Panzer General: Cavalry?
Flak88
I got a question about cavalry units in Panzer General. Whenever, I
attack these units, be it with artillery, infantry-assualt, or tank-
assault, the actual horses (as depicted in the animation window) always
come away unscathed. In other words, the men standing all around the
horses are blown up, shot full of holes, or end up burning, but the
horses themselves (that the soldiers are attending to and who are
standing virtually adjacent to these men) remain just standing around
taking it all in quite non-challantly. Is this realistic? Was it
really policy not to injure horses in WWII?
Thanks.
Stephen Botha
Flak88 (gr...@erols.com) wrote:
:
: I got a question about cavalry units in Panzer General. Whenever, I
I doubt it... It's a bit hard to shot a man off a horse using a tank.
Maybe it's yet more political correctness (don't hurt animals!)
that the game is full of; no Swastiki flags (instead just crosses
when you take over a city),
no SS units, no civilians, no mention of Hitler. The game would
be a hell of a lot more realistic and interesting if it avoided
being so damn PC.
More annoying is the lazyness of the designers... each scenerio
has a 5 second video (WOW!!!) and the end of the war has a little
bit of text (EXCITING!).They could have had the german national anthem
and maybe scenes from the early Numerberg rallies or at least something.
Steel panthers is just as bad, they could have livened up
the game, instead each battle is just the same old tired
advance/defense etc with no storyline to go with it (other than tiny
random videos of no relevence).
Stephen Botha.
SteveZAX
No, it's just that the ASPCA would raise holy hell if you so much as
THOUGHT about hurting animals!!!!
Rue Barb
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> )
> that the game is full of; no Swastiki flags (instead just crosses
> when you take over a city),
> no SS units, no civilians, no mention of Hitler. The game would
> be a hell of a lot more realistic and interesting if it avoided
> being so damn PC.
>
I can't answer for horses, (very resiliant) but many wargames leave out
the swastika because it is a banned symbol in Germany. If they included
it, they wouldn't be able to sell games there. It's the same for most
wargames as it is for computer games.
Jason Uecker
Stephen Botha <phy...@newton.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in article
<5k1227$9op$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>...
>
>
> I doubt it... It's a bit hard to shot a man off a horse using a tank.
>
> Maybe it's yet more political correctness (don't hurt animals!)
> that the game is full of; no Swastiki flags (instead just crosses
> when you take over a city),
> no SS units, no civilians, no mention of Hitler. The game would
> be a hell of a lot more realistic and interesting if it avoided
> being so damn PC.
> More annoying is the lazyness of the designers... each scenerio
> has a 5 second video (WOW!!!) and the end of the war has a little
> bit of text (EXCITING!).They could have had the german national anthem
> and maybe scenes from the early Numerberg rallies or at least something.
> Steel panthers is just as bad, they could have livened up
> the game, instead each battle is just the same old tired
> advance/defense etc with no storyline to go with it (other than tiny
> random videos of no relevence).
>
> Stephen Botha.
While I agree it's something of an absurdity to have animals standing
around grazing while men around them are cut down by explosions (anyone who
has an even cursory understanding of 19th century warfare can tell you what
animals endure in the name of war...let alone in the 20th century, where
even dogs where used as tank-killers by Russians), I do have strange
feelings about playing the German side in a "conquer-the-world" strategy
game.
Ok, to a certain extent, it's great fun being the bad guys. The Germans in
WWII had the best soldiers (arguable, but generally true in many
instances), the best equipment (not always, by any means, but consider the
ME-262 and the Pather tank if you need examples..), and downright spiffy
uniforms, but the ruling party behind the war machine had a deplorable
political stance that cannot *help* but factor in with the above pluses.
Now, since conquering the world has an undeniable appeal among wargamers,
and since the only realistic scenario for that sort of thing in the 20th
century (WWI, in my opinion, would never have spread in a major way beyond
European borders, a WWIII would only be hypothetical) is the Second World
War. That said, by conventional moral standards, you lose this game when
you conquer Washington. The game could hardly throw up a text box reading:
"You've just conquered the world for fascism! Congratulations on damning
humanity to a new moral dark age!", but that's essentially what you've just
done. Am I suggesting you not be allowed to win? Not at all. I'm just
saying that unlike winning for, say, The Empire of Star Wars fame, the
consequences of what you've done are much more palapable because they could
have occured historically, given the right combination of factors.
Now, that doesn't make me *not* play Panzer General. I enjoy the game
because I like historical wargames, but I've often found this moral
situation interesting, even if I can detatch myself from it while playing.
To me, then, this game does all it can to keep the nastier historical
factors at bay, while leaving you with pure military strategy to contend
with in an abstract fashion. That's why it's fun, and not an excercise in
moral sadomasochism.
FVE
Stephen Botha
Jason Uecker (jas...@sprynet.com) wrote:
:
: Ok, to a certain extent, it's great fun being the bad guys. The Germans in
(snip)
Until someone can explain to me how the bombing of dresden and the
nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
but what if
the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
a nuclear furnace?
SB
YyrkroonBR
<<Until someone can explain to me how the bombing of dresden and the
nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
but what if
the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
a nuclear furnace?>>
Its quite simple really. In one instance, civilians were being
destroyed for little, no, or even a loss of military and politcal gain.
In the other instance, civilians were destroyed in pursuit of a military
or political object. I am very proud of my German heritage, but the
Nazi's (not the Wehrmacht) bled off so much potential in stupid and silly
actions that had a detrimental effect on the German Nation's ability to
wage war.
Destroying Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki accomplished objectives and
brought the Allies closer to victory. Pulling troops from the line in
order to pull more people from war production is stupidity or worse
arrogance, a particularly German vice. Who knows how differently things
would have been had the 'untermenschen' been incorporated into the Reich
(Ukraine for one comes to mind as being a valuable but squandered asset
against the Russians). However, Nazi stupidity condemned the worlds
greatest and proudest army to a second defeat in a generation, condemned
half of Europe to the dark tyranny of Russo-Bolshevism, and condemned
Germany to 50 years as a divided nation.
DH
Yyrk
Home of the Black Roses
http://members.aol.com/yyrkroonbr
Anthony de Vries
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Jason Uecker (jas...@sprynet.com) wrote:
> :
> : Ok, to a certain extent, it's great fun being the bad guys. The Germans in
>
> (snip)
>
> nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
> wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
> the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
> but what if
> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> a nuclear furnace?
>
Please explain to me the difference between civilians, and drafted
soldiers. Neither asked for war, neither wants to kill anybody, and
neither have any choice. They're all just human beings.
War can have any number of goals, but eventually warfare is about
destroying the other side ability to conduct war.
In theory, that doesn't neccessarily mean killing (a lot of) people,
(You can destroy aircraft standing on the ground...)
but in practice, war is about killing people. It's as simple as that.
Civilians aren't more innocent than the soldiers, nor any
less a target, as they produce the means to conduct war.
In these days, war is no longer a simple political struggle, where you
hire an army, and fight some battles.
Wars are fought between countries. The complete country is responsible,
and also the complete country is supplying it's army, and therefor the
complete country is a target.
Maybe the best thing nuclear weapons have told us, is that ANY war
between sovereign countries is ridiculous, and neither side wins.
Anthony.
Chuck Messenger
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Jason Uecker (jas...@sprynet.com) wrote:
> :
> : Ok, to a certain extent, it's great fun being the bad guys. The Germans in
>
> (snip)
>
> Until someone can explain to me how the bombing of dresden and the
> nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
> wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
> the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
> but what if
> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> a nuclear furnace?
>
> SB
The purpose of the A-bombs was to end the war -- without them, there
would
certainly have been far greater Japanese casualties (civilian included),
not to mention enormous American (and other, including New Zealand)
armed forces casualties. The purpose of the Nazi genocide was not to
end
a war, but to end a race/culture of people. See the difference?
- Chuck Messenger
Louie Landale
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Until someone can explain to me how the bombing of dresden and the
> nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
> wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
> the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
> but what if
> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> a nuclear furnace?
>
> SB
I agree in principle. We did in fact target enemy civilians for death.
This unpleasant reality of our past should receive greater publicity.
The difference is that those civilians also are in the vicinity of
legitimate military targets such as factories, and those civilians
themselves are also of military use to the enemy. This is NOT
true for captured civilians or for enemy civilians in cities we
have captured.
Diderot
Louie Landale a écrit dans l'article
Several points are to be stressed on.
First, american officials didn't have a precise idea of what was a nuke
bombing, and anyway, war is always an abstract thing for fat cats whatever
their side is.
Second, Manhattan project costed a lot of bucks, and it would have been bad
policy not to demonstrate that it was spent adequately (It may seem cynical
but that's the way a bureaucracy functions)
Third, in any war, specially a rather total one as was WWII, foe's tend to
de-humanize each other, and probably nuke bombing japanese was not seen as
something against humanity. Nor did japanese consider the torture of
chinese, or british war prisoners as something "against nature". I dont'
believe there's such thing as "war laws".
Fourth, by the time US where in position of using the bomb, the big issue
was no longer finishing up the war in japan, it was how to deal with after
war relationship, especially with USSR. Somebody said that Hiroshima &
Nagasaki were not closing act of WWII but opening of cold war. It was
indeed a clear signal to Uncl' Joe not to touch to Western Europe (whether
it was necessary/moral or not is another matter).
It is reported that in Potsdam Truman was having a hard negotiation with
Stalin, when he received a message saying "babies well born" meaning that
first experiment of nuke bomb was a success ; its attitude shifted to total
confidence : he had a trump for the diplomatic round in progress.
Imho, moral very seldom take over when playing the big game.
Chuck Messenger
Diderot wrote:
[snip]
> Third, in any war, specially a rather total one as was WWII, foe's tend to
> de-humanize each other, and probably nuke bombing japanese was not seen as
> something against humanity. Nor did japanese consider the torture of
> chinese, or british war prisoners as something "against nature". I dont'
> believe there's such thing as "war laws".
[snip]
Why do you think chemical weapons weren't used in WWII?
- Chuck Messenger
cbou...@earthlink.com
On Tue, 06 May 1997 12:52:12 -0700, Louie Landale
<louie....@internetMCI.com> wrote:
>The difference is that those civilians also are in the vicinity of
>legitimate military targets such as factories, and those civilians
>themselves are also of military use to the enemy. This is NOT
>true for captured civilians or for enemy civilians in cities we
>have captured.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between an active and hostile
enemy and a prisoner. Not really a tough concept, I don't see how a
moral parallel is being drawn between torturing and killing helpless
prisoners and incidental civilian casualties from battle. Is he just
saying war is bad? Crime is bad too. Taxes are bad. Smoking is bad.
What is this doing in a games newsgroup?
Jim Ericson
Chuck Messenger <c...@servtech.com> wrote in article
<336FDB...@servtech.com>...
Presumably, the allies didn't see the need (although apparently the plan
for taking Iwo Jima initially included gassing the whole island) - and the
axis weren't willing to see the allies retaliate overwhelming in kind for
their starting chemical warfare. No idiotic international law stopped it.
Cato Myrkaskog
>Why do you think chemical weapons weren't used in WWII?
Perhaps because both sides had tried it during WWI, and KNEW that it
only would hit back on themselves. The difference was that it was only
the US that could use the nuke, but both sides could use chemicals.
A "superweapon" is not that super if you can get the same back!
**************************************************************************
*Cato Myrkaskog *
*nr 107 C *
*Fabrikkveien 4/8 *
*6400 MOLDE *
* *
*Cato.My...@himolde.no *
* *
*Her hadde eg eingong eit saant glup-ord. Men det var saa dumt at eg *
*fjerna det. *
*Jadda, jadda.... Ante Valente er tilbake..... *
**************************************************************************
Diderot
Chuck Messenger a écrit dans l'article <336FDB...@servtech.com>...
>Diderot wrote:
>[snip]
>> Third, in any war, specially a rather total one as was WWII, foe's tend
to
>> de-humanize each other, and probably nuke bombing japanese was not seen
as
>> something against humanity. Nor did japanese consider the torture of
>> chinese, or british war prisoners as something "against nature". I
dont'
>> believe there's such thing as "war laws".
>[snip]
>
>
>
YyrkroonBR
<<Presumably, the allies didn't see the need (although apparently the plan
for taking Iwo Jima initially included gassing the whole island) - and the
axis weren't willing to see the allies retaliate overwhelming in kind for
their starting chemical warfare. No idiotic international law stopped it.
>>
Actually, the allies had plans to use Chemical Weapons, the Germans
happened to destroy a supply ship on the Italian penisula (Otranto?)
filled with it. After the German attack, the Allies Doctors suspected
that the Germans used Chemical weapons because so many people were
experiencing the sysmptoms of such exposure.. HA! joke was on them, it was
their own munitions blown up.
The *real* reason they weren't used in the west at least, was that both
sides knew how horrible they were (remember the Generals of WWII were the
Junior Officers of WWI). Hitler, himself, was gassed and thought the
weapon inhuman - not to be used on warriors (obviously there were other
views on 'non-combatants and untermenschen).
Kev Metcalfe
> >> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> >> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> >> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> >> a nuclear furnace?
> >>
It would still have saved countless allied lives (try looking up the
projected casualties for operation olympic) - and even more Japanese
lives!
Neale Davidson
I will point out too that the Japanese government recieved word of the
impending "Doomsday" attacked, and were warned to surrender
unconditionally several days before the attack actually came.
Truman also tried to minimize the 'social damage' to Japan by
selecting major sites that were not as historically or socially
significant to others. How he made these decisions is beyond me,
however.
Lastly, remember too that Japan didn't surrender until AFTER the
SECOND bomb was dropped, and the warning of a third such
bombing was issued. The good Emporer decided that his people
had suffered enough, and that it was time to make peace.
An invasion, however, would have been politically and socially
a disaster. Holding the territory with troops would have been
extremely difficult, as the Japanese did not take the concept
of surrender lightly.
Neale
Bill Huffman
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Until someone can explain to me how the bombing of dresden and the
> nuking of civilians is any different than lining up civilians against a
> wall and shooting them, then the war was fought between the bad guys and
> the worse guys (Nazis). Many people think nuking civilians was fine,
> but what if
> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> a nuclear furnace?
>
I don't really have any problem with your sentiment but,
to try and answer your question:
The difference is that nuking lead to the end of the war.
Lining people up and shooting them would not be done intending
it would end the war. It would be done to solve some other
more immediate logistical problem or as an act of genocide.
Whether or not to drop the bomb was a moral dilemma of the worst
kind.
Steve Hinkle
Peteroo wrote:
>
> :I will point out too that the Japanese government recieved word of the
> :impending "Doomsday" attacked, and were warned to surrender
> :unconditionally several days before the attack actually came.
>
>
> These are, I think, legitimate points. And you can add to them the
> assessment that an invasion of Japan was projected to cost the US in
> excess of 1 million casualties.
>
> But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese representatives to
> witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
> Pacific -- with the understanding that, unless unconditional currender was
> forthcoming, Japan's major cities would be the next targets. Japan didn't
> know what had hit it; it didn't really have an opportunity to come to
> grips with the devatstation at Hiroshima before the second bomb was
> dropped on Nagasaki.
>
> Peter
I can't resist this off topic thread, so here goes.
What do you think Japan would have done had they developed the A-Bomb
first?
David Thompson
There's reason to believe that the Japanese did not surrender
primarily because of the atomic bomb drops but because the Soviet
Union had just declared war and annihilated the bulk of their land
forces in Manchuria. The Kwantung Army was the pride of the Japanese
military, with well over a million battle-hardened soldiers. It was
completely wiped out in a couple of days by the Red Army. This ended
any hope of continuing the fight from the mainland; once the Russians
had defeated the Manchurian forces they would have had no problem
sweeping through the rest of Japanese-occupied China and Korea. This
hope had been one of the main justifications for fighting for the home
islands of Japan.
I'm not saying the bomb had nothing to do with it, of course it
did. Nor do I have any great moral problem with them...they were a
terror weapon, which all sides had used throughout the war with
impunity. But some Americans like to forget the contribution the
Soviets made to the end of the war in the Pacific, in the same way
they minimize how important the Red Army was in defeating Hitler.
On 8 May 1997 13:13:12 GMT, "Neale Davidson" <nea...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Lastly, remember too that Japan didn't surrender until AFTER the
>SECOND bomb was dropped, and the warning of a third such
>bombing was issued. The good Emporer decided that his people
>had suffered enough, and that it was time to make peace.
>
>An invasion, however, would have been politically and socially
>a disaster. Holding the territory with troops would have been
>extremely difficult, as the Japanese did not take the concept
>of surrender lightly.
>
>Neale
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Please remove the capital letters at the beginning
and end of my email address to email me (NSP at the start and
OAM at the end).
Some women wait for Jesus, and some women wait for Cain.
So I hang upon my altar, and I hoist my axe again.
- Leonard Cohen, "Last Year's Man"
Adam G. Unikowsky
Neale Davidson wrote:
>
> > > >> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> > > >> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> > > >> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> > > >> a nuclear furnace?
> > > >>
> >
> > projected casualties for operation olympic) - and even more Japanese
> > lives!
>
> impending "Doomsday" attacked, and were warned to surrender
> unconditionally several days before the attack actually came.
>
I honestly don't think that the Japanese had any idea about what they
were in for. How could they?
> Truman also tried to minimize the 'social damage' to Japan by
> selecting major sites that were not as historically or socially
> significant to others. How he made these decisions is beyond me,
> however.
Hiroshima was a huge industrial center, one of the most important
cities in Japan. But Nagasaki was a Shinto religious center. They
didn't bomb Tokyo because they didn't want the country to plummet into
anarchy, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both extremely significant, one
from a industrial standpoint, and after that didn't result in a Japanese
surrender, one from a religious standpoint.
>
> Lastly, remember too that Japan didn't surrender until AFTER the
> SECOND bomb was dropped, and the warning of a third such
> bombing was issued. The good Emporer decided that his people
> had suffered enough, and that it was time to make peace.
>
The USA was very, very lucky here, as the warning of a third bomb was a
bluff. The USA had only two bombs left after Nagasaki, and neither were
to be used; one was to be preserved for science and one for the USSR.
Hirohito made the right choice, though, as even without a third nuke
Japan would have suffered considerably before the inevitable surrender.
> An invasion, however, would have been politically and socially
> a disaster. Holding the territory with troops would have been
> extremely difficult, as the Japanese did not take the concept
> of surrender lightly.
They could have continued to plaster Tokyo with gasoline bombs. They
would have surrendered by '47 or '48, by which time Tokyo would be on
the verge of destruction. You're right, though, that an invasion would
have been a disaster. But I don't think the nuke was the right thing to
do. I think that that kind of weapon, the kind that causes mutated
babies and slow radiation deaths and massive human, civilian suffering
should never be used. Ever.
>
> Neale
-Adam
Peteroo
:I will point out too that the Japanese government recieved word of the
:impending "Doomsday" attacked, and were warned to surrender
:unconditionally several days before the attack actually came.
<snip>
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <19970509142...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pet...@aol.com
It is possible that they were worried that if they tired a test blast
and the bomb didn't work, the Japenese would just fight harder( or
something like that).
>Peter
>
>
--
Mr. H.R. Bradshaw(Deceased)
Head Minister, Ministry of Silly Walks
*Is your life in a rut? Then head down
to your local silly walks recruiter today.*
Join now and we will send you a free Shrubbery.
hos...@ix.netcom.com
On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:25:06 -0700, Lilith Costas <lco...@best.com>
wrote:
>I had a professor who posed an interesting thought about the nuking of Japan. While he pointed out the
>arguements about whether it was military necessity, or showing off our new weapon to the Russians, he ten asked
>everytone whether or not we thought that if the US had pursued a Japan first strategy, and it was
>the Japenese we had defeated first, and the Germans were still in it and possibly on the end of a
>nuclear bomb, would we have done it?
>
>Lilith
While an interesting question, the facts remain that it couldn't have
happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had almost
total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there first,
the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in Africa
only by massive infusion of American troops]and quite possibly could
have defeated Russia.
Without Us bombing interdiction, the germans would ALSO have had the
bomb at roughly the same time.
That brings up an even more interesting question; Would the US have
used the bomb knowing the Germans would have also? And, if they only
used it on Russians [first] would we have used it to retaliate against
them?
**************************************
"We really didn't attack Pearl.We just
wanted to try Poi, and all made really
bad landings"
John Fuesting
You may have forgotten that we only had two bombs. There was no way to know
if the Japanese would surrender after seeing a demonstration. The Japanese
hadn't surrendered much before. The Germans took more American
prisoners(surrender-ees) at the Battle of Kazerine than we took Japanese
prisoners the entire war. Besides, your mortal enemy in war calls you up
and says, "Hey, come to this island, we've got something to show you." How
stupid does that sound?
--
*****remove spamshield from address for replies!*****
---Diplomacy is the art of telling someone
to go to hell in such a manner that they
actually look forward to the trip.----
>
> But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese representatives
to
> witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
> Pacific -- with the understanding that, unless unconditional currender
was
> forthcoming, Japan's major cities would be the next targets. Japan didn't
> know what had hit it; it didn't really have an opportunity to come to
> grips with the devatstation at Hiroshima before the second bomb was
> dropped on Nagasaki.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
Lilith Costas
Robert Mooberry
We could debate this topic endlessly, but this is comp.games.strategy
not history.lets.rehash. As far as I'm concerned the Japanese got what
they deserved. It's too bad we didn't have a couple of extra bombs to
drop on Berlin.
--
Robert
Ex USAF Security Policeman and Registered Nurse
TS-1 #650039
The Democrat party!
The best government MONEY CAN BUY!
The efforts at gun control in our cities are like scientists
attempting to declaw and detooth rats in a too crowded cage in an
attempt to keep them from eating each other alive.
Kev Metcalfe
hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:25:06 -0700, Lilith Costas <lco...@best.com>
> wrote:
>
> happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had almost
> total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there first,
> the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
> would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in Africa
> only by massive infusion of American troops]
no, they were stopped by lack of supplies - for two reasons 1. Brit
airpower on Malta, and 2. Hitler considered Africa a sideshow.
>and quite possibly could have defeated Russia.
Not likely without a defeat of the Brits first.
> Without Us bombing interdiction, the germans would ALSO have had the
> bomb at roughly the same time.
Brit support, to Norwegian commandos ended that.
> That brings up an even more interesting question; Would the US have
> used the bomb knowing the Germans would have also? And, if they only
> used it on Russians [first] would we have used it to retaliate against
> them?
>
I suspect not.
Peteroo
:There was no way to know
:if the Japanese would surrender after seeing a demonstration.
No, that's true enough. But with something 250,000 civilian lives in the
balance (between Hiroshima and Nagasaki), it would have been only decent
to make the attempt.
:Besides, your mortal enemy in war calls you up
:and says, "Hey, come to this island, we've got something to show you."
:How stupid does that sound?
It's just unusual enough that they might have listened.
Peter
Chuck Messenger
Kev Metcalfe wrote:
> hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > That brings up an even more interesting question; Would the US have
> > used the bomb knowing the Germans would have also? And, if they only
> > used it on Russians [first] would we have used it to retaliate against
> > them?
> >
> I suspect not.
I think the British would have been the ones with a dilemma -- the
Germans would have had no means to attack the U.S. with a nuke.
- Chuck Messenger
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <3375F6...@servtech.com> Chuck Messenger <c...@servtech.com>
writes:
All they would need is a rocket that is a step up from the V-2(Armed
with the nuke.V-3?).
Either that or just put the bomb on a U-boat and sail it into New
York Harbor(or maybe up the chesapeak), since all you would need is a
bomb that is small enough to fit inside a submarine. Than all they
would have to do is avoid destoryer until they reached their target.
> - Chuck Messenger
Geirmund Gjedrem
In article <5l63ak$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, crh...@ix.netcom.com(Johnny Lamar Rhyne) writes:
> In <3375F6...@servtech.com> Chuck Messenger <c...@servtech.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Kev Metcalfe wrote:
> >> hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> > That brings up an even more interesting question; Would the US have
> >> > used the bomb knowing the Germans would have also?
Probably not.
1. The Allies were superior on the ground, in the air and at sea
(at least in '43 --->)
2. Look at the story of chemical weapons during WWII, all major
players had them, none used them (confirmed/large scale).
They were the only existing "weapon of mass destruction".
However, nukes were harder and more expensive to make, their target
would probably have been civilian/production (Ruhr/London etc.),
and the effect of early types was relatively small.
Conventional bombing of Germany did plenty of damage.
> >> > And, if they only
> >> > used it on Russians [first] would we have used it to retaliate against
> >> > them?
> >I think the British would have been the ones with a dilemma -- the
> >Germans would have had no means to attack the U.S. with a nuke.
Yes they would.
Granted, however, that GB would've been the easiest target.
> All they would need is a rocket that is a step up from the V-2(Armed
> with the nuke.V-3?).
Nope, the guidance system wasn't good enough. With only a few (<10)
warheads in probable production, you don't gamble.
A Dornier bomber (refitted for range) could've reached the US
from bases in Norway, making a precise delivery on, say, NY or
Washington. Would've given Roosevelt/Truman something to think 'bout....
But, probably, wouldn't have made them leave the war.
Look at Pearl - only "awakened the sleeping giant".
OK, coming up on the main point: Germany couldn't build the bomb.
Their scientists didn't actually think it was possible, due to
Heisenbergs (?) calculations of the critical mass for U-235.
They tried to build a nuclear reactor (and avoid being executed
by their dictator). The best brains fled to the US before WWII
(not counting Werner von Braun).
> Either that or just put the bomb on a U-boat and sail it into New
> York Harbor(or maybe up the chesapeak), since all you would need is a
> bomb that is small enough to fit inside a submarine. Than all they
> would have to do is avoid destoryer until they reached their target.
A bomb placed under water, or on the ground, wouldn't have made
"enough" damage, except the psychological. Also, you'd have to
either drop off the bomb and flee, or die in a kamikaze mission.
Enough Germans were fanatical to do this, but suicide missions
were not very common for them.
--
gjedrem*nospam*@hsr.no
http://www.stud.his.no/~gjedrem/
Member DNRC O-
REALITY.SYS corrupted. Re-boot Universe Yes (No)?_
DON'T PANIC, the answer is 42.
Gary Hoermann
Geirmund Gjedrem wrote:
> A Dornier bomber (refitted for range) could've reached the US
> from bases in Norway, making a precise delivery on, say, NY or
> Washington. Would've given Roosevelt/Truman something to think 'bout....
Didn't the Luftwaffe have a large 4-engine aircraft (the Kondor?) which
flew within 12 miles of the US East Coast before turning back? Seems
that would make a viable delivery package, especially since nobody would
have been looking for it. The first time, at least.
Gary
SteamFaxx
>There's reason to believe that the Japanese did not surrender
primarily because of the atomic bomb drops but because the Soviet
Union had just declared war and annihilated the bulk of their land
forces in Manchuria. The Kwantung Army was the pride of the Japanese
military, with well over a million battle-hardened soldiers. It was
completely wiped out in a couple of days by the Red Army. <
This is very interesting. The turth of the whole matter may be awhile in
forthcoming, but it does bring up another point. Suppose the japanese
managed to DEFEAT the Red Army. Under the threat of nukes, would they have
continued(keeping in mind the Japanese military realized people in
shelters could survive the nuclear blast)? If the nukes did not exist, and
they lost their manchurian army to the Soviets, would Japan have awaited
an invasion of their home islands?
One also must keep in mind that one of the reasons Truman might have
dropped the bomb when he did (and the second) was to prevent a Soviet
occupation of the Japanese mainland. If the US was shy about invading the
home islands, the Soviets would not be. Where the US would be appalled
about losing a million men in an invasion, the Soviets would probably be
more than willing to take up the slack no matter what the losses. And
given the Japanese will to fight in ground combat situations, Japanese
islands largely depopulated of Japanese, would have served the Soviet
interests at that time quite well.
Does anyone know how many prisoners were taken in Manchuria when the
Soviets attacked? Marines had a very difficult time capturing ANYBODY
during the pacific islands fighting, the figures are around 1% I think.
YyrkroonBR
<< As far as I'm concerned the Japanese got what
they deserved. It's too bad we didn't have a couple of extra bombs to
drop on Berlin. >>
You are either completely devoid of the finer human qualities, or a 13
year old boy (which is often the same thing <G>). To claim to advocate
additional and uneccessary bombings is sheer lunacy. Do you love
destruction for destruction's sake? Do you hate mankind so much that you
would desire mass killings.
Or if none of these 'human' arguments hits home, would you have wanted
all of Western Europe to fall to the Bolshevik Hordes, for that surely
would have happened if we couldn't get the Germany (and the others)
economy pumping again. Of course, you probably would have just dropped
some more nukes on Moscow, right? Or perhaps simply delighted in the fact
that a few hundred more million people were to be sentenced to life under
the most repressive and evil government ever devised by man, the USSR.
the count
germany didn't start on long-range bombers ("Urals bombers") until much
too late. the engines on the kondor, if i recall correctly, caught
fire easily.
in any event, there were lookouts in big cities watching for german
planes,
at least early in the war (i don't know if they kept it up the whole
time,
or if it would have even been necessary, given the advances in radar).
of course, just detecting enemy planes isn't enough, you have to
#1. correctly identify them as definately hostile,
#2. believe the identification (the commanders at pearl harbor didn't
believe the radarmen when they reported large blips on the morning of
Dec. 7...), and
#3. have aircraft able to intercept in time.
in the case of the east coast of the US, visual sighting probably
wouldn't
have been very helpful, having problems with all 3 points above...
--
Due to continuing problems with my hotmail account, any mail received
from eglam...@hotmail.com dated after 5/9/97 should be considered
fraudulent. I am no longer using my hotmail account, and never will
again; due to the fact that I have been unable to logon for several
days in a row, "Invalid login/password combination", I must assume my
account was hacked and the password changed.
-*-*-> Please do not send mail to, nor accept mail from <-*-*-
-*-*-> eglam...@hotmail.com <-*-*-
SteamFaxx
>But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese representatives
to
witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
Pacific -- with the understanding that, <
The whole idea is bogus.
For years whole world is at war killing each other with 20-30 million
people dead and you are worried about a pathetic 250,000 civvies from some
stupid atomic bomb? What about all the others from all the firebombings
that went on up to that point?
Who ever shows off their secret weapon before it is ever used? The
Japanese would have looked at the bomb demonstration as another challenge
to overcome. They have been firebombed, torpedoed, shot at, carriers
sunk, fleet gone, cities in smoking ash with millions dead and you think
some experiment out on some atoll is going to impress them?
If we were in the mood for show and tell, why not gather Tojo and his reps
and show him what 200 b29's could do to that atoll before we set them out
to firebombing everthing? Oh, the humanity. Yet we want to do it with some
atomic bomb that has taken far less life than all the firebombs ore even
bullets did.
Cripes, even after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese figured out
that people in shelters could weather it out. It was only after the
intervention of the Emperorer that caused them to surrendure. And even
that was not easy, the Japanese warlords in charge contemplated a coup.
The WW2 military japanese* were total dedicates to their cause and
religion and it was miraculous that the emperorer mangaged to talk sense
into them.
It has been hotly debated whether or not the second bomb should have been
dropped, but one might as well debate whether or not Dresden should have
been fire-bombed or anything else. Given the state of mind of the Japanese
military, it is hard to say what the out come might have been, as the
wheels of intrigue were turning. The second bomb greatly strengthened the
Emporer's position. Whether or not he could have enforced his wishes only
if the first bomb was dropped is a matter of speculation. At any rate, it
pales to what has gone on before, with the 20-30 million dead mentioned
earlier. The thoughts going on in the US at the time were not how to
reduce Japanese casualties, but how to reduce our own. War is war,
horrible and often unconditional. It is fortunate poison gas was not used
in the field.
Best Regards
SteamFaxx
*Note the military japanese had taken over the government in the 20's and
30's. They are quite different in outlook and philosphy than the
counterparts they replaced through intimidation and assasination. It is
almost as if they were from a different planet.
Chris Gray, Man of the Century
On 11 May 1997 02:03:30 GMT, pet...@aol.com (Peteroo) wrote:
>:There was no way to know
>:if the Japanese would surrender after seeing a demonstration.
>
>No, that's true enough. But with something 250,000 civilian lives in the
>balance (between Hiroshima and Nagasaki), it would have been only decent
>to make the attempt.
>
Hmm.... At that point in the war, well over 30 million people were
dead, and new casualties were being added at the rate of 25-50,000 A
WEEK. Civilian lives were being thrown into the hopper every day in
the thousands. And most of the soldiers participating on both sides
were draftees, fathers and husbands sent to war with little choice in
the matter. They should be considered civilians in uniform as far as
i'm concerned.
The sad fact is, that after years of horrifying slaughter, it
never occurred to anybody NOT to use the next new superweapon. Hell,
the US wouldn't have shelled out Billions of dollars (an unheard of
expense at that time) unless it already had decided to use it.
Finally, if Japan had developed the bomb first, they would
have done just what the US did: use it, and keep using them as fast
as they could be made, until the US came to the peace table with hat
in hand.
cboulton
On 12 May 1997 17:16:08 GMT, stea...@aol.com (SteamFaxx) wrote:
>Does anyone know how many prisoners were taken in Manchuria when the
>Soviets attacked? Marines had a very difficult time capturing ANYBODY
>during the pacific islands fighting, the figures are around 1% I think.
Yes, most of the battles in the island hopping campaign were "Number
of Japanese soldiers killed = x thousand, number of Japanese soldiers
captured = 0". Pretty appalling when you compare the numbers with
other battles in other theatres during the same time period. I'm not
sure if that was totally because of Japanese fanatacism or a no
quarter policy on the part of US forces. Probably a bit of both, US
forces, especially Marines, took the war in the pacific very
personally.
James Reedy
Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
: hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >
: > While an interesting question, the facts remain that it couldn't have
: > happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had almost
: > total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there first,
: > the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
Yes those GI's were real useful in PNG - I believe it was the Australian
Nashos that stopped the Japanese advance there (with considerable losses
Good book to read on this is "Those Ragged Bloody Heros" author escapes me
at this time.)
: > would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in Africa
: > only by massive infusion of American troops]
Why do SOME of you Yanks always try and rewrite history ????
: no, they were stopped by lack of supplies - for two reasons 1. Brit
: airpower on Malta, and 2. Hitler considered Africa a sideshow.
Also a little battle called El Alemain(SP) and inspired leadership by
Montgomery - by the time the Americans began landing in Tunisia the
Commonwealth (i.e NOT JUST BRITISH - there were Indians South Africans,
Australians, Canadians etc etc) had already pushed the Axis well inside
Libya s Borders,
: >and quite possibly could have defeated Russia.
: Not likely without a defeat of the Brits first.
: > Without Us bombing interdiction, the germans would ALSO have had the
: > bomb at roughly the same time.
: Brit support, to Norwegian commandos ended that.
: > That brings up an even more interesting question; Would the US have
: > used the bomb knowing the Germans would have also? And, if they only
: > used it on Russians [first] would we have used it to retaliate against
: > them?
: >
: I suspect not.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Reedy jamesr @psd.com.au
"Noooo body expects the Spanish Inquisition, Our chief weapon is surprise,
surprise and fear. Our 2 chief weapons are suprise and fear and a fanatical
devotion to the Pope. Amongst our weapons are such diverse elements as -
Surprise, Fear And a Fanatical devotion to the Pope. Cardinal Fang ...."
Monty Python 'The Spanish Inquisition Sketch'
===========================================================================
Michael Hussey
In article <19970513202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Grk68508
<grk6...@aol.com> writes
>I don't know all the correct logic and proper principles. But, when I was
>in high school, my best friend's dad was getting ready to invade Japan in
>WWII. He was extremely happy that he did not have to invade the home
>island.
> He had already wrote my best friend's mother that she should remarry if
>he didn't come back. He expected to die in the invasion.
> If it took a thousand Japanese deaths to prevent my best friend's dad
>from being killed in battle, so be it. If that makes me cruel or mean,
>then I gladly accept the label. He was a really nice man and raised a
>great family.
>
>
>Mike Grk6...@aol.com
>Personal Home Page: http://users.aol.com/Mjs68508/index.htm
>Game Home Page: http://users.aol.com/Gam68508/index4.htm (Pacific War, 3R-PC)
>
I'm glad your friend's dad survived, unfortunately lots of nice people
did not, probably including some nice Japanese people. Sure, I
understand why the US nuked Japan, the same as I understand why
the Brits fire bombed Dresden - at the time it seemed like a good
idea to shorten the war. On the other hand a lot of people didn't feel
easy about it afterwards. Many allied servicemen posted to Germany
immediately after the war (including my Dad - a career RAF sergeant)
were appalled by the devastation and deprivation caused by the bombings.
I've never spoken to anyone who was stationed in Japan after the war,
but I imagine they probably felt the same. Remember real war, unlike
wargames, sucks - it's normally civilians and conscript soldiers
who do the dying and suffering not the politicians who started it.
BTW shouldn't this discussion be on the WW2 newsgroup, but if it was
somebody who knew what they were talking about might join in :-).
--
Mike Hussey
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <5l8n0f$q...@psdcomms.psd.com.au> jam...@psd.com.au (James Reedy)
writes:
>Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
>: hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>: >
>: > While an interesting question, the facts remain that it couldn't
have
>: > happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had
almost
>: > total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there
first,
>: > the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
> ^^^^^^
>Yes those GI's were real useful in PNG - I believe it was the
Australian
>Nashos that stopped the Japanese advance there (with considerable
losses
>Good book to read on this is "Those Ragged Bloody Heros" author
escapes me
>at this time.)
>
>: > would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in
Africa
>: > only by massive infusion of American troops]
>
>Why do SOME of you Yanks always try and rewrite history ????
Well, do you really think the allies could have won World War 2 if the
United States had not gotten involved(this includes reguler and war
supplies being sent to other allied powers)?
If so, please prove it to me.
Grk68508
Louie Landale
James Reedy wrote:
> ^^^^^^
> Why do SOME of you Yanks always try and rewrite history ????
Yes, we view history in our best light, just like everyone else.
When in England at school I heard a radically different view
of the War of Independence than I did in school here.
No, we are not rewriting history.
Why do you Brits consistently belittle the US role in winning the
war you started? (Because we arranged it so that you would lose
your empire after the war, which is what happened...)
> : no, they were stopped by lack of supplies - for two reasons 1. Brit
> : airpower on Malta, and 2. Hitler considered Africa a sideshow.
> Also a little battle called El Alemain(SP) and inspired leadership by
> Montgomery - by the time the Americans began landing in Tunisia the
> Commonwealth (i.e NOT JUST BRITISH - there were Indians South Africans,
> Australians, Canadians etc etc) had already pushed the Axis well inside
> Libya s Borders,
Montgomery was like our US Grant: he knew he had numerical superiority
and knew to win the war he had to win a series of battles of attrition.
Great General? No, not by any means. Suitable for the job? Yes.
Win any battle of maneuver against reasonably equal foe? Never!
This is true for most US generals also.
Montgomery won at El Alamein because the Brits/Commonwealth forces were
greatly supplied by the US and he used his vastly greater forces to beat
the skeleton of the Africa Corps to pieces. Likewise Malta would have
fallen without considerable US supply. Yes, the West Africa landings
were
anticlimactic and the green US forces performed poorly.
While if forget their names, a couple-three other Brits in Africa
performed
Vastly better than did Montgomery. But they were replaced for not
actually
winning battles where they were greatly outnumbered.
Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
- Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
- Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
- Arnem, "Market Garden" (terrible recon, ignoring facts, poor
preparation,
poor execution, and abandonment when victory was in the grasp)
- Battle of the Bulge (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to
escape,
refusal to attack the base of the Bulge and attacked the head
instead).
- Invasion of Germany (plodded along when lightning was called for).
The word "Inspired" would be insulted should it be associated with
Montgomery.
It belongs to a few other Brit Generals, a couple of US, several German,
and
a few Russians. Perhaps a few Japanese, but I don't know. Almost any
General
would have won at El Alamein and rocketed his career. Montgomery was
just at
the right place at the right time in his career.
> : >and quite possibly could have defeated Russia.
>
> : Not likely without a defeat of the Brits first.
Very likely without all the supplies sent by the US. Inspite of
opinions
of Brits and GI's at Normandy, the Eastern front was the decisive front
of the war. Had Germany not invaded USSR (and assuming the Reds would
never attack Germany) then we would not have won the war. We would have
negotiated a peace.
> : > Without Us bombing interdiction, the Germans would ALSO have had the
> : > bomb at roughly the same time.
>
> : Brit support, to Norwegian commandos ended that.
Yes, Brit intelligent and precise action greatly hampered the German
Atomic program. US bombing was inconsequential. But the Germans were
going in the wrong direction and couldn't have built the bomb in many
years
anyway. But no one knew it at the time. Note how long it took the
Soviets/Brits/French to build their first bomb after the war.
Sorry for the disagreement. :)
- Louie
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <qWKi9DAd...@falconry.demon.co.uk> Michael Hussey
<mi...@falconry.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <19970513202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Grk68508
><grk6...@aol.com> writes
>did not, probably including some nice Japanese people. Sure, I
>understand why the US nuked Japan, the same as I understand why
>the Brits fire bombed Dresden - at the time it seemed like a good
>idea to shorten the war. On the other hand a lot of people didn't feel
>easy about it afterwards. Many allied servicemen posted to Germany
>immediately after the war (including my Dad - a career RAF sergeant)
>were appalled by the devastation and deprivation caused by the
bombings.
>I've never spoken to anyone who was stationed in Japan after the war,
>but I imagine they probably felt the same. Remember real war, unlike
>wargames, sucks - it's normally civilians and conscript soldiers
>who do the dying and suffering not the politicians who started it.
>
>BTW shouldn't this discussion be on the WW2 newsgroup, but if it was
>somebody who knew what they were talking about might join in :-).
But are there any WW2 newsgroups?
>Mike Hussey
Psychodad
On 13 May 1997 23:26:16 GMT, Johnny Lamar Rhyne <crh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <5l8n0f$q...@psdcomms.psd.com.au> jam...@psd.com.au (James Reedy)
>writes:
>>
>>Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
>>: hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>: >
>>: > While an interesting question, the facts remain that it couldn't
>have
>>: > happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had
>almost
>>: > total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there
>first,
>>: > the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
>> ^^^^^^
>>Yes those GI's were real useful in PNG - I believe it was the
>Australian
>>Nashos that stopped the Japanese advance there (with considerable
>losses
>>Good book to read on this is "Those Ragged Bloody Heros" author
>escapes me
>>at this time.)
>>
>>: > would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in
>Africa
>>: > only by massive infusion of American troops]
>>
>
>United States had not gotten involved(this includes reguler and war
>supplies being sent to other allied powers)?
Soviets could'v won the war on their own, its generally agreed that
germans
lost the war in 1943 after their defeat in Stalingrad, they had been retreating
ever since. Of course Eirope would have been a veru different place if the Red
Aemy was allowed to capture the Western Europe.
Vlad.
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <slrn5nigj...@127.0.0.1> ro...@tundra.net-link.net (Psychodad)
writes:
Yes, but the war wasn't just confined to Europe. While the Russians
are busy kicking Hitler's butt, the Japanese are out there in Pacific
and Asia taking over without serious resistance.
>Vlad.
the count
Johnny Lamar Rhyne wrote:
>
> In <qWKi9DAd...@falconry.demon.co.uk> Michael Hussey
> <mi...@falconry.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >BTW shouldn't this discussion be on the WW2 newsgroup, but if it was
> >somebody who knew what they were talking about might join in :-).
>
> But are there any WW2 newsgroups?
soc.history.war.world-war-ii
it is moderated.
Brian Trosko
Peteroo <pet...@aol.com> wrote:
: But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese representatives to
: witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
: Pacific
Japanese about this horrible new weapon you've created, invite them to a
demonstration, and a couple of detonators malfunction.
"Wow. That was impressive," say the Japanese. "I don't think we'll
surrender anytime soon."
SteamFaxx
>I'm simply saying is that we might have set a
higher standard -- restraint -- and all the brutality in the war that led
up to it still doesn't justify a quarter million additional deaths. <
I think the "restraint " has been shown already after the war was over
duing the occupation of Japan and Germany.
>still doesn't justify a quarter million additional deaths. <
War is war and peace is peace. If those .25 mil deaths happened AFTER the
treaties were signed, then that is something to howl about. Peacetime
restraints in war lead to VIETNAM. Either kill waste, mangle and maim and
get it over with or don't get involved to begin with.
Will Jenkins
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5lcr68$12v$1...@nnrp01.primenet.com>...
That's not all though. Before the a-bomb flattened two cities, the Japanese
were the most do-or-die race on the planet - personal combat, that sort of
thing. Centuries of martial experience to draw from (check out some of
their ship battles in WW1), plus Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' which
incredibly is still relevant. Actually that was Chinese but never mind.
Anyway: The islands surrounding Japan plus the mainland itself were
hideously well defended. Omaha beach would have been a picnic in
comparison. Deaths would have been extremely high, worse than in any other
part of the world.
As for civilians dying, all I can say is that if a country shows it's
willing to use the ultimate weapon on the defenseless, in a cold, merciless
act, you should jump when the say so.
All the other theories are also true, of course, including the 'we've built
this thing and we're damn well going to use it!' one. They all play a
factor. But I think Einstein said it best: "I don't know with what weapons
World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with
sticks and stones."
-Will
PS. If any of my facts are wrong tell me!
Michael Hussey
In article <5lbdpm$e...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Lamar Rhyne
<crh...@ix.netcom.com> writes<snip>
> But are there any WW2 newsgroups?
>
time, you have to watch for the nazi apologists who haunt the place
though. Luckily they are a minority.
--
Mike Hussey
Chuck Messenger
Psychodad wrote:
> On 13 May 1997 23:26:16 GMT, Johnny Lamar Rhyne <crh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Well, do you really think the allies could have won World War 2 if the
> >United States had not gotten involved(this includes reguler and war
> >supplies being sent to other allied powers)?
>
> Soviets could'v won the war on their own, its generally agreed that
> germans
> lost the war in 1943 after their defeat in Stalingrad, they had been retreating
> ever since. Of course Eirope would have been a veru different place if the Red
> Aemy was allowed to capture the Western Europe.
>
You don't think massive Brit/American bombing of German industry
and the enormous material support they gave to Russia, not to mention
the tying-down of a very large part of the German army in the West/Med
even before 1943, were necessary to defeat Germany? I do.
In the same vein, what if Germany had defeated the Soviets (although at
heavy cost) -- would the U.S. and Britain have still been able to defeat
Germany and/or Japan? Would the nukes alone have been enough? That's a
harder question.
Of course, answering these questions is what we have wargames for...
- Chuck Messenger
C. FJETLAND
War is hell. When you look at a war in the past, all sides were evil and
cruel. It was the US policy towards Japan that forced them to attack. It
was Hitler's insanity that started the ball down the hill. It was the
lowsy endign of WWI that allowed Hitler to take power. Who do you blame?
If you are on the Allies side, you blame the Axis side and vice versa.
Now this arguement about saying the Bombing of Japan with the nuclear
weapon was cruel and inhumane. That is the unfortunate side of war. It
by deffinition is cruel and inhumane. I mean the whole idea is to kill
all of the enemies soldiers before they do it to you. And as far as I
know, there is no such thing as a nice way to kill somebody.
Why do you want to complain about what the US did? Should we
compensate the Japanese for winning the war. We did. We aided them in
rebuilding their industrial centers enabling them to become the world
economic power of today. Like I said, war is hell. In the end, there are
no true winners, only sides that didn't lose as much as the other side.
I'm done now. Peace. Let us play civilization and nuke the hell out of
the damn enemy :).
Conrad
--
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
O O
v
"""
Steve Jones
Keep it up lads, Makes for interesting reading.
How many times, as a kid playing solo, did I pull a few dice rolls in Third
Reich to enable Germany to defeat the Soviet Bastard . . . uh . . . I mean
Bastion. Always made for a tough time in the West.
Caryying it one step farther, I continued the war as a West versus Soviet
post German surrender. Made a big difference how many German units were
allowed to fight alongside their new-found brothers in arms. Could never
of happened? Aw . . . you have surely read more history than that!
I believe it was in SPI's Battle of the Bulge game (not the exact title)
which perhaps summed it up best. I paraphrase, If the Germans are
successful then they may get first place in the atomic sweepstakes!
Would we haver used the bomb in civilised Europe? We exploded many on US
soil, did we not?
Steve
Tim McBride
Brian Trosko wrote:
>
> Peteroo <pet...@aol.com> wrote:
> : But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese representatives to
> : witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
> : Pacific
>
> The reason that was not done was the fear of a fizzle. You warn the
> Japanese about this horrible new weapon you've created, invite them to a
> demonstration, and a couple of detonators malfunction.
>
> "Wow. That was impressive," say the Japanese. "I don't think we'll
> surrender anytime soon."
Brain,
You have a good sense of humor. I agree with you. And from the fottage
I ve studied, and my personal part in some of the Japenese cultur and
Bushido, I think the US goverment relized that the war would not be over
for a long time if we had to ocuppy the main Japenese Islands. BTW, do
yo go to WestWood Highschool, and Take German 1?
Tim McBride
Editor-In-Chief, The Age of Rifles NewsLetter
AZ-801st, Arizona's AFJROTC Honor unit 5 years running
E-Mail: mi...@swlink.net
Keep your Powder Dry. And your Bayonet Close.
Tims AOR Web Page http://www.swlink.net/~milo/aor/
---I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me
liberty or give me death! 猶atrick Henry
nuk...@worldnet.att.net
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
> : > >> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> : > >> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> : > >> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> : > >> a nuclear furnace?
> : > >>
> :
> : It would still have saved countless allied lives (try looking up the
> : projected casualties for operation olympic) - and even more Japanese
> : lives!
>
> I don't see how numbers are relevant. The people who would have died
> would have been soldiers or legitamit colateral damage, rather than
> people targeted deliberatly for extermination. I'm
> sure that if a gunman today in the US grabbed a bunch of people and was
> going to kill them, the US police would NOT execute the relatives of
> the hostage taker to scare him into surrender. Maybe shoot his daughter,
> then his wife until he complies?
>
> I'm not saying the Allied shouldn't have done what they did;
> all I am saying is they do not have a right to claim the high moral
> ground; higher than the Nazis maybe, but not the kind of lilly white
> 'good guy' image the allied countries are so fond of.
>
> Stephen Botha.
Contemplate -
> Forwarded message:
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:15:02 -0600
> Subject: COMMENT: The Hiroshima Decision [was Bonnett's Review of
> Alperovitz]
> To: Multiple recipients of list H-WAR <H-WAR%KSUVM....@indyvax.iupui.edu>
>
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:42:03 -0500
> From: Kare...@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 96-11-04 17:10:17 EST, Paul Halsall writes:
> << Furthermore, there is no coherent way to
> argue that civilians, however much they supported or appeared
> to support a government, are equivalent to combatants. The self-serving
> move to claim as much is striking in its transparency. >>
>
> In 1990 I toured Japanese High Schools on Kyushu Island over a 30-day
> period. I became quite well-acquainted with certain teachers who were my
> escorts. After they took me to the Nagasaki memorial museum, they spoke
> quite openly about the bomb. I will try to recall their comments.
>
> The Japanese teachers' perspective of their own history was that in 1945
> every citizen was willing to sacrifice his own life and the lives of all
> those close to him -- including his children -- in support of the
> god-emperor. They were born only to serve the emperor and the greatest
> service they could give would be to die gloriously for him -- in a
> hard-fought battle. They would then be immortalized as hero-soldiers of the
> emperor. The key issue was that they all wanted to die in a great battle in
> which copious amounts of enemy blood was shed. The outcome of the battle
> was not important as long as they fought and died courageously.
>
> When the first bomb dropped it was a "head's up" that there was a
> possibility that they would die but not as they all hoped...more or less
> ingloriously without ever so much as raising a fist and without causing any
> damage to the enemy.
>
> When the second bomb dropped they finally understood that all the U.S. had
> to do was to continue using that single weapon and they would slowly be
> destroyed -- they were defenseless against it and no U.S. blood would have
> to be shed on their ground. Death without enemy bloodshed held no glory.
>
> The Japanese of that generation lived to die gloriously. There was now no
> glory left for them - there would be no great battle against an invader
> because invasion was no longer necessary to overcome their cities one by
> one. (They didn't know there were only two bombs.) The emperor could call
> for his people to die gloriously in a battle that also shed American blood,
> but he could not ask them to sit in their homes and wait for the next bomb.
> Surrender was no worse than doing that -- it might even be the more
> honorable thing to do.
>
> In the opinion of the teachers who explained this to me, not only did the
> bomb end the war sooner, but two bombs were necessary to make the point
> that further resistance was futile. They believed that every Japanese
citizen
> considered himself a soldier at the time. They all agreed that the results
> of the bomb were horrifying but they also agreed that an invasion would
> have been far worse. They said simply, "It was war. America did what was
> necessary."
>
> Although the teachers who spoke to me indicated that their opinions might
> be politically incorrect among some Japanese but they still felt that those
> who admit the truth as it was will agree with them. They also said that
they
> thought the real truth had to be taught to all Japanese and that perhaps that
> would eventually happen. They did not think that criticizing America for
> using the bomb was true to the facts or productive in any way and that those
> who promoted Japan's "victimhood" were looking for profit of some kind.
> They did not understand why Americans found anything controversial in the
> fact that the bomb had been used.
>
> My 1990 experience with the Japanese indicated that there was still a lot of
> pressure for all Japanses to conform to a "national social standard" for
> behavior, for dress, for thought. Some of the teachers expressed a personal
> desire to "break out," but lacking that there was a desire that their
> children would enjoy the opportunity to practice more individualism.
>
> The social conformity I witnessed in 1990 made it very easy to understand
> the teacher's comments about willing conformity to a desire to die for the
> emperor in 1945. Those who have not witnessed that social pressure in
> Japan probably would probably find it difficult to understand how an entire
> population could be convinced that the goal of life was to die for their
> leader...that they would sacrifice their own children for the "glory" of the
> emperor.
>
> I can believe it!
>
> In my opinion the only thing Coventry and Nagasaki have in common is that
> large numbers of people were killed. There is no other basis for
> comparison.
>
> Karen Hobbs
>
Louie Landale
> Yes, but the war wasn't just confined to Europe. While the Russians
> are busy kicking Hitler's butt, the Japanese are out there in Pacific
> and Asia taking over without serious resistance.
Nonsense. They Japanese had shot their wad the first few months of the
war and were in no position for serious further expansion regardless of
serious resistance. They're whole plan was to seize what they did
and then hold on for a negotiated peace. Lack of supply infrastructure
and all that.
Stephen Botha
Louie Landale
> >you can add to them the
> >assessment that an invasion of Japan was projected to cost the US in
> >excess of 1 million casualties.
> >
> >But, note, too, that Truman could have invited Japanese
> representatives to
> >witness a test atomic blast -- some unoccupied atoll in the central
> was
> >forthcoming, Japan's major cities would be the next targets. Japan
> didn't
> >know what had hit it; it didn't really have an opportunity to come to
> >grips with the devatstation at Hiroshima before the second bomb was
> >dropped on Nagasaki.
This was considered and rejected. As was an unannounced drop in Tokyo
Bay.
Japan had successfully convinced us that they would fight to the death
if we
insisted on "unconditional" surrender: they wanted conditions. We
"could"
not back down and they would have fought to the death. A demonstration
would
not have worked. We had to SHOCK them into surrender. So it was decided
that
a sudden destruction of a city would do it.
Yes, they didn't know what happended since Hiroshima was so far away.
Chuck Messenger
"higher than the Nazis maybe"? You've got to be kidding! Rather,
you should be ashamed of yourself! Here you are, fifty+ years after
the war -- sitting at your cushy desk, with your fancy computer and
untold other nifty gadgets brought about by 50+ years of peace,
freedom, and prosperity -- fifty+ years after the war which America
could've avoided -- indeed, for it's own self-interest, SHOULD have
avoided -- but which was nevertheless fought by a generation of
Americans determined to crush the oppressive, dictatorial, militarist,
genocidal empires which at the time had all but destroyed the
progressive, democratic, liberal civilization which America has always
stood for -- a war fought against the odds, by people who had no other
reason to put their lives in jeopardy than to make the world a safe
place for their children, and even for all the people of the world.
And you _dare_ to sit there, and smugly draw a moral equivalence
between our brave and noble fathers and grandfathers, and the
repugnant, evil forces against which they fought! Before you run
out and burn any flags, I suggest you consider what the world today
would be like, had that brave generation of Americans decided to
take the easy way out, and deal with the winners, whoever they might
be, safely shielded from danger by thousands of miles of oceans.
I somehow doubt you'd be sitting at your computer, beaming your
opinions without restraint to a worldwide community which is, for
the most part, free to accept or reject what you say.
- Chuck Messenger
Will Jenkins
Has no-one heard of my theories on war? It doesn't matter who dies or who
kills who (or whom, to be pedantic). War is just another form of population
control. From a biological standpoint, you see, you can think of the human
race like any other animal. Yeah, we've got all this higher intelligence to
play with, and things to keep our 'entertainment centres' occupied, but
really what does it all boil down to? Overpopulation. And our massive
intelligence has only come up with one way of dealing with it - war. You
might say 'no, we fought WWII because of . . .' or something, and you'd be
right, but there will always be an excuse to kill other human beings, and
behind it lurks the shadow of overpopulation induced famine. We ARE an
animal race and we obey the same rules they do.
James Reedy
Johnny Lamar Rhyne (crh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5l8n0f$q...@psdcomms.psd.com.au> jam...@psd.com.au (James Reedy)
: writes:
: >
: >Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
: >: hos...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >: >
: >: > While an interesting question, the facts remain that it couldn't
: have
: >: > happened.Japan, until the incredibly lucky break at Midway, had
: almost
: >: > total naval superiority in the Pacific. In order to win there
: first,
: >: > the US would have had to fight alone.In the meantime, the Germans
: > ^^^^^^
: >Yes those GI's were real useful in PNG - I believe it was the
: Australian
: >Nashos that stopped the Japanese advance there (with considerable
: losses
: >Good book to read on this is "Those Ragged Bloody Heros" author
: escapes me
: >at this time.)
: >
: >: > would only have fought a single front war[they were stopped in
: Africa
: >: > only by massive infusion of American troops]
: >
: >Why do SOME of you Yanks always try and rewrite history ????
: Well, do you really think the allies could have won World War 2 if the
: United States had not gotten involved(this includes reguler and war
: supplies being sent to other allied powers)?
: If so, please prove it to me.
I also notice that some people respond without thinking -
did I SAY that the Allies could have won without the US
NO what I ***said*** was that some Americans always try to rewrite history
This was in response to someones assertion that the Axis were stopped in
Africa by a massive infusion of American Troops - A blatant load of
revisionist crap,
the landing in Tunisia certainly triggered the surrender of the Afrika Korps
but there was no way the said Korps were ever going to succeed by that stage,
they were unable to be resupplied effectively or reinforced, due to Allied
control of the Med.
But they still managed to bloody a few Yanks
A few general rules to follow
1) ENGAGE BRAIN - V important
2) Read what is said
3) Reread what was said just to check that your interpretation actually
matches reality
4) Respond.
it appears that some posters forget stage 1 and 3
Sorry whats come over me
Yes The mighty US of A is Great and Big and Awesome - we all must bow down to
this great country without whom none of us other (piddly little countries
that are no where near as grate and big and awesome) countries would be able
to survive.
Sheesh
hos...@ix.netcom.com
On 14 May 1997 18:42:36 GMT, "Will Jenkins" <wi...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
><5lcr68$12v$1...@nnrp01.primenet.com>...
>> Peteroo <pet...@aol.com> wrote:
SNIP
>That's not all though. Before the a-bomb flattened two cities, the Japanese
>were the most do-or-die race on the planet - personal combat, that sort of
>thing. Centuries of martial experience to draw from (check out some of
>their ship battles in WW1),
The Japanese fought on the side of the allies in WW1, I believe your
referring to the Russo-Japanese warwith Admiral Yamato 'crossing the
T ' at tsushima straits.
plus Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' which
>incredibly is still relevant. Actually that was Chinese but never mind.
Kamikazi means 'divine wind' and refers to a storm that sank a chinese
invasion fleet. Actually, the Japanese never fought anyone except each
other until Perry"opened" Japan with naval gunpower!
The 1st use of Imperial troops outside Japan was at the request of
the British and US to come to their aid during the Boxer rebellion.
>Anyway: The islands surrounding Japan plus the mainland itself were
>hideously well defended.
What tripe... the units defending the islands were mostly construction
and engineering units. The bulk of the army was in china and
Indo-china, where they remained as policemen for the French until 1949
Omaha beach would have been a picnic in
>comparison. Deaths would have been extremely high, worse than in any other
>part of the world.
>
>As for civilians dying, all I can say is that if a country shows it's
>willing to use the ultimate weapon on the defenseless, in a cold, merciless
>act, you should jump when the say so.
The fire bombing of Tokyo [Edo] caused more deaths to a target
singularly devoid of military production than the A-Bomb. I don't hear
any apologists for tha!
>
>All the other theories are also true, of course, including the 'we've built
>this thing and we're damn well going to use it!' one. They all play a
>factor. But I think Einstein said it best: "I don't know with what weapons
>World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with
>sticks and stones."
At the end of the war, we did.
> PS. If any of my facts are wrong tell me!
I just did.
**************************************
"We really didn't attack Pearl.We just
wanted to try Poi, and all made really
bad landings"
Hosaki Nitsu, last Kamikazi pilot
the count
i've heard it before. i've argued it before.
warfare is the natural human condition; times of peace are
the exception.
take a listen to the album "Amused to Death" by Roger Waters ;)
and remember,
"After all, 10,000 lemmings can't possibly be wrong!" =)
(seen in a .sig, but I can't remember whose...)
cbou...@earthlink.net
On 15 May 1997 02:58:59 GMT, jam...@psd.com.au (James Reedy) wrote:
>Sorry whats come over me
>Yes The mighty US of A is Great and Big and Awesome - we all must bow down to
>this great country without whom none of us other (piddly little countries
>that are no where near as grate and big and awesome) countries would be able
>to survive.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't huh? I don't like people who
think history is subject to interpretation either. There is no need to
criticise US participation in WWII though. We received a great deal of
criticism for mot getting involved sooner in both WWII and WWI. The
American people and the American government never wanted to send their
sons to fight in what they considered to be a foreign war. You act as
if the US runs in at the drop of a hat to flex muscle and push people
around. How much criticism did we get for not going into Bosnia
sooner?
Maybe next time you will be lucky enough to be able to fight a war
without US interference.
the count
James Reedy wrote:
> Johnny Lamar Rhyne (crh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In <5l8n0f$q...@psdcomms.psd.com.au> jam...@psd.com.au (James Reedy)
> : writes:
> This was in response to someones assertion that the Axis were stopped
> in Africa by a massive infusion of American Troops - A blatant load of
> revisionist crap, the landing in Tunisia certainly triggered the
> surrender of the Afrika Korps but there was no way the said Korps were
> ever going to succeed by that stage, they were unable to be resupplied
> effectively or reinforced, due to Allied control of the Med.
> But they still managed to bloody a few Yanks
while i agree the US troops in north africa were not the deciding
factor (the N. Africa campaign had been decided over a thousand
miles earlier in Egypt), the Axis did manage to suddenly get a large
amount of supply and reinforcement (mostly by air) to the axis forces
that were trapped in the tip of Tunisia, just in time to surrender!
The allies really didn't control the Med. during most of the N.Africa
campaign - what few allied convoys that made it through to Malta
were badly mauled and even warships (e.g. carrier task forces
providing airplane reinforcements) were heavily abused by the
Luftwaffe and could not maintain an extended presence in the Med.
Had the Italians been more serious and more aggressive about
supplying the troops in north africa (see The Rommel Papers),
things probably would have been very different, and the US would
have entered too late to affect that scenario either.
But it really wasn't until the US entered the Med. that it can be said
that the allies really controlled the Med. (the sea, the land is
another story) as you suggest - it was heavily contested most of the
time prior to that, with both sides inflicting and taking heavy
losses in shipping.
oops, sorry, this isn't soc.history.war.world-war-ii :)
James Reedy
Louie Landale (louie....@internetMCI.com) wrote:
: James Reedy wrote:
: > ^^^^^^
: > Why do SOME of you Yanks always try and rewrite history ????
: When in England at school I heard a radically different view
: of the War of Independence than I did in school here.
: No, we are not rewriting history.
: Why do you Brits consistently belittle the US role in winning the
: war you started? (Because we arranged it so that you would lose
: your empire after the war, which is what happened...)
NOW your starting to really piss me off I'm Afraid. :-)
For you see I am not British!
, the .au in the sig should be the give away, stands for Australia
and yes indeed I am Australian - born and bred - with our (typical) dislike
for most things British(in particular british generalship)
. - the reason - because most Brit Generals were
more than happy to send the 'Colonials' out to die - particulary in WW1
though of course the more incompetant ones also lost lots of their own as
well.
: > : no, they were stopped by lack of supplies - for two reasons 1. Brit
: > : airpower on Malta, and 2. Hitler considered Africa a sideshow.
: > Also a little battle called El Alemain(SP) and inspired leadership by
: > Montgomery - by the time the Americans began landing in Tunisia the
: > Commonwealth (i.e NOT JUST BRITISH - there were Indians South Africans,
: > Australians, Canadians etc etc) had already pushed the Axis well inside
: > Libya s Borders,
well actually - the long supply lines that Rommel had to maintain from
his major ports of Benghasi and Tobruk, whereas the 8th Army was just outside
Alexandria (in relative terms) also played a big part.
When I talk of inspired leadership - I should have said inspirational
leadership. Talked to any 8th Army vets ? They tended to think of Monty
as an inspirational leader - not for his particulary brilliant battle
plans but because he inspired them to greater efforts. When Montgomery took
over in Africa, things were certainly not going so well for the 8th Army,
Rommel had finaly taken Tobruk and thrown them back over the Egyption border.
Monthy also tended to lead from the front, not hang out in the rear areas.
Also the term inspired does not indicate that it is ongoing etc
it indicates that for some amount of time something inspired a person
to rise above himself - perhaps
: Montgomery was like our US Grant: he knew he had numerical superiority
: and knew to win the war he had to win a series of battles of attrition.
: Great General? No, not by any means. Suitable for the job? Yes.
: Win any battle of maneuver against reasonably equal foe? Never!
: This is true for most US generals also.
: Montgomery won at El Alamein because the Brits/Commonwealth forces were
: greatly supplied by the US and he used his vastly greater forces to beat
: the skeleton of the Africa Corps to pieces. Likewise Malta would have
I really must disagree with you here - Why would Rommel attack
if he knew that he was facing some vastly supperior force, he attacked because
he believed he could win. His situation at that stage was not as desperate
as you seem to think.
: fallen without considerable US supply. Yes, the West Africa landings
: were anticlimactic and the green US forces performed poorly.
: While if forget their names, a couple-three other Brits in Africa
: performed
(I'm stretching for the name here)
O'Conner ?? was in command(???) initially - his attacks against the Italians
were very successfull in Lybia - took Tobruk etc
, until Rommel and his forces arrived.
I don't recall who replaced him as overall commander in Africa,
I think Monty was 3rd at the job
: Vastly better than did Montgomery. But they were replaced for not
: actually
: winning battles where they were greatly outnumbered.
: Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
I think the term you are looking for was cautious - and indeed he was a
cautious leader - many times criticized for it in fact
: - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
: - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
: - Arnem, "Market Garden" (terrible recon, ignoring facts, poor
: preparation,
: poor execution, and abandonment when victory was in the grasp)
Yes it is interesting that such a cautious leader took such a gamble
on this strategy. - if you are including the reports of Panzers
in the area - unsubstantiated reports from ***** potentially unreliable*****
(and no I am not having a go at the Dutch resistance) sources can't be
relied on when determining a strategy
: - Battle of the Bulge (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to
: escape,
: refusal to attack the base of the Bulge and attacked the head
: instead).
: - Invasion of Germany (plodded along when lightning was called for).
: The word "Inspired" would be insulted should it be associated with
: Montgomery.
: It belongs to a few other Brit Generals, a couple of US, several German,
: and
: a few Russians. Perhaps a few Japanese, but I don't know. Almost any
: General
: would have won at El Alamein and rocketed his career. Montgomery was
: just at the right place at the right time in his career.
: > : >and quite possibly could have defeated Russia.
: >
: > : Not likely without a defeat of the Brits first.
Your responding to someone else here so I wont comment
: Very likely without all the supplies sent by the US. Inspite of
: opinions
: of Brits and GI's at Normandy, the Eastern front was the decisive front
: of the war. Had Germany not invaded USSR (and assuming the Reds would
: never attack Germany) then we would not have won the war. We would have
: negotiated a peace.
: > : > Without Us bombing interdiction, the Germans would ALSO have had the
: > : > bomb at roughly the same time.
: >
: > : Brit support, to Norwegian commandos ended that.
: Yes, Brit intelligent and precise action greatly hampered the German
: Atomic program. US bombing was inconsequential. But the Germans were
: going in the wrong direction and couldn't have built the bomb in many
: years
: anyway. But no one knew it at the time. Note how long it took the
: Soviets/Brits/French to build their first bomb after the war.
: Sorry for the disagreement. :)
No problems - if everyone agreed with me life would be very boring
: - Louie
Cheers
Henri H. Arsenault
In article <3378F3...@internetMCI.com>, louie....@internetMCI.com wrote:
> Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
> - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
> - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
> - Arnem, "Market Garden" (terrible recon, ignoring facts, poor
> preparation,
> poor execution, and abandonment when victory was in the grasp)
> - Battle of the Bulge (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to
> escape,
> refusal to attack the base of the Bulge and attacked the head
> instead).
> - Invasion of Germany (plodded along when lightning was called for).
>
You forgot "Patton's gap" at Falaise, where Montgomery ordered the
Americans to stop so he could close the gap himself, failed and 200,000
Grman troops escaped while the gap remained open for three days...
However there is ONE area where Montgomery was best, and that was a
prepared defence. At Al alamein, the Quattara depression prevented Rommel
from maneuvering around the British forces, and he was soundly beaten. But
credit must be given to Montgomery for his defence, which nmo one has ever
criticized.
Ah, that was a great war, where the two greatest megalomaniacs in war
history (Montgomery and Patton) fought on the same side.
My favorite citation from Montgomery is his comment after the defeat of
Operation Market Garden which cost 20,000 Allied casualties, to the effect
that he was satisfied because he had accomplished over 90% of his
objectives...
(I tried to jump off a 10 storey building without getting hurt, and I
accomplished 98% of my objective, getting hurt only at the end of the
fall...)
Henri
Jeff George
the count wrote:
>
>
> i've heard it before. i've argued it before.
> warfare is the natural human condition; times of peace are
> the exception.
>
> take a listen to the album "Amused to Death" by Roger Waters ;)
>
>
Ah!! Roger, pc games, and intellectual conversation all at one shot!
Sometimes life is good.... :)
--
JMG (Jeff George)
j.ge...@ix.netcom.com
If I sound like a ranting madman, it's probably because of my insanity.
=======================================================================
Who are you and who am I?
You say we know the reason why
Some are born, some men die
Beneath one infinite sky.
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But anything, one day, will cease,
All the iron turned to rust,
All the proud men turned to dust.
Adam W. Adair
Peteroo <pet...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970513043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> That may be, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. (If we're
to
> be judged according a standard set by our enemies, then, in a sense,
we're
> no better than they were.) I'm simply saying is that we might have set a
> higher standard -- restraint -- and all the brutality in the war that led
> up to it still doesn't justify a quarter million additional deaths.
>
> Peter
"higher standard" and "restraint" are simple words as you have said, but
really have little or no place in war. Violence is met with violence.
Ends do justify the means. War is waged to satisfy political goals, both
external and internal. The majority of american people applauded the
dropping of the A-bomb, and the war ended. Another simple word--"Victory".
Victory is a much more important word than words like "higher standard" and
"restraint", because it is the victor that writes the history of the war
that is remembered. It is the victor that is the judge. The victor judges
his enemies and the victor judges himself. A tremendous responsibility
that for the most part was conducted fairly, in my opinion ofcourse. To
think that American leadership did not suffer over the decision to drop an
atomic bomb is foolish.
War is brutal, and causes people to suffer. It always has. As the
capability of weapons to kill and destroy increases, war will become an
even more horrifying experience. But war will always follow one simple
rule--The side which acts with the overwhelming violence at a decisive
point will always gain victory. In otherwords, crucify your enemy until he
is your enemy no longer.
-adam
the count
James Reedy wrote:
> Louie Landale (louie....@internetMCI.com) wrote:
> : James Reedy wrote:
> : Montgomery was like our US Grant: he knew he had numerical
> : superiority and knew to win the war he had to win a series of
> : battles of attrition. Great General? No, not by any means.
> : Suitable for the job? Yes. Win any battle of maneuver against
> : reasonably equal foe? Never! This is true for most US generals
> : also.
> : Montgomery won at El Alamein because the Brits/Commonwealth forces
> : were greatly supplied by the US and he used his vastly greater
> : forces to beat the skeleton of the Africa Corps to pieces. Likewise
> : Malta would have
>
> I really must disagree with you here - Why would Rommel attack
> if he knew that he was facing some vastly supperior force, he attacked
> because he believed he could win. His situation at that stage was not
> as desperate as you seem to think.
actually, check out the Rommel Papers - he knew he was in a very
desparate situation and that he was grossly outnumbered. he was losing
the supply war, and found himself in a do or die situation. he attacked
because he knew being defensive would be suicide, since the british
could then attack at the time and place of their choosing. better
to attack himself and hope for sufficient tactical surprise (and
capture of enemy supply dumps) to be able to win. it had worked
in earlier battles, and it was his only real hope at that point in
time.
in any event, Rommel wasn't much of a defensively oriented person :P
> : Vastly better than did Montgomery. But they were replaced for not
> : actually winning battles where they were greatly outnumbered.
> : Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
>
> I think the term you are looking for was cautious - and indeed he was
> a cautious leader - many times criticized for it in fact
nah, incompetent ;) being from australia, i'm surprised you would
defend monty ;)
he may have been a good morale builder, but he was otherwise all
around unremarkable. as is pointed out below, he was just at the
right place at the right time.
the general before monty was doing well enough until a large number
of his troops were taken away for the greek exepidition. then, after
losing with this much reduced force (which was reduced through no
fault of his own), he was sacked.
in fact, it wasn't even supposed to be monty, but that the guy who
was supposed to take charge was killed when his plane crashed en route
to 8th army HQ. monty was really just a stop-gap choice whose success
at el alamein (which any allied general could have won - even mark
clark ;) made him difficult to get rid of (and churchill did want
to get rid of him on a number of occassions).
> : - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
> : - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to
> : entrench)
> : - Arnem, "Market Garden" (terrible recon, ignoring facts, poor
> : preparation,
> : poor execution, and abandonment when victory was in the grasp)
> Yes it is interesting that such a cautious leader took such a gamble
> on this strategy.
Patton said something to the effect of: "It was the boldest plan
he ever heard, it was also the stupidest."
> - if you are including the reports of Panzers
> in the area - unsubstantiated reports from ***** potentially
> unreliable***** (and no I am not having a go at the Dutch resistance)
> sources can't be relied on when determining a strategy
it was about an overall lousy plan that relied upon too narrow
an axis of attack through terrain that constricted movement against
a timetable that was completely inflexible.
marketgarden was practically criminal!
> : - Battle of the Bulge (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to
> : escape, refusal to attack the base of the Bulge and attacked the
> : head instead).
and then tking credit for "rescuing" amercian troops on the
north side of the bulge.
> : - Invasion of Germany (plodded along when lightning was called for).
> : The word "Inspired" would be insulted should it be associated with
> : Montgomery.
> : It belongs to a few other Brit Generals, a couple of US, several
> : German, and
> : a few Russians. Perhaps a few Japanese, but I don't know. Almost
> : any General would have won at El Alamein and rocketed his career.
> : Montgomery was just at the right place at the right time in his
> : career.
--
Ops/Trg - HQ LF Comd
1. Prior to Montgomery's arrival in the Desert, there had been a series of
tremendous sweeps in both directions. Apart from winning the series of
battles now referred to as El Alamein, the most imprtant thing Montgomery
did was to hold onto the victory. Maybe the 8th Army did trundle along
behind Rommel, but Rommel was never again able to push the 8th Army back.
There were successful attempts to cut of chunks of the withdrawing Afrika
Korps. Of course, he did also manage to give the 8th Army more confidence.
"We stand here or we die. There will be no more withdrawal."
2. In Europe Montgomery and Patton had similar views of strategy. Both
favoured a single strong push, rather than an advance on a wide front. It
was Bradley's view that prevailed. It is interesting to consider that
Patton might have been the senior of Bradley, had the slapping incident not
occurred.
3. Market Garden showed that Montgomery could still conceive bold action.
This was close to the last chance of ending the war in Europe before
Christmas 1944, and maybe gaining more territory at the expense of the
Soviets.
4. By the beginning of 1944 Britain's most desperate shortage was of
infantry. So much so, that many thousands of partly trained aircrew were
abruptly transferred from the RAF into the Army. During the Normandy
campaign, a British Division in France was broken up so that the men could
be used as replacement drafts for other units. In Italy there was a famous
mutiny by British troops when they were ordered to join regiments other
than their own. This shortfall crippled British efforts, and hence reduced
their say in post-war efforts. The cost of "going it alone" meant that
Britain became an also ran, but at least finished the course.
Andy Hatt
Kev Metcalfe
> : Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
>
> I think the term you are looking for was cautious - and indeed he was a
> cautious leader - many times criticized for it in fact
>
> : - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
> : - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
In Normandy, the agreed strategy was to use Monty's troops to draw the
german forces, and their reserves onto them and pin them - to allow the
US to break out, it is a tad unfair to criticise him for following the
plan laid down by Ike.
Sebastian Dransfeld
On 17 May 1997, Ops/Trg - HQ LF Comd wrote:
> 1. Prior to Montgomery's arrival in the Desert, there had been a series of
> tremendous sweeps in both directions. Apart from winning the series of
> battles now referred to as El Alamein, the most imprtant thing Montgomery
> did was to hold onto the victory. Maybe the 8th Army did trundle along
> behind Rommel, but Rommel was never again able to push the 8th Army back.
Wasn't "Torch" just a couple of months after El Alamein? This "minor"
incident also had something to do say in this matter.
> There were successful attempts to cut of chunks of the withdrawing Afrika
> Korps. Of course, he did also manage to give the 8th Army more confidence.
> "We stand here or we die. There will be no more withdrawal."
>
> 2. In Europe Montgomery and Patton had similar views of strategy. Both
> favoured a single strong push, rather than an advance on a wide front. It
> was Bradley's view that prevailed. It is interesting to consider that
> Patton might have been the senior of Bradley, had the slapping incident not
> occurred.
>
> 3. Market Garden showed that Montgomery could still conceive bold action.
> This was close to the last chance of ending the war in Europe before
> Christmas 1944, and maybe gaining more territory at the expense of the
> Soviets.
>
> 4. By the beginning of 1944 Britain's most desperate shortage was of
> infantry. So much so, that many thousands of partly trained aircrew were
> abruptly transferred from the RAF into the Army. During the Normandy
> campaign, a British Division in France was broken up so that the men could
> be used as replacement drafts for other units. In Italy there was a famous
> mutiny by British troops when they were ordered to join regiments other
> than their own. This shortfall crippled British efforts, and hence reduced
> their say in post-war efforts. The cost of "going it alone" meant that
> Britain became an also ran, but at least finished the course.
>
> Andy Hatt
>
>
>
>
>
Sebastian Dransfeld
Arne Bergsgårdsv 22-36 email: seba...@stud.ntnu.no
7033 Trondheim tlf. : 73 88 94 60
Ed Kloskowski
In article <337D05...@southcom.com.au>, hu...@southcom.com.au says...
That was his biggest flaw I think. When he didn't make the plan he
doggedly followed it without any of his trademark flare, and perpetuated
the animosity.
e d k
Winston Weidak Shu
James Reedy (jam...@psd.com.au) wrote:
<snip>
: well actually - the long supply lines that Rommel had to maintain from
: his major ports of Benghasi and Tobruk, whereas the 8th Army was just outside
: Alexandria (in relative terms) also played a big part.
Not to mention the route Axis supplies had to go through - I remember
reading about Rommel watching a tanker that carried a lot of the oil he
was depending on for his Alamein offensive get torpedoed and burn just
before it reached port by British (at least I'm pretty sure it was British
and not Commonwealth) torpedo bombers.
Granted the Allied supply lines were no milk runs, but at least they
hadn't been brought to their knees.
: When I talk of inspired leadership - I should have said inspirational
: leadership. Talked to any 8th Army vets ? They tended to think of Monty
: as an inspirational leader - not for his particulary brilliant battle
: plans but because he inspired them to greater efforts. When Montgomery took
: over in Africa, things were certainly not going so well for the 8th Army,
: Rommel had finaly taken Tobruk and thrown them back over the Egyption border.
: Monthy also tended to lead from the front, not hang out in the rear areas.
Granted that Montgomery was an inspiring leader (as opposed to a competent
one =p), but that still doesn't reflect at all on his generalship. Time
and time again during Alamein and Alam Halfa he had a chance to completely
smash through the Axis troops. But he didn't.
However, Montgomery doesn't monopolize inspiring leadership - what do you
call getting your army's axis of attack turned 90 degrees, in the middle
of a snowstorm, truck tired soldiers up into a new front in 48 hours, and
then attacking? (that's Patton, by the way)
Another problem is also political meddling - IIRC, Auchinleck was
practically harassed into launching Crusader prematurely by Churchill,
while Montgomery was egotistical enough to ignore any outside pressures.
: Also the term inspired does not indicate that it is ongoing etc
: it indicates that for some amount of time something inspired a person
: to rise above himself - perhaps
Hmm, I guess... that's a semantic question though.
: : Montgomery was like our US Grant: he knew he had numerical superiority
: : and knew to win the war he had to win a series of battles of attrition.
: : Great General? No, not by any means. Suitable for the job? Yes.
: : Win any battle of maneuver against reasonably equal foe? Never!
: : This is true for most US generals also.
: : Montgomery won at El Alamein because the Brits/Commonwealth forces were
: : greatly supplied by the US and he used his vastly greater forces to beat
: : the skeleton of the Africa Corps to pieces. Likewise Malta would have
: I really must disagree with you here - Why would Rommel attack
: if he knew that he was facing some vastly supperior force, he attacked because
: he believed he could win. His situation at that stage was not as desperate
: as you seem to think.
Like someone else already said, it was a do or die situation. Attack now,
when you at least have *some* supplies, and the enemy hasn't built up
*absolutely* overwhelming force (although with the state of the
Commonwealth forces at that time, my personal opinion is that the attack
was a lost cause from the start), or sit on your butt and wait for a
well-motivated, well-supplied force that is also 3x your size (excluding
Italian troops, who were mostly infantry and mostly useless) to break out
a can of whoop-ass and beat you into the ground.
: : fallen without considerable US supply. Yes, the West Africa landings
: : were anticlimactic and the green US forces performed poorly.
: : While if forget their names, a couple-three other Brits in Africa
: : performed
: (I'm stretching for the name here)
: O'Conner ?? was in command(???) initially - his attacks against the Italians
: were very successfull in Lybia - took Tobruk etc
: , until Rommel and his forces arrived.
Yes, O'Connor (although I'm not sure if it's O'Conner, O'Connor, or
Conno(e)r) kicked the Italians almost out of Africa, until his offensive
was gutted by Churchill stupidly taking troops away and sending them to
Greece/Crete (where many promptly proceeded to become POWs).
Most British generals weren't incompetent - they generally knew what they
were doing. I believe it was just that their subordinate commanders
(divisional level, etc) who were morons - they generally through they knew
better than the higher-level commanders, and IIRC had a nasty habit of
procrastinating when they received orders they didn't like.
: I don't recall who replaced him as overall commander in Africa,
: I think Monty was 3rd at the job
Dunno, but you're right - there were many generals before Montgomery.
: : Vastly better than did Montgomery. But they were replaced for not
: : actually
: : winning battles where they were greatly outnumbered.
: : Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
: I think the term you are looking for was cautious - and indeed he was a
: cautious leader - many times criticized for it in fact
Very cautious. Very very very cautious. Did I mention he was overly
cautious?
Can't really be blamed though - I read somewhere that Britain was
suffering and *acute* manpower shortage - losing troops in reckless
fighting was not something to do.
: : - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
: : - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
: : - Arnem, "Market Garden" (terrible recon, ignoring facts, poor
: : preparation,
: : poor execution, and abandonment when victory was in the grasp)
: Yes it is interesting that such a cautious leader took such a gamble
: on this strategy. - if you are including the reports of Panzers
: in the area - unsubstantiated reports from ***** potentially unreliable*****
: (and no I am not having a go at the Dutch resistance) sources can't be
: relied on when determining a strategy
I'll agree that the information from Dutch Resistance sources shouldn't
have been a major basis for strategic planning, but seriously, Market
Garden was just one massive clusterf*ck. Multiple paradrops to get the
requisite troops into place? Counting on shoving through non-ideal terrain
in a short amount of time? Blah, blah, blah?
My personal reasoning for MG was that Montgomery was looking to make
himself look good, being the gloryhound he was (can you tell that I don't
like Montgomery? =p)
<snip>
Winston
Kev Metcalfe
Stephen Botha wrote:
>
> Kev Metcalfe (hu...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
> : > >> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> : > >> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> : > >> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> : > >> a nuclear furnace?
> : > >>
> :
> : It would still have saved countless allied lives (try looking up the
> : projected casualties for operation olympic) - and even more Japanese
> : lives!
>
> I don't see how numbers are relevant. The people who would have died
> would have been soldiers or legitamit colateral damage, rather than
> people targeted deliberatly for extermination. I'm
> sure that if a gunman today in the US grabbed a bunch of people and was
> going to kill them, the US police would NOT execute the relatives of
> the hostage taker to scare him into surrender. Maybe shoot his daughter,
> then his wife until he complies?
There is a difference between the way a country is treated in war time
and the way a crazed gunman is treated, the other aspect is that the US
acted to minimize "legitimate collateral damage" as you put it, they
killed lots at once - rather than killing almost all Japanese (read up
on the Japanese plans to use almost everyone as suicide squads) over a
longer period.
> I'm not saying the Allied shouldn't have done what they did;
> all I am saying is they do not have a right to claim the high moral
> ground; higher than the Nazis maybe, but not the kind of lilly white
> 'good guy' image the allied countries are so fond of.
I, like many Australians lost relatives to the Japanese in that war -
anything that saved ALLIED lives was worth doing, the fact that it saved
even more Japanese civilians than it did Allied troops is just a bonus.
mta...@together.net
Andy,
I couldn't have said it better.
By 1944, Britian was running out of men and they became concerned about
that issue. Montgomery's deliberate and methodical approach was echoed
by Russian general Zhukov who had the opposite few. Something to the
effect that he wouldn't attack "until I have the enemy outnumbered 3:1
in infantry, 15:1 in tanks, and 7:1 in artillery - and as long as the
enemy only destroys 14 of my tanks for every one of his I will beat
him."
Most armies strategic/operational level planning tends to reflect the
strengths of the country itself, I beleive. (Of course, that's only
based on my 20 years in the Army.)
mike Taylor
dlep...@iac.co.jp
SteamFaxx wrote:
>
> >There's reason to believe that the Japanese did not surrender
> primarily because of the atomic bomb drops but because the Soviet
> Union had just declared war and annihilated the bulk of their land
> forces in Manchuria. The Kwantung Army was the pride of the Japanese
> military, with well over a million battle-hardened soldiers. It was
> completely wiped out in a couple of days by the Red Army. <
>
> This is very interesting. The turth of the whole matter may be awhile in
> forthcoming, but it does bring up another point. Suppose the japanese
> managed to DEFEAT the Red Army. Under the threat of nukes, would they have
> continued(keeping in mind the Japanese military realized people in
> shelters could survive the nuclear blast)? If the nukes did not exist, and
> they lost their manchurian army to the Soviets, would Japan have awaited
> an invasion of their home islands?
---------------
Two fact here : One the Japanese actually signed a treaty with the
Soviet Union. Theyt did not 'expected' the russian to renege on their
word, well not the way the Japanese did (this is a cultural issue). Two,
one had to remember that during the 'Nohoman incident' in 38, the
Japanese got really trounced by the soviet (an upstart general named
Zukhov by the way), so they expected the same result to happens the
second time. IMHO, there was no way the Japanese could face the might of
the Soviet union, to get real, the Germans couldn't and they were far
better equipped/organised.
>
> One also must keep in mind that one of the reasons Truman might have
> dropped the bomb when he did (and the second) was to prevent a Soviet
> occupation of the Japanese mainland. If the US was shy about invading the
> home islands, the Soviets would not be. Where the US would be appalled
> about losing a million men in an invasion, the Soviets would probably be
> more than willing to take up the slack no matter what the losses. And
> given the Japanese will to fight in ground combat situations, Japanese
> islands largely depopulated of Japanese, would have served the Soviet
> interests at that time quite well.
------------------
I have to look up for the references for that one, but apparently the
atom bomb was not such a big suprise to Stalin, the first time the
allies hinted at it. Some 'Japaneses' were sacrified to the 'defence of
the homeland' but they were Okninawan born. As for the Sov. to take
place and swallow the world, perhaps it was true for western Europe, but
Far East?. Their basic stance in the war was to -defend- themselves from
the Germans, they suffered the most losses of all countries (China
excepted) involved, and close to singlehandedly won the war. They got
some land back lost from 1905's war, but I wouldn't dare to think they
were willing/able to invade Japan, their navy was kinda non-existent in
the Far East.
A side point : IMHO, the reason the bomb was first dropped was more
human : It was too much a temptation to use, just to see what it really
do. The age-old curiosity.
Chris Coling
On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:25:06 -0700, Lilith Costas <lco...@best.com>
wrote:
>I had a professor who posed an interesting thought about the nuking of Japan. While he pointed out the
>arguements about whether it was military necessity, or showing off our new weapon to the Russians, he ten asked
>everytone whether or not we thought that if the US had pursued a Japan first strategy, and it was
>the Japenese we had defeated first, and the Germans were still in it and possibly on the end of a
>nuclear bomb, would we have done it?
>
>Lilith
>
An interesting thought. I would imagine that the geographical position
of Japan did it no favours whereas the proximity of the Axis
strongholds to many of the Allied homelands would have certainly meant
a fracture in the Allied camp if the proposal had even been put
forward to use such a device in the ETO. As a modest studier of the
period I do not believe that such an idea was even entertained. It was
not particularly necessary either. The western allies were being given
a much easier time in their advance than the Russian hordes. With a
number of notable exceptions it would seem that there were few pitch
battles on the Allies 'Berlin 'oad. The opposite is true for Moscow to
Berlin. There would not have been an need for the Western Allies to
deploy such weapons as the enemy was spent.
However, the whole equation may have been turned on its head had Nazi
Germany progressed with its own experiments in the field. Had that
happened then the Nazis would undoubtedly have deployed their
device[s] against the Soviet Union, the greater menace as they saw it,
[given the right favourable circumstances]. In that event the western
allies would probably have still been unable to contemplate deploying
their own weapons, espescially if intelligence was able to prove that
no more devices existed. If more devices were located by intelligence
then there would obviously have been greater pressure from some allied
quarters to use ours pre-emptively. The heads of free governments
fighting for the allies would certainly not have supported the use of
atomic weapons on or adjacent to their native soil regardless of any
intelligence findings. Together the free nations would have formed a
formidable power block which if it split from the allied cause would
have probably meant the cessation of hostilities in the west and
probably south [denying use of territories, manpower, resources etc].
It is therefore possible to see that Axis use of nuclear weapons
against the Soviet Union could have resulted in a collapse of the
Allied cause and the continuance of Nazi Germany despite its weak
position in '44-'45.
Given the allies airpower in the latter stages of the conflict it
would appear unlikely that axis could have successfully developed
and/or deployed their device even if they were crazy enough to wish
to. It is my view that the realists in Germany knew in 1943 that there
was no real chance of victory. It seems to me that most were fighting
for the 'honourable draw'. Use of such a device would have probably
been self-defeating in the long run.
In essence the answer is that Japan was cowed in 1945, but not beaten.
Those of us who have read a litle of the period can only imagine what
the pacification of the japanese homeland would have cost in Allied
lives. I have read about the other, more politic reasons for deploying
the devices. I don't doubt that they played their part in the final
decision. The way I see it is that the saving of our soldiers lives
was the paramount concern and therefore the deed was unfortunate, but
necessary. It seems reasonably well proven that the use of atomic
weapons brought about the capitulation of Japan, at least in
significant part.
Use of any such allied device on mainland europe would have been a
non-starter.
After all, the whole unpleasant period was brought about by allied
wishes to liberate the areas taken by the Nazis. It would have all
seemed pointless to incinerate the bit of land you are trying to
recover, complete with the population therein.
No-one was fighting to liberate Japan.
[Chris]
David Pipes
Chris Coling wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:25:06 -0700, Lilith Costas <lco...@best.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I had a professor who posed an interesting thought about the nuking of Japan. While he pointed out the
> >arguements about whether it was military necessity, or showing off our new weapon to the Russians, he ten asked
> >everytone whether or not we thought that if the US had pursued a Japan first strategy, and it was
> >the Japenese we had defeated first, and the Germans were still in it and possibly on the end of a
> >nuclear bomb, would we have done it?
> >
> >Lilith
> >
>
> An interesting thought. I would imagine that the geographical position
> of Japan did it no favours whereas the proximity of the Axis
> strongholds to many of the Allied homelands would have certainly meant
> a fracture in the Allied camp if the proposal had even been put
> forward to use such a device in the ETO. As a modest studier of the
> period I do not believe that such an idea was even entertained. It was
> not particularly necessary either. The western allies were being given
> a much easier time in their advance than the Russian hordes. With a
> number of notable exceptions it would seem that there were few pitch
> battles on the Allies 'Berlin 'oad. The opposite is true for Moscow to
> Berlin. There would not have been an need for the Western Allies to
> deploy such weapons as the enemy was spent.
I'm unsure as to how the "geographical position" of Japan plays into
things, as the effects of fallout were greatly underestimated at
the time. And I'm not sure how you can argue that the Western
Front was "easier" for the Allies than the Eastern one. The terrain
was harder - the entire assault depended on first on capturing a large
harbor, then crossing several major rivers. The Italian advance had
shown that the Germans were quite good at delaying and inflicting
casualties, even in small numbers. I think the fact the Russians
reached Berlin first speaks for itself - the Western Front crumbled
last, it was not "easier".
I don't think so, especially considering the use of massive, city-
destroying firebombings that occured in Germany. I'm pretty sure the
firebombing of Dresden would be equivalent to the use of an atomic
bomb, or even worse. And then later policy showed that the use of
nukes on European territory was contemplated and accepted by both
sides as a credible threat (and thus a deterrent). Surely the
Allies were not *less* likely to use the bomb *during* a major war
than during the Cold War...?
I think the main reason that the atomic bomb was not used in Europe
was that it was not ready. The war in Europe was over in May, and
the bombs went in August. Had it gone the other way, I think Berlin
would have been bombed.
> In essence the answer is that Japan was cowed in 1945, but not beaten.
> Those of us who have read a litle of the period can only imagine what
> the pacification of the japanese homeland would have cost in Allied
> lives. I have read about the other, more politic reasons for deploying
> the devices. I don't doubt that they played their part in the final
> decision. The way I see it is that the saving of our soldiers lives
> was the paramount concern and therefore the deed was unfortunate, but
> necessary. It seems reasonably well proven that the use of atomic
> weapons brought about the capitulation of Japan, at least in
> significant part.
I agree.
> Use of any such allied device on mainland europe would have been a
> non-starter.
Not in the least, again as shown by the massive bombing of civilian
targets, the use of incendiaries in raids, creating firestorms on
a city-wide scale in Tokyo and Dresden and other cities, and the
later attitudes towards nukes in the Cold War.
> After all, the whole unpleasant period was brought about by allied
> wishes to liberate the areas taken by the Nazis. It would have all
> seemed pointless to incinerate the bit of land you are trying to
> recover, complete with the population therein.
Remember that they thought that radiation effects would decline rapidly;
the bombs were probably seen as relatively clean. And they had already
reduced most of Germany to shoulder-high rubble - literally, not
figuratively. I'm not sure you understand the devastation that was
inflicted by the use of conventional weapons. In a war of that scale,
the atom bomb was just another strategic option.
They had *already*, as you put it, incinerated the land and people
they invaded. None of my relatives and friends who fought in the
war - long before I was born - has ever spoken of liberating *Germany*;
they spoke of liberating the other countries, and uniformly expressed
the passionate desire to kill as many Germans as possible. And this
20 years after the war, and later. Imagine what popular opinion was
like at the time. Or look at the pictures, if you really want to know.
(Please, please, please note that I am describing a mindset of the
period, to which no sensible person subscribes today. I bring it
up to point out how strongly people felt, not to denigrate or offend
or insult Germans.)
> No-one was fighting to liberate Japan.
Neither were they fighting to liberate Germany, but to liberate the
countries it conquered, and to *subdue* - or even utterly destroy -
it and it's allies.
It's interesting to note that in some arguments, Western European
societies are credited with influencing the world through a ruthless
campaing of imperialism, sophisticated warfare, slavery and other
cultural abuses. In many senses, that is based on good information;
Europeans and Americans have outstripped much of the world by virtue
of aggression and technology and advantageous terrain. You are
arguing essentially that Western Europeans would not do terrible
things to each other (this include Americans) - this is at odds with
history, I think. They are *more* likely to fight than other
societies, that's how they got where they are.
(Western European societies, as used above, is referring to the
cultures derived from those countries in Western Europe which
actively colonized large areas of the world beginning in the 17th
century, and not to the current governments, or people, of the
states of Western Europe. This is a historical discussion, folks,
not a rant.)
> [Chris]
David Pipes
the count
Henri H. Arsenault wrote:
> Ah, that was a great war, where the two greatest megalomaniacs in war
> history (Montgomery and Patton) fought on the same side.
Hey! what about MacArthur? =)
John Fuesting
Most people take getting shot at personally.
--
*****remove spamshield from address for replies!*****
---Diplomacy is the art of telling someone
to go to hell in such a manner that they
actually look forward to the trip.----
cboulton @ earthlink.net wrote in article <3377bc24.6615885@news>...
> On 12 May 1997 17:16:08 GMT, stea...@aol.com (SteamFaxx) wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know how many prisoners were taken in Manchuria when the
> >Soviets attacked? Marines had a very difficult time capturing ANYBODY
> >during the pacific islands fighting, the figures are around 1% I think.
>
> Yes, most of the battles in the island hopping campaign were "Number
> of Japanese soldiers killed = x thousand, number of Japanese soldiers
> captured = 0". Pretty appalling when you compare the numbers with
> other battles in other theatres during the same time period. I'm not
> sure if that was totally because of Japanese fanatacism or a no
> quarter policy on the part of US forces. Probably a bit of both, US
> forces, especially Marines, took the war in the pacific very
> personally.
>
>
>
steve_yancey
In article <5lob83$2fm$1...@cathedral.cerc.wvu.edu>, hw...@dijkstra.cs.wvu.edu says...
>
>Hullo all, I have a historical question.
>
>As I understand it, the French and the British declared war
>on Germany after the invasion of Poland, with whom they were
>allied.
>
>Didn't the Soviets invade Poland a few weeks later? Why
>didn't France/England declare war on the Soviets as well?
>
>Thanks for clearing up my ignorance,
>Henry
>
>--
>hw...@cs.wvu.edu Henry Ware
>`Anyone who goes to see a psychiatrist needs their head examined'
After Ribentropp and Molotov negotiated the Nazi-Soviet Pact (which was
a secret non-agression treaty that additionally provided for the partition
of Poland and the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states), the Germans
invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. The Soviets exercised their option
under the pact by invading Poland from the east on Sept. 17, 1939.
Both Germany and the Soviet Union had prior non-agression treaties in
force with Poland when they invaded, and yes, the French and British
were required by treaty to come to Poland's aid in repelling the Soviet
attack as well. Treaties are pieces of paper. Governments will hold
them up and point to them when their terms suit current purposes. If
their terms are not congruent with current policy, treaties will be
ignored or some excuse will be made that they don't apply to the situation.
As a pragmatic matter, the invasion of Poland was the last straw that
finally forced the French and British to take action against the Nazis,
who had repeatedly violated the terms of the treaty ending WWI. The
French (and thus the British as their allies) had direct access to Germany
and therefore could envision a plan to open a second front with Germany and
punish them for their transgression against Poland. Saving Poland from
conquest was never a practical option - the troops could not have been
mobilized and transferred to Poland in time, and even if they could have
been, their lines of communication would have been perilous at best.
As for the Soviet invasion, once at war with Germany, the allies could not
afford to drive the Nazis and Soviets into common cause by declaring war
against the Soviets as well. In any case, a serious offensive against the
Soviets would have had to wait until Germany was defeated, so no good
could come of signalling such an intention years in advance.
If you thought the Soviets were the real devils (as Churchill did), better
to bide your time and enlist their aid in defeating the Nazis first. You
could turn on them next (as I think Patton suggested...). As it turned
out, by 1945 the British leadership role had diminished, the Americans were
still involved in the war against Japan, and the Soviets were far stronger
militarily than they had been in 1939. An attack against the Soviets at
that time just wasn't in the cards.
Steve
dlep...@iac.co.jp
Neale Davidson wrote:
>
> > > >> the Americans had instead kidnapped 80-90 thousand japenese
> > > >> people and thrown them in a furnace to scare the japanese into
> > > >> surrender? How is that diffenent than those same people dying in
> > > >> a nuclear furnace?
> > > >>
> >
> > It would still have saved countless allied lives (try looking up the
> > projected casualties for operation olympic) - and even more Japanese
> > lives!
>
> impending "Doomsday" attacked, and were warned to surrender
> unconditionally several days before the attack actually came.
>
> Truman also tried to minimize the 'social damage' to Japan by
> selecting major sites that were not as historically or socially
> significant to others. How he made these decisions is beyond me,
> however.
>
> Lastly, remember too that Japan didn't surrender until AFTER the
> SECOND bomb was dropped, and the warning of a third such
> bombing was issued. The good Emporer decided that his people
> had suffered enough, and that it was time to make peace.
------------
Though I agree, by and large with your view, there is one major point
where we are not in agreement.
The Japanese did surrender -after- there were some provisio made to
prevent the Emperor to be prosecuted/demoted/tried. -That- was the
stumbling block, once the Japanese's government received news this
wouldn't happen then they gave up the fight. Knowing them as I do, they
would have being willing to sacrifice all their life to prevent a 'loss
of face' of their Emperor.
Lastly, even if the damage due to the atomic bomb was awfull and long
lasting in effect, one have to take into consideration that it killed
less people than the firebomb raids over Tokyo late July (26 or 29, I
forgot).
Didier
Henry Ware
Louie Landale
Kev Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > : Montgomery went on to botch several other battles during the war:
> >
> > I think the term you are looking for was cautious - and indeed he was a
> > cautious leader - many times criticized for it in fact
> >
> > : - Sicily (sluggishly allowed Germans to get away)
> > : - Caan, Normandy (dilly dallied long enough for the Germans to entrench)
>
> german forces, and their reserves onto them and pin them - to allow the
> US to break out, it is a tad unfair to criticise him for following the
> plan laid down by Ike.
This was the plan after he failed to take is 1 day and 3 day objectives,
due to his "cautiousness". This was obviously the only thing Monty
could do well: slug it out with greater forces.
David Pipes
They were already at war with the Germans. Why should they piss
off the Soviets, maybe bringing them closer to Hitler, when the
British Expeditionary Force was in France, and unable to do
anything to save Poland?
David Pipes
Kev Metcalfe
Will Jenkins wrote:
>
and
> behind it lurks the shadow of overpopulation induced famine.
Nonsense - read "A step farther out" by jerry pournelle
simon appleton
Steve, Yancey wrote:
>
> In article <5lob83$2fm$1...@cathedral.cerc.wvu.edu>, hw...@dijkstra.cs.wvu.edu says...
> >
> >
> >As I understand it, the French and the British declared war
> >on Germany after the invasion of Poland, with whom they were
> >allied.
> >
> >Didn't the Soviets invade Poland a few weeks later? Why
> >didn't France/England declare war on the Soviets as well?
> >
> >Thanks for clearing up my ignorance,
> >Henry
> >
> >--
> >hw...@cs.wvu.edu Henry Ware
> >`Anyone who goes to see a psychiatrist needs their head examined'
The other people replying have made the obvious point that taking on
Germany AND Russia would have been a bit much. However, I seem to
recall mention of Churchill planning to intervene on Finland's side
against Russia. I think the invasion of France put paid to the
scheme. What would have happened if the venture had gone ahead scarcely
bears thinking about.
James Reedy
Chris Coling (chris....@virgin.net) wrote:
: On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:25:06 -0700, Lilith Costas <lco...@best.com>
: wrote:
: Given the allies airpower in the latter stages of the conflict it
: would appear unlikely that axis could have successfully developed
: and/or deployed their device even if they were crazy enough to wish
: to. It is my view that the realists in Germany knew in 1943 that there
: was no real chance of victory. It seems to me that most were fighting
: for the 'honourable draw'. Use of such a device would have probably
: been self-defeating in the long run.
The realists Knew they had lost (A long war) the moment America entered
the war because they had some idea of the Production/economic might of the
USA. Their only real chance was to finish it prior to the impact of USA's
economic power, which they were unable to do
cheers
the count
Henry Ware wrote:
>
> Hullo all, I have a historical question.
>
> As I understand it, the French and the British declared war
> on Germany after the invasion of Poland, with whom they were
> allied.
>
> Didn't the Soviets invade Poland a few weeks later? Why
> didn't France/England declare war on the Soviets as well?
Actually, that's a very good question. I don't know the answer
off the top of my head. I would assume by the time they invaded,
the USSR had already stop negotiating with the western allies?
Certainly they had already accepted the pact with the Germans.
I would also be interested in the answer to this question...
SteamFaxx
>the Japenese we had defeated first, and the Germans were still in it and
possibly on the end of a
nuclear bomb, would we have done it?<
It might have been quite possible, given the limited knowlege we had about
the bomb at the time. With most of Germany's cities in smoking ruins
anyway, the use of the Bomb might have been seen as a cost effective way
to accomplish the same end. Heck, if I were deciding policy at that time,
what would make more sense, send 200 bombers over a target three times or
send them over once(one with the Bomb)? The lives and effort saved on my
forces would be somthing for me to consider...
TaruM
In article <3381A3...@mathematica-mpr.com>, the count
<eglam...@mathematica-mpr.com> writes
>Henry Ware wrote:
>> As I understand it, the French and the British declared war
>> on Germany after the invasion of Poland, with whom they were
>> allied.
>> Didn't the Soviets invade Poland a few weeks later? Why
>> didn't France/England declare war on the Soviets as well?
>
>Actually, that's a very good question. I don't know the answer
>off the top of my head. I would assume by the time they invaded,
>the USSR had already stop negotiating with the western allies?
>Certainly they had already accepted the pact with the Germans.
Sept 1st - Germans invade Poland - Ultimatum from GB & France
Sept 3rd 11:00 - GB declares war on Germany
17:00 - France declares
Sept 17th 3:00 - Russia "invades" Poland -
this latter was the Russians moving in when the
Polish had been almost defeated.
IMHO whilst directly attacking the Russians at that time would have been
nigh on impossible, there was the possibility of such action when Russia
attacked Finland on 30th November and were condemned by the League of
Nations. Forces from GB & France were prepared to support Finland when
Norway & Sweden refused landing permission and forced Finland to
capitulate.
--
TaruM
cbou...@earthlink.net
On Sun, 18 May 1997 20:09:24 +0900, dlep...@iac.co.jp wrote:
> Two fact here : One the Japanese actually signed a treaty with the
>Soviet Union. Theyt did not 'expected' the russian to renege on their
>word, well not the way the Japanese did (this is a cultural issue). Two,
>one had to remember that during the 'Nohoman incident' in 38, the
>Japanese got really trounced by the soviet (an upstart general named
>Zukhov by the way), so they expected the same result to happens the
>second time. IMHO, there was no way the Japanese could face the might of
>the Soviet union, to get real, the Germans couldn't and they were far
>better equipped/organised.
Yes the Japanese soldiers were great fighters on the islands in the
pacific where they could dig in and their opponents had to hit the
beaches in waves but on open ground against armor and air superirity
its a different story I think.
> Their basic stance in the war was to -defend- themselves from
>the Germans, they suffered the most losses of all countries (China
>excepted) involved, and close to singlehandedly won the war.
I think I kind of object to that. The Russians were getting their
butts kicked early on. If it wasn't for British and American naval
superiority in the Atlantic and, mainly, the MASSIVE air campaigns
launched against Germany's industrial centers by the British and
Americans I don't think Russia would have had the time boost their
factory production so high in the east of Russia. It was the point at
which Russia actually was out-producing Germany that the tide started
turning, not before. They fought very hard and took the brunt of the
fighting in Europe but you should recognize the part played by the
other allies as well.
Kev Metcalfe
The other thing to consider is that nobody realised what Radiation was
all about then, even in the 50's many important people beleived that
atom bombs were just like VERY big HE bombs and there were many plans to
use them in civil construction programs!