurst
writes
Ryan,
My posting was made in the spirit of reconciliation.
My grandfather, on my fathers side, was killed by the Germans whilst
serving in the royal navy during the second world war. My fathers mother
was killed during the London Blitz of 1940. My father, an orphan at the
age of 6, was evacuated to the home counties of England and bought up by
foster parents.
My other grandfather, mothers side, served in North Africa, Sicily and
from Normandy - Germany (1941-1945). He was in the XXX corp, which was
part of the Eighth Army-the Desert Rats. He was a humble man, who rarely
spoke of his war years. Suffice to say he was highly decorated and took
part in most of the important campaigns from 1941 onwards.
An uncle of mine fought the Japanese in the Burma campaign.
Men like your grandfather, my relatives and Sakai were caught up in a
global conflict. I'm sure they didn't want to be there, but their
bravery, and sacrifice, must command our respect.
Kevin
>Am I supposed to morn the passing of a man whom shot down and severly
>injured my Grandfather in a B-17, who then was a POW for 3 years, forced to
>eat rats for sustanance. A man who spilled the guts of many young
>Americans. At the end of your quote, my friend, this "legendary Zero pilot"
>ended "the war with 64 kills" I needant remind you that those 64 kills were
>friends, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers.......Americans. An ace and a
>hero he may be, compadre, but not here, not in my heart, and I dare say not
>in this country.
>
--
Kevin Hurst
Ian Boys
afterwards and their shared experiences as artillery officers overrode
any differences they may have had as former enemies.
Former enemies have been allies for over 50 years, with our troops
helping defend Germany and Japan against other threats. The decent
treatment my German grandfather recieved in the hands of the US forces
when he was captured went a longway to building trust later, when he
became a colonel in the new German NATO Bundeswehr, working alongside
Americans.
Nevertheless the fact remains that for part of his life both Sakai and
my grandfather served evil regimes.
But for the rest of their lives, many former Axis troops worked
tirelessly to rebuild their countries and restore the honour of their
nations.
You have to balance both these aspects.
I wonder how history will judge our generation? We left a million
Rwandans to die in a genocide faster than that perpetrated by the
Nazis. We are starving the people of Iraq while the elite there gets
richer. We bomb TV stations in the Balkans. Cuba rots in embargo for
the sake of a long-forgotten dispute. We let millions starve to death.
Hey. We're great.
Ian
Chuck
True, the guy was a legend.............but you try and sell a Mitsubishi TV
set to a WWII vet that served in the Pacific Theater. But he's no
hero........not in my book. Sure he fought for his country during the war,
like millions of other people did.......but he was on the wrong side of the
fence.
Admire the man's accomplishments.......yes. But respect and treat as a
hero.....no thanks.
"Objective Man" <te...@test.com> wrote in message
news:lql60t4t6pcm68h4b...@4ax.com...
>
> What about all the Japanese airman that had thier "guts spilled" by
> American and British\Commonwealth Aces? Need I remind you that Saburo
> Sakai is one of only a handful of surviving Japanese Aces. He
> witnessed the deaths of his friends and was crippled in combat. His
> pain and mourning was no less than any other mans.
>
> "An ace and a hero he may be"
>
> Damn straight.
>
> Just because he wasn't American does NOT mean he deserves any less
> respect for his personal achievements.
>
> ALL of the men who served in WWII deserve respect and recognition.
> When ANY of them pass it should be a time to reflect and a time to
> remember.
>
>
>
Rick W. Spork
Wemic
enemies of 55 years ago. We weren't there, didn't participate, weren't even
born yet. For the record, my father fought the Japanese and got a purple
heart for his efforts yet he didn't carry such bitterness. Let it go folks.
I say respect those who fought in the war no matter which side they were on.
But for a matter of fate, they may have been on different sides.
Wemic
--
I have WAY too many flight sims....
home.nycap.rr.com/wemic/
ICQ#11192354
Go Bills!!! Go Sabres!!!
"Rick W. Spork" <ssr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3A036983...@sonic.net...
Dr Oddness Killtroll
M wrote:
Chuckle.
annex
Bob Lionel
convince him to mourn any "Japs". Sure Sakai witnessed the death of his
friends just like the Americans, BUT he was on the wrong side. It's great
and all that he finally "came around" but to hold him up as a hero, is bs.
There are no Japanese hero's of WW2 that were on the Axis sides. There were
plenty on the Allies sides, but obviously that isn't Sakai.
Bob Lionel
One of my best friends wives is Japanese. You should see the looks she gives
him as he plays CFS2 and is screaming "take that you, Jap!!" Just about all
he plays is WW2 strategy games and WW2 Sims. I've also heard their
discussions on WW2 though and she doesn't think the things done in WW2 were
"wrong" they were just things that are done in war. Strangely enough, WW2
isn't talked about much in Japanese schools apparently.
topcover
Lost Cause in the Southern United States. There is, I would wager, more ink
spilled, judicial process abused, and legislative time wasted, on various
aspects of the supposed Romance of the Confederacy, than any other regional
issue across the area formerly known as the C.S.A.
This includes education, health, employment or taxes. Some people feel
they've just got to wear (or fly) their Battle Flags, and others feel just
as strongly they shouldn't.
Joe
"Wemic" <djac...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:08LM5.130615$JS3.21...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
JD
01:40:32 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>Ditto...
Just curious... ditto to which?
The enlightened and reasonable "respect those who laid it on the
line to serve their honor, country, and conscience, regardless of
which side they were on" opinion expressed by those who have the
vision to see that there's whole world out there beyond their back
yard?
Or are you ditto'ing the head-up-ass "they warnt 'Murricans so
they warnt shit" side who go a such a long way toward making the
world the fucked up place it is today?
<the preceding was actually a commentary on the general tone of
the thread and not specifically a question for respondee>
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
JD
10:06:56 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>Strangely enough, WW2
>isn't talked about much in Japanese schools apparently.
It isn't talked about much in American schools either, for that
matter. Or when it is, apparently it's only to propagate fairly
tale pleasantries and blood stirring patriotic mythology.
It amazes me how many Americans think that WE beat the British in
the American Revolution, or that WE saved Europe twice within 20
years, or that the Japanese just out of the blue decided to attack
us for no reason at Pearl Harbor, or that the American Civil War
was about slavery, or... or... well there are just too many "ors",
but I think you get the picture.
As to right and wrong in warfare? You'd have to be blind and dumb
<and you can take that literally and colloquially> not to
recognize that the definition of these concepts are the sole
prerogative the victors. If the Axis powers had somehow won the
Second World War, I can think of several prominent Allied war
"heroes" who could easily have been charged with war crimes under
the same interpretation that was applied in fact to many of the
Axis war "criminals".
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Hammer
Revolution? Who did bail out the Brits TWICE in 20 years? Inquiring minds
want to know.
Hammer
"JD" <jdkbph...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fbf80tcac63a3vt6i...@4ax.com...
Wemic
Revolutionary War, but for the intervention of the French we would probably
be having tea and crumpets right around now. ;-)
Wemic
--
I have WAY too many flight sims....
home.nycap.rr.com/wemic/
ICQ#11192354
Go Bills!!! Go Sabres!!!
"Hammer" <slav...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:O7fMaRoRAHA.322@cpmsnbbsa09...
Otter
love to hear you expound on this topic but I'll pass this time as I can tell
from what you've written here you couldn't draw a correct assumption about
those facets if you were spotted all the crayola colors.
--
Otter
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> It isn't talked about much in American schools either, for that
> matter. Or when it is, apparently it's only to propagate fairly
> tale pleasantries and blood stirring patriotic mythology.
>
> It amazes me how many Americans think that WE beat the British in
> the American Revolution,
Ya. The French did it all. Thats why we're France now. Ooops, we're not?
Go figure, whats the meaning?
> or that WE saved Europe twice within 20
23
> years, or that the Japanese just out of the blue decided to attack
> us for no reason at Pearl Harbor,
They had reason. It was called Bushido. They wanted to. They dint like
us. Our eyes were funny, we were weak and inferior. Beside that it was
their destiny.
> or that the American Civil War
> was about slavery,
Hmmmm...
Why did the South secede? Did slave laws, 15 years of debate about same,
the underground railroad, The Mason Dixon Line, debate over whether
states were 'slave states' or 'free states', Dred Scott, John Brown, etc
have anything to do with southern cesscestion?
You DID know the South 'started it', I hope.
The greatest ignorance put forth recently concerning the civil war is
that it was simply about "Union". It was about slavery, first and
formost. read what the guys who fought it wrote, during, and after the
war.
They know.
They fought.
> or... or... well there are just too many "ors",
> but I think you get the picture.
I see you are confused. Poor you.
> As to right and wrong in warfare? You'd have to be blind and dumb
> <and you can take that literally and colloquially> not to
> recognize that the definition of these concepts are the sole
> prerogative the victors.
And you have to be simple to imply their are no emperical truths that
supersede this view.
> If the Axis powers had somehow won the
> Second World War, I can think of several prominent Allied war
> "heroes" who could easily have been charged with war crimes under
> the same interpretation that was applied in fact to many of the
> Axis war "criminals".
Sure, prolly all of them. Churchill, Monty, Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley,
Horrocks, McArthur, Mountbatten, etc. Fuck, they killed a mojor portion
of the soldiers captured in Philippines. And, jeepers, what about them
Russians? What would they have done to Stalin, in the unlikely even that
they got ahold of him? They killed about 9 million innocents, and about
50 mil died as a result of axis desire.
They probably woulda just killed everyone.
And let god sort 'em out.
To suggest that the Allies were morally equivalent to the Axis, is...
ah, shall we say, trollish?
Or, ah...
Misinformed...
Of course, YMMV
Dr Ok
Steven Dickson
Bob Lionel <stars...@nhlfa.com> wrote in message
news:4dRM5.8495$PT.5...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
[snip]
>Strangely enough, WW2 isn't talked about much in Japanese schools
>apparently.
Must depend on the school. One of my ex-gfs was Japanese and from
discussions with her and her friends, they were taught a great deal about
WWII in school, including the circumstances that led up to it. They were
also taught that Japan was the aggressor and that the government and
military establishment was culpable. On a visit to Hiroshima, I got no
impression that the US was blamed or held accountable for dropping "the
bomb" at all. The overwhelming impression was one of tragedy, not of blame.
The Japanese are a lot more aware of WWII history (at least in the Pacific)
than your average product of American schooling.
PCDoc
deserved to anyone who has served in ANY countries military. I have yet to
meet a single combat veteran from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf who would
disrespect a fellow serviceman the way many civilian and "non-combat
veterans" can so easily do.
Many "aces" from all of these eras held their "enemy" counterparts in very
high regard. This doesn't mean they liked them necessarily, but respect is
earned by ones commitment to success. I guess if you haven't been there,
you can't understand.
My $0.02
"Chuck" <c...@c.com> wrote in message
news:ouJM5.61096$d57.5...@news4.aus1.giganews.com...
Rick Fortier
For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
populations.
As for Stalin, there is a Russian saying that goes ... "In the time of
Stalin, Hitler will be seen as a minor thug."
Go read about Beria for fun.
"The greatest ignorance put forth recently concerning the civil war is
that it was simply about "Union". It was about slavery, first and
formost. read what the guys who fought it wrote, during, and after the
war."
As for your contention that the Civil war was about slavery, I don't
think so. Why not ?
Well, first it was about secession from the union and 2nd, the
Emancipation Declation was only after the Battle of Gettysburg.
As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
remember that they came in only under duress. As for helping Britain
with Lend-Lease - everything had to be bought in gold and leases. The US
even stole engineering secrets like the cavity magnetron (read "The
Invention that changed the World") in the guise of 'exchanges' - when it
was time to reciprocate, the British were denied access to US inventions
under the guise of 'National Security'
Oh yeah, and lets talk about Standard Oil selling Saudi light crude to
the Germans until mid-1944 ...
Anything for the almighty $
Sheesh - oh yes I forgot you guys also captured the enigma machines
(U-571) what next, you won the Battle of Britain ? oh wait that's prior
to the start of WW2 as far as the US is concerned.
Have a nice day.
Rick
Steven Dickson
see how they worked their way out of this one [responsibility for World War
II]" and the sentences preceding it suggest to me that the author had
already made up his mind. Then again, I see what I'm predisposed to see.
Imagine what sort of travelogue someone who has already voiced their
anti-anything Japanese sentiment in this thread would write. Don't take
anyone's word for it, not mine, not his, no-one's. Further, the implication
that any one circumstance or event was responsible for a war, any war, is to
see the world in black and white. The Japanese didn't wake up one morning
and arbitrarily decide to bomb Pearl Harbour. There was an entire web of
history leading up to that event, going back at least as far as the Meiji
restoration and western (primarily British and American) expansionism in
Asia in the mid 1800s. If you're really interested, resolve to go to Japan
and see for yourself. Even without the WWII historical perspective, it's an
interesting country and culture to visit.
Alex Pavloff <IHAT...@pavloff.netSPAM> wrote in message
news:jns80tg19guorn7fr...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>
> See, thats odd, because while I've never been to Japan or talked to
> someone educated in Japanese schools about WW2, I did read the
> following yesterday...
>
> http://www.asktog.com/travel/Japan/japan10.html
>
[snip]
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Rick Fortier wrote:
> Oh I have to reply to this one ...
>
> For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
> bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
> populations.
Jeesh. What about the A-bomb? That was the crime of all crimes was it not?
<smirk>
> As for Stalin, there is a Russian saying that goes ... "In the time of
> Stalin, Hitler will be seen as a minor thug."
> Go read about Beria for fun.
I knew more about Levrenti before you were born than you do now, my friend.
But Stalins evil does not make Hitler pure, now does it. And since the
thread revolves around knowledge, please use a more completely thought out
ploy.
You current attempt is old. Lame even.
> "The greatest ignorance put forth recently concerning the civil war is
> that it was simply about "Union". It was about slavery, first and
> formost. read what the guys who fought it wrote, during, and after the
> war."
>
> As for your contention that the Civil war was about slavery, I don't
> think so. Why not ?
Who cares. But go ahead...
> Well, first it was about secession from the union
What was the basis for the Southern session? Was it a disagreement over
drapery colors?
It was SOLELY a conflict revolving around slave economy, and the North long
standing animosity toward same. Which lead the arrogant foolish minded
(remember "cotton is king") South to secede because the Union was
progressive moving toward the outlaw of slavery.
Which happened, BTW!
> and 2nd, the
> Emancipation Declation was only after the Battle of Gettysburg.
>
COOL!! You noticed!!
If you have a more correct time when this SHOULD have occurred, inform us.
The South called the shots, by seceding, and firing on Sumter. Then there
was Manasas. Lots a stuff going on, legislation takes a back seat to
defending Washington, once the lead starts flyin' dontcha know...
> As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
> remember that they came in only under duress.
Well, the WERE the continentals stupid wars! All about destiny, and whos got
the balance of power in Europe. They should kiss our feet daily for saving
them.
You should to, for being...
Well, just for being...
> As for helping Britain
> with Lend-Lease - everything had to be bought in gold and leases.
They paid us back? Russia too?
When?
> The US
> even stole engineering secrets like the cavity magnetron (read "The
> Invention that changed the World") in the guise of 'exchanges' - when it
> was time to reciprocate, the British were denied access to US inventions
> under the guise of 'National Security'
<Burp>
Ya, we stole it.
You are a BAD troll.
It was sent here for safe keeping, dumpster...
> Oh yeah, and lets talk about Standard Oil selling Saudi light crude to the
> Germans until mid-1944 ...
I heard it had sand in it....
BTW, your ex-king was Adolphs butt buddy!
Sad, isnt it!
> Anything for the almighty $
Fuckin' A, Rudy! OK, send me all your money. Or I'll firebomb you.
I love it.
> Sheesh - oh yes I forgot you guys also captured the enigma machines
> (U-571) what next,
That was a movie, silly girl.. But we did invent cryptography. You British
spys weren't shyte!
> you won the Battle of Britain ?
I did. While asleep.
> oh wait that's prior
> to the start of WW2 as far as the US is concerned.
So, I did it freelance...
> Have a nice day.
You guy are just so freakin' jealous, its embarrasing. Like a bunch of
children. Why dont you formulate ANOTHER EU, so you can hate us times two!!
Concerning the nice day, I am.
Come back again, Ricky. If I'm in an evil mood, I'll tool you up for real.
;~)
M
Hammer wrote in message ...
>Then tell me oh puzzled one.........who beat the British in the American
>Revolution? Who did bail out the Brits TWICE in 20 years? Inquiring minds
>want to know.
>
>
>Hammer
1. Saburo Sakai.
2. Saburo Sakai.
Pasha
M
Alex Pavloff wrote in message ...
>
>These ar the comments of a noted design architect on his visit to
>Hiroshima.
>
>------------
>Having now studied the placards in Peace Memorial Museum in some
>detail, I am now prepared to say that yes, indeed, there was a war.
>Japan was in it. Japan did not want to be in it. There had been some
>trouble in Manchuria, and it appeared that either some Chinese shot
>themselves with Japanese guns, or some kind of soldiers that may have
>been from Japan actually shot them. The passive voice made it a bit
>unclear. Then, someone launched a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor,
>Hawaii. We don’t have any idea who. But we do know that after the
>attack that Japan was "inescapably drawn into war with America."
>----------------
>
>So now I'm all confused.
>
>--
>* Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net *
So help me God, if that is actually written on a placard in Hiroshima, we
should hit it again, just to get the message across.
:-)
Pasha
Joe L.
"Chuck" <c...@c.com> wrote in message
news:ouJM5.61096$d57.5...@news4.aus1.giganews.com...
David Christensen
> > with Lend-Lease - everything had to be bought in gold and leases.
>
> They paid us back? Russia too?
Er, go to Diego Garcia sometime. We paid up front.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Steven Dickson wrote:
> You see what you're predisposed to see. Phrases like "I really did want to
> see how they worked their way out of this one [responsibility for World War
> World War
> II]"
You dont really know, do you? Sometimes you vocalize what you know to be true.
> and the sentences preceding it suggest to me that the author had
> already made up his mind.
I am informed. I lived, and served, in Japan. Have you?
[snip]
> Don't take
> anyone's word for it, not mine, not his, no-one's.
What qualifies you to give advice? Should we refer to you concerning what books
to read, etc?
Just because the truth doesn't sit well, with you, that doesn't make it untrue.
Look to yourself.
> Further, the implication
> that any one circumstance or event was responsible for a war, any war, is to
> see the world in black and white.
To deny Japanese's culture is to be blind...
> The Japanese didn't wake up one morning
> and arbitrarily decide to bomb Pearl Harbour
No, they sure dint. They started their expansionist ways back in '05, with
Russia...
> There was an entire web of
> history leading up to that event, going back at least as far as the Meiji
> restoration and western (primarily British and American)
> expansionism in Asia in the mid 1800s.
So, its the west's, fault, huh? Japan was compelled?
You are simply ignorant...
Japan opposed western intervention/expansion MUCH more vigorously than China,
then set about behaving in EXACTLY the imperialistic manner you seem to imply
the west did..
> If you're really interested, resolve to go to Japan
You dont need to go to Japan
But I did.
Ask someone there about Nanking.
Then ask a Chinese.
> and see for yourself. Even without the WWII historical perspective, it's an
> interesting country and culture to visit.
>
Whatever.
Dr OK
Dr Oddness Killtroll
M wrote:
>
> >* Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net *
>
> So help me God, if that is actually written on a placard in Hiroshima, we
> should hit it again, just to get the message across.
>
> :-)
>
> Pasha
I'll fly.
I tole ya I had 'splosives!
Dr OK
JD
11:31:17 -0600, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>Then tell me oh puzzled one.........who beat the British in the American
>Revolution? Who did bail out the Brits TWICE in 20 years? Inquiring minds
>want to know.
A study of history should cure that. Unfortunately, a simple
answer will only spark a (perhaps) heated exchange between those
who know the answer and those who believe the mythology. But then
again, I don't want to drop bombs and run, so...
1. No one. The French, by threatening their more important West
Indian and Indian colonies, forced the Brits to make that choice.
Like the Napoleonic wars that followed, this was mainly a naval
contest decided almost entirely at sea, and for the most part, far
away from American shores.
2(a). the Brits themselves in WWI (with a very effective and
extremely controversial distant blockade which crippled the German
economy), and
2(b). the Soviets in WWII (albeit, with a big logistical assist
from the West).
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Steven Dickson
the ad hominem attacks for the schoolyard. They're not becoming in a man
your age.
S.
Dr Oddness Killtroll <nos...@nospam.nopam> wrote in message
news:3A0488A4...@nospam.nopam...
JD
2000 19:28:20 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai
(1916-2000)"
>This I do want to know. The last German offensive in World War I
>would have probably succeeded if it weren't for the influx of fresh
>American troops. I don't know what JD is referring to here.
And what if they had succeeded? Germany would have collapsed
internally in a matter of a few months, if not weeks. Look at the
locations of the lines at the Armistice. Germany was thwarted but
not defeated on the battlefields of France. They were beaten by
starvation and deprivation... the direct result of Britain's
blockade which in turn led to civil unrest. To the astute observer
and student of naval history, hindsight clearly shows that the war
was effectively won and lost in May 1916. That is why the Battle
of Jutland, a tactically indecisive action, is considered to be a
great strategic victory for the Brits. I believe it was Churchill,
1st Lord of the Admiralty at that time, who later said of Jellicoe
that he was the only man on either side who had it in his hands to
lose the war in an afternoon.
>World War 2? I dunno either. Is JD referring to the common soviet
>soldier, the "man who won the war for the allies?"
Interesting causes and effects going on here which again, go
beyond the battlefields. Examine Hitler's reasons for turning East
in the first place. No Russia, no hope and therefore no reason for
Britain to carry on the war. Also consider that the key to Britain
was then, as it had always been, India. The entire North African
campaign was aimed at cutting Britain's lines of communication
with her "possessions" south and east of Suez. The goal of both
these strategies was not the defeat of Britain, but forcing her to
make peace. If either had succeeded, she no doubt would have. The
Sovs, by rebounding miraculously from near annihilation in the
summer and fall of 1941, not only prevented that strategy from
succeeding, but eventually brought about a meat grinder scenario
which consumed the vast majority of Germany's military resources.
Had it played out otherwise, just imagine the forces that would
have been arrayed against an attempted Allied landing. Compared to
battles like Kursk and the destruction of Army Group Center, The
Normandy landings and the Ardennes Offensive were just drops in a
bucket.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> A study of history should cure that. Unfortunately, a simple
> answer will only spark a (perhaps) heated exchange between those
> who know the answer and those who believe the mythology. But then
> again, I don't want to drop bombs and run, so...
The American won by being impossible to defaet in the North, which drove the
British South, where battles like Kings Mountain proved we were equally
impossible to defeat there.
> 1. No one. The French, by threatening their more important West
> Indian and Indian colonies, forced the Brits to make that choice.
> Like the Napoleonic wars that followed, this was mainly a naval
> contest decided almost entirely at sea, and for the most part, far
> away from American shores.
Which means the Infantry battles in America were irrelevant?
Dont confuse the greater conflicts with the one in America. The Brits tried
for 8 years, and got nowhere.
They tried to split th colonies via the Hudson, and it was a catastrophe. They
occupied NY and Philly, in the forlorn hope that taking cities would affect
the populace, they went south, in a similar strategic blunder, and it all
failed.
They lost here because they couldn't defeat the Army here.
The French only came in (into NA) when victory was certain. They threatened
Britains colonial interests in the Caribbean when Britain was weakened by
years of fruitless war in America...
The fact that they had other interests doesn't diminish their inability ot
defeat the colonials.
They even tried again, in 1812-1814. Remember?
This is subtle. Your misunderstanding is understandable...
> 2(a). the Brits themselves in WWI (with a very effective and
> extremely controversial distant blockade which crippled the German
> (economy), and
<grin>
Ya, OK. Maybe if they were left to starve for 2 more years. "cept the BEF
woulda been destroyed in the mean time. French troops woulda mutinied
wholesale, etc.
> 2(b). the Soviets in WWII (albeit, with a big logistical assist
> from the West).
Sorta like saying "The US helped, a lot, but that doesn't count". The Soviets
coulda helped a lot more by not getting into bed with the Germans initially.
They deseve no special credit for defending their own homeland against attack,
when they were turned on by the Nazis.
Which ignores the enormous effort put forth, essentially unilaterally, by the
US, in the Pacific. The force projection, the area involved, the victories
accomplish, are epic in proportion.
If you combine this with the equally HUGE effort put forth in NW Europe, add
to that the enormous LL effort, through Murmansk/Archangel and Alaska, as well
as the CBI theater actions, and then you SUBTRACT that WHOLE ball of wax, you
end up with a Soviet Union behind the Urals. A GB standing alone, and a
Pacific/Asia dominated by Japan.
Without the US, the Axis would have prevailed. Until we decided to fight.
And then they were doomed.
As, in fact happened.
Class closed.
Good night fellas.
:~)
Dr OK
>
>
> Regards, JD
> jdk...@optonline.net
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Steven Dickson wrote:
> Interpret things how ever you want, that's your prerogative. However, leave
> the ad hominem attacks for the schoolyard. They're not becoming in a man
> your age.
> S.
<burp>
What?
Are you still here?
Dr OK
Dr Oddness Killtroll
David Christensen wrote:
Only squids and B52 pilots wanta get anywhere near DG. And the NSA
freaks!
But wait!!
Diego Garcia is one of the British Ilses?
COOL!
Like, the Orkneys?
or
Mebe one o' them funny French ones..
Isle o' Mann, or whatever...
Dont get me wrong, I think you Brits are great.
But we never got paid back.
Couse, we saved your butt logistically in the Falklands too, so..
Dr OK
JD
-0600, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>Many "aces" from all of these eras held their "enemy" counterparts in very
>high regard. This doesn't mean they liked them necessarily, but respect is
>earned by ones commitment to success. I guess if you haven't been there,
>you can't understand.
U=====
T
That's supposed to be a picture of a hammer hitting the nail on
the head. <g>
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Joe L.
was a HUGE debate over wether or not the Germans would/should have any part
in the observance. The current set of politicians, who were NOT
participants, were universally against the Germans having any part in it.
C-Span, however, covered some of the "un-official" ceremonies and activities
set up and conducted by the actual veterans. These very much included the
Germans. I remember particularly a "Round Table" where each side discussed
the landings and the events that followed. I remember much laughing,
crying, handshaking and embracing between all concerned and it did not seem
to matter much to anyone who was on which side. The war was hell to BOTH.
It struck me at the time that the Politicians who actually start the
wars held a grudge while the Soldiers who actually fought the wars the
politicians started did not. If/when the politicians ever decide to start
another war somewhere perhaps the best thing for the soldiers to do would be
to shoot the politicians.
"PCDoc" <imp...@rols1.net> wrote in message
news:8u1pkt$38b$1...@newshost.mot.com...
> It seems that you have to have been there before you can give the respect
> deserved to anyone who has served in ANY countries military. I have yet
to
> meet a single combat veteran from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf who
would
> disrespect a fellow serviceman the way many civilian and "non-combat
> veterans" can so easily do.
>
> Many "aces" from all of these eras held their "enemy" counterparts in very
> high regard. This doesn't mean they liked them necessarily, but respect
is
> earned by ones commitment to success. I guess if you haven't been there,
> you can't understand.
>
> My $0.02
M
Joe L. wrote in message ...
> How should the decendents of the various Indian tribes look upon US?
They should be governed by the same laws as me.
:)
..and I'll take that tax too...
Pasha
M
JD wrote in message ...
>Thus spake "PCDoc" <imp...@rols1.net> on Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:57:15
>-0600, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>
>>high regard. This doesn't mean they liked them necessarily, but respect
is
>>earned by ones commitment to success. I guess if you haven't been there,
>>you can't understand.
>
>
>
>
>T
>
>That's supposed to be a picture of a hammer hitting the nail on
>the head. <g>
Nah, that makes it sound like more than it is, we idolize these people, they
just do/did things as they had too.
I don't think it's as romantic as people make it out to be, no different
than corperate competitors.
Most of them guys claim they didn't think they were doing anything special,
as a *thing*, I agree.
Very dangerous job.
Pasha
JD
21:03:18 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai (1916-2000)"
>Oh I have to reply to this one ...
>
>For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
>bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
>populations.
Yep, those are two I had specifically in mind when I wrote that.
LeMay, in my mind, is particularly despicable if you credit the
all too believable rumors about the reasons behind his stepped up
fire bombing campaign against civilian populations centers in the
spring and summer of '45. For those who might not be familiar, it
had to do with the in-fighting between services (the Air Corps and
the Navy specifically) as they jockeyed for post war Congressional
funding.
Harris OTOH actually believed in Douhet's theories and was
attempting to put them into practice. Same result, but he doesn't
quite leave the same bad taste in the mouth as does our once Vice
Presidential hopeful. Still, if he had been a German, or if the
Germans had won, it would have been "off with his head!"
>As for Stalin, there is a Russian saying that goes ... "In the time of
>Stalin, Hitler will be seen as a minor thug."
>Go read about Beria for fun.
This pair reduces any argument for higher morals in the Allied
camp to a sick joke.
>As for your contention that the Civil war was about slavery, I don't
>think so. Why not ?
Yep. It was a State's Rights thing... slavery just happens to have
been the immediate issue upon which the bigger issue turned.
>Well, first it was about secession from the union and 2nd, the
>Emancipation Declation was only after the Battle of Gettysburg.
Even then, slavery was NOT abolished in 1 Confederate and 4 Union
States. There were very real political reasons for this. Also
consider Lincoln's words on the subject...
"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain
together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and
I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior
position assigned to the white race."
The EP was one of many political devices used to consolidate his
position vis-a-vis the preservation of the Union. A worthy goal in
and of itself, to be sure, but hardly as altruistic as the
mythology surrounding the man and his fight.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Otter
I knew exactly where this was going, glad you illuminated the difficult
parts for JD. It's a tough job, but someone had too.
--
Otter
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <nos...@nospam.nopam> wrote in message
news:3A04972B...@nospam.nopam...
news.snet.net
I think Sakai was just a guy doing his job. He has good at it, and took pleasure
in many aspects of the job but found the boss and the situation going against
his grain.
I think many of us can appreciate that.
His country was a war, and he fought. He was a great pilot no matter what else
he was.
There was a flap over him some time ago because he refused to believe that Unit
741 committed the
war crimes it has been accused of. His beliefs have no bearing on his skill as
a pilot.
Being a great pilot does not bring sainthood with it. He was composed of both
good and bad.
Lord Louis Mountbattan was commander of Commonwealth Forces - Southeast Asia. He
fought the
Japanese for many years. When the war was over, there was a flap because he did
not disarm some
Japanese units, but used them as police forces and an authority infrastructure
supplementing his own
limited manpower in countries where there was no civilian governmental
infrastructure.
Killed by the IRA in the 70's, he had left instructions that no Japanese were to
present
at his funeral. He felt that their conduct towards prisoners, civilians, and any
non-Japanese under
their control was inhuman and barbaric. I believe he referred to them as inhuman
thugs who were
not yet ready to become civilized. As a member of the Royal Family (I believe he
was the Queen's
Uncle), he got a state funeral with representatives from every nation except
Japan attending.
I remember reading at the time that the Japanese Ambassador to England mad a
point of being
out of the country during the funeral. I also remember reading that the funeral
was not covered in
the Japanese media.
I can respect Sakai for his skill, I can respect Mounbatten for his decision. I
would have liked to meet
either of them.
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <nos...@nospam.nopam> wrote in message
news:3A04B02B...@nospam.nopam...
>
>
> Superdave wrote wisely:
>
> [A bunch of stuff I have snipped]
>
> Sakai was a reconstructed Samurai. He understood the errors his nation made.
>
> And was a good human being, by all accounts.
>
> Lots of vets, and families of vets, hold grudges. They are old now. And, their
> grudges wont go away.
>
> But Sakai was a good man.
>
> And, it is always sad when a good man dies.
>
> Dr OK
>
>
Scott
Kevin Hurst wrote:
> I have just learned of the passing of another WW2 ace (and CFS2
> advisor), Saburo Sakai.
>
> To quote my source...
>
> "On September 22 legendary Zero pilot Saburo Sakai died of a heart
> attack, aged 84, hours after attending the American Navy Commander Fleet
> Air Western Pacific 50th Anniversary dinner at the Atsugi naval base in
> Japan.
>
> The son of a poor farmer, Sakai joined the Imperial Navy in 1933,
> passing the rigorous aviator exam only after his 3rd attempt. After
> graduating at the top of his class, he transferred to the 12th Air Group
> in China and had his first taste of combat. On one of his most notable
> missions, on October 3 1939, he single-handedly chased 12 DB-3 bombers
> for 150 miles after a surprise attack on Hankow, shooting one down.
>
> Moving to Japan's elite Tainan air Group in June 1941, Sakai
> participated in all the early battles in the Pacific. In April 1942 the
> group transferred to Rabaul, and on August 7 on a mission to
> Guadalcanal, he was severely wounded by gunners from Dauntlesses, but
> made it back to base in a 4hr flight.
>
> In June 1944, after duty as an instructor, the navy ace-who now had only
> one good eye-took part in the air battle of Iwo Jima. After his unit
> took heavy losses, he returned to his homeland and moved into the 343rd
> Air Group ending the war with 64 kills."
>
>
>
> Kevin Hurst
Andrew MacPherson
> but he was on the wrong side of the fence.
It's politicians, dictators, and bigots that build fences. Ordinary folk
on either side just do the best they can with the information they're
given. They rarely have the luxury of being able to see both sides of the
fence clearly.
Andrew McP
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> And what if they had succeeded? Germany would have collapsed
> internally in a matter of a few months, if not weeks.
Before the French?
What about all the BEF guys killed? No matter?
> Look at the
> locations of the lines at the Armistice. Germany was thwarted but
> not defeated on the battlefields of France.
They were exhausted. But, thats how wars are ALWAYS won...
> They were beaten by
> starvation and deprivation... the direct result of Britain's
> blockade which in turn led to civil unrest.
Had a lot to do with it.
> To the astute observer
> and student of naval history, hindsight clearly shows that the war
> was effectively won and lost in May 1916. That is why the Battle
> of Jutland, a tactically indecisive action, is considered to be a
> great strategic victory for the Brits. I believe it was Churchill,
> 1st Lord of the Admiralty at that time, who later said of Jellicoe
> that he was the only man on either side who had it in his hands to
> lose the war in an afternoon.
You deny the impact of making war, without proper forethought, and
preparation, will have on the people of the warfighting nation.
Defeat/stalemate breeds discontent.
Victory feeds perseverance.
I don't deny the value of the blockade, but to state that had the
Germans prevailed in France, that the political climate in Germany would
not have changed substantially, is simply incorrect. The Prussians would
have been empowered, their aims realized, their control stiffened. No
abdication for Kaiser Bill then...
> >World War 2? I dunno either. Is JD referring to the common soviet
> >soldier, the "man who won the war for the allies?"
>
> Interesting causes and effects going on here which again, go
> beyond the battlefields. Examine Hitler's reasons for turning East
> in the first place.
He hated the inferior races. Period.
> No Russia, no hope and therefore no reason for
> Britain to carry on the war.
This is never stated as a reason, by ANY German, and, furthermore was
unattainable.
It was stupidity which turned him east. And hate.
> Also consider that the key to Britain
> was then, as it had always been, India.
Ya, Germany and Japan were gonna hold India. And defeat Russia too!
;~)
> The entire North African
> campaign was aimed at cutting Britain's lines of communication
> with her "possessions" south and east of Suez.
Worked out great, dint it. Its a reach/grasp thing...
> The goal of both
> these strategies was not the defeat of Britain, but forcing her to
> make peace.
That was another astute analysis. The "we can get the Brits to quit"
idea. But, lets run away, and attack the Russkies. It'll make the Brits
real sad, and they'll, like...
roll over or sumpin.
Now thats MY KIND STRATEGY!!!
> If either had succeeded, she no doubt would have.
If yer auntie was yer uncle...
> The Sovs, by rebounding miraculously
Was it a miracle, or a housecat taking on a gorrilla? With friends.
> from near annihilation in thesummer and fall of 1941, not only
> prevented that strategy from succeeding,
Your talking yourself into a trap, JD, but press on. MHQ is cool
reading, NO?
> but eventually brought about a meat grinder scenariowhich consumed the
> vast majority of Germany's military resources.
Because the USSR was a foolish adversary for Germany to engage, to begin
with? Particularly with the LL help fin 42-43? How many Russian tanks
were T34 in 42, and how many were older KV1's or US/Brit LL?
> Had it played out otherwise, just imagine the forces that wouldhave
> been arrayed against an attempted Allied landing.
Just imagine! Imagine if we took on simply Japan 1st! THEN took on
Germany! Imagine A-bombs raining on German cities! Woulda made Dresden
look like a cake walk. Imagine 12 million men fighting for America, in
NW Europe. Something like what was intended for Japan, where better that
2/3 of the 5 million US combatants in Europe were destined to end up in
Nov 45. Do you honestly contend that the US would have been unable to
deploy a force capable of destroying Germany? No matter the cost?
Be reasonable.
As long as we're playing 'lets pretend'
> Compared to battles like Kursk and the destruction of Army Group
> Center, The Normandy landings and the Ardennes Offensive were just
> drops in a bucket.
True, they were huge battles, which simply displays Germanies folly in
pursuing the war to begin with.
But, to minimize the value of American contribution in ANY of these
endeavors, is...well...
Silly.
Furthermore, to imply, that because the US didnt engage in combat in NW
europe in a scale as enormous as that of Russia, that the contributions
made were less than critical to the success of the allies is simply
wrong.
Russia needed our help badly. As Stalin REPEATEDLY stated. And we gave
it to him. And it materially enhanced his ability to fight, and win.
And if we had not, he would have spent 3 years behind the Urals,
amassing his new forces, before he could attempt to retake Moscow.
Which, I believe, he would have succeeded at eventually, but presuming
Britain HAD capitulated, the sustenance provided by SOS, SOE, OSS,
Jedburgh teams, Communist support, throughout East Europe, etc, had NOT
been available, the harassment of German troops would have been
substantially lessened, the logistical infrastructure would have been
enhanced, the airpower necessary to provide adequate logistical support
would have been greater, and, ultimately, when Joe Steel DID come out of
the hills, he woulda run oua steam, by the Polish border.
Dont forget, it was only Hitlers unwillingness to fight an intelligent
defense (withdraw, flank, envelop) which allowed Russian success. They
were NOT tactical and strategic geniuses in there own right. Unless you
feel human wave tactics, and a realization that your enemy, who is
technically superior in armor and arty, WILL NOT withdraw, is genius. It
is not.
Hitler coulda made the Russians pay MUCH more dearly than they did, had
he been sane.
Dr OK
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> Yep, those are two I had specifically in mind when I wrote that.
> LeMay, in my mind, is particularly despicable if you credit the
> all too believable rumors about the reasons behind his stepped up
> fire bombing campaign against civilian populations centers in the
> spring and summer of '45.
Civilians are not targets? Since when, in all of history, have civilians
not been the focus of war?
> For those who might not be familiar, it
> had to do with the in-fighting between services (the Air Corps and
> the Navy specifically) as they jockeyed for post war Congressional
> funding.
This is the usual claptrap. It had to do with reducing the will to fight.
And getting results. 21 BC wasnt hitting targets, before Lemay showed up.
Had nothing to do with funding. He had a war to fight.
And additionally, a disregard for a people who we perceived had a disregard
for us...
> Harris OTOH actually believed in Douhet's theories and was
> attempting to put them into practice.
So, intent mitigates?
> Same result, but he doesn't
> quite leave the same bad taste in the mouth as does our once Vice
> Presidential hopeful. Still, if he had been a German, or if the
> Germans had won, it would have been "off with his head!"
Ya, them Germans, an honorable bunch they were...
> >As for Stalin, there is a Russian saying that goes ... "In the time of
> >Stalin, Hitler will be seen as a minor thug."
> >Go read about Beria for fun.
>
> This pair reduces any argument for higher morals in the Allied
> camp to a sick joke.
WOW!!! What brought that turnaround!!???
> >As for your contention that the Civil war was about slavery, I don't
> >think so. Why not ?
>
> Yep. It was a State's Rights thing... slavery just happens to have
> been the immediate issue upon which the bigger issue turned.
States Right to do WHAT? Exactly? Have big parties?
or Maintain a Slave economy.
"States Rights" is the 'sessesh' code word for slavery-bigotry. Right to
deny equal rights is what it means...
> >Well, first it was about secession from the union and 2nd, the
> >Emancipation Declation was only after the Battle of Gettysburg.
>
> Even then, slavery was NOT abolished in 1 Confederate and 4 Union
> States
STILL TODAY!!?? Wow!
> . There were very real political reasons for this. Also
> consider Lincoln's words on the subject..."And inasmuch as they cannot so
> live, while they do remain
> together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and
> I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior
> position assigned to the white race."
>
Oh, ya, Lincoln was a bigot...Fuck JD, you're a poor troll..
> The EP was one of many political devices used to consolidate his
> position vis-a-vis the preservation of the Union.
So, when the Southern states returned to the fold, they were allowed to
maintain a slave based economy?
> A worthy goal in
> and of itself, to be sure, but hardly as altruistic as the
> mythology surrounding the man and his fight.
How many slaves existed (legally) in the south in 1866? Everything else is
bullshit. To characterize a political mans machinations to realize an end,
in a time where slavery (throughout ALL history, to that time) was
acceptable amongst a large portion of the worlds population, as something
other than what they were, which was a single minded attempt to REMOVE
slavery from America, is simply wrong. And cynical.
Lincoln was dead by May '65. The South would have been MUCH more amenable
to "reconstruction" if the institution of slavery had been allowed to
stand.
Why was it not allowed to stand? If the "War of the Rebellion" was simply
about "Union"
;!)
Dr OK
Bill L.
former
enemies of 55 years ago. We weren't there, didn't participate, weren't even
born yet. For the record, my father fought the Japanese and got a purple
heart for his efforts yet he didn't carry such bitterness. Let it go folks.
I say respect those who fought in the war no matter which side they were on.
But for a matter of fate, they may have been on different sides.<<
Like you, my father fought the Japanese, including on a little island called
Iwo Jima. I mostly agree with your post, but it is too broad. Do we
respect those that wore the German uniform and ran the concentration camps?
How about the Japanese soldiers that raped Nanking ? No, I think we need to
look to the individual and how they carried out their duties. Some indeed
are due our respect. Some are due our contempt.
Bill
Superdave
superiority for a very short time. What happened after Midway was nothing
short of slaughter to the various Sentai that fought the US. They fought for
what they thought was right. Does that make the Japanese pilots any less
human?
I suggest reading his book " Samurai " . You would be surprised to find that
he and his comrade's were far braver than most people would give them credit
for. He fought in an obsolete Zero, against 10 to 1 odds, against the best
planes the USN had. And he did this towards the end with only one eye.
I find it really odd as how the various American Fighter Pilots Assoc.'s
have embraced Axis pilots, but the people who did not fight against them
insist on creating " baby killers ".
Sakai was the third highest scoring ace, but the highest surviving.
Nishizawa was killed, his score at 86. Shoichi was also killed, his score at
72.
In 1982, American pilot Harold Newell met with Sakai. Newell shot down the
transport Nishizawa was a passenger in. It was a far more civil meeting than
some of the comments here.
--
Dave Pawlikowski
supe...@samnet.net
www.cushdrive.com
-------------------
Soccer is not a real sport.
"> My grandmothers brother was at Pearl Harbor. I seriously doubt you will
ever
> convince him to mourn any "Japs". Sure Sakai witnessed the death of his
> friends just like the Americans, BUT he was on the wrong side. It's great
> and all that he finally "came around" but to hold him up as a hero, is bs.
> There are no Japanese hero's of WW2 that were on the Axis sides. There
were
> plenty on the Allies sides, but obviously that isn't Sakai.
>
>
>
>
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Otter wrote:
> Thanks Dr.K,
> I knew exactly where this was going, glad you illuminated the difficult
> parts for JD. It's a tough job, but someone had too.
>
> --
> Otter
>
<Star Spangled Banner playing so damn loud in background that windows next door
are rattling>
You betcha Otter!!!
Always ready to help!!!
Thats why they call me 'Dr Oddness Killtroll'!!!
<Fires up P51, fly's off into Billboard, like PeeWee Herman in movie>
<VBG>
Dr Oddness Killtroll
'Section 8+'
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD
Nov 2000 00:21:30 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai
(1916-2000)"
>Fuck JD, you're a poor troll..
Let me spell this out for you reeeeaaal slow like.
I have not responded to any of your comments in any of these
threads for a reason. Your statement above is sufficient
indication that you are unable to distinguish between an
enlightened discussion and a troll. You haven't been around here
for long, but in that time you have made it quite clear that your
idea of debate is to throw in with personally disparaging remarks
without adding anything of substance yourself. Treating with you
provides no redeeming value. So be it. You will "debate" with
yourself, or with anyone foolish enough to take you for anything
more than the juvenile <regardless of your physical years> twit
that you so aptly demonstrate yourself to be.
JD
2000 00:34:14 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai
(1916-2000)"
>Now that's a bigger maybe than my maybe.
As a devotee of AT Mahan, I take that as a matter of fact. But I
can still appreciate that other informed opinions and conclusions
can be drawn... they all just happen to be wrong <g>.
>We're so far into maybe land
>here than none of us has any idea what would really happen.
True. But the one ace up my sleeve in this debate is always the
position of the lines in Nov 1918. How many major wars have ended
with the loser not only in possession of all the territory they
started with <with the exception of a small area in southern
Lorraine> , but still in control of a good chunk of enemy
territory?
True, they were stalemated or retreating in all areas, but not yet
beaten decisively in the field. Why did they toss in the towel?
IMO, it was the rioting in Berlin and the fear of Communist led
revolt that caused Wilhelm to abdicate. The Armistice was signed 2
days later.
>Hell, France was in serious trouble too. The French Army was utterly
>ineffective on 2/3rds of its front by mid 1917 (I'm using Keegan as my
>source). If the American's hadn't been there, France would have
>fallen in 1918, the BEF would have been destroyed, and at that point,
>everything is SO utterly different than history that all bets are off.
All true. But I'm not discounting these factors. I'm looking to
isolate the decisive factor that brought about the end when it
did, the way it did. The one thing which if absent would not
necessarily have changed the outcome, but assured and precipitated
the outcome nonetheless.
>Yes, we're all agreeing with you on the effect of the British military
>and blockade. We're not agreeing with your statement that the
>blockade won the war.
OK. I've been there before. I don't really expect to convince you
that what I've said is so... but if you'll at least consider it,
and perhaps look into the possibility a little deeper, that's
enough.
>Read Keegan's Mask of
>Command for a discussion Hitler had during the war in the east.
I have. I've read most of Keagan's stuff. I find his work rather
light... light on facts and support, and a bit long on opinion.
Much like a Usenet discussion <g>. I'm not saying he's wrong... in
many cases I agree with what he writes... but I would like the
opportunity to examine the basis for his opinions and conclusions.
I have the same complaint about SE Morison's work. I much prefer
historical writers in the styles of Mahan, Richard Frank, and Wm.
Laird Clowes for this reason. They tell you where they are and how
they got there.
>Yeah. Too bad Hitler didn't really care about that. If he wanted
>peace with Britain he could have moved a fraction of the forces that
>he used in Russia to North Africa and driven all the way into the
>Middle East and all the goodies there, forcing the peace.
It wasn't a question of insufficient forces... it was logistics.
Malta was the key to North Africa. While the Brit and Italian
navies fought for control of the Med, Malta effectively denied the
Germans access to the SLOC they needed to sustain their drive on
Alexandria. The DAK simply ran out of spares, gas, ammo, and other
consumables, More of that cause/effect stuff.
>The problem is that we're all trying to simplfy extremely complex
>events to bullet points here.
Yup. I think I said as much up top when I made my original
comment. Something about short answers and heated debates... <g>.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Dr Oddness Killtroll
"news.snet.net" wrote:
> I'm not sure what a "Reconstructed Samurai" is.
Its a guy who learned that the Bushido ethic he swore to was evil, in at least the
form put forth by his 20th century leaders.
> I think Sakai was just a guy doing his job. He has good at it, and took pleasure
> in many aspects of the job but found the boss and the situation going against his
> grain.
He found the warlords he followed lied to him, and led his country to utter
destruction. And humiliation. Not many of US can appreciate that experience in its
totality.
> I think many of us can appreciate that.
He also found that his country did MANY awful things, and found these actions
regrettable. And said so. Many of his brethren did not.
Hence reconstructed.
> His country was a war, and he fought. He was a great pilot no matter what else he
> was.
>
> There was a flap over him some time ago because he refused to believe that Unit
> 741 committed the war crimes it has been accused of. His beliefs have no bearing
> on his skill as a pilot.
He reconsidered this position later. And admitted shame at the actions of his
country.
> Being a great pilot does not bring sainthood with it. He was composed of both good
> and bad.
No one said being a great pilot meant anything but that. I said he was a good man.
> Lord Louis Mountbattan was commander of Commonwealth Forces - Southeast Asia. He
[snip good stuff about Louis Mountbatten]
> I can respect Sakai for his skill, I can respect Mounbatten for his decision. I
> would have liked to meet either of them.
I respected Mountbatten too, he died badly, due to the hate of ignorant people. He
was a good man as well.
Its sad when good men die. Sadder still when they are murdered
Dr OK
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> >Fuck JD, you're a poor troll..
>
> Let me spell this out for you reeeeaaal slow like.
Only if it helps you think, else go fast. I like fast! Its how my brain
works!
The difference between you and me, JD, is that I am intellectually
honest. I could not give a rats ass whether you killfile me forever,
find my discussion vapid, or are offended, insulted, or in any other way
put off by my style, OR my point of view. You are trolling, and are
incapable of countering my retort with reason. So you resort to "I am
offended, and therefore will not respond". If this were truly the case,
why post to begin with. Unless you have poor self control. I could been
MUCH more vile, had I known it would offend you so.
<ggg>
I find your suggestion that Lemay was attempting to win funding for the
AAF, by his tactics and strategy offensive in the extreme. And you
offense doesn't revolve around a single swear, and a minor insult.
Your offense maligns a mans honorable endeavors in wartime. Why not
accuse Marshall, Truman, all his superiors? Bombing cities was SOP by
Dec 44. And you clumsily take oppositional viewpoints concerning
numerous 'sensitive' issues with regard to American military endeavors.
The views you proffered were ALL offensive. Intentionally so. Now don't
go all glib on me, and tell me I am offending you by calling your views
offensive. You intended to find opposition, and you have. Don't cry
about it. Counter my argument. Or killfile me.
> I have not responded to any of your comments in any of these
> threads for a reason.
No, you haven't because you are incapable. And now you're frustrated
because I've shown your views to be weak. This is a good thing.
> Your statement above is sufficient
> indication that you are unable to distinguish between an
> enlightened discussion and a troll.
Don't be weak. Counter my views. You haven't posted word one to disprove
my response. And all I said was "fuck, you're a poor troll". Jeesh, you
are, but, such is life. Disprove my analysis, or simply ignore me. Don't
tell me your gonna do it.
Just do it.
<ggg>
> You haven't been around herefor long, but in that time you have made
> it quite clear that your idea of debate is to throw in with personally
> disparaging remarkswithout adding anything of substance yourself.
> Treating with you provides no redeeming value.
Glad to see you are a fan. Reading enough of my posts to formulate an
opine! Cool! However, unfortunately, I see you have not comprehended
what you HAVE read. I've been around for quite a while, my style has its
merits, and I call 'em as I see 'em. Stop whining. If ya don't like me,
killfile me and shut up about it.
<VBG>
But, be advised. Everything you have posted to this point, is incorrect.
But don't let that stop you!
> So be it. You will "debate" with
> yourself, or with anyone foolish enough to take you for anything
> more than the juvenile <regardless of your physical years> twit
> that you so aptly demonstrate yourself to be.
<chuckle>
Not that this is related to our little tet-a-tet, but, as another pro,
in the IS/IT field, I gotta ask, why'd it take ya 2 days to realize you
needed to clean out the temp directory when you had an install problem?
Well...
I guess this is it...
Since I'm being killfiled, so...
<sob>
;'~(
Bye...
<sorrowful wave, as train pulls out of foggy-station>
Bye, JD...
<Brandon Dewilde waving image, as a wounded JD rides away on hossy>
<chug, chug...>
Ooops, sorry, I'm killfiled!!
;~)
Dr OK
CNE MCSE CCNA, etc
Joe L.
that the "WarLords" lied.
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <nos...@nospam.nopam> wrote in message
news:3A051BC2...@nospam.nopam...
David Christensen
Oddness Killtroll) wrote:
Well you're still in DG, so how can you say you were never paid?
And yes DG was British.
DC
Joe L.
people who resist the rule of another?
Could someone explain to me the principled difference between "Greater
South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", "Lebensraum", and "Manifest
Destiny"?
"M" <nopl...@dont.com> wrote in message
news:Qb1N5.1503$O22.2...@nnrp4.clara.net...
Robert Elliot
"Joe L." <mejo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_gcN5.21470$Pw6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Then armed conquest is a legitimate way to obtain sovereignty over a
> people who resist the rule of another?
> Could someone explain to me the principled difference between "Greater
> South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", "Lebensraum", and "Manifest
> Destiny"?
Easy - the last one was a success.
Rob
M
Dr Oddness Killtroll wrote in message <3A04B02B...@nospam.nopam>...
>
>And, it is always sad when a good man dies.
>
>Dr OK
Unless that man owes you money.
Pasha
M
Scott wrote in message <3A04D2DD...@msi.net>...
>Why don't we just let him rest in peace...
>
>Kevin Hurst wrote:
I was just about to dig him up for pictures with the kids!
:-|
Pasha
M
Joe L. wrote in message
> Then armed conquest is a legitimate way to obtain sovereignty over a
>people who resist the rule of another?
Sure, it's always worked that way.
> Could someone explain to me the principled difference between "Greater
>South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", "Lebensraum", and "Manifest
>Destiny"?
No! Explain it yourself.
;-)
Pasha
Tom Cervo
I don't think you can blame him for Pearl Harbor.
He got himself into a bit of trouble recently in Japan by blaming the war and
the defeat on the elites--including the Emporer--who started it. What else is
he supposed to do, kill himself?
Dr Oddness Killtroll
David Christensen wrote, a bit too drolly, but..:
> Well you're still in DG, so how can you say you were never paid?
>
Because we weren't.
> And yes DG was British.
Did Canute conquer it in, say 850, or so, or was it grabbed up by Normans,
in maybe 1100?
Not to criticize my British brethren, who are an honorable, hardworking,
valiant, tough, smart, speedy (I saw that movie about the Oxford runner),
funny (Monty Python is a Englander isn't he?), and generally talented lot.
Although you DO have an accent problem, 'specially in Wales!
However, Islands WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY Far away from Liverpool and Portsmouth
often end up being called British, when, it turns out, some other folks feel
they actually hold the deed. Hong Kong, most recently, turned out to be
CHINESE, of all things!
<confused look>
Imagine that! And whats with Bermuda? Lost its anchor and caught a tradewind?
<blusterface>
The Argies thought they owed The Malvinas....ooops, Falklands, but they WERE
wrong there, that's more Scotland than Scotland. Sheep Everywhere!
<ggg>
OK, so maybe you let us use a patch on that barren godforsaken place. But
only to listen in on the Russkies on the Seychelles. And to keep your Indian
Ocean properties looked over. If that was a treaty obligated compensation for
past debts, well, then I stand corrected!!
If not... well... then, you FIBBED! No fair!
8~( <madman>
I am heartfelt sorry for my slight.
I am sending you my 3 kids as remuneration for my igorance.
They are in the post, and will be arriving right quick, They are getting
bigger now, and can do lots of work.
But, buy a lot of milk.
And, don't even mention "Hawaii". That doesn't count.
;~)
Dr OK
'coastwatcher'
Peter G Zademack
Z
"Rick W. Spork" wrote:
> Ditto...
>
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > Should have thought about that before they bombed Pearl Harbor.
> >
> > True, the guy was a legend.............but you try and sell a Mitsubishi TV
> > set to a WWII vet that served in the Pacific Theater. But he's no
> > hero........not in my book. Sure he fought for his country during the war,
> > like millions of other people did.......but he was on the wrong side of the
> > fence.
> >
> > Admire the man's accomplishments.......yes. But respect and treat as a
> > hero.....no thanks.
> >
> > "Objective Man" <te...@test.com> wrote in message
> > news:lql60t4t6pcm68h4b...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > What about all the Japanese airman that had thier "guts spilled" by
> > > American and British\Commonwealth Aces? Need I remind you that Saburo
> > > Sakai is one of only a handful of surviving Japanese Aces. He
> > > witnessed the deaths of his friends and was crippled in combat. His
> > > pain and mourning was no less than any other mans.
> > >
> > > "An ace and a hero he may be"
> > >
> > > Damn straight.
> > >
> > > Just because he wasn't American does NOT mean he deserves any less
> > > respect for his personal achievements.
> > >
> > > ALL of the men who served in WWII deserve respect and recognition.
> > > When ANY of them pass it should be a time to reflect and a time to
> > > remember.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Am I supposed to morn the passing of a man whom shot down and severly
> > > >injured my Grandfather in a B-17, who then was a POW for 3 years, forced
> > to
> > > >eat rats for sustanance. A man who spilled the guts of many young
> > > >Americans. At the end of your quote, my friend, this "legendary Zero
> > pilot"
> > > >ended "the war with 64 kills" I needant remind you that those 64 kills
> > were
> > > >friends, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers.......Americans. An ace and
> > a
> > > >hero he may be, compadre, but not here, not in my heart, and I dare say
> > not
> > > >in this country.
> > >
> > >
David Christensen
Oddness Killtroll) wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> And, don't even mention "Hawaii". That doesn't count.
>
> ;~)
> Dr OK
> 'coastwatcher'
>
I'd always assumed that "irony" was only in the OED, not Websters, but
maybe I was wrong :)
Steven Dickson
war, don't you? Do you know who Joe Foss is? US pilot, Medal of Honor
recipient, multiple ace in the PTO. You think perhaps you can learn
something from that?
Disposable Hero <NoFi...@XHotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KCqN5.443358$1h3.12...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Living in the Home town of the poet that wrote "In Flanders Fields.." A
> certain phrase comes to mind
>
> "Lest We Forget"
>
> Let's not forget what happened in WWII. As far as I am concerned he was
a
> Japanese Pilot that shot down 64 Allied planes, a Hero to Japan, perhaps.
> Not to me.
>
> I'm disgusted that Microsoft took him on as a consultant for the game.
And
> the MAIN Reason I will NEVER buy it.
>
> Try and justify that to an Allied WWII Pacific Theatre Pilot.
>
> Guess I should just keep playing with my BACKUP COPY.
>
> "Wemic" <djac...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:08LM5.130615$JS3.21...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> > I wonder how people of our generation can have such bitterness toward
> former
> > enemies of 55 years ago. We weren't there, didn't participate, weren't
> even
> > born yet. For the record, my father fought the Japanese and got a
purple
> > heart for his efforts yet he didn't carry such bitterness. Let it go
> folks.
> > I say respect those who fought in the war no matter which side they were
> on.
> > But for a matter of fate, they may have been on different sides.
> >
> > Wemic
> >
> > --
> >
> > I have WAY too many flight sims....
> > home.nycap.rr.com/wemic/
> > ICQ#11192354
> > Go Bills!!! Go Sabres!!!
> >
> > "Rick W. Spork" <ssr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A036983...@sonic.net...
bo...@seacoast.com
David Christensen wrote:
> I'd always assumed that "irony" was only in the OED, not Websters, but
> maybe I was wrong :)
Maybe!
***Some*** of us Yanks are not near so dim as we may convey!
Tell me, what's your take on old Tommy Cromwell? Has that man still got an
irongrasp on the psyche of Britain, some 450 years after Hank8 lopped off
his head?
<VBG>
;~)
Hail Britannia!
Dr Oddness Killtroll
'unabridged'
Disposable Hero
David Christensen
I thought it was plasmodium wot got im?
DC
Pierre Legrand
perhaps never have been in battle...I have restrained myself since I
too have never been in battle so who am I to judge those who have felt
what I can never know...? I know or hope that if I were in battle that
I would fight fiercely to return myself and buds back home where we
belong. And heaven help the people who try to come to my home and kill
my family...I would do anything it took to win.
PAPA DOC
who has no problem respecting a fighter pilot who did what he was
ordered...fight the enemy. He didnt decide who the enemy was...
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Flanker Target
Grand Prix Legends Crash Test Dummy
Rants, Bullshit and Help Guides availible at
www.papadoc.net
James Dusek
nos...@optonline.net says...
> Or are you ditto'ing the head-up-ass "they warnt 'Murricans so
> they warnt shit" side who go a such a long way toward making the
> world the fucked up place it is today?
JD,
The point is not he wasn't an American. The point the others
are trying to make is he was the enemy. If he was British the
complaints would not have been made.
James Dusek
Kraits Seeker
they respect the sad people who take a game, create a philosophy and try to
perpetuate the hatreds that nearly got them all killed 50 years ago.
Pasha! Post the link to +MIA's site!
Seeker
"Disposable Hero" <NoFi...@XHotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KCqN5.443358$1h3.12...@news20.bellglobal.com...
M
Kraits Seeker wrote in message ...
>I've always found the guys who were there to respect each other more than
>they respect the sad people who take a game, create a philosophy and try to
>perpetuate the hatreds that nearly got them all killed 50 years ago.
>
>Pasha! Post the link to +MIA's site!
>
>Seeker
Great point Seeker.
Pasha
James Dusek
dick...@NOSPAM.direct.ca says...
> Must depend on the school. One of my ex-gfs was Japanese and from
> discussions with her and her friends, they were taught a great deal about
> WWII in school, including the circumstances that led up to it.
Taught a "great deal", define "great deal".
While WW2 in standard U.S. history class ( at least in my HS in
the 80's) consisted of telling us about the evil Nazis and their crimes.
Very little was taught in the way of the war, ect.
For the most part, Japan has refused to teach about it's role in
WW2.
Did you X know of the Nangin Massacre?
Bataan Death March?
Comfort Women?
How much did she reall know about WW2, beyond the basic facts like
you fought in it?
James Dusek
James Dusek
> Oh I have to reply to this one ...
> For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
> bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
> populations.
Is a factory producing military war products a military target?
If it is, than Lemay ins't a war criminal.
>
> As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
> remember that they came in only under duress.
The next time the Europeans feel like shooting lead into
eachother, we'll just grab some popcorn and watch the show. Why do
you Europeans's think that everytime you get into a shooting match, we
have to send thousands of our boy's over to die?
> Sheesh - oh yes I forgot you guys also captured the enigma machines
> (U-571) what next, you won the Battle of Britain ? oh wait that's prior
> to the start of WW2 as far as the US is concerned.
Actually, we captured the U-505 with the enigma machine. It wasn't
the first one captured, but the guy who did capture it ( British) was on
the U-571 movie project, and loved the movie. So I guess it's only the
politicians who care about the movie.
James Dusek
Dr Oddness Killtroll
After careful thought and consideration, David Christensen elocuted
eloquently:
> I thought it was plasmodium wot got im?
I had not considered this.
You may be onto something.
I shall confer with my good, and true, Brit friends, Magneto and Titanium Man,
concerning this substantial historical inaccuracy.
Best regards,
DrOk
Kraits Seeker
Any of pukes that dare to judge what these 19 year old kids did in the last
century while suffering social pressures you can't imagine in your soft
little white bread lives should go here:
http://www.worldwar2pilots.com/
read, and be humble at the magnamity of the human spirit and your own small
minded meaness.
(I bet 95% of you have serbian ancestry).
Seeker
JD
Nov 2000 12:00:32 -0500, as he held forth on "Re: Saburo Sakai
(1916-2000)"
> The point is not he wasn't an American. The point the others
>are trying to make is he was the enemy. If he was British the
>complaints would not have been made.
I know James... I was just being ornery. These red neck types give
me indigestion. Patriotism is generally a good thing, but this
attitude they display is closer to blind, rabid nationalism... and
that, IMHO, is not a good thing.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
robert...@dial.pipex.com
Alex Pavloff <IHAT...@pavloff.netSPAM> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 12:21:14 GMT, "Joe L." <mejo...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Then armed conquest is a legitimate way to obtain sovereignty
over a
> >people who resist the rule of another?
"Greater
> >South East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", "Lebensraum", and "Manifest
> >Destiny"?
>
> thing happened with the European colonization of Africa.
>
...which is genuinely recognised by said Europeans to have been immoral
and deeply shameful.
Rob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr Oddness Killtroll
JD wrote:
> >Now that's a bigger maybe than my maybe.
>
> they all just happen to be wrong <g>.
Dont plagiarize me. Its unbecoming...
<ggg>
> >We're so far into maybe land
> >here than none of us has any idea what would really happen.
>
> True. But the one ace up my sleeve in this debate is always the
> position of the lines in Nov 1918. How many major wars have ended
> with the loser not only in possession of all the territory they
> started with <with the exception of a small area in southern
> Lorraine> , but still in control of a good chunk of enemy
> territory?
This fact undermines the contention that the blockade was the catalytic
force/event/ Because the Germans were still strong in the field. The
blockade had limited impact upon the Army. Which, as long as it was
winning, compelled the the Germans to stand together.
Defeat on the battlefield led to surrender.
> True, they were stalemated or retreating in all areas, but not yet
> beaten decisively in the field. Why did they toss in the towel?
> IMO, it was the rioting in Berlin and the fear of Communist led
> revolt that caused Wilhelm to abdicate. The Armistice was signed 2
> days later.
Why did the riots start? Did it have anything to do with military failure?
And asking the Navy to do crazy things, because the Army couldn't defeat
the Allies any longer. Because of America?
The capitulation was catalyzed, ultimately, by the failure, of the
originally (apparently) successful German 1918 offensive.
And the High Command KNEW this offensive NEEDED to succeed. To insure
internal stability. The people had had enough. Because of a whole host of
factors, amongst which, was the blockade.
For a complete history:
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch08.htm
And the bulwark that proved immovable, in the defense against this
offensive, was the growing US Army. Which, as it became progressively
stronger, displayed to the Germans, that there opponent had become
unbeatable.
The 1 million men fielded by the US in the last half of 1918 stopped the
Germans, and went over to the offensive, In places where the Germans had
always held the advantage.
And defeated the Germans there. And the Germans realized that they were
exhausted.
And the gig was up.
> >Hell, France was in serious trouble too. The French Army was utterly
> >ineffective on 2/3rds of its front by mid 1917 (I'm using Keegan as my
> >source). If the American's hadn't been there, France would have
> >fallen in 1918, the BEF would have been destroyed, and at that point,
> >everything is SO utterly different than history that all bets are off.
>
> All true. But I'm not discounting these factors. I'm looking to
> isolate the decisive factor that brought about the end when it
> did, the way it did. The one thing which if absent would not
> necessarily have changed the outcome, but assured and precipitated
> the outcome nonetheless.
Yes, quite.
The US Army was the decisive factor.
The genesis of events which led to the downfall of the german government is
clear, and its starts with military reversals, brought on by increased
strength in the Allied force, and the consequent futility of continued
struggle, on the part of the German Armies. In fact, the functional state
of the German Army, still in the field, strongly indicates the minimal
impact of the blockade On the Armies in the field, who, in the final
analysis. were the implements of German victory, or defeat.
The German Navy was asked to commit a suicide attack against the British
Navy, for German Honor, because reversals in France on the ground left no
other option:
From Smitha:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, the Allied powers signed an armistice with Turkey. That same
day, Germany's admiralty launched a plan that had been known outside the
admiralty only by Ludendorff. The plan
called for the German fleet to make a great assault against the British
Navy -- for the sake of German honor. Germany's enlisted sailors were
ready to fight to defend the homeland but not for a grandiose, empty
gesture. Risking the punishment of death for mutiny and treason, sailors
with the fleet harbored
at Wilhelmshaven (20 miles west of Bremerhaven) rebelled. In the
following four days the revolt spread to the fleet harbored at Kiel. From
there it spread to troops stationed at Kiel and to the civilians
there. Then it spread throughout the coastal towns of northern Germany.
And by November 8 it had spread to all major German cities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the military's failure brought the end. And this failure was most
completely realized, and brought to the populace, by failure in NW Europe.
The changed attitude, of people, who were angry, but not yet starving
(although severely put upon) is manifest in this next passage:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Councils of workers and enlisted military men arose -- as had happened
when Russia's tsar was
overthrown. A rebel group of socialists took power in Munich and
proclaimed Bavaria a democratic
republic, its success the result not of its popularity but of confusion
and no one else organized to take
power. In some areas, councils of military men arrested their officers
and sought the army to recognize
committees of enlisted men. In city streets, pent-up resentment against
military officers was released in
attacks on officers in uniform. People who had felt obliged to step off
sidewalks to let German officers
pass now spat on them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The population was very angry at the military for failure, after asking so
much sacrifice of them. The enlisted at the officers. But while the
enlisted were demoralized, they were NOT starving. But they were badly led,
and they knew it (or a least were willing to admit it now). Again, I don't
minimize the impact of the blockade, however, it was the inability of the
German Army, in France, to defeat its opponents, and its attendant
irrational behavior, at the senior level, which brought defeat.
> >Yes, we're all agreeing with you on the effect of the British military
> >and blockade. We're not agreeing with your statement that the
> >blockade won the war.
>
> OK. I've been there before. I don't really expect to convince you
> that what I've said is so... but if you'll at least consider it,
> and perhaps look into the possibility a little deeper, that's
> enough.
The blockade was of significance. It was a large material contributing
factor to ultimate victory.
It was not the single catalytic event which insured defeat for the Germans,
and victory for the Allies.
The best analysts conclude that the failed German offensive, followed by
the counter offensives fueled by 1 million fresh US troops, brought the
end. The Army explained that they could no longer win, the high command
made irrational requests of the Navy, which resulted in MILITARY mutiny,
which brought defeat home to an angry populace, from which sprung civil
unrest.
The well fed military quit when they knew they couldn't win, and the
civilians willingly followed, once they were empowered by the revolting
military.
The fact that the German Army was able to mount an enormous offensive, in
up to, and beyond, July, 1918, speaks to the limits of the blockades affect
on the war.
> >Read Keegan's Mask of
> >Command for a discussion Hitler had during the war in the east.
>
> I have. I've read most of Keagan's stuff. I find his work rather
> light... light on facts and support, and a bit long on opinion.
Jeesh.
Most folks consider him amongst the definitive analysts. And he is a Brit.
YMMV.
I guess.
How many history books have you written BTW?
The blockade 'explanation' has become fashionable, in certain circles, but
is generally regarded as a oversimplification.
> Much like a Usenet discussion <g>. I'm not saying he's wrong... in
> many cases I agree with what he writes... but I would like the
> opportunity to examine the basis for his opinions and conclusions.
No one is stopping you. But, somehow, it appears you have too much at stake
to admit you've been mistaken.
Maybe I'm wrong...
> I have the same complaint about SE Morison's work. I much prefer
> historical writers in the styles of Mahan, Richard Frank, and Wm.
> Laird Clowes for this reason. They tell you where they are and how
> they got there.
SE Morrison is no less authoritative than Clowes. Clowes is mainly naval
historian, who's only significant writing is a complete history of the RN,
and is, therefore, predisposed to placing greater weight on the political
impact of the blockade than others who write on the issue.
Like Keegan. Or Smitha.
The civilian uprising in Germany never took full hold. Many military were
involved in surpressing (as well as fomenting) revolution. And the hunger
situation was not intolerable. Although it would ge that way a few years
later.
Ultimately reactionary forces put down the revolution. They were called The
Free Corps.
> >Yeah. Too bad Hitler didn't really care about that. If he wanted
> >peace with Britain he could have moved a fraction of the forces that
> >he used in Russia to North Africa and driven all the way into the
> >Middle East and all the goodies there, forcing the peace.
>
> It wasn't a question of insufficient forces... it was logistics.
> Malta was the key to North Africa.
Malta had a strategic significance to the British that was at least as much
morale as functionally founded. But so not for the Germans. Keeping the
Sicily-N Africa line open was the key. And not enough force was maintained
in theater to do that. Or so felt Rommel.
It was that Russia thing. A few troops were needed there in '42 and '43...
> While the Brit and Italian
> navies fought for control of the Med, Malta effectively denied the
> Germans access to the SLOC they needed to sustain their drive on
> Alexandria. The DAK simply ran out of spares, gas, ammo, and other
> consumables, More of that cause/effect stuff.
You completely misunderstand, and severely overestimate, the role/value of
Malta. Malta defended itself against repeated air attack, and survived
until Germans strategic thinking moved there attention elsewhere. Malta
was besieged, with often fewer than 5 a/c to fend of attack. Malta was a
net drain on resources, and only stayed in British hands because Germany
was not concerned. Germany SHOULD have taken Malta, and COULD have, but
chose not to, because they were rotten in the head.
Least Adolph was. He had another concern. Russia.
<shakes head> Man
The Brits sure dint INTERDICT german lines of supply from Malta. The only
reason the Germans didn't take Suez is they dint want it bad enough.
Russia seemed more important. Or at least that's the impression Rommel drew
based upon the numbers troops he was given. Substantially LESS than he
asked for...
The Germans failed in NA because they couldn't keep the Sicily-N Africa
supply route open.
THAT was the SLOC
They never put sufficient forces in theater to do it. The DAK was always
weak. Under strength for its mission. Which was never clear to AH anyway,
as was typical. Defeating 8th Army, and neutralizing Gib were the keys. And
Germany could have done it. Spain would have helped. But they dint.
The Med was always a Brit lake, because of Gib. So the Germans were never
able to keep their relatively short supply line open. Compounding the erro
was the relegation of that theater to secondary status.
Because of Russia
Look at a map.
> >The problem is that we're all trying to simplfy extremely complex
> >events to bullet points here.
> Yup. I think I said as much up top when I made my original
> comment. Something about short answers and heated debates... <g>.
<grin>
I hope I have provided a modicum of independent detail to support my
contentions.
As opposed to pronouncements, concerning various historians, of dubious
value.
Read more.
And don't be so bellicose.
Leave that to me.
;~>
Dr Oddness Killtroll
'oops, I'm killfiled!'
Jussi Saari
>
> In article <3A047988...@home.com>, rfor...@home.com says...
> > Oh I have to reply to this one ...
> > For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
> > bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
> > populations.
>
> Is a factory producing military war products a military target?
>
> If it is, than Lemay ins't a war criminal.
Factory is. Entire city isn't, and in particular it's a poor excuse
when you attack it with fire bombs that destroy much more effectively
flimsy wooden civilian buildings than industrial buildings.
> > As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
> > remember that they came in only under duress.
>
> The next time the Europeans feel like shooting lead into
> eachother, we'll just grab some popcorn and watch the show. Why do
> you Europeans's think that everytime you get into a shooting match, we
> have to send thousands of our boy's over to die?
As I recall it your country got into the war after Japanese Navy
attacked your naval base and Hitler declared war to you. Grabbing
popcorn and watching the show wouldn't seem like a particularly
good choice to pick in that situation.
Jussi
Jussi Saari
>
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 07:00:26 GMT, robert...@dial.pipex.com wrote:
>
> >> Manifest Destiny wasn't used to invade European-style states. Same
> >> thing happened with the European colonization of Africa.
> >>
> >
> >...which is genuinely recognised by said Europeans to have been immoral
> >and deeply shameful.
>
>
> Going way off topic here, why is is that south east asia, while not
> exactly the most stable part of the world, seems to have emerged from
> colonization a little better off than sub saharan Africa?
It couldn't have hurt that SEA was a more important area during Cold
War than Africa, and thus worthy of much more support, economical and
otherwise.
Jussi
James Dusek
says...
> James Dusek wrote:
> > In article <3A047988...@home.com>, rfor...@home.com says...
> > > Oh I have to reply to this one ...
> > > For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
> > > bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
> > > populations.
> > Is a factory producing military war products a military target?
> > If it is, than Lemay ins't a war criminal.
> Factory is. Entire city isn't, and in particular it's a poor excuse
> when you attack it with fire bombs that destroy much more effectively
> flimsy wooden civilian buildings than industrial buildings.
But what do you do when a majority of the homes in the city
contain small workshops that feed the war effort? Who do you blame, the
country that drops the bombs, or the country that has spear war
production throughout most of the cities in "cottage" industries.
What about the Japanese pratice of putting Allied POWs in
factories as human shields?
> > > As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
> > > remember that they came in only under duress.
> > The next time the Europeans feel like shooting lead into
> > eachother, we'll just grab some popcorn and watch the show. Why do
> > you Europeans's think that everytime you get into a shooting match, we
> > have to send thousands of our boy's over to die?
> As I recall it your country got into the war after Japanese Navy
> attacked your naval base and Hitler declared war to you. Grabbing
> popcorn and watching the show wouldn't seem like a particularly
> good choice to pick in that situation.
(Which means we can in under Duress.)
What were we supposed to do? I guess we could have attacked Japan
first, but the American people were most intrested in staying out of the
war, so that would not have been a good idea.
James Dusek
Jussi Saari
>
> In article <3A0864AE...@mail.lut.fi>, Jussi...@mail.lut.fi
> says...
> > James Dusek wrote:
> > > In article <3A047988...@home.com>, rfor...@home.com says...
> > > > Oh I have to reply to this one ...
> > > > For war criminals, you forgot Curtis Lemay and Bomber Harris - area
> > > > bombing of civilians or lin Lemay's case area fire-bombing of civilian
> > > > populations.
> > > Is a factory producing military war products a military target?
> > > If it is, than Lemay ins't a war criminal.
> > Factory is. Entire city isn't, and in particular it's a poor excuse
> > when you attack it with fire bombs that destroy much more effectively
> > flimsy wooden civilian buildings than industrial buildings.
>
> But what do you do when a majority of the homes in the city
> contain small workshops that feed the war effort? Who do you
> blame, the country that drops the bombs, or the country that
> has spear war production throughout most of the cities in
> "cottage" industries.
Oh come on. Nakajima and Mitsubishi did not have their aircraft
factories in peoples' homes, and their shipbuilding industry
wasn't building little dockyards in peoples' backyards, either.
Majority of their industrial production was not in the little
workshops, as we both know. That was an excuse of Le May's for
engaging in a Douhetian air war against the country's civilian
population, just like Bomber Harris wasn't actually bombing
German population, he was just "de-housing the workforce".
> What about the Japanese pratice of putting Allied POWs in
> factories as human shields?
That's another war crime. Pointing out someone elses warcrimes
doesn't excuse those of your own, however.
> > > > As for the USofA being the corner stone of winning both WW1 and WW2,
> > > > remember that they came in only under duress.
> > > The next time the Europeans feel like shooting lead into
> > > eachother, we'll just grab some popcorn and watch the show. Why do
> > > you Europeans's think that everytime you get into a shooting match, we
> > > have to send thousands of our boy's over to die?
> >
> > As I recall it your country got into the war after Japanese Navy
> > attacked your naval base and Hitler declared war to you. Grabbing
> > popcorn and watching the show wouldn't seem like a particularly
> > good choice to pick in that situation.
>
> What were we supposed to do? I guess we could have attacked Japan
> first, but the American people were most intrested in staying out
> of the war, so that would not have been a good idea.
Nothing wrong with what you did, but your comment about grabbing
popcorn and watching sounded a lot like you thought you would have
had a choice about coming involved in this silly little european
conflict. I agree that the US in practise had to wait until attacked
before it could get involved.
Jussi
Wim Libaers
Kraits Seeker <rexk...@get2net.dk> schreef in berichtnieuws
i0FN5.364$8F2....@nnrp4.clara.net...
And what is your problem with Serbians? Do you think the whole Serbian
population consists of maniacs? Been watching a lot of NATO-CNN propaganda
movies? You know, the Serbians might think the same because their TV
stations probably broadcasted similar propaganda, but with different people
in the role of Mr. Devil.
Ahh, the joys of "your own small minded meaness". Isn't it great? :-(
Actually, here in Belgium, the war (WWII, most from WWI are dead by now)
still isn't forgotten. People here who fought against the communists in
Korea were decorated. Those who did so slightly earlier in history, under
command of not-so-great leaders, still are considered evil by many, and it
still is a "hot" political topic. Hatred can be quite long-lasting, and even
seems to be hereditable. Perhaps, in 50 years, those fighting today's
conflicts will not be hated as much as some old men of today who served
under questionable leaders more than 50 years ago?
--
Wim Libaers
Remove DONTSPAM from my reply address to send me mail.
Kraits Seeker
Well, every Yugoslavian I know (not many, but a few) has a Judaic tribal
memory, not only able to point to every local land mark and recite which
battle it's famous for, not only able to tell which of his relatives fell
there (and we're talking centuries of strife); but more worrying, they can
usually tell which of their neighbours relatives were on the other side.
Such total recall is not generally conducive to reconciliation.
Not that I'd expect a child molesting servant of Walloons to understand such
a thing.
Seeker
"Wim Libaers" <libaers.DO...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:8uhk0h$7f8$3...@news0.skynet.be...
The Internet Dog
>Am I supposed to morn the passing of a man whom shot down and severly
>injured my Grandfather in a B-17, who then was a POW for 3 years, forced to
>eat rats for sustanance. A man who spilled the guts of many young
>Americans. At the end of your quote, my friend, this "legendary Zero pilot"
>ended "the war with 64 kills" I needant remind you that those 64 kills were
>friends, brothers, fathers, and grandfathers.......Americans. An ace and a
>hero he may be, compadre, but not here, not in my heart, and I dare say not
>in this country.
>
maybe you might forget that the internet is an international resource
you fuckwit
iDog
Wim Libaers
> My problem with Serbia?
>
> Well, every Yugoslavian I know (not many, but a few) has a Judaic tribal
> memory, not only able to point to every local land mark and recite which
> battle it's famous for, not only able to tell which of his relatives fell
> there (and we're talking centuries of strife); but more worrying, they can
> usually tell which of their neighbours relatives were on the other side.
> Such total recall is not generally conducive to reconciliation.
Indeed. But as you can see in this thread, several people in the US aren't
exactly happy with people who were on the other side. The fact that in
Serbia the other side happens to be the neighbour can certainly make things
worse, I won't dispute that. Do note, however, that the others there weren't
much better in many cases. Being specifically against the Serbians isn't
fair when the whole Balkan is like that. And when you're referring to
Yugoslavia, which version? The latest Serbia-Montenegro(-Kosovo)
combination, or the situation before the latest series of wars?
>
> Not that I'd expect a child molesting servant of Walloons to understand
such
> a thing.
>
> Seeker
>
>
Cute ;-)
By the way, how did you figure out that I'm not a Walloon myself? I didn't
think I explicitly said that in my message. Seriously, I'd like to see this
mess (that's Belgium :) split, but the idiots currently governing it don't
seem to feel that way.
Kraits Seeker
to maintain hatreds from the last century, using spurious references to dead
relatives and out of date philosophies. I'll take the opportunity to plug
http://www.worldwar2pilots.com
again, every one should go there at least once.
Actually, I completely agree with your point that there's not much to chose
between the various ex-Yugoslavian factions; the only real difference is
that the Serbs were a bit more public, a bit less shame faced, and didn't
have the nous to stop when they were ahead. For what it's worth, my opinions
were formed from the friendships I made with Serbs and Croats living in
Amsterdam between 92-97, before I was dragged screaming to the frozen north.
I don't know any members of the other factions, but then my friends were
almost by definition peace niks, they'd mostly run from national service,
hence their stay in Holland. Many of them have since been back, some even
with their American girlfriends (one to Novisad!), yet they don't seem to be
able to settle there. They usually say things like "I used to be
Yugoslavian, now I'm stateless...". The whole phrase of my first post was to
provoke those holding on to historically genetic hatreds to look in the
mirror. I can understand a serviceman having problems with an ex-enemy, they
were trying times; but for a grand son or grand nephew to try to perpetuate
the feeling is shabby.
You could indeed be a Walloon, but wouldn't you be called Pierré? :-)
Should Belgium split, how would you like it to go? Vlaamse to Holland,
Walloons to France? or would you rather see a city state such as Luxembourg?
It's hard to see the viability of such an option, as you'd not have much in
the way of export trade, and I wonder how independent an administration
you'd be able to expect, given that there'd be more money (and in our world,
hence power) in Ford at Saarlouis (Sp?) than in the government......
Seeker (Graag gedaan)
"Wim Libaers" <libaers.DO...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:8v1fbe$rfn$1...@news0.skynet.be...
>
> Indeed. But as you can see in this thread, several people in the US aren't
> exactly happy with people who were on the other side. The fact that in
> Serbia the other side happens to be the neighbour can certainly make
things
> worse, I won't dispute that. Do note, however, that the others there
weren't
> much better in many cases. Being specifically against the Serbians isn't
> fair when the whole Balkan is like that. And when you're referring to
> Yugoslavia, which version? The latest Serbia-Montenegro(-Kosovo)
> combination, or the situation before the latest series of wars?
>
>
> >
> > Not that I'd expect a child molesting servant of Walloons to understand
> such
> > a thing.
> >
> > Seeker
> >
> >
>
>
> Cute ;-)
>
> By the way, how did you figure out that I'm not a Walloon myself? I didn't
> think I explicitly said that in my message. Seriously, I'd like to see
this
> mess (that's Belgium :) split, but the idiots currently governing it don't
> seem to feel that way.
>
>
>
Wim Libaers
I certainly agree with that.
>
> You could indeed be a Walloon, but wouldn't you be called Pierré? :-)
>
> Should Belgium split, how would you like it to go? Vlaamse to Holland,
> Walloons to France? or would you rather see a city state such as
Luxembourg?
> It's hard to see the viability of such an option, as you'd not have much
in
> the way of export trade, and I wonder how independent an administration
> you'd be able to expect, given that there'd be more money (and in our
world,
> hence power) in Ford at Saarlouis (Sp?) than in the government......
>
Well, the government is corrupt anyway, so that wouldn't matter much.
Independence may not improve that, but I don't see how it could get much
worse than it already is. I'd expect a status quo there, so I don't think
that is a relevant point to consider.
The second point is more serious: money. Flanders will probably not suffer
much, as it already has more than half the economic activity. Still, strong
cooperation with the Netherlands will probably be beneficial.
However, Wallonia will really suffer. After the collapse of their industry,
the unemployment was "solved" by hiring many people work for the government.
As a result, they have many more people in government service than Flanders,
much more expenses, which results in a rather big transfer of money, which
would be about 4% of the tax income from Flanders (well, that's the number I
recently saw). If the breakup were to be done without financial aid for
Wallonia, or without them joining France, it'd cause a lot of problems
(possibly becoming a third world country without some really impressive
changes). This is just one reason why Flanders is generally more in favour
of further federalisation.
Another problem is a difference is the language: the Wallons consistently
try to get more privileges for French-speaking people in parts of the
country that are officially Dutch-speaking. This wouldn't be so bad if they
weren't also trying to get rid of Flemish culture in the officially
bilingual Brussels. There already are hospitals in Brussels where
Dutch-speaking patients can't get a Doctor who understands their language,
which obviously isn't a healthy situation. Additionally, many Walloons seem
to think they're superior beings, and that isn't exactly beneficial for
mutual understanding. There also are many who are quite reasonable people,
but there also are several politicians who are obviously racists. For
example, when Flemish politicians complained about the language issue in
some hospitals in Brussels, one reply was that Flemings don't need a doctor
but a veterinary surgeon.
The German community in Wallonia is also considering a referendum to see if
a majority wants to be more independent from them.
Will independence solve everything? Of course not! But we (speaking strictly
for Flanders now) would at least get rid of some pretty arrogant guys who
demand our "solidarity" (the 4% of Flemish tax income), while also calling
us animals. Not a bad deal I think.
The biggest practical problem would be Brussels. Historically Flemish,
geographically situated within Flanders, but now mostly French-speaking.