NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I'm an American.

As far as noble things we have done, we bombed the crap of Nazi Germany and we bombed the crap out of Imperial Japan. Not that we didn't have loads of eager help from our British and Russians allies with Germany, but wasting Japan from the air was pretty much an American show, though we couldn't have done it without Australian help.

You may find this amusing, but I've been to Germany quite a few times, so many times that I have a really massive beer stein collection. I think Germany is a very pretty country except for cities like Frankfurt, (that we bombed) they have very little character. I didn't meet one German person I did not like, (except for a hotel clerk in Lindbergh). All things considered I love Germany as it is, but I despise what you were.

I despise anyone who participated in what you were, and there is nothing you can say that will change that. I find nothing brave and noble about the Hun that marched across Europe, just in the peoples who resisted them and died.

You would have us believe that WWII was some kind of chivalric joust. A contest of the brave and noble, well it wasn't. It was a low down dirty total war where Germany's army slaughtered millions of civilians just like the Japanese army in China. We noble and brave allies waged total war back at Germany and we won. Believe it or not the world actually rejoiced, and that doesn't happen very often.


Killing civilians is never noble it is terrorism. i provide the definition

Terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

Interestingly the official city of Dresden site (http://www.dresden.de/index.html?page=/eng/02/07/01/c_13.html) gives a figure of 'only' "at least 25,000", while Wikipedia (insert standard Wikipedia caveat) talks about recent estimates of 35,000, but notes that up to 140,000 has been claimed.

Yes. The numbers from Japan (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) are really estimates, no one really knows how many died but the numbers I posted here are the official numbers for now until other information is gatherd and confirmed.

Yes. The numbers from Japan (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) are really estimates, no one really knows how many died but the numbers I posted here are the official numbers for now until other information is gatherd and confirmed.

Just to clarify - the numbers I gave were the number of fatalities when Dresden was firebombed.

Well I'm an American.

As far as noble things we have done, we bombed the crap of Nazi Germany and we bombed the crap out of Imperial Japan. Not that we didn't have loads of eager help from our British and Russians allies with Germany, but wasting Japan from the air was pretty much an American show, though we couldn't have done it without Australian help.

You may find this amusing, but I've been to Germany quite a few times, so many times that I have a really massive beer stein collection. I think Germany is a very pretty country except for cities like Frankfurt, (that we bombed) they have very little character. I didn't meet one German person I did not like, (except for a hotel clerk in Lindbergh). All things considered I love Germany as it is, but I despise what you were.

I despise anyone who participated in what you were, and there is nothing you can say that will change that. I find nothing brave and noble about the Hun that marched across Europe, just in the peoples who resisted them and died.

You would have us believe that WWII was some kind of chivalric joust. A contest of the brave and noble, well it wasn't. It was a low down dirty total war where Germany's army slaughtered millions of civilians just like the Japanese army in China. We noble and brave allies waged total war back at Germany and we won. Believe it or not the world actually rejoiced, and that doesn't happen very often.


Killing civilians is never noble it is terrorism. i provide the definition

Terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature


Dude use the "Quote" button.

We noble and brave allies waged total war back at Germany and we won.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the US, unlike Germany, never entered a phase of total war during WWII.

Well, there was the firebombings of Hamburg, Dresdon, Tokyo, Kobe, Osaka, and several other cities.
These bombings intentionally targeted civilian homes and were often done at night, when they would cause the most civilian deaths. It was, however, a reasonable way to damage the industrial infrostructure of these countries. Factories can be rebuildt in a few days but civilian laborerors are not so easy to replace. You can't have a war without a civilian population to support the soldiers

Oh for those "Crying" :( about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remember that America had combat air troops in China fighting the Japanese because we knew what they were doing, and it was because of China that we had no 2nd thoughts about bombing Japan.

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.12.96/cover/china1-9650.html
http://www.tribo.org/nanking/


This is the group my father flew with as a fighter pilot in WWII untill he was transfered to the Pacific Fleet after near fatal wounds.

http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/

About 70,000 people died at Hiroshima and about 40,000 at Nagasaki, and many thousands more were injured.
Lowkeynia must really start reading his own posts.

And, of course... those fatalities ONLY include the people who died there and then. Decades later, people were still suffering the side-effects.... arguably, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is STILL killing people today.

Just to clarify - the numbers I gave were the number of fatalities when Dresden was firebombed.

I know, I was just talking about my numbers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To this day it is still not really known how many died but the numbers I gave are the most accurate to date, or at least they were, I don't know if there have been more investigations on it.

And, of course... those fatalities ONLY include the people who died there and then. Decades later, people were still suffering the side-effects.... arguably, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is STILL killing people today.

Yes and true.

Yes and true.

Whereas the 30 million who were slaughtered in China are still dead.

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

But they don't matter because Germany's ally killed them, and America didn’t.

Whereas the 30 million who were slaughtered in China are still dead.

The deaths in China don't really enter into any possible equation used to justify the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - Japan had already been beaten back, and indeed had attempted to surrender - instead the amount of fatalities that have to be balanced against each other in this case are the projected US and other allied casualties that would have been incured in a conventional assault on the Japanese home islands along with the Japanese casualties that would have taken place in such a conventional assault, against the casualties that the atomic bombs would likely cause.

Whereas the 30 million who were slaughtered in China are still dead.

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

But they don't matter because Germany's ally killed them, and America didn’t.

Did I say that it does not matter? No I did not.

The Glory of the U.S. Nuclear Bomb.

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

Take look at article nr 18. What does it say?

The Glory of the U.S. Nuclear Bomb.

Have you read John Hersey's collection of eyewitness narratives from survivors - simply titled Hiroshima - originally published as journalism in the New Yorker magazine and then as a book in 1946? Certainly worth tracking down if you are interested in the subject.

Have you read John Hersey's collection of eyewitness narratives from survivors - simply titled Hiroshima - originally published as journalism in the New Yorker magazine and then as a book in 1946? Certainly worth tracking down if you are interested in the subject.


No I have not, thank you for the information. I will try to see if I can find it. Thanks again.

I think the key difference between the Nazis and the Communists is that the communists didn't attempt to go and conqueor the world. The Communists may have wanted to but desiring something does not provide the mens rea or the actus reus for the crime. Thanks to Hitler and his Napoleon complex, European power was completely and utterly destroyed: a power that had been built since the Roman Empire. Over 1000 years of hard work destroyed because of Nazism and its meglomaniac desire to rule all peoples. Nazism would crush individualism, crush faith (like it did to the Christian religion when it replaced it with it own religion) and smash freedom of thought. The Nazis (like many modern Muslim extremists) gained popular support by playing on a paranoid and completely irrational phobia of the Jews. There is nothing else of worth in Nazism - no enduring policies, no idealogies. At least Communism has a central doctrine to which it adheres but nazism runs on pure, malicious hatred.
I have no love of communism. I am a conservative. But I have no love of nazism either. A power that drove the entire of Europe into war out of a selfish and maddening hatred. I could never bring myself to believe in the same ideas as men who slaughtered so many of my countrymen.
The destruction of cities like Dresden was neccessary because Hitler could not see when he was beaten. He couldn't accept defeat and because he had no honour he refused to let many of his countrymen live in peace. He instead sacrificed many of the lives of his followers to his vainity and never ceasing lust for glory. There is nothing glorious about Hitler or the cult he created. Hitler was a mad man who would have destroyed everything and everyone to get his hands on power. Nazism is a cult run on hatred for others simply because they are different.

United Aryan Peoples, I have read many of your horrific posts before. You disgust me.


Then what the hell was the cold war, vietnam, and the support for all these other little wars including the manipulation of governments that killed millions all over the world in the name of fighting communism?
Ever hear of the school of the americas?
If these wars weren't to fight communism then they must be for zionist-americas bloody quest for world domination !
Maybe we should all strap a bomb on and fight the real war on terrorism kill as many americans and israelis as possble. And you wonder why the terrorists are coming out of the wood work...........HAPPY BOMBING!!!!!!!

The deaths in China don't really enter into any possible equation used to justify the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - Japan had already been beaten back, and indeed had attempted to surrender - instead the amount of fatalities that have to be balanced against each other in this case are the projected US and other allied casualties that would have been incured in a conventional assault on the Japanese home islands along with the Japanese casualties that would have taken place in such a conventional assault, against the casualties that the atomic bombs would likely cause.

The nuclear attack was for the total embarrassment of pearl harbour !

Incorrect. they didn't acutally take over - just installed puppet government with very marginal sovereignty.


The infamous Communist attrocity of WWII documented on film. The most murderous form of government in human history, and we supported them.
http://www.reportersnotebook.com/video/katyn/katyn.rm

The nuclear attack was for the total embarrassment of pearl harbour !

No it wasn't: the two bombs were dropped in preference to carrying out Operation Downfall - the allied invasion of Japan by convention means. It was projected that anywhere from 400,000 to 800,000 US troops would be killed in such an attack. Thus, dispite the ethical qualms involved in using atomic weapons on mainly civilian cities, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were carried out. It was believed at the time by US military planners that should Operation Downfall be carried out, then stern resistance would come from civilian resistance, and so this is one of the ways that the bombings were justified.

As for the 'embarassment' of Pearl harbour - the only country that need feel embarassed about that was Japan after they failed to declare war prior to the attack due to a breakdown in communications.

As for the 'embarassment' of Pearl harbour - the only country that need feel embarassed about that was Japan after they failed to declare war prior to the attack due to a breakdown in communications.

I was referring to the fact that they got caught off guard in their sunday bests while their officers played golf.

I was referring to the fact that they got caught off guard in their sunday bests while their officers played golf.

Did you learn all your history from watching Hollywood movies or something? The story about Admiral Kimmel playing golf during the attack is a myth: he received reports of the assault while preparing at home and cancelled his game.

Thats the problem today, people tend to argue against historic facts and take the side of an inaccurate movie.
Movies that are about something historic are often changed for theatrical reasons.

The deaths in China don't really enter into any possible equation used to justify the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - Japan had already been beaten back, and indeed had attempted to surrender - instead the amount of fatalities that have to be balanced against each other in this case are the projected US and other allied casualties that would have been incured in a conventional assault on the Japanese home islands along with the Japanese casualties that would have taken place in such a conventional assault, against the casualties that the atomic bombs would likely cause.

The Japanese were already beaten in the Pacific Islands but they were still all over South East Asia and China.

By the way, I didn't say China was the reason we used the Atomic Bomb on Japan, I said China was the reason we felt no moral obligation not to. :D

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

How do you know anything about this person?
Let me guess through the media. The media is owned and operated by professional bullshit artists and out right lyars!
Why are people offended by a symbol that is thousands of years old ?
The swastica wasn't even invented by the nazis!
And as far as someone wearing a kkk uniform so what they are racists i know a lot of asians, blacks, and jews that are racists what makes the kkk special? is it because they are white?
Communism has killed over 200 million world wide and that is way more than the nazis killed. In fact that is more people murdered than all the people that died in ww2 on all sides and you are worried about a nazi regime that has been gone for 60 years. The last time i looked there is still communists in power and communists running around in this country. Give your fucking head a shake, the enemy is all around you and you are too fucking stupid to see them!

Here we see a prime example of good reasons to allow free speech. First, by this writer's tag of "United_Aryan_Peoples," we see he or she has a penchant for racism, and probably for "white power."

Next, we see this youngster attempting to defend symbols of hatred and evil with some sort of strange logic that is unsupported by truth, and profoundly marked by improper grammar.

Finally, the vulgar child tries to threaten violence.

Hence, we see free expression serving a vital purpose. This is one instance where it provides us with a chance to give an immature human compassion and forgiveness.

The Japanese were already beaten in the Pacific Islands but they were still all over South East Asia and China.

By the way, I didn't say China was the reason we used the Atomic Bomb on Japan, I said China was the reason we felt no moral obligation not to. :D

http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

I'm not arguing with you on this point here, but have to ask why you keep on linking to a set of pages written by schoolkids?

I'm not arguing with you on this point here, but have to ask why you keep on linking to a set of pages written by school students?

Because even school students apparently know the truth, whereas you don't. Your view of WWII is a collection of modern liberal knee jerking to the brutality the allies had to resort to in order to save the human race, mixed with anti US sentiment. :D

Because even school students apparently know the truth, whereas you don't. Your view of WWII is a collection of modern liberal knee jerking to the brutality the allies had to resort to in order to save the human race, mixed with anti US sentiment. :D


OK: a challenge for you then in this thread -

1.) find an example of my 'liberal knee jerking to the brutality (of) the allies', other than my pointing out that Arthur Harris was not universally supported in his policy of area bombing civilian targets, for which I have provided evidence sufficient to show that I am factually justified.

2.) find an example of my 'anti US sentiment'.

Prince Harold wore a swastika. Does this mean the royal family of England supports Nazi beliefs?

Prince Harold wore a swastika. Does this mean the royal family of England supports Nazi beliefs?

Prince Harold? 'Harry' is the familiar form of 'Henry' in this case.

Here is an example of anti-U.S. beliefs: "As for the 'embarassment' of Pearl harbour - the only country that need feel embarassed about that was Japan after they failed to declare war prior to the attack due to a breakdown in communications."

Pearl Harbor is spelled thusly. A sneak attack to launch a war is more than just an embarrassment. "...due to a breakdown in communications" is not an acceptable excuse for that act.

Prince Harold? 'Harry' is the familiar form of 'Henry' in this case.

Thanks, Bodies. I would call him Prince Hank, then. We have different nicknames in the United States.

Prince Hank wore a swastika. Does this mean the royal family of England supports Nazi beliefs?

Here is an example of anti-U.S. beliefs: "As for the 'embarassment' of Pearl harbour - the only country that need feel embarassed about that was Japan after they failed to declare war prior to the attack due to a breakdown in communications."

Pearl Harbor is spelled thusly. A sneak attack to launch a war is more than just an embarrassment. "...due to a breakdown in communications" is not an acceptable excuse for that act.
Even if that breakdown was the fault of the US?

Here is an example of anti-U.S. beliefs: "As for the 'embarassment' of Pearl harbour - the only country that need feel embarassed about that was Japan after they failed to declare war prior to the attack due to a breakdown in communications."

I fail to see how this is an example of anti-US sentiment - the breakdown of communications occured at the Japanese side, not the American one.

Pearl Harbor is spelled thusly.

Yes, I noticed this after having posted, but felt the meaning was clear enough.

A sneak attack to launch a war is more than just an embarrassment. "...due to a breakdown in communications" is not an acceptable excuse for that act.

It was an example of understatement, particularly given the Japanese expressed fascination with honourable warfare. This is not to say that what we understand as honourable warfare and what the Japanese understood as honourable warfare during WWII are the same thing: indeed they are pretty much incompatible systems of value, but carrying out a sneak attack against an unprepared facility which has not received a declaration of war is spurned by both Japanese and occidental value systems. Establishing exactly where the breakdown in communications took place remains difficult, but it is certain that it was on the Japanese side: there was the expressed intention to deliver a declaration prior to the attack, but it appears that different departments beleived that others were taking the matter in hand with the end result that a formal declaration had not even been prepared never mind delivered.

Even if that breakdown was the fault of the US?

I find it peculiar that a person would present a hypothesis where they are trying to say the United States of America had poor communication skills in the early 1940s, and this justifies a declaration of war by a sneak attack by the Japanese.

How does this relate to Prince Hank endorsing Nazi beliefs?

Even if that breakdown was the fault of the US?

It wasn't.

I fail to see how this is an example of anti-US sentiment - the breakdown of communications occured at the Japanese side, not the American one.



Yes, I noticed this after having posted, but felt the meaning was clear enough.



It was an example of understatement, particularly given the Japanese expressed fascination with honourable warfare. This is not to say that what we understand as honourable warfare and what the Japanese understood as honourable warfare during WWII are the same thing: indeed they are pretty much incompatible systems of value, but carrying out a sneak attack against an unprepared facility which has not received a declaration of war is spurned by both Japanese and occidental value systems. Establishing exactly where the breakdown in communications took place remains difficult, but it is certain that it was on the Japanese side: there was the expressed intention to deliver a declaration prior to the attack, but it appears that different departments beleived that others were taking the matter in hand with the end result that a formal declaration had not even been prepared never mind delivered.

Your point is stated; but, how does this relate to Prince Hank endorsing Nazi beliefs?

I find it peculiar that a person would present a hypothesis where they are trying to say the United States of America had poor communication skills in the early 1940s, and this justifies a declaration of war by a sneak attack by the Japanese.

See my response elsewhere: the breakdown of communications was an internal Japanese one. Maybe there is some confusion going on here between the early intelligence reports that the US received which indicated that an attack was about to begin, which were not forwarded properly or taken as severely as hindsight shows they should have been.


EDIT: further to this, it appears that both at the start and end of Japanese-American conflict breakdowns in communication played their part: prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had contacts with the USSR concerning a possible surrender, but this was not forwarded to the Americans, and it remains questionable whether the terms offered would have been acceptable.

How does this relate to Prince Hank endorsing Nazi beliefs?

Topic drift.

So, Bodies, my questions for you then, are "Do you endorse Nazi beliefs?" and "Do you think Prince Hank exercised noble reasoning by wearing a symbol of hatred and evil?"

i think its stupid that the army are sending 25 commando hard nuts to sort out the royalty at a fancy dress party!

i think its stupid that the army are sending 25 commando hard nuts to sort out the royalty at a fancy dress party!

So, "Sexual gratitude," my questions for you then, are "Do you endorse Nazi beliefs?" and "Do you think Prince Hank exercised noble reasoning by wearing a symbol of hatred and evil?"

So, Bodies, my questions for you then, are "Do you endorse Nazi beliefs?"

Nope. Not at all: it is a despicable ideology that seeks to drag the world back to medieval times and reject all the triumphs of the Enlightenment.

and "Do you think Prince Hank exercised noble reasoning by wearing a symbol of hatred and evil?"

Nope: I have said several times that he was 'ill-advised' in wearing the swastika. The backlash and outcry was predictable and inevitable, and given the still rather tenuous position of the Royal Family in the UK this did nothing to endear them to the public.

Nope. Not at all: it is a despicable ideology that seeks to drag the world back to medieval times and reject all the triumphs of the Enlightenment.

Nope: I have said several times that he was 'ill-advised' in wearing the swastika. The backlash and outcry was predictable and inevitable, and given the still rather tenuous position of the Royal Family in the UK this did nothing to endear them to the public.

Thanks, Bodies. I concur, for the most part. I think "ill-advised" must be seen as a euphemism here. I'm not much on the whole royalty concept, but that is part of my ethnocentricity from being an American. As a Christian, I can understand the belief that prior to the coming of Jesus, God gave certain families the power to rule certain parts of the earth. To carry royal rule beyond that point, escapes me.

I see the royal gang as figureheads, and as such I would think they should either present themselves in a manner that reflects English beliefs or they should surrender their titles.

Really though, all the princes, earls, dukes and the like are just people.

As for the swastika and Nazi paraphernalia, I think wearing it is reprehensible by any person. Of course, there are those folks who believe things like the Nazis believed. They wear swastikas, etc. In this case, it looks like Prince Hank is endorsing hatred and evil.

Thanks, Bodies. I concur, for the most part. I think "ill-advised" must be seen as a euphemism here. I'm not much on the whole royalty concept, but that is part of my ethnocentricity from being an American. As a Christian, I can understand the belief that prior to the coming of Jesus, God gave certain families the power to rule certain parts of the earth. To carry royal rule beyond that point, escapes me.

I see the royal gang as figureheads, and as such I would think they should either present themselves in a manner that reflects English beliefs or they should surrender their titles.

Really though, all the princes, earls, dukes and the like are just people.

As for the swastika and Nazi paraphernalia, I think wearing it is reprehensible by any person. Of course, there are those folks who believe things like the Nazis believed. They wear swastikas, etc. In this case, it looks like Prince Hank is endorsing hatred and evil.

Yes... either there is a royal conspiracy to implant Nazis in the highest level of society....

OR...

Harry just decided to dress up for his friend's fancy-dress birthday party....

Thanks, Bodies. I concur, for the most part. I think "ill-advised" must be seen as a euphemism here.

"Ill-advised" in that he failed to think through the consequences. I doubt anyone seriously believes that he is one of your actual Nazis, but the backlash was inevitable. 'Stupid' is another word that springs to mind.

I see the royal gang as figureheads, and as such I would think they should either present themselves in a manner that reflects English beliefs or they should surrender their titles.

Why 'English beliefs' in particular?

I see the royal gang as figureheads, and as such I would think they should either present themselves in a manner that reflects English beliefs or they should surrender their titles.


English Beliefs are not necessarily always pleasant. Tea and crumpets and laying back and thinking of England were not the only things the English did.

The Royals represent that darker side.

Did you learn all your history from watching Hollywood movies or something? The story about Admiral Kimmel playing golf during the attack is a myth: he received reports of the assault while preparing at home and cancelled his game.

My comments on what they were actually doing at the time were non specific, in fact i could care less what the dumb bastards were doing while they were being attacked. My point was they were totally caught off guard and out to lunch.
If i had of known you people were 1 dimentional thinkers i would have written slower or in bigger letters or something.
It's just a guess but you lot sound like you are a bunch of over zelious college freshmans who just finnished their first book reports on ww2 and think know everything about it.

My comments on what they were actually doing at the time were non specific, in fact i could care less what the dumb bastards were doing while they were being attacked. My point was they were totally caught off guard and out to lunch.

Exactly how non-specific is "while their officers played golf"?

Exactly how non-specific is "while their officers played golf"?

Would you have prefered playing with themselves?

Would you have prefered playing with themselves?

Then it would have been clear that you were being metaphorical: it appeared that you were making another factual claim which like your earlier comment on civilian bombings, had no basis in actual history.

Visit my newly created page about the Harry issue - http://www.freewebs.com/beryleddi2/leavethemalone.htm

Thanks, Bodies. I concur, for the most part. I think "ill-advised" must be seen as a euphemism here. I'm not much on the whole royalty concept, but that is part of my ethnocentricity from being an American. As a Christian, I can understand the belief that prior to the coming of Jesus, God gave certain families the power to rule certain parts of the earth. To carry royal rule beyond that point, escapes me.

I see the royal gang as figureheads, and as such I would think they should either present themselves in a manner that reflects English beliefs or they should surrender their titles.

I think maybe the reason you see the royals as figureheads is because you're an American and thus mostly see them acting in that capacity (state visits etc.) There's many, many other ways of viewing them common here in the UK.

I also don't feel that one particular interpretation of Christian doctrine should carry too much weight in deciding which form of government is most suitable in a modern state.