NationStates Jolt Archive

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?

I don't think we should drown in self-pity over it, but a sincere, humble apology wouldn't hurt, either.

Maybe you haven't noticed, Burt, but Germany has spent the past 60 years apologising to everyone for WWII.

you've got a point, if we apologise for Dresden then everybody should be apologising for their fair share of things and we dont really want to start digging up all the old atrocities. better just to remember that it happened and try to stop it ever happening again than to start apportioning blame for what was wrong and what was right in that whole mess called WW2

An apology would not bring dead people back or recreate the city.

The british need never apologize to the germans for anything.

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

Maybe you haven't noticed, Burt, but Germany has spent the past 60 years apologising to everyone for WWII.
Fair enough

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

Wow, way to not be generalizing, stereotypical, or offensive. I'm glad we have the lefties and Europeans to teach us ignorant Americans of our evil ways.

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

Why the hell should we apology? Apology for what?

Wow, way to not be generalizing, stereotypical, or offensive. I'm glad we have the lefties and Europeans to teach us ignorant Americans of our evil ways.

I'm going to kill myself now that New Granada has enlightened me to my evil ways. You in?

I'm going to kill myself now that New Granada has enlightened me to my evil ways. You in?

Hell yeah. I'll go get some rope...

"Dresden: Wether we should apologise for it or not"

Of course not! It was war and they comitted far worse attrocities than firebombing. Sometimes I think the entire German nation has gone crackers! :(

We don't need to apologize for anything we did. In fact we should have bombed them into the stone age.

We don't need to apologize for anything we did. In fact we should have bombed them into the stone age.

hey we gave it our best shot!

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?
I'm kind of curious as to why you did it in the first place. BTW the fact that they did worse things doesn't make what you did OK.

Maybe you haven't noticed, Burt, but Germany has spent the past 60 years apologising to everyone for WWII.
Not good enough. They need to apologise more, and apologise for WWI as well. And why not they apologise for that disgusting Emperor, Wilhelm II. He started it all.

I'm kind of curious as to why you did it in the first place. BTW the fact that they did worse things doesn't make what you did OK.
We did in the first place because Dresden was a huge industrial supply area for the wermacht fighting the Russians and so therfore was a legitimate military (in smoe ways) target

Not good enough. They need to apologise more, and apologise for WWI as well. And why not they apologise for that disgusting Emperor, Wilhelm II. He started it all.

Otto von Bismarck, more like. He's the one who unified Germany in 1871, remember.

Not good enough. They need to apologise more, and apologise for WWI as well. And why not they apologise for that disgusting Emperor, Wilhelm II. He started it all.

NO! Austria and Hungary (yes both nations since they were one in WWI) should apologize for WWI! They started that war. Not Germany! Go back to history if you don't believe me.

I bought all this up because im not into all that "apologise for history" crap i mean if we apologised for everything bad we ever did against every country then we would be here for years and years saying it, i say let wots happened lie and learn from our mistakes not apologise for them

NO! Austria and Hungary (yes both nations since they were one in WWI) should apologize for WWI! They started that war. Not Germany! Go back to history if you don't believe me.
well actually i think it was a bunch of ,i hate to say it, terrorists (serbians i believe) who assasinated Prince frederick (or someone with a name like that)

I bought all this up because im not into all that "apologise for history" crap i mean if we apologised for everything bad we ever did against every country then we would be here for years and years saying it, i say let wots happened lie and learn from our mistakes not apologise for them

Couldn't agree more.... In fact, what responsibility does the current German government have to apologize for WWII when it was the Nazi's, not them, that commited those actions? Think about it, would some guy that you never knew apologize to someone else that you did something to?

Exactly.

No need to appologise.

If we started appologising for all the shitty thing that happened in history it would never stop.

Oh and England, sorry for the Norman invasion,
- King Bill The Conquerer :)

well actually i think it was a bunch of ,i hate to say it, terrorists (serbians i believe) who assasinated Prince frederick (or someone with a name like that)

Austria-Hungary declared war when Serbia refused an ultimatum. Therefore, Austria-Hungary started the war then the entangling alliances got involved and thus started on massive family feud.

NO! Austria and Hungary (yes both nations since they were one in WWI) should apologize for WWI! They started that war. Not Germany! Go back to history if you don't believe me.
Debatable. They were practicing what most nations at the time would do. What Germany did, however, was give its undying support to Austria-Hungary, regardless of what they did.

Otto von Bismarck, more like. He's the one who unified Germany in 1871, remember.
But he did it, and kept Europe away from a major war. Kaiiser Wilhelm II dismissed von Bismarck early in his reign, and started ultramilitaristic policies.

I don't see why anyone should apologise for anything now. It's 60 years since it happened. The bombing of Dresden was no more diabolical a plan than many other atrocities committed by either side.

That's warfare. Live with it.

Perhaps Churchill's family should be forced to apologise to the people of Coventry for letting them be attacked without warning, even though he knew the Luftwaffe were going to? :rolleyes:

Debatable. They were practicing what most nations at the time would do. What Germany did, however, was give its undying support to Austria-Hungary, regardless of what they did.

But Germany didn't START it! Remeber the Treaty of Versaillis? It placed the blame of the war squarely on Germany. That was wrong since it was Austria-Hungary's Declaration of War that started WWI!

well actually i think it was a bunch of ,i hate to say it, terrorists (serbians i believe) who assasinated Prince frederick (or someone with a name like that)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

We have no reason to appologise, these people do! (http://triggur.org/fluffykittens.jpg)

Ya know, a lot of things change in 60 years. Most people are dead by the age of 60. An appology from this generation's govt about what a previous generation's govt did is a pretty silly idea in my opinion. War is destructive. Someone should explain why its a good idea to appologize for the bombing of entire cities (like Dresden) when defending your nation from similar attacks in an era where precision guided munitions didn't exist.
Pax Americanus

An apology would not bring dead people back or recreate the city.

The british need never apologize to the germans for anything.

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

a very mature and clearly well thought out response... I salute you.

Seriously, apologize for what exactly? The firestorm at Dresden was created by RAF bombing during the first night, the USAAF hit Dresden the next day and concentrated on the railyards, and the RAF hit it again the following evening. So the majority of the bombs were British bombs, and the most civilian deaths were due to British bombs.

I don't think the US or the British need apologize in any case.

Maybe you haven't noticed, Burt, but Germany has spent the past 60 years apologising to everyone for WWII.

they have a lot to apologise for ... 60 years might even be enough. They did set in motion the Great War which made World War II inevitable which triggered the Cold War. Hitler forced World War 2 on everyone (with a lot of help from the Japanese and some amazingly bad policy decisions by the French and British governments of the time).

Hitler and the Nazi Party in the Wanasee Protocol made genocide government policy. The Germans voted Hitler in (by a slim but real majority). Large numbers of Germans decided to join the SS, even knowing what Hitler intended (as they were required to read Mein Kampf, and his agenda is clearly laid out in it).

So the Germans can keep on apologizing I think.

People born afterwards shouldn't be made responsible for the atrocities of the previous generation(s). However, that doesn't change the fact they were atrocities.

By the way, the UK did apologize. In fact the golden cross on top of the Frauenkirche (church reconstructed lately) in Dresden was sponsored by QE II.

I myself (German) would not know, what to apologize for. My grandfather was 8 years old, when the WWII was over. Neither he, nor my parents have ever killed a person. Furthermore my family has made use of their civil rights to ensure the political Germany the world knows today.

Germany, and I'm sorry to say but that includes the German people, were indeed responsible for many atrocities in WWII, but there have been plenty of apologies already. Let's move on, already.

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?
It needs to be noticed that these Germans do not represent the whole of Germany. You're looking at disadvantaged & disillusional minority that live in the former communist section. Their lives still haven't rebounded from the years of repression, in fact-their lives may techically be worse off. I do not think Britain needs to apologize, nor do I think that these few Germans are right. It is just difficult to understand their viewpoints without being in their shoes.

Hell naw!

We have no reason to appologise, these people do! (http://triggur.org/fluffykittens.jpg)
no one finds this funny?

But Germany didn't START it! Remeber the Treaty of Versaillis? It placed the blame of the war squarely on Germany. That was wrong since it was Austria-Hungary's Declaration of War that started WWI!
But Germany gave Austria-Hungary a green light to do whatever it wanted to do. No other alliance was nearly this generous.

But Germany gave Austria-Hungary a green light to do whatever it wanted to do. No other alliance was nearly this generous.

Given green light or not, Austria-Hungary started the war. They should've been held responsible not Germany!

no one finds this funny?
Wow, cannot believe I missed that!!!

no one finds this funny?

Coventry and Guernica weren't funny, either.

Coventry and Guernica weren't funny, either.
look at the link, then give me an attitude

Don't worry, it was funny, despite the humorless attitude of some.

No apology necessary, there, problem solved! Wow, that was easy.
Actually, I think there should be no apology and also the Germans should stop apologizing for their actions. It is a pointless activity that really makes no one feel better.

no one finds this funny?
No actually. Just like jokes made of Hiroshima, or Tokyo, or Nanking, or Stalingrad aren't funny. Your lack of seriousness is a detriment to the thread.

Given green light or not, Austria-Hungary started the war. They should've been held responsible not Germany!

But it was at the urging of Germany, and under Germany's protection. Austria really wanted to get rid of that itch in their side, Serbia, it was flaming pan-slavist dissent in the Empire. But they also knew the Great Powers would intervene in any conflict in the Balkans that threatened to draw Russia into contest against Austria (and by extension, Germany), and that it would be unlikely for them to annex Serbia in such an instance.

So instead, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Germany agreed to use its influence to shield Austria from the Great Powers, so that Austria could strike fast and it would simply be considered fait accompli by the time any of the Powers noticed. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Austrians did not move quickly, and amost a month passed by, during which the Germans switched to touting that it was a 'regional' problem and that none of the Great Powers had any need to intervene (as had happened in the past, such as in Morocco), however there is some evidence (I refer to the book Europe's Last Summer) that Germany was in fact engineering the entire situation to start a conflict with Russia and possibly France, since estimates showed that with the French capitol flowing into Russia, it would finish industrializing and become a modern and huge force that Germany could not hope to destroy, and France was also strengthening its military and its economy was increasing. There was a great fear in the highest levels of the German government that by 1916, and war with the Entente would be unwinnable (von Moltke himself believed so), and there is a lot of evidence that points that several German and Austrian officials (well-known and prominent ones, like Whilhelm II, Bethman-Hollweg, von Moltke, etc.) pushed the incident specifically to spark a war, not exactly the one that followed but close enough.

I don't find making light of people's deaths funny, myself.

If you expect the Germany of today to apologize for the Germany of yesterday, we must also apologize. We must apologize for the rape, pillage, plunder, the civilian casualties, everything we ever did in the war as well. Same goes for Britain. Sons can not take responsibility for their fathers actions.

And the mere fact that some think that Germany should apologize for the war but the collective allies shouldn't because it "wasn't as bad" is sheer ignorance. Because someone else killed does not make it right for you too.

Dresden was a horrible event. It should be remembered with all the same sorrow and guilt of the other days: Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Dunkirk, the list could go on and on.

apologizing...It is a pointless activity that really makes no one feel better.
ganz bestimmt

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?

I am part German.
Don't forget that you decleard war on us and you executed German POW's and murderd countless civilians.
I would never justify what the Nazis did to the Jewish race or other civilians so do not start calling me a Nazi! I am not one of them.
I do think you should apologise to my country, what you did was nothing but murder.
We have taken steps to apologise for our actions eg. Gerhard Schroder went on our behalf to Poland and rememberd the 200.000 Polish patriots that were killd by German soldiers in the upprising and for the first time we gave tribute to the Normandy attack. We are very happy about that.
I never have seen an "allied" leader remember or give tribute to German dead but I have seen British and American veterans of WWII go and place flowers on German graves. Grow up will you, times have changed.

I am part German.

Thanks for telling us
Don't forget that you decleard war on us and you executed German POW's and murderd countless civilians.

Much like you executing Ally POWs?

I would never justify what the Nazis did to the Jewish race or other civilians so do not start calling me a Nazi! I am not one of them.

At least your honest so I won't call you a nazi! Besides, i know that your not!

I do think you should apologise to my country, what you did was nothing but murder.

And what do you consider London, Coventry, and other English, French, Russian, etc cities?

We have taken steps to apologise for our actions eg. Gerhard Schroder went on our behalf to Poland and rememberd the 200.000 Polish patriots that were killd by German soldiers in the upprising and for the first time we gave tribute to the Normandy attack. We are very happy about that.
I never have seen an "allied" leader remember or give tribute to German dead but I have seen British and American veterans of WWII go and place flowers on German graves. Grow up will you, times have changed.

You should too!

I'm kind of curious as to why you did it in the first place. BTW the fact that they did worse things doesn't make what you did OK.

There are constant allegations of it being revenge, and it was the ultimate realisation of the doctrine of 'Terror Bombing'. These are all made by peoplewho have never clearly studied the bombing or the doctrine of Bomber Command and the USAAF Bomber Forces at the time.

First, the entire reason for the bombing is on the surface reasonable, and was done many times before in the war. The Western Allies had agreed to support the Soviet advance on Berlin (actually across the Vistula and Oder at the time, but the main objective was Berlin) by seriously hampering or preventig the transfer of German troops fighting in Bohemia and Austria (both shattered and lost fronts) to the Berlin front, and any casual glance on a map will show Dresden is a key gateway between the two fronts, occupying a strategic position and possessing nearly untouched railyards and marshaling yards along with a large amount of rolling stock. Obviously, the destruction of such a key transportation hub would seriously hamper any German efforts to reinforce the Berlin front from the South, as it did. Now, at the time, no one could have known how long the war had gone on, hadn't the Germans only been on the doorstep of Moscow not too long ago, and every day it was prolonged thousands and perhaps millions suffered and died (starvation was widespread all throughout Europe, especially Germany and the Low Countries), the detruction of this transfer point may have shortened the war by 3 or 4 days (or a month, it's hard to tell), days which decided the fate of millions.

Now, as to it being revenge and terror bombin, the battle between those who advocated carpet bombing for terror ('Bomber" Harris, perhaps the worst example, or Arnold) and those who advocated targeting facilities such as opil refinieries, marshaling and railyards, and other such targets (Spaatz) that were chiefly outside of cities (this didn't figure into the thinking, but it is true) had been fought out in 1944, when the Allied bomber forces had to switch from Terror Bombing to actual Strategic Bombing to support the upcoming Normandy invasion. Although designed to slow down any German response and cripple the forces in France, in effect it devestated the German economy far more then the previous two years of terror bombing had. Here is the problem with terror bombing, one goal is to demoralize the enemy populace, but as had been seen in Britain, this didn't exactly occur, and the other was to completely flatten the industrial output of a city. Now a cities industrial core (at least in Germany at the time, as with most of Europe) was made up of modern construction buildings, in amodern layout, and not prone to burn easily, so a direct hit was required. The inner areas of the city however were made up of heavily flammable materials, so it could produce firestorms, or at least serious damage, but not to the industrial output.

Furthermore, German Armaments Minister Albert Speer had moved as much industry as possible out of the cities and into the country, especially in areas outside of Bomber range, which almost negated any effect Terror Bombing could have (German industrial output actually increased by staggering amounts in 1944 until the very end, when they finally switched to Strategic rather then Terror bombing). Strategic Bombing however, focused on facilities that for various reasons, could not be moved, were often very large, and were also critical to German industry. Once Bomber Command no longer had to support the Normandy operation (around late July, August), they were left with a serious predicament, many of their senior Commanders (such as Harris), wanted to return to Terror Bombing, since Strategic Bombing had initially been forced upon them to suit the Army's needs, and was seen as relegated the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command to a subordinate role. But intelligence clearly showed the Strategic Bombing campaign had produced far greater results. But pride continued to cloud the Air Services, until finally in late '44 they could no longer ignore the reports, Germany's industry was growing again at astronomical rates. Finally the bombing switched back to Strategic Bombing, targeting rail centers, oil refiniries, and basically anything that was big, couldn't be moved, or critical to transportation.

This was the reason Dresden was bombed, Terror Bombing had been abandoned as an idea long before Dresden, and it was not done in revenge of Coventry or the Blitz.

This is an entirely purposeless discussion. Why should anyone be apologizing for anything? The commanders who ordered the atrocities and the grunts who committed them are the ones who needed to apologize, and most of them are dead now. So are most of the people who they should have apologized to: the families of those killed. Nobody has any reason to apologize for the sins of their grandfathers.

What really needs to be done is to keep more atrocities from happening. But we're not doing a bang-up job of that (Abu Ghraib).

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

You're wrong. Our government is corrupt and our democracy is failing. Don't blame all Americans, since about 45% of us voted for the non-psycho presidential candidate, and are absolutely against what America is doing in the world today.

I'm part of the 45%.

What really needs to be done is to keep more atrocities from happening. But we're not doing a bang-up job of that (Abu Ghraib).

People are getting punished for their crimes at Abu Ghraib!

You're wrong. Our government is corrupt and our democracy is failing. Don't blame all Americans, since about 45% of us voted for the non-psycho presidential candidate, and are absolutely against what America is doing in the world today.

That'll be 48% who voted for a person that changes position at every campaign speech.

Thanks for telling us
Well I just wanted you to know from what perspective I was posting.


Much like you executing Ally POWs?
Yes but read one of Swimminpool's fist post's on this thread.
We have been apologising for 60 years.



At least your honest so I won't call you a nazi! Besides, i know that your not!
Good. Thank you.



And what do you consider London, Coventry, and other English, French, Russian, etc cities?
The Same



You should too!
How so? We have been saying sorry for 60 years and you have never done that once. Think about that.

hey we gave it our best shot!

Darn tooting!

Well I just wanted you to know from what perspective I was posting.

I know :)

Yes but read one of Swimminpool's fist post's on this thread.
We have been apologising for 60 years.

You have alot to apologize for!


Good. Thank you.

Your Welcome


The Same


The Same

How so? We have been saying sorry for 60 years and you have never done that once. Think about that.

Don't demand that we apologize. You got exactly what you deserved for WWII!

Japan and Germany have apologized. Countless and Countless times over the past 60 years. Reperations have been paid to the victims of Nanking and the Holocaust. Does this negate the two? Of course not, no ones arguing that it is. However too many people are doing the same things that lead to the tradgedies of Dresden and Hiroshima, as well as Aushwitz and Nanking. That is Confusing Germans with germany.
German SS men killed jews, this does not warrant killing german schoolchildren.
Japaneses Soldiers tortured POWs, this does not warrant incinerating japanese women.
War would be much simpler and much less horrible if the only victims, were England or Germany or America or Japan. But its not. The victims are ordinary people, not nationalities and thats who we should apologize to. When we have the courage to apologize for Dresden, we're not apologizing to the The Third Reich, The Nazis or Germany. We're apologizing to Fathers who burried there sons, to orphaned children and to grieving widdows. There is no shame, no shame at all, in that!

People are getting punished for their crimes at Abu Ghraib!

Most of them were arrested and incarcerated without a trial. There are teenage girls who were arrested by soldiers simply to be raped. And those who actually are being punished for crimes still shouldn't be tortured. That's a violation of human rights. In their culture, homosexuality is worse than death- they can't go back to their society, ever. Isn't that a bit harsh for stealing bread or similar crimes? That's mostly what people are in prison in Iraq for. Insurgents and killers are simply shot, not imprisoned.

That'll be 48% who voted for a person that changes position at every campaign speech.

A. I didn't say I liked him. Just that he's not a psycho.
B. You're only saying that because you heard it from someone else. Learn to think for yourself.

should we appologise?

yes, though the cause was just exessive force was clearly used

W should apologise and use that to try to mend relations with Germany

You have alot to apologize for!
Yes, but not 60 years worth.

The Same
Well if civilians are targeted then it is murder. It does not matter if you are "Allied" or German.



Don't demand that we apologize. You got exactly what you deserved for WWII!
I am not demaniding it, I just think that you should apologize.
So we deserved our women getting raped countless times by Russian scum?
The executions of Non Nazi POW's, to have our childern starve etc...?

should we appologise?

yes, though the cause was just exessive force was clearly used

W should apologise and use that to try to mend relations with Germany

Great, a fake appologie. That will make our relation stronger.

Great, a fake appologie. That will make our relation stronger.

the head of state giving an appologie on behalf of the American people is as sincer as it gets

the head of state giving an appologie on behalf of the American people is as sincer as it gets

Not really, he is known to be a liar to his own people.

Not really, he is known to be a liar to his own people.

something tells me that if you hold that position there really is no hope at this point

how ever, an apology to the German people directly from president Bush and perhaps tony depending on how he feels about the situation would be positivly accepted by the majority

There are constant allegations of it being revenge, and it was the ultimate realisation of the doctrine of 'Terror Bombing'. These are all made by peoplewho have never clearly studied the bombing or the doctrine of Bomber Command and the USAAF Bomber Forces at the time.

First, the entire reason for the bombing is on the surface reasonable, and was done many times before in the war. The Western Allies had agreed to support the Soviet advance on Berlin (actually across the Vistula and Oder at the time, but the main objective was Berlin) by seriously hampering or preventig the transfer of German troops fighting in Bohemia and Austria (both shattered and lost fronts) to the Berlin front, and any casual glance on a map will show Dresden is a key gateway between the two fronts, occupying a strategic position and possessing nearly untouched railyards and marshaling yards along with a large amount of rolling stock. Obviously, the destruction of such a key transportation hub would seriously hamper any German efforts to reinforce the Berlin front from the South, as it did. Now, at the time, no one could have known how long the war had gone on, hadn't the Germans only been on the doorstep of Moscow not too long ago, and every day it was prolonged thousands and perhaps millions suffered and died (starvation was widespread all throughout Europe, especially Germany and the Low Countries), the detruction of this transfer point may have shortened the war by 3 or 4 days (or a month, it's hard to tell), days which decided the fate of millions.

Now, as to it being revenge and terror bombin, the battle between those who advocated carpet bombing for terror ('Bomber" Harris, perhaps the worst example, or Arnold) and those who advocated targeting facilities such as opil refinieries, marshaling and railyards, and other such targets (Spaatz) that were chiefly outside of cities (this didn't figure into the thinking, but it is true) had been fought out in 1944, when the Allied bomber forces had to switch from Terror Bombing to actual Strategic Bombing to support the upcoming Normandy invasion. Although designed to slow down any German response and cripple the forces in France, in effect it devestated the German economy far more then the previous two years of terror bombing had. Here is the problem with terror bombing, one goal is to demoralize the enemy populace, but as had been seen in Britain, this didn't exactly occur, and the other was to completely flatten the industrial output of a city. Now a cities industrial core (at least in Germany at the time, as with most of Europe) was made up of modern construction buildings, in amodern layout, and not prone to burn easily, so a direct hit was required. The inner areas of the city however were made up of heavily flammable materials, so it could produce firestorms, or at least serious damage, but not to the industrial output.

Furthermore, German Armaments Minister Albert Speer had moved as much industry as possible out of the cities and into the country, especially in areas outside of Bomber range, which almost negated any effect Terror Bombing could have (German industrial output actually increased by staggering amounts in 1944 until the very end, when they finally switched to Strategic rather then Terror bombing). Strategic Bombing however, focused on facilities that for various reasons, could not be moved, were often very large, and were also critical to German industry. Once Bomber Command no longer had to support the Normandy operation (around late July, August), they were left with a serious predicament, many of their senior Commanders (such as Harris), wanted to return to Terror Bombing, since Strategic Bombing had initially been forced upon them to suit the Army's needs, and was seen as relegated the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command to a subordinate role. But intelligence clearly showed the Strategic Bombing campaign had produced far greater results. But pride continued to cloud the Air Services, until finally in late '44 they could no longer ignore the reports, Germany's industry was growing again at astronomical rates. Finally the bombing switched back to Strategic Bombing, targeting rail centers, oil refiniries, and basically anything that was big, couldn't be moved, or critical to transportation.

This was the reason Dresden was bombed, Terror Bombing had been abandoned as an idea long before Dresden, and it was not done in revenge of Coventry or the Blitz.

not a bad analysis, a few points though. Churchill himself criticized Dresden, and asked pointed questions about the reasons for it. The next day, all further strategic bombing was called off and the heavy bombers were switched to missions like dropping food to the Dutch, transporting returning Allied POWs etc. Some historians feel Dresden was bombed essentially because it was there and for no other real compelling reason. That is hard to dispute.

Several recent historians have made the point that the bombing campaign was critical in that it prevented the Germans from reaching the full potential of their possible industrial might. They had to spend so much time moving things around, dealing with inefficiencies and other problems (like repairing damage) that they couldn't focus on improving production. Even so, they actually produced more weapons than they had fuel for or the means to transport in 1945. The majority of the Oil campaign was conducted in the summer and fall of 1944, with the climax in September and October. General Arnold wanted that one, and many historians feel that the bombing of the oil refineries to be the critical event that defeated Germany as the German army and air force was essentially out of fuel (as in the ability to create more gasoline) by November 1944, and was forced to use the limited remaining fuel stocks until the end of the war. An excellent example of this is the constraints that led to the German failure in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, or the pictures that can easily be found of donkeys towing jet fighters to the edge of the runaway as it took too much fuel for them to taxi.

Germany spent nearly a quarter of its total war production in fighting the air war, including half of its artillery production. Consider how useful those 88 mm guns would have been on the Eastern Front fighting Soviet tanks.

In short, the overall bombing campaign was necessary and a critical element in the Allied victory. It was horrifically conducted at times (Hamburg 1943, a worse firestorm than Dresden comes to mind), but the technology of the day and the ruthless nature of total war are the primary reasons. But, Dresden was almost certainly unneccessary.

But not as unnecessary as transporting 6 million Jews to their places of execution.

In the scheme of things, it would have taken over 100 Dresdens to equal what the SS and their associated friends carried out against just the Jews Nazi occupied Europe. Then add in another 3 million Gypsies, Christian Scientists, Homosexuals and others.

Consider that when apologies are requested.

something tells me that if you hold that position there really is no hope at this point

how ever, an apology to the German people directly from president Bush and perhaps tony depending on how he feels about the situation would be positivly accepted by the majority

You misunderstand me. I would be happy to hear an appologie from Bush and Blair but not one that is just aimd at fixing the current problem.
It has to be real, sincere.

Give the poor guys a pre-packaged, PR diluted, sorry for god's sake!

You misunderstand me. I would be happy to hear an appologie from Bush and Blair but not one that is just aimd at fixing the current problem.
It has to be real, sincere.

nothing but the German people moving back to normalcy as a european power will fix the current problem

this wouldn't be a panecia, but it'd help

Not really, he is known to be a liar to his own people.

Only a liar to those that oppose him. That does not make him a liar in general

something tells me that if you hold that position there really is no hope at this point

how ever, an apology to the German people directly from president Bush and perhaps tony depending on how he feels about the situation would be positivly accepted by the majority

We should not apologize! We haven't apologized for Hiroshima nor Nagasaki and we won't either! They had it coming and they had full warning that it was coming!

Yes, but not 60 years worth.

You started the war! You started the civilian bombings! You killed people just because of religion.

Well if civilians are targeted then it is murder. It does not matter if you are "Allied" or German.

I will agree here but back then, that was the accepted norms because there was no precision guided warheads.


I am not demaniding it, I just think that you should apologize.
So we deserved our women getting raped countless times by Russian scum?
The executions of Non Nazi POW's, to have our childern starve etc...?

We shall not apologize for something that the Germans had coming. Just like we'll never apologize for the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! We gave them a way out and they didn't take it. As for starving, what about the Jews that starved in the camps hmm? You didn't care about them starving so don't give me to have our children starve line.

Japan and Germany have apologized. Countless and Countless times over the past 60 years. Reperations have been paid to the victims of Nanking and the Holocaust. Does this negate the two? Of course not, no ones arguing that it is. However too many people are doing the same things that lead to the tradgedies of Dresden and Hiroshima, as well as Aushwitz and Nanking. That is Confusing Germans with germany.
German SS men killed jews, this does not warrant killing german schoolchildren.
Japaneses Soldiers tortured POWs, this does not warrant incinerating japanese women.
War would be much simpler and much less horrible if the only victims, were England or Germany or America or Japan. But its not. The victims are ordinary people, not nationalities and thats who we should apologize to. When we have the courage to apologize for Dresden, we're not apologizing to the The Third Reich, The Nazis or Germany. We're apologizing to Fathers who burried there sons, to orphaned children and to grieving widdows. There is no shame, no shame at all, in that!

Germany has apologized and paid reparations, but I have no information on Japan ever doing so. I would like a link showing that one.

The Japanese are another issue and should get another thread (and have on many occasions).

But in any case, it is irrelevent. The nature of Total War from 1790 until now is that ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION ARE MOBILIZED. Be it the soldier, production worker, the supervisor, anyone. As such, in the 20th Century they were considered legal targets for attack. Demonstrations on that subject include Shermans March Through Georgia (US Civil War 1864), the French Republics full mobilization in 1791, the countless millions of women who manned the factories in both World Wars so that the men could go to the front, the list goes on.

Although awful, brutal and terrible, it was the nature of Total Warfare and why its a good thing that technology like smart bombs have come along. It is no longer necessary to kill the production line workers to shut down the plant. Now you can actually hit the plant and the vital parts of it with a good chance of success.

In World War 2 you couldn't do that, and that is why Axis cities were levelled routinely. Kill or demoralize the workers and production stops and eventually the war ends sooner (which in the scheme of things is supposed to save more lives as the killing stops sooner). Ok, this was majorally flawed, but that was the goal of even Harris (who was a cold blooded son of a bitch, but that was his reasoning). Japanese cities were burnt out because we simply couldn't do sufficient damage to the Japanese factories worth the cost of American aircrews any other way.

However

Executing 9 Million Jews and other minorities simply because they were there has nothing to do with this idea of Total War. That was simply murder. They essentially had surrendered and were murdered anyway.

Butchering someone who surrenders is murder. On the battlefield it is a least understandable (and generally ignored because of the fact that blood lust and stress cause horrific reactions at times from combat soldiers). But Auschwitz wasn't a battle field. At Nanking, the Japanese raped nearly 150,000 women, and killed about the same number of men. Using bayonets and swords no less. After the city surrendered.

This compares to Hiroshima only in the casualties inflicted. Can you honestly say that American or British soldiers actually inflicted those kind of atrocities on any one during the war in any situation other than the bombing campaigns? As far as the bombing campaigns go, the aircrews got shot at, and nearly a quarter of all Allied airmen were killed or wounded in World War 2. In other words, they didn't kill helpless victims, but fought their way to and from the target with an astonishingly high chance of getting killed in the process. In other words, they fought a war, not murdered the helpless.

You started the war! You started the civilian bombings! You killed people just because of religion.
We did not start the World War! England and France did, blame them.
The Nazis (SS) killed people because of their religion.



I will agree here but back then, that was the accepted norms because there was no precision guided warheads.
Yes, true.




We shall not apologize for something that the Germans had coming. Just like we'll never apologize for the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! We gave them a way out and they didn't take it. As for starving, what about the Jews that starved in the camps hmm? You didn't care about them starving so don't give me to have our children starve line.
Well American pride can have that effect.
Why is it that the Jews are allways put in as a defence when people can not fully justify their actions or are unwilling to admitt to some blame?
And you can not justify the Russian action in Berlin, At least you did something wrong.

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?

why shouldnt we apologise? i mean... is killing thousands of people really justifiable, they were just going about their evening activities when the allied bombers burned the place to the ground... and for what? revenge?? the murder of innocent lives is never justified... so we should make a nice apology, just to show what a great country we are.

We did not start the World War! England and France did, blame them.

BULLSHIT!! Does Poland Ring a bell? That is what started the damn war! You invaded Poland and they declared war on you. So YES YOU DID START IT

The Nazis (SS) killed people because of their religion.

They are still Germans! So yes, you did.


Yes, true.

At least we agree on this point!



Well American pride can have that effect.

American Pride doesn't factor in in my opinion.

Why is it that the Jews are allways put in as a defence when people can not fully justify their actions or are unwilling to admitt to some blame?
And you can not justify the Russian action in Berlin, At least you did something wrong.

We did? Starving Jews! Killing Jews! Yea don't try to blame us for your problems. As for Russia, don't get me started on them. I hate them in this time period just as much as I hated Germany and Japan!

why shouldnt we apologise? i mean... is killing thousands of people really justifiable, they were just going about their evening activities when the allied bombers burned the place to the ground... and for what? revenge?? the murder of innocent lives is never justified... so we should make a nice apology, just to show what a great country we are.

And yet they also killed thousands in London, Yorkshire, and other British cities. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

BULLSHIT!! Does Poland Ring a bell? That is what started the damn war! You invaded Poland and they declared war on you. So YES YOU DID START IT!

We started the German-Poland War, Yes. The WORLD WAR is the allied's fault.
England has allways been a war mongering nation.




They are still Germans! So yes, you did.!
NO, NO, NO!!! The SS, Nazis and Gestapo were divisions in the military. Do not blame an intire nation for the acts of few.
But if you want to have it your way then I guess YOU bombed the Oklahoma building, Murderd the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden etc...
You were no heros you were war criminals just like the Nazis, even more so because you were ALL united in the fight.
This is not what I think but it can be said if what you said is how you judge the war.

We did? Starving Jews! Killing Jews! Yea don't try to blame us for your problems. As for Russia, don't get me started on them. I hate them in this time period just as much as I hated Germany and Japan!
What sickens me is that you allways use the Jews as a scapegoat.

We started the German-Poland War, Yes. The WORLD WAR is the allied's fault.
England has allways been a war mongering nation.


Really? But if what nation declared war is the deciding factor, then it can truly be Germany that started it, since they invaded Russia, and declared war against the United States, which made it a world war, not a European one.

We started the German-Poland War, Yes. The WORLD WAR is the allied's fault.
England has allways been a war mongering nation.

This is why I hate arguing with people who are ignorant of history. Do you know what a treaty is? A treaty is a peace of paper that spells out clearly what both nations expect. Poland and England and France had an alliance. You invaded Poland which caused England and France to declare war. Therefore, you started World War II by your invasion of Poland. Do you understand what I am saying?


NO, NO, NO!!! The SS, Nazis and Gestapo were divisions in the military. Do not blame an intire nation for the acts of few.

Divisions of the GERMAN MILITARY!!!!! They were GERMAN!!

But if you want to have it your way then I guess YOU bombed the Oklahoma building, Murderd the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden etc...

He WAS NOT in the military at the time of the terrorist incident. Nice try though. I give you kudos on it. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Yea the US dropped the bomb but think about this. Would you rather have a couple of hundred thousand dead in 2 bombs or millions of dead civilians in a military invasion?

You were no heros you were war criminals just like the Nazis, even more so because you were ALL united in the fight.

How were we even more war criminals than you? You really are starting to sound like an arogent German who doesn't care what his nation did to others in a World War that YOU STARTED!

This is not what I think but it can be said if what you said is how you judge the war.

Frankly, the Japs had their chance to end it. They refused. We took the lesser of the two casualty figures and attacked.


What sickens me is that you allways use the Jews as a scapegoat.

I don't! However, they did suffer heavily thanks to German anti-semetic attitudes. After all Hitler blamed them for Germany's defeat in WWI so who used who as a scapegoat?

Don't worry I am just messing with you. ;)

But if you think about it in a sence England and France did start the world war, Germany annaxed german speaking lands outside of German lands and started to build the military and that was a CLEAR violation of the WWI treaty and they did nothing but shortly after decleard that they would insure Polands independance. I wonder why?
I love history and know all about it (The true history that I, you and all agree on), I just wanted to see how far I could get by being ignorent of the truth on this forum (If you read other posts I have made on WWII I think you will find that to be true).
It is sad what happend to the Jews, Polish and others but it can not be said that all of Germany every single German agreed with it or thought it to me a moral thing to do.
Germany had great soldiers (patriots, not Nazi's) and fought well for their country and it is sad that people today do not give them the respect they should have. America, Scotland, England, France, Norway, Poland and other nations had soldiers so brave that no words can be found. For young men to stand up agains such terror is heroic.

An apology would not bring dead people back or recreate the city.

The british need never apologize to the germans for anything.

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.

I applaud ;)

The Germans apologised for the holocaust, why dont we apologise for bombing Dresden, so long as they apologise for bombing Britain. I dont see why we all shouldn't just apologise.

The Germans apologised for the holocaust, why dont we apologise for bombing Dresden, so long as they apologise for bombing Britain. I dont see why we all shouldn't just apologise.

Why apologize to the losers of a war?

"Sorry that we bombed the crap out of your cities. If you hadn't bombed our cities then we wouldn't have bombed yours."

Yea right uh uh! NO! Apologizing is a waste of breath when your dealing with this subject.

You started the war! You started the civilian bombings! You killed people just because of religion.
:upyours:
I did not do such a thing. Please forgive me for not being born on the winning side. Allow me to chastise myself for being born in Germany 26 years after the war was over. The original sin of being a nazi can never be washed from my genes. Even if my mothers parents werent nazis, voted for the socialist and helped friends who were considered abberant artists. And my fathers mum is russian coming here after the war. And her husband, my grandfather indeed served as a common soldier in the war, sitting in prison in Russia most of his active time and eight years after the third reich ended.
Yes, great american master, please accept my humble and sincere apologies for being of such shamefull heritage and having a german passport.
Not!

:upyours:
I did not do such a thing. Please forgive me for not being born on the winning side. Allow me to chastise myself for being born in Germany 26 years after the war was over. The original sin of being a nazi can never be washed from my genes. Even if my mothers parents werent nazis, voted for the socialist and helped friends who were considered abberant artists. And my fathers mum is russian coming here after the war. And her husband, my grandfather indeed served as a common soldier in the war, sitting in prison in Russia most of his active time and eight years after the third reich ended.
Yes, great american master, please accept my humble and sincere apologies for being of such shamefull heritage and having a german passport.
Not!
JA! DANKE!!!

I personally don't recall bombing Dresden, nor being bombed by Germans. Nor do I remember any of the Prime Ministers I've lived under during my life giving any orders to bomb Germany. What in the name of all that is unholy do we have to apologise for? We haven't done anything. It was our ancestors that waged war against the Germans (who, I might add, started the war anyway), not us. If your parents were criminals, would you expect their criminal record to be transferred to you when they died? No!

I don't blame the Germans for anything, and I sure as hell don’t expect any apologies from them. I view history from an objective viewpoint, unlike a great many people. If we're going to apologise to the Germans for acts committed during WW2, why not go one further and apologise to them for how strict the Versailles Treaty was? While we're at it, I think we owe France an apology for the 100 Years War. And let's demand that Italy apologise to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish for trying to wipe out the Celts all those years ago. And I'm sure that my tribe had a war with my neighbour's tribe several thousand years ago -- I'll nip over to their house and apologise for that too, when I finish work.

No, the people who should be apologising are those who were alive at the time, and directly involved/responsible for those acts. If they won't/can't apologise, then that's not our problem. And if they already have, then that's settled.

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?

I think that the EU should have a "We're All Really Sorry" day. Each of the member nations can apologize for everything and anything that other member nations may have been offended by. The day after that can be, "We Promise Not To Screw Each Other" day.

Glad times all around, and two more days off.

We can all agree that it and the bombiong of all civilian targets during WWII was regretable.
As far as my knowledge goes the bombing of London by the Germans started off as an accident then escalated.
It was a bad time al round. I don't like this refering to any one that did things during the war as Nazis, as has been pointed out they were a party, it was people not a party that did what was done. Saying that I can't blame a child or grandchild for the actions of thier parent or grand parent. Let's learn from it and get on.

I have to assume that a lot of you writing here are fairly young and have a hard time understanding something that you can only read about and I can't tell you how many times I have heard that history is boring, etc., etc.

Well you know, WAR IS HELL!!!

Why should the British apologize for something they thought would shorten the war? They also I am sure were considering this retribution for the bombings and rocket attacks from Germany that terrorised the British citizen.

I have even winced at the thought of having to apologize to Japan for the atomic bombs being dropped on them. Which by the way, was viewed as a way to shorten the war. That was the mind set then.

In all of this, the atrocities these two countries performed against humanity, not other soldiers, seem to be lost in the mix. Even then, there were POW's that were horribly treated and their stories always seem to be conveniently forgotten. Why don't we ask them what they think? Unless some of you would view their statements as lies, and why would they lie.

It's like its OK to perform these atrocities, and be punished for them no matter how severe the punishment is, as long as the punishing country apologizes later.

Now I know I'll be treading on thin ice here, but a lot of this debate is, in my opinion, brought about by political correct types who have not seriously researched the why's and whatfores these events took place. It's easy to take a snippet of information, of an event, and make a statement about it and then watch the feathers fly, but it's so much harder to do the proper research and really learn the why's and whatfores.

Has anyone here ever been to Dresden? The city was wiped from the face of the earth that night. Dresden was once called the Florence of Germany because of the beauty of the city and all the arts there. Now after 1990 they have rebuilt a lot of the churches and theatres/opera houses there.

Every major criminal act in WW2 against civilians should be shown to the public, analysed and then apologized. So even if Nazi-Germany committed hundreds of war crimes in WW2 and UK only a few, the germans need to hear that you are sorry as well to kill 10,000s of civilians by bombing them and creating massive fires like that.

It's true that Germany has been apologizing for 60 years now and with the old war generation nearly dead and new generations coming to power we need to get a grip on our history and to help with the reconciliation. Please don't act like the french at Versailles 1919, it will only spur more trouble in the future.

We need to get over it but that doesn't mean we should forget that it happened.
Or being insensitive to the suffering of other people than our own.

Only a liar to those that oppose him. That does not make him a liar in general

Cornelius, you've said a lot of dumb shit in this thread, but this statement is exceptionally wrong. George Bush is a liar to not only his own people (all of them) but to everyone else, due to his eagerness to invade Iraq.

First he asks Iraq to stop producing weapons. Saddam tells him that they don't have any. He refuses to take their word for it and continues to badger them about dismantling weapons until Saddam has had enough of that shit and allows UN inspectors.

The inspectors find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and report this. The US, now told by both Iraq and the UN that there are no WMDS, continue to badger Iraq about disarming. Iraq replies that they have no WMDs. Bush keeps up his whole "Come on, we know you do" game.

The United States invades Iraq, resulting in a massive waste of lives for both sides. They change the emphasis of the war reporting from "Stop the WMDs" to "free the Iraqi people".

The Unites States forces do not have any more luck than the UN inspectors and find absolutely nothing. By then, everyone's attention is away from the original reason for the war. The US government quietly declares it has found nothing and continues giving Iraqi's freedom.

So therefore:
After being told that there were NO WMDs by
- The Iraqis
- The UN inspectors
GWB attacks anyway, and ends up finding NO WMDS.
He should seriously be tried as a war criminal. The US should apologise for him.

Don't worry I am just messing with you. ;)

But if you think about it in a sence England and France did start the world war, Germany annaxed german speaking lands outside of German lands and started to build the military and that was a CLEAR violation of the WWI treaty and they did nothing but shortly after decleard that they would insure Polands independance. I wonder why?
I love history and know all about it (The true history that I, you and all agree on), I just wanted to see how far I could get by being ignorent of the truth on this forum (If you read other posts I have made on WWII I think you will find that to be true).
It is sad what happend to the Jews, Polish and others but it can not be said that all of Germany every single German agreed with it or thought it to me a moral thing to do.
Germany had great soldiers (patriots, not Nazi's) and fought well for their country and it is sad that people today do not give them the respect they should have. America, Scotland, England, France, Norway, Poland and other nations had soldiers so brave that no words can be found. For young men to stand up agains such terror is heroic.
I see. I guess after Corneliu spanked your ass that you were just "messing" around. Why don't you just admit you are wrong, and ignorant of world history?

Has anyone here ever been to Dresden? The city was wiped from the face of the earth that night. Dresden was once called the Florence of Germany because of the beauty of the city and all the arts there. Now after 1990 they have rebuilt a lot of the churches and theatres/opera houses there.

Every major criminal act in WW2 against civilians should be shown to the public, analysed and then apologized. So even if Nazi-Germany committed hundreds of war crimes in WW2 and UK only a few, the germans need to hear that you are sorry as well to kill 10,000s of civilians by bombing them and creating massive fires like that.

It's true that Germany has been apologizing for 60 years now and with the old war generation nearly dead and new generations coming to power we need to get a grip on our history and to help with the reconciliation. Please don't act like the french at Versailles 1919, it will only spur more trouble in the future.

We need to get over it but that doesn't mean we should forget that it happened.
Or being insensitive to the suffering of other people than our own.
The fact is the bombing was more effective than anticipated, bombing like this but not quite on the scale had gone on for months. Wrongly this was seen as a way to shorten the number of people killed. If the Germans had capitulated after Dresden as the allies had hoped MILIIONS of lives would have been spared. So do we say sorry or shame we did not shock them further and got them to surrender.

There is no reason to apologize.

Cornelius, you've said a lot of dumb shit in this thread, but this statement is exceptionally wrong. George Bush is a liar to not only his own people (all of them) but to everyone else, due to his eagerness to invade Iraq.

How is it wrong? Excuse me for saying this but I take it that you are either a Kerry/Democrat supporter or a non-american. Either which makes sense for you to say this. However, Bush is not a 100% liar as the democrats make him out to believe. Only the most staunchest of democrats believe that he is a complete liar. And here's a thought! Clinton was a liar too as was Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, etc etc etc.

First he asks Iraq to stop producing weapons. Saddam tells him that they don't have any. He refuses to take their word for it and continues to badger them about dismantling weapons until Saddam has had enough of that shit and allows UN inspectors.

Well if Saddam had just followed the UN Resolutions, then maybe we wouldn't have gone in. You know those 17 resolutions that told Saddam to comply or else? If Saddam didn't have these weapons then why did he stonewall the inspection process? Why did he kick out the weapons inspectors? Why didn't he come clean with documents to show that he didn't have them? If he had just come clean with proof that they've been destroyed then we WOULD NOT have invaded and instead, lifted the sanctions.

The inspectors find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and report this. The US, now told by both Iraq and the UN that there are no WMDS, continue to badger Iraq about disarming. Iraq replies that they have no WMDs. Bush keeps up his whole "Come on, we know you do" game.

The inspectors DID NOT have full access to every place they wanted to go. They were told to give advanced warning on when they were going to do a SURPRISE INSPECTION!! Why would Saddam want full warning of a surprise inspectin to take place? If he had nothing to hide then why did he want this? Why didn't he let the inspectors do their jobs unabated?

The United States invades Iraq, resulting in a massive waste of lives for both sides. They change the emphasis of the war reporting from "Stop the WMDs" to "free the Iraqi people".

I still felt that the war in Iraq was just regardless of reasons. He was a threat to the region and had to be dealt with or haven't you forgotten 1991 and why we had troops in Saudi Arabia?

The Unites States forces do not have any more luck than the UN inspectors and find absolutely nothing. By then, everyone's attention is away from the original reason for the war. The US government quietly declares it has found nothing and continues giving Iraqi's freedom.

Its a big country. However, if Saddam did have weapons, he probably moved them to Syria. After all satellites showed large truck convoys heading into Syria. What was on those trucks? Frankly, I don't care since Saddam is gone and I'm glad.

So therefore:
After being told that there were NO WMDs by
- The Iraqis
- The UN inspectors
GWB attacks anyway, and ends up finding NO WMDS.
He should seriously be tried as a war criminal. The US should apologise for him.

The Iraqis said Saddam had them! So did the Israelis. Both of them duped us. Don't blame Bush for that! Intel let us down. Bush can only make decisions based on the info he was provided. As for being tried as a war criminal, what crimes did he commit? I for one will not apologize for Bush's actions because I agree with the actions that the Bush Administration did in liberating Iraq.

We shall not apologize for something that the Germans had coming. Just like we'll never apologize for the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! We gave them a way out and they didn't take it. As for starving, what about the Jews that starved in the camps hmm? You didn't care about them starving so don't give me to have our children starve line.


Then the japanese shouldn't apologize for deathmarches as well.

Frankly, the Japs had their chance to end it. They refused. We took the lesser of the two casualty figures and attacked.


Yeah, i think the life of 1 american GI is much more important than that of thousands of japanese ?

Then the japanese shouldn't apologize for deathmarches as well.

Problem with that logic! The deathmarch was with surrendered POWs and were protected under the Geneva Conventions that Japan agreed to hold up. Heck they didn't treat the WWI POWs this way. They treated those POWs with respect. They DID NOT treat POWs of WWII that way. They butchered and killed them on the way to the POW camp.

So yea they should apologize. With Dresden though, if Germany hadn't bombed London, the mass city bombings probably would have started later in WWII. Don't forget about the Blitz (or the Battle of Britain if you prefer) was mass bombing of British Cities. When the RAF got its act together, they did the samething to German Cities.

An atom bomb is humane then ?

Yeah, i think the life of 1 american GI is much more important than that of thousands of japanese ?

I had this fight once already but I guess I can engage in it again! Hundreds of thousands died in 2 bombings or would you prefer millions dead? There would've been even more casualties of civilians if we had to invade the the Main Island of Japan. We took the path that would keep civilian Casualties low!

An atom bomb is humane then ?

No its not but it did keep the civilian casualties low compared to an invasion of the island.

Yeah, sure. The americans wanted to win the war with the smallest amount of troop casualties as possible. They knew that an invasion of japan would be bloody and long, especially for the GI's. So the easy way is to send a bomber , high up in the sky, almost no risk what so ever and nuke thousands of innocent civilions just to keep casualties low.

Great job, you really convinced me :confused:

Yeah, sure. The americans wanted to win the war with the smallest amount of troop casualties as possible. They knew that an invasion of japan would be bloody and long, especially for the GI's. So the easy way is to send a bomber , high up in the sky, almost no risk what so ever and nuke thousands of innocent civilions just to keep casualties low.

Great job, you really convinced me :confused:

We also wanted to end the war with as little civilian casualties as possible. I suggest you read up on what the projected casualties would've been on both sides. You might have an understanding why President Truman issued the order to drop the bomb.

We also wanted to end the war with as little civilian casualties as possible. I suggest you read up on what the projected casualties would've been on both sides. You might have an understanding why President Truman issued the order to drop the bomb.

Wasn't it also for the fact that Uncle Joe was gearing up for an invasion of Japan. And so, to keep the red menace away from Japan the states wanted a quick surrender?

Just throwing out random thoughts right now.. ;)

1 bomb wasn't enough to keep the casualties low, so you decided to throw another. How honorable.

Yes, I think I'll use this thread as proof that the EU will eventually lapse into civil war over who should apologize for what.

1 bomb wasn't enough to keep the casualties low, so you decided to throw another. How honorable.
They could have surrendered after the first one.

Would you have done it ?

1 bomb wasn't enough to keep the casualties low, so you decided to throw another. How honorable.

If the militar Junta surrendered when Hiroshima was bombed out of existence then we wouldn't have had to drop the 2nd one. Your just as ignorant about this as North Island was.

The Hiroshima bomb didn't force Japan to surrender. The Nagasaki Bomb however, forced the Emperor to declare that the war was over. The Military Junta tried to take out the Imperial throne but the attempted Coup failed. Japan issued the Cease Fire then in September, onboard the USS Missouri officially surrendered to the United States of America.

Would you have done it ?

Knowing that the enemy had a bomb that flattens whole city and we didn't, yes I would've.

Why apologize to the losers of a war?
So the people who died are worth nothing just ebcause they were born in the wrong place? The German populace, the majoirty of whom did not support the Nazis, are worth no less than the Jews Hitler killed, or the millions Stalin killed in the Ghulags.

"Sorry that we bombed the crap out of your cities. If you hadn't bombed our cities then we wouldn't have bombed yours."
Bombing Germany had little, if any, effect on the outcome of the war.

Yea right uh uh! NO! Apologizing is a waste of breath when your dealing with this subject.
Of course it is, because they lost the war and so the people who died are woth nothing. All your "Eye for an eye" attitude will achieve is build resentment among people who are no longer enemies.

So the people who died are worth nothing just ebcause they were born in the wrong place? The German populace, the majoirty of whom did not support the Nazis, are worth no less than the Jews Hitler killed, or the millions Stalin killed in the Ghulags.

If they didn't do anything against the nazis then they, by doing nothing, approved of the Nazis. If they didn't like them then they could've risen up against them. They didn't.

Bombing Germany had little, if any, effect on the outcome of the war.

Bombing England had little effect on the outcome of the war

Of course it is, because they lost the war and so the people who died are woth nothing. All your "Eye for an eye" attitude will achieve is build resentment among people who are no longer enemies.

So it may but Shroeder did enough to build resentment as it is!

Just because someone didn't fight the Nazis doesn't mean they approved of them.

Some people just don't have it in them to fight. They would rather be alive and eating croissants and smoking unfiltered Gauloise cigarettes and pissing in the street rather than being shot by German soldiers in some remote farmyard.

Guys like these: http://img229.exs.cx/img229/310/soldierofsurrender8vh.jpg

If they didn't do anything against the nazis then they, by doing nothing, approved of the Nazis. If they didn't like them then they could've risen up against them. They didn't.
Yes, life is binary. Black and White, nothing in between. The mere fact that all organizations who were able to put up some resistance at the start were destroyed and their leaders incarcerated or already executed or deported to concentration camps must have made an uprising quite a breeze. I gather you really are the expert on life in a totalitarian system where secret police and denunciation abound.
How come you are so full of yourself?

So it may but Shroeder did enough to build resentment as it is!
Who is this Shroeder you are talking of? Is he a politician like Busch, Pootin and Blare? Is it so hard to at least refer to the right person with the wrong accusations?

If they didn't do anything against the nazis then they, by doing nothing, approved of the Nazis. If they didn't like them then they could've risen up against them. They didn't.
Actually they voted against the Nazis. It was a quirk of the system of proportional representation and also the Nazis tendancy to position stormtroopers outside polling booths that allowed them to take over.

Bombing England had little effect on the outcome of the war
1) It's called Britain, or the Untied Kingdom. That's rather offensive to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish who are also Britons.

2) *sigh* Ok, let's start from the beginning. The Germans had no way of invading Britain whilst the Royal Navy remained intact. The Germans therefore had to find a way to damage the Royal Navy. Their own navy was pathetic, and therefore they looked to airpower as the answer. They bombed Britain in the hope of destroying the RAF, winning air superiority, destroying the RN and invading Britain. IF the bombing campaign had succeeded, there is a very real possibility that operation Sealion would have gone ahead, and Britain would have been invaded. Without Britain as a forward base, allied forces would have been unable to win the war. The Russians may have done, but it's unlikely without British and US support. In summary, it mattered a very great deal, and please learn some history before arguing with people.

So it may but Shroeder did enough to build resentment as it is!
I refer you back to my "eye for an eye" comment.

Yes, life is binary. Black and White, nothing in between. The mere fact that all organizations who were able to put up some resistance at the start were destroyed and their leaders incarcerated or already executed or deported to concentration camps must have made an uprising quite a breeze. I gather you really are the expert on life in a totalitarian system where secret police and denunciation abound.
How come you are so full of yourself?

The military could've done something. Heck they tried but it didn't quite succeed. As for being an expert on totalitarian system and denunciations, most of the time, the denunciations are false or were used as a means of persuasion to get rid of an individual that a government doesn't like. Also people would denounce people for no reason than to get out of trouble. Doesn't do much good but at least they aren't executed outright if they name names.

As for being full of myself, I'm not.

Who is this Shroeder you are talking of? Is he a politician like Busch, Pootin and Blare? Is it so hard to at least refer to the right person with the wrong accusations?

He's the person in charge of a nation called Germany who got elected on an anti-american platform! He saw he was losing the election and played on the Anti-Americanism of the country. Smart but it was really dumb. Now he had to change his tune again. And I thought Kerry had the market on Flip flops! LOL!!!

If they didn't do anything against the nazis then they, by doing nothing, approved of the Nazis. If they didn't like them then they could've risen up against them. They didn't.

Anyone remember how long it was before the US joined the war? Did they approve of the Nazi's until '42? Of course, some companies, like Standard Oil, were doing business with them even AFTER the US finally decided to join in. Which means that they probably DID approve of it.

Not to mention the tireless work of the OSS to rescue as many top Nazi personel as they could. People like Nazi Chief of Intel, Reinhard Gehlen, or Klaus 'The Butcher of Lyon' Barbie. Or Otto von Bolschwing, the man who, together with Eichmann, came up with the idea of the holocaust.

So, who's the approved of the Nazi's then? The oppressed people who felt that being slaughtered by the finest army in the world wouldn't be very helpful, the the people who felt the best way to stop the Nazi's was to do business with them and rescue them from the warcrimes tribunals?

The military could've done something. Heck they tried but it didn't quite succeed. As for being an expert on totalitarian system and denunciations, most of the time, the denunciations are false or were used as a means of persuasion to get rid of an individual that a government doesn't like. Also people would denounce people for no reason than to get out of trouble. Doesn't do much good but at least they aren't executed outright if they name names.

Not as many denunciations were false as you seem to believe. Nationalism was a major tool of the Nazis, and when they were doing well, people liked them a great deal. And you would be paid well to be a government informant. Nazi Germany wasn't like Stalinist Russia; they actually looked into whether someone was guilty or not. Or at least Jewish or not.

As for being full of myself, I'm not.

Well, you're certainly full of something. Sorry, but you were just asking for that comment.

He's the person in charge of a nation called Germany who got elected on an anti-american platform! He saw he was losing the election and played on the Anti-Americanism of the country. Smart but it was really dumb. Now he had to change his tune again. And I thought Kerry had the market on Flip flops! LOL!!!

Do you actually think America is the centre of the universe? Politicians generally play on things like social security, or education. Most people in Europe don't really care if their government likes the US or not. It's certainly not an election-winning thing over here. In the middle east an anti-american candidate will do well, but in Europe an anti-american candidate had better back it up with sound policies on wellfare and immigration if he wants to get anywhere at all.

Actually they voted against the Nazis. It was a quirk of the system of proportional representation and also the Nazis tendancy to position stormtroopers outside polling booths that allowed them to take over.

True! I won't argue there on Nazi election process even though Hitler really did come power though legal means.

1) It's called Britain, or the Untied Kingdom. That's rather offensive to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish who are also Britons.

Oh God for bid that I said something offensive! They actually did bomb England. So what I said was correct. However, it was called the Battle of Britain or the Blitz.

2) *sigh* Ok, let's start from the beginning. The Germans had no way of invading Britain whilst the Royal Navy remained intact. The Germans therefore had to find a way to damage the Royal Navy. Their own navy was pathetic, and therefore they looked to airpower as the answer. They bombed Britain in the hope of destroying the RAF, winning air superiority, destroying the RN and invading Britain. IF the bombing campaign had succeeded, there is a very real possibility that operation Sealion would have gone ahead, and Britain would have been invaded. Without Britain as a forward base, allied forces would have been unable to win the war. The Russians may have done, but it's unlikely without British and US support. In summary, it mattered a very great deal, and please learn some history before arguing with people.

If Hitler hadn't let up on the RAF, Hitler would've won the Battle of Britain. Instead he changed tactics when the RAF was on the ropes and the rest is history. The RAF got a break and took that break to rebuild. Radar helped out in the Battle of Britain too. When the RAF was rebuilt, it kicked the crap out of the German Air Force and won the battle.

I refer you back to my "eye for an eye" comment.

An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Its the type of guy I am.

The military could've done something.
Sorry, we were talking about the "general populace". Its nice that you try to dodge the issue at hand by dragging the military in, but i insist that you tell me how the average Joe should have made an uprising.

He's the person in charge of a nation called Germany who got elected on an anti-american platform! He saw he was losing the election and played on the Anti-Americanism of the country. Smart but it was really dumb. Now he had to change his tune again. And I thought Kerry had the market on Flip flops! LOL!!!
No such person here. Maybe you refer to Chancellor Schröder.
And about changing tune, the "old Europe", which is not for you, and therefore against you, is getting pretty friendly notes recently from your side. LOL!!! (<- this really has to be included in a mature discussion, doesnt it?)

Anyone remember how long it was before the US joined the war? Did they approve of the Nazi's until '42? Of course, some companies, like Standard Oil, were doing business with them even AFTER the US finally decided to join in. Which means that they probably DID approve of it.

We didn't want anything to do with an European War. Even when Japan Bombed pearl harbor, we just declared war on Japan, not on Germany or Italy. Germany Declared war on US! Only on then did we declare on them.

Not to mention the tireless work of the OSS to rescue as many top Nazi personel as they could. People like Nazi Chief of Intel, Reinhard Gehlen, or Klaus 'The Butcher of Lyon' Barbie. Or Otto von Bolschwing, the man who, together with Eichmann, came up with the idea of the holocaust.

Ok? Where did this come from?

So, who's the approved of the Nazi's then? The oppressed people who felt that being slaughtered by the finest army in the world wouldn't be very helpful, the the people who felt the best way to stop the Nazi's was to do business with them and rescue them from the warcrimes tribunals?

And yet, the people that were upper end of the food chain, they were prosecuted for their crimes!

We didn't want anything to do with an European War. Even when Japan Bombed pearl harbor, we just declared war on Japan, not on Germany or Italy. Germany Declared war on US! Only on then did we declare on them.

Very good. But you were saying earlier that if you did nothing to stop the Nazi's then you approved of them. So you openly admit that the US was supporting Hitler?

Ok? Where did this come from?

It's called history. You might try learning some of it before you comment on it.

And yet, the people that were upper end of the food chain, they were prosecuted for their crimes!

Gehlen was the chief of Nazi intel. Klaus Barbie was head of the Gestapo in Lyon. Bolshwing was Eichman's second in command. How far up the food chain do you have to go to be a bad person in your book, Corneliu? Barbie was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Bolshwing was joint responsible for the deaths of five MILLION. I just feel that maybe they should have gone on trial rather than getting cushy retirement jobs in the CIA.

An apology from the americans is hollow, because they are liars and have no national character or credibility.
Truer words were never spoken.

well actually i think it was a bunch of ,i hate to say it, terrorists (serbians i believe) who assasinated Prince frederick (or someone with a name like that)
Actually it was the Russians who turned the relative small Balkan conflict into a world war with their early general mobilisation against Austria and Germany. Which was encouraged by the French.

Enough with the screaming over Dresden. War sucks, yes - but we're only that more screwed over if we keep complaining about it! (now back your regularly scheduled flamefest)

Very good. But you were saying earlier that if you did nothing to stop the Nazi's then you approved of them. So you openly admit that the US was supporting Hitler?

Explain Lend-Lease then! You know, where we gave the British destroyers and weapons to fight the Krauts? Not only that, but we aslo gave weapons to the Soviet Union too. Now are you still going to say that we supported the Nazis?

It's called history. You might try learning some of it before you comment on it.

Your right! You forgot about Lend-Lease and all the assistance that we gave you in the fight against the Nazis. I will admit though, that I don't study the European Theater as much as I should.

Gehlen was the chief of Nazi intel. Klaus Barbie was head of the Gestapo in Lyon. Bolshwing was Eichman's second in command. How far up the food chain do you have to go to be a bad person in your book, Corneliu? Barbie was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Bolshwing was joint responsible for the deaths of five MILLION. I just feel that maybe they should have gone on trial rather than getting cushy retirement jobs in the CIA.

Spoils of War :D

Truer words were never spoken.

Somehow, I am not surprised by this comment.

That's because he's right

Speaking of the spoils of war.

How many of the "rocket men" were ex-nazi party members when we brought them to the US?

That's because he's right

No he's not Eurotrash. BTW: Your name fits ya.

Speaking of the spoils of war.

How many of the "rocket men" were ex-nazi party members when we brought them to the US?

Half of them :p

BTW: Your name fits ya.


Is that supposed to offend my in any way ?

Explain Lend-Lease? If we liked Hitler do you honestly think that we would've supported Great Britain. Not only did we support Britain but we also supported the USSR.

And, as mentioned previously, you continued to do business with the Germans as well. You don't tend to mention it, since the Germans were the bad guys. Lend-lease was a wonderful business opportunity to keep selling weapons when Britain had run out of cash. Well done. It had SFA to do with anything else. The US sold Germany large quantities of oil until the Ukraine was taken, without which the German army would have had tremendous trouble attacking anyone. Like the British, in Africa. Thanks for the support there. And you still seem to be avoiding the fact that you yourself said if you weren't trying to stop the Nazi's then you approved of them, which is the root of the matter.

I know alot about history dumbass. I just don't get down to the niddy griddy of it. I've written reports about History. However, the European War is not my forte however, I know enough to hold my own in a debate.

Ah, we've resorted to name calling. Very well, you insignificant little autofellating coprophage, that's what it'll have to be. And if by niddy griddy (which most people who've actually learned to spell write 'nitty gritty') you mean 'facts', then I believe you entirely.

By the way, all of us who went to secondary school wrote reports in history. So did those of us who studied it in college. And University. Doing the second world war. Dumbass.

Spoils of war :D

Ah, attempting to use satire. Almost refreshing, if you weren't refering to mass murdering scumbags being offered safe haven by your country.

Now, would you care to actually answer the whole 'those who don't fight Nazis approved of them' thing? Or do you think we could use it to justify the Japanese sinking half your fleet at Pearl Harbour, since your sailors did nothing to stop Hitler (fascists in the navy!!!)?

I still say every ten years we need to bomb Germany and Japan just to keep them honest. Hell, we could use those old vets from WWII to man the bombers. I'm sure they wouldn't mind doing it, it would be like old times.

I still say every ten years we need to bomb Germany and Japan just to keep them honest. Hell, we could use those old vets from WWII to man the bombers. I'm sure they wouldn't mind doing it, it would be like old times.
Every few years a couple of planes should fly into American buildings. Just for laughs.

I still say every ten years we need to bomb Germany and Japan just to keep them honest. Hell, we could use those old vets from WWII to man the bombers. I'm sure they wouldn't mind doing it, it would be like old times.

Ah, Johnny. I never get tired of hoping that you'll fall down a well one day and no-one will ever find you.

Should they apologize? Definatley no.

A apology has ALWAYS to be a decision of your own free will.

Though it would be a nice gesture if they´d apologize, but as I said above, it´s up to them.

Every few years a couple of planes should fly into American buildings. Just for laughs.

Every week American B-52's should incinerate your hometown.

Every week American B-52's should incinerate your hometown.

They'd probably miss and hit you're own guys. Again.

Or fly in their own buildings

Should they apologize? Definatley no.

A apology has ALWAYS to be a decision of your own free will.

Though it would be a nice gesture if they´d apologize, but as I said above, it´s up to them.


To be honest, I don't think anyone should apologise for any of the acts commited during war, as long as they remain within the bounds of the Geneva Convention. It IS a war, for God's sake, and frankly it's not like anyones going to really mean it if they apologise.

What about you hate-filled morons finally shut up. Go away and die!

EDIT: Not directed at the poster directly above me.

The following quote is an example of a crock of shit.

Actually it was the Russians who turned the relative small Balkan conflict into a world war with their early general mobilisation against Austria and Germany. Which was encouraged by the French.


Austria declared war on Serbia for NOT agreeing all the demands in the ultimatum.

Russia then starts to mobilize troops on its border with Austria.

Germany orders Russia to stop mobilizing.

Russia declines.

Germany declares war on Russia.

I would say a declaration of war, exacerbates a situation a hell of alot more than simple mobilization!


I'm sure your interpretation of the invasion of Belgium is quite amusing as well! [/sarcasm]


You also conveniently ignore that fact that the Triple Alliance(Italy,Germany, Austria-Hungary) was an alliance based on a defensive war. Meaning that IF any of these countries were attacked(declaration of war, etc) then the others would help. Since A-H declared war on Serbia AND Germany declared war on Russia, Italy was in no way obligated to help either Austria-Hungary or Germany, since it was those two countries that had declared war!

Every few years a couple of planes should fly into American buildings. Just for laughs.


What a typical childish statement.

To be honest, I don't think anyone should apologise for any of the acts commited during war, as long as they remain within the bounds of the Geneva Convention. It IS a war, for God's sake, and frankly it's not like anyones going to really mean it if they apologise.

Once could argue that bombing the center of a city (where people used to live) isn´t covered by the Geneva Convention as "legal". The bombing WAS a atrocity.

What about you hate-filled morons finally shut up. Go away and die!

EDIT: Not directed at the poster directly above me.

Thanks. Who DID you aim it at, out of interest?

Or fly in their own buildings


Fly in their own buildings?? They must be huge buildings.

And, as mentioned previously, you continued to do business with the Germans as well. You don't tend to mention it, since the Germans were the bad guys. Lend-lease was a wonderful business opportunity to keep selling weapons when Britain had run out of cash. Well done. It had SFA to do with anything else. The US sold Germany large quantities of oil until the Ukraine was taken, without which the German army would have had tremendous trouble attacking anyone. Like the British, in Africa. Thanks for the support there. And you still seem to be avoiding the fact that you yourself said if you weren't trying to stop the Nazi's then you approved of them, which is the root of the matter.

Well since we were a neutral Nation till 1941, then I guess we could do business with whomever we wanted too. However, we've always supported Great Britain in their fight against Nazism. We had Cash and Carry followed by Lend-Lease. Not to mention, Americans took it upon themselves to fight against Nazism. The American People didn't want a war because we were tired of it. So we had to come up with otherwise to support our allies that were fighting the Krauts! Lend-Lease was that method. The Government DID OPPOSE the Germans just not with a declaration of war until Germany and Italy declared war on us.

Ah, we've resorted to name calling. Very well, you insignificant little autofellating coprophage, that's what it'll have to be. And if by niddy griddy (which most people who've actually learned to spell write 'nitty gritty') you mean 'facts', then I believe you entirely.

Accidental. I apologize for calling you a dumbass. I did delete this post with one that was underneath it.

By the way, all of us who went to secondary school wrote reports in history. So did those of us who studied it in college. And University. Doing the second world war. Dumbass.

Now who is resorting to insults? BTW: My knowledge is more on the Pacific side than the European Side.

Ah, attempting to use satire. Almost refreshing, if you weren't refering to mass murdering scumbags being offered safe haven by your country.

Hey the Soviet Union was doing it too. Besides, these idiots surrendered to us and were offered immunity. I don't know why! I know what half of those people did and I think they should've been punished but that is looking back on it in hindsight.

Now, would you care to actually answer the whole 'those who don't fight Nazis approved of them' thing? Or do you think we could use it to justify the Japanese sinking half your fleet at Pearl Harbour, since your sailors did nothing to stop Hitler (fascists in the navy!!!)?

We fought them the incognito way with cash and carry and Lend-Lease. As for the Sinking of half of the US Fleet, I blame that on a lack of intel and idiotic decisions on the commanders.

The following quote is an example of a crock of shit.




Austria declared war on Serbia for NOT agreeing all the demands in the ultimatum.

Russia then starts to mobilize troops on its border with Austria.

Germany orders Russia to stop mobilizing.

Russia declines.

Germany declares war on Russia.

I would say a declaration of war, exacerbates a situation a hell of alot more than simple mobilization!


I'm sure your interpretation of the invasion of Belgium is quite amusing as well! [/sarcasm]


You also conveniently ignore that fact that the Triple Alliance(Italy,Germany, Austria-Hungary) was an alliance based on a defensive war. Meaning that IF any of these countries were attacked(declaration of war, etc) then the others would help. Since A-H declared war on Serbia AND Germany declared war on Russia, Italy was in no way obligated to help either Austria-Hungary or Germany, since it was those two countries that had declared war!

And you deny the little but important fact that EVERY nation in Europe was itching for war in 1914. Whatever anyone would have done, war was unevitable at this point. It´s pointless to discuss who started it. Though it should be discussed who such a atmosphere of common distrust, hatred and jingoism could created in the cradle of modern civilization.

They'd probably miss and hit you're own guys. Again.

Nah just the Canucks and other ethnic types in Europe.

Thanks. Who DID you aim it at, out of interest?

Eurotrash Monkey, Von Witzleben, that Johnny Wadd gimp and all the others of"Let´s bomb the shit out of them just for kicks/ stupid reason"-faction.

Eurotrash Monkey, Von Witzleben, that Johnny Wadd gimp and all the others of"Let´s bomb the shit out of them just for kicks/ stupid reason"-faction.

I am not a gimp as I usually don't wear leather outfits. That was never my scene. But it fits you Euroweirdos' to a t.

Every few years a couple of planes should fly into American buildings. Just for laughs.

And if you want the world to erupt into fire, this is the best way to do it. Don't piss off the United States. Japan Learned this the hard way as has, Kaiser Bill, the Spainish Monarch, Mexican Government, The British Government (Twice), and the Barbary Pirates. Hell, you can even include the French in that if you like.

Once could argue that bombing the center of a city (where people used to live) isn´t covered by the Geneva Convention as "legal". The bombing WAS a atrocity.

Fair, but Dresden was a legitimate industrial target. It housed major war factories, just as London did.

Or fly in their own buildings

HAHA! That's so funny Trashy I forgot to laugh! Our piliots have a good sense of where they are. They don't fly into buildings.

I'm trembling as you speak

Fair, but Dresden was a legitimate industrial target. It housed major war factories, just as London did.

That´s why I´d consider bombing any town a atrocity ;)

And if you want the world to erupt into fire, this is the best way to do it. Don't piss off the United States. Japan Learned this the hard way as has, Kaiser Bill, the Spainish Monarch, Mexican Government, The British Government (Twice), and the Barbary Pirates. Hell, you can even include the French in that if you like.

Yes, I can tell by Condoleeza Rice's grovelling statement to try and patch things up that the French really are the ones who regret your falling out. Oh, and in 1812 the British surrounded Washington D.C. for two and a half months until the US begged for peace. Don't piss off the British Government. Oh, and you only won the war of independence because the Brits had pissed off the French government. Don't piss off the French, either. Oh, and you only beat Kaiser Bill because the British and the French had been fighting him for 4 years and his economy had colapsed. Don't try and claim a victory there.

HAHA! That's so funny Trashy I forgot to laugh! Our piliots have a good sense of where they are. They don't fly into buildings.

My, your razor sharp wit once again humbles us all, Corneliu. Still waiting for your response on the who US supporting Hitler thing, BTW. You do HAVE a response, don't you? You weren't just letting your mouth run away with you, and then realised you had no decent answers left and I wasn't going to let you dodge the question?

Corneliu, ur jokes are lamer then FDR's legs

Yes, I can tell by Condoleeza Rice's grovelling statement to try and patch things up that the French really are the ones who regret your falling out. Oh, and in 1812 the British surrounded Washington D.C. for two and a half months until the US begged for peace. Don't piss off the British Government. Oh, and you only won the war of independence because the Brits had pissed off the French government. Don't piss off the French, either. Oh, and you only beat Kaiser Bill because the British and the French had been fighting him for 4 years and his economy had colapsed. Don't try and claim a victory there.

WE BEGGED FOR PEACE!!!!!???? That is such a load of crock it isn't even funny. BTW: You lost on the Sea, you suffered mightly in NY State. Want me to show you how badly the British were taking it near the end of the war? You did do a good job in trying to win, hence the demands when negotiations first started. However, you didn't get anything that you wanted because word spread that you suffered set backs in 1812. As for the Revolutionary War, the Brits pissed off the Russians, the Swedes, the Dutch, the Spanish, the French, the Swedes! They became diplomatically Isolated! They had to sue for peace. As for WWI, we joined out of necessity, not out of any alliance. We fought because we got tired of the Krauts unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Besides, they did more to their demise than we did. Mutinies and a revolution, causing Kaiser Bill to flee the country. As for claiming victory, then the French and the Brits and Italians shouldn't declare Victory either because the Germans mutinied, and they had a revolution that ended WWI. As for Condi Rice grovelling, that's a load of crock too. Its called diplomacy.

Corneliu, ur jokes are lamer then FDR's legs

Oh I'm sorry Eurotrash.

It's ok, as long as you know it

My, your razor sharp wit once again humbles us all, Corneliu. Still waiting for your response on the who US supporting Hitler thing, BTW. You do HAVE a response, don't you? You weren't just letting your mouth run away with you, and then realised you had no decent answers left and I wasn't going to let you dodge the question?

I guess you missed my post. My country was fighting Hitler short of a Declaration of War. We were fighting them through Cash and Carry and Lend-Lease.

It's ok, as long as you know it

As long as I know what? I wasn't joking. Your name is suiting you quite nicely.

Thank you for the compliment

The following quote is an example of a crock of shit.


Austria declared war on Serbia for NOT agreeing all the demands in the ultimatum.

Russia then starts to mobilize troops on its border with Austria.

Germany orders Russia to stop mobilizing.

Russia declines.

Germany declares war on Russia.
Russia mobilizes on July 28 against Austria. On July 30 they fully mobilize. Sergej Dobrorolski, commander of the Russian mobilization command, later declares that the war was a done deal for the Russian military command eversince july 25. On July 30 Germany sends an ultimatum to stop mobilzation. And the rest is history.


I would say a declaration of war, exacerbates a situation a hell of alot more than simple mobilization!
I would say in an explosive political climate like that a mobilization against Germany made an official DOW just a formality.





You also conveniently ignore that fact that the Triple Alliance(Italy,Germany, Austria-Hungary) was an alliance based on a defensive war. Meaning that IF any of these countries were attacked(declaration of war, etc) then the others would help. Since A-H declared war on Serbia AND Germany declared war on Russia, Italy was in no way obligated to help either Austria-Hungary or Germany, since it was those two countries that had declared war!
I never mentioned the alliance. But while your at it. Italy signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 which ensured Italian neutrality in case of a French-German conflict regardless who started it.
Your entire post is an example of a crock of shit.

WE BEGGED FOR PEACE!!!!!???? That is such a load of crock it isn't even funny.

Just going to start easily here by pointing out that the term you were trying to use is 'crock of shit'. A 'load of crock' would be a large amount of fine china.

BTW: You lost on the Sea, you suffered mightly in NY State. Want me to show you how badly the British were taking it near the end of the war? You did do a good job in trying to win, hence the demands when negotiations first started. However, you didn't get anything that you wanted because word spread that you suffered set backs in 1812.

We certainly did not lose on the sea. And may I remind you who's capital city was surrounded by the enemy? In fact, may I remind you who was in who's country? The main thing which saved you in that war was Napoleon. So once again, don't piss off the French.

As for the Revolutionary War, the Brits pissed off the Russians, the Swedes, the Dutch, the Spanish, the French, the Swedes! They became diplomatically Isolated! They had to sue for peace.

Proving that your entire previous post about 'not pissing off the US government' is, to use the term you couldn't, a crock of shit. You won the war because SIX other countries wanted Britain out of America. Not because the mighty United States Government defeated us. We could have not merely pissed you off, but pissed in your faces, and if almost all of the rest of Europe hadn't intervened then you would have been able to do SFA about it.

As for WWI, we joined out of necessity, not out of any alliance. We fought because we got tired of the Krauts unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Besides, they did more to their demise than we did. Mutinies and a revolution, causing Kaiser Bill to flee the country. As for claiming victory, then the French and the Brits and Italians shouldn't declare Victory either because the Germans mutinied, and they had a revolution that ended WWI.

Again, that previous post where you claimed it was all because they'd upset the US is contradicted by this. You're not very good at this, are you? You need to make posts that support each other, not ones that simply argue mindlessly with everything else on the thread.

As for Condi Rice grovelling, that's a load of crock too. Its called diplomacy.

No, diplomacy is what your government failed to do so badly that now they need to send Condi Rice running around to try and clear up the mess.

Thank you for the compliment

Your not welcome eurotrash

I guess you missed my post. My country was fighting Hitler short of a Declaration of War. We were fighting them through Cash and Carry and Lend-Lease.

And through selling them oil to fuel their war machines. Have you ever heard the word 'embargo', Corneliu? It'd have helped a great deal if you'd done that.

Your not welcome eurotrash

Too bad, i thought we were becoming close friends after all.

Too bad, i thought we were becoming close friends after all.

I'm sure it breaks your heart, dude.

My pink satin handkerchief is soaked with tears.

Too bad, i thought we were becoming close friends after all.
*Pats ES on shoulder*
Maybe next time.

Would you be my new friend ? :D

Would you be my new friend ? :D
Sure!!! Wanna have a sleepover in my kingsize bed?

Do I !!?? :fluffle:

Do I !!?? :fluffle:
Bring your leather string. I'll have handcuffs, whips and French wines.

Sure, i'll bring some fine toe cheese.

Sure, i'll bring some fine toe cheese.
Yummie!!! :D

You won the war because SIX other countries wanted Britain out of America.



What?

you mean Mel Gibsons "The Patriot" isnt hisorical correct?

SHOCKER!

What?

you mean Mel Gibsons "The Patriot" isnt hisorical correct?

SHOCKER!

Boy, have I got news for you, dude. Braveheart wasn't either! William Wallace had RED hair, damnit! And as for 'The passion of the Christ'... Well, let's just say that that hippy with the long hair getting beaten had NOTHING to do with it.

Boy, have I got news for you, dude. Braveheart wasn't either! William Wallace had RED hair, damnit! And as for 'The passion of the Christ'... Well, let's just say that that hippy with the long hair getting beaten had NOTHING to do with it.
But surely U-571 was historical.

But surely U-571 was historical.

Nope. It's based on the time I spent with my Aunt Maureen at Blackpool Pleasure Beach in 1987. They just embellished it a little for the US audience.

Just going to start easily here by pointing out that the term you were trying to use is 'crock of shit'. A 'load of crock' would be a large amount of fine china.

Well excuse me for not cussing. I guess you don't understand that your not supposed to swear in a debate. It makes you immature.

We certainly did not lose on the sea. And may I remind you who's capital city was surrounded by the enemy? In fact, may I remind you who was in who's country? The main thing which saved you in that war was Napoleon. So once again, don't piss off the French.

Yes you did. You never blockaded the US Coast (a goal that was not accomplished) and you lost alot of ships at sea including consecutive engagements for the first time in British Naval History. You also lost on the Great Lakes too. Yes you did lose the Sea War. That is what kept the US in the fight. As for DC, you do know that was in response for the US burning the City of York (Now Toronto) right? Yea that's right then you marched on Baltimore but couldn't move on the City due to Fort McHenry. You lost there too. As for the French, yea they kept you busy but defeated them then shipped forces over to fight us. Then you sued for peace.

Proving that your entire previous post about 'not pissing off the US government' is, to use the term you couldn't, a crock of shit. You won the war because SIX other countries wanted Britain out of America. Not because the mighty United States Government defeated us. We could have not merely pissed you off, but pissed in your faces, and if almost all of the rest of Europe hadn't intervened then you would have been able to do SFA about it.

I don't cuss when I debate. It makes ya immature when cuss words are used. However, it is a known fact that if you piss us off, we'll kick ya in the balls. Just ask Japan. Ask the Spanish Monarch (though that is debatable considering the USS Maine's destruction was an accident but then again, Spain pissed us off over Cuba)! And it was just six Countries. I could look up how many nations became arrayed against you if you like. I'm sure your'll find the number surprising considering it was most of EUROPE including Russia. Besides, our forces did a marvelous job of cornoring Cornwallis at Yorktown with the French Navy at sea, forced him to surrender to the Colonial Army. That was when the war ended for the most part.

Again, that previous post where you claimed it was all because they'd upset the US is contradicted by this. You're not very good at this, are you? You need to make posts that support each other, not ones that simply argue mindlessly with everything else on the thread.

I guess its mindless to you because it makes sense.

No, diplomacy is what your government failed to do so badly that now they need to send Condi Rice running around to try and clear up the mess.

Believe what you want

What?

you mean Mel Gibsons "The Patriot" isnt hisorical correct?

SHOCKER!

It was Historical to a point. The French did help the US however, it didn't get into the other nations that aligned itself against the British.

Too bad, i thought we were becoming close friends after all.

Lose your attitude and maybe we could become friends!

we should'nt apolagise. The germans would have definately stopped the Rusian advance by camping in it and trying to turn it into another Stalingrad. Germany raised Europe to the ground twice in 30 years and (in my opinion) they have got away without much punishment

Well excuse me for not cussing. I guess you don't understand that your not supposed to swear in a debate. It makes you immature.

Lots of things make you seem immature, Corneliu. Not being able to spell, using the word 'cuss' instead of 'swear', and also using the word 'dumbass' at any time except in mockery of the idiot who first uses it. Which, in case your goldfish-like memory is still straining, was you. Dumbass.

Yes you did. You never blockaded the US Coast (a goal that was not accomplished) and you lost alot of ships at sea including consecutive engagements for the first time in British Naval History. You also lost on the Great Lakes too. Yes you did lose the Sea War. That is what kept the US in the fight. As for DC, you do know that was in response for the US burning the City of York (Now Toronto) right? Yea that's right then you marched on Baltimore but couldn't move on the City due to Fort McHenry. You lost there too. As for the French, yea they kept you busy but defeated them then shipped forces over to fight us. Then you sued for peace.

The French, at the time, were attempting to conquer all of Europe, and Britain was trying to stop them. If that constitutes 'keeping us busy', then I'd agree. The fact is that America was considered barely worth fighting for compared to stopping France. The war petered out shortly BEFORE the British left Washington, as niether side could really see the point in fighting when they had better stuff to do. Oh, and the British lost absolutely nothing of value in this war, so I hardly feel it shows us not to mess with the US.

I don't cuss when I debate. It makes ya immature when cuss words are used. However, it is a known fact that if you piss us off, we'll kick ya in the balls. Just ask Japan. Ask the Spanish Monarch (though that is debatable considering the USS Maine's destruction was an accident but then again, Spain pissed us off over Cuba)! And it was just six Countries. I could look up how many nations became arrayed against you if you like. I'm sure your'll find the number surprising considering it was most of EUROPE including Russia. Besides, our forces did a marvelous job of cornoring Cornwallis at Yorktown with the French Navy at sea, forced him to surrender to the Colonial Army. That was when the war ended for the most part.

Which makes your initial point, which you again seem to be having touble focusing on, patently nonsense. Britain, when at war with most of the Great Powers on the planet at the time, was beaten by the US. My, that makes me shake with fear. If the British hadn't had four major wars to fight in Europe against other Empires, you would have been CRUSHED. So you didn't even really win the War of Independence independently. How ironic.

Essentially, you seem to be forgetting that you were claiming that all the credit for stopping the British was down to American spirit and inginuity. Well, it wasn't. It was because the rest of the world BAILED YOU OUT. OK?

I guess its mindless to you because it makes sense.

So we should all fear the Americans because if we attack them, the rest of the world comes and tells us off? We should fear the US at the moment cos you've got all the nukes. All the previous examples you cited are completely irrelevant tripe spouted by a half-witted over-patriotic little twerp.

Oh, and since if we piss you off you kick us in the balls, explain Veitnam. As far as I can see, the VC seem to have some sort of cast iron codpiece.

Believe what you want

Nice edit, but I saw what you put down first. I'm impressed, you were able to contradict youself in just one post. Cusswords make you seem immature, don't they?

Lots of things make you seem immature, Corneliu. Not being able to spell, using the word 'cuss' instead of 'swear', and also using the word 'dumbass' at any time except in mockery of the idiot who first uses it. Which, in case your goldfish-like memory is still straining, was you. Dumbass.

So your saying I'm immature for not typing the word swear inplace of cuss? Yes I know what I said and I apologized. Do you know what that word means?

The French, at the time, were attempting to conquer all of Europe, and Britain was trying to stop them. If that constitutes 'keeping us busy', then I'd agree. The fact is that America was considered barely worth fighting for compared to stopping France. The war petered out shortly BEFORE the British left Washington, as niether side could really see the point in fighting when they had better stuff to do. Oh, and the British lost absolutely nothing of value in this war, so I hardly feel it shows us not to mess with the US.

Because the Brits never gave us any respect until after the War of 1812. As for losing nothing of Value, you lost prestige because you did not defeat us. You were the vaunted military power and you didn't defeat us. Yea you lost something, you lost prestige.

Which makes your initial point, which you again seem to be having touble focusing on, patently nonsense. Britain, when at war with most of the Great Powers on the planet at the time, was beaten by the US. My, that makes me shake with fear. If the British hadn't had four major wars to fight in Europe against other Empires, you would have been CRUSHED. So you didn't even really win the War of Independence independently. How ironic.

You were only really fighting the US, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French! The French were a bigger player than the other two nations that actually supported us. The rest of Europe formed what the history books call it "Armed Neutrality" They were passively hostile towards Britain. You were diplomatically isolated and nowhere else to go.

Essentially, you seem to be forgetting that you were claiming that all the credit for stopping the British was down to American spirit and inginuity. Well, it wasn't. It was because the rest of the world BAILED YOU OUT. OK?

The rest of the world bailed us out? Hardly. The French only truely help us out at Yorktown by ecompassing Yorktown with their fleet which kept the British Fleet from retrieving them. The Spanish took Florida from you but never really sided with us. The Dutch, don't have much info on them but I do know that they opposed you after a certain ultimatum was delivered. You dug your own grave.

So we should all fear the Americans because if we attack them, the rest of the world comes and tells us off? We should fear the US at the moment cos you've got all the nukes. All the previous examples you cited are completely irrelevant tripe spouted by a half-witted over-patriotic little twerp.

Nice little insult. Shows your maturity.

Oh, and since if we piss you off you kick us in the balls, explain Veitnam. As far as I can see, the VC seem to have some sort of cast iron codpiece.

Seems to me that you learned nothing of Vietnam (that is how you spell it not your way). Did you know that we won every single military engagement in Vietnam? Yea we did. However, the political will wasn't there to continue to fight. Didn't help matters much that LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. If he stated from the start the truth about why we were there and didn't micromanage it, Communism would not be in Vietnam right now.

Nice edit, but I saw what you put down first. Cusswords make you seem immature, don't they?

At least I edited it because of what I said. You haven't yet.

So your saying I'm immature for not typing the word swear inplace of cuss? Yes I know what I said and I apologized. Do you know what that word means?

Yes. I also know that you didn't apologise. Having memory troubles again?

[QUOTE=Corneliu]Because the Brits never gave us any respect until after the War of 1812. As for losing nothing of Value, you lost prestige because you did not defeat us. You were the vaunted military power and you didn't defeat us. Yea you lost something, you lost prestige.

We defeated Napoleon, who we were fighting at the same time. I don't think we lost any real prestige there. Oh, and France was the 'vaunted military power'. We were the vaunted naval power. And our navy was off fighting the French.

You were only really fighting the US, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French! The French were a bigger player than the other two nations that actually supported us. The rest of Europe formed what the history books call it "Armed Neutrality" They were passively hostile towards Britain. You were diplomatically isolated and nowhere else to go.

Spain, Holland and France, between them, owned around a third of the globe. When has the US ever fought a third of the globe? Also, see above about the French military. It was the finest in the world until about 1870, and the largest until around 1905.

The rest of the world bailed us out? Hardly. The French only truely help us out at Yorktown by ecompassing Yorktown with their fleet which kept the British Fleet from retrieving them. The Spanish took Florida from you but never really sided with us. The Dutch, don't have much info on them but I do know that they opposed you after a certain ultimatum was delivered. You dug your own grave.

Yes, but the diplomatic pressure, combined with the war with aforementioned third of the globe does kinda count as bailing you out. Also, we were fighting throughout Europe, which is a bit of a drain on our resources..

Nice little insult. Shows your maturity.

Nice little sidestep of the rest of the paragraph. Shows your total lack of an argument.

Seems to me that you learned nothing of Vietnam (that is how you spell it not your way). Did you know that we won every single military engagement in Vietnam? Yea we did. However, the political will wasn't there to continue to fight. Didn't help matters much that LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. If he stated from the start the truth about why we were there and didn't micromanage it, Communism would not be in Vietnam right now.

Yes, very impressive. Won every military engagement and STILL got your asses whooped. And Veitnam would have turned communist because that's what the people wanted, unlike the corrupt regime that the US installed in the south.

At least I edited it because of what I said. You haven't yet.

No, but then I don't intend to. And I don't feel swearing seems immature if you use it maturely. Also, regardless of your hasty edit, you still contradicted yourself in the same post, and your attempt to cover it up before anyone noticed was about as successful as Watergate. Bravo, Corneliu, you are a complete and utter wazzock. Why not run for President?

Russia mobilizes on July 28 against Austria. On July 30 they fully mobilize. Sergej Dobrorolski, commander of the Russian mobilization command, later declares that the war was a done deal for the Russian military command eversince july 25. On July 30 Germany sends an ultimatum to stop mobilzation. And the rest is history.

So Germany had the right to order Russia to stop mobilizing?


I would say in an explosive political climate like that a mobilization against Germany made an official DOW just a formality.

Germany knew that Russia wasn't mobilizing against her. The Czar and Kaiser had been telegraphing each other, since the incident in Sarajevo.

"The Russian use of mobilization, as originally presented for the Czar's signature, included the whole army, but, for purposes of conciliation, the Czar put his pen through the words, 'general mobilization' and ordered only a partial mobilization - one confined to the four military districts confronting Austria-Hungary."
Vol II, p 7, "History of the World War".



I never mentioned the alliance. But while your at it. Italy signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 which ensured Italian neutrality in case of a French-German conflict regardless who started it.

Perhaps you should be more precise.

"In 1900, 1901, and 1902, by the exchange of notes and in verbal conversations, the political understanding was completed. France promised to refrain from any interference with Tripoli, in which quarter Italy was to have a free hand; and Italy in return gave France the assurance that she would do nothing that might hamper French policy in Morocco. It was furthermore understood that the character of the Triple Alliance, was entirely defensive; and that in no case could Italy become "either the instrument or the auxiliary of an aggression" against France."
p.147, "The Diplomatic Background of the War 1870-1914".

Just a refresher on the "Triple Alliance"...
"In 1879 Germany and Austria-Hungary agreed to form a Dual Alliance. This became the Triple Alliance when in 1882 it was expanded to include Italy. The three countries agreed to support each other if attacked by either France or Russia."

26th July: Russia promises that it will help Serbia if it is attacked by Austro-Hungary.

28th July: Austro-Hungarian declares war on Serbia.

31st July: Russia mobilizes its armed forces in support of Serbia.

1st August: Germany declares war on Russia.

2nd August: Italy declares that it does not intend to honour its Triple Alliance obligations and will remain neutral.

3rd August: Germany declares war on France. Belgian neutrality was guaranteed by Britain under a treaty signed in 1839. Sir Edward Grey, Britain's foreign secretary, warns Germany that Britain would go to war if Belgium was invaded.


So the Italians were just clairvoyant?

4th August: The German Army marches into Belgium. Britain declares war on Germany.

5th August: Austro-Hungary declares war on Russia.

Aug 5th?? Was Germany(Aug. 1st) in a hurry or what??

You never blockaded the US Coast (a goal that was not accomplished) and you lost alot of ships at sea including consecutive engagements for the first time in British Naval History. You also lost on the Great Lakes too. Yes you did lose the Sea War. That is what kept the US in the fight. As for DC, you do know that was in response for the US burning the City of York (Now Toronto) right? Yea that's right then you marched on Baltimore but couldn't move on the City due to Fort McHenry. You lost there too. As for the French, yea they kept you busy but defeated them then shipped forces over to fight us. Then you sued for peace.



I don't cuss when I debate. It makes ya immature when cuss words are used. However, it is a known fact that if you piss us off, we'll kick ya in the balls. Just ask Japan. Ask the Spanish Monarch (though that is debatable considering the USS Maine's destruction was an accident but then again, Spain pissed us off over Cuba)! And it was just six Countries. I could look up how many nations became arrayed against you if you like. I'm sure your'll find the number surprising considering it was most of EUROPE including Russia. Besides, our forces did a marvelous job of cornoring Cornwallis at Yorktown with the French Navy at sea, forced him to surrender to the Colonial Army. That was when the war ended for the most part.

I hate to bring this up, but the War of 1812 was essentially a tie. The British did blockade the North American coast (damned effectively too), but the US Navy did win several engagements at sea, did manage to defeat the British on the Great Lakes (preventing a successful British invasion of the US), and although the British burned the public buildings in Washington DC, they were defeated when they attacked Baltimore and the British ground commander was killed by an American sniper there. The British also lost at New Orleans. The Revolution was a damned near run thing too, only Yorktown finally ended it, and the Americans were broke, economically exhausted and won because the British finally realized that reconquering the colonies was more trouble than it was worth, and only marginally possible in any case.

On the plus side, the US survived (1 win, 1 tie) two wars with the Superpower of the 18th and 19th Century (in terms of economic might and naval power) so thats definitely something to be proud of.

just a little note for historical accuracy

[QUOTE=Corneliu]We defeated Napoleon, who we were fighting at the same time. I don't think we lost any real prestige there. Oh, and France was the 'vaunted military power'. We were the vaunted naval power. And our navy was off fighting the French.

British newspapers in 1812 and 1813 raised a lot of hell when US frigates defeat RN frigates. It was a bit of an embarrassment. Hardly fatal, as the RN still had 130 frigates to our 8, but embarrassing.

[QUOTE=Nasopotomia]Spain, Holland and France, between them, owned around a third of the globe. When has the US ever fought a third of the globe? Also, see above about the French military. It was the finest in the world until about 1870, and the largest until around 1905../[QUOTE]

the French Army was considered the finest in the world until 1870, but in real terms, the US Army in 1865 or Prussian Army of 1866 would have done exactly the same thing to it that the Prussian Army did to it in 1870. As far as the US fighting a third of the globe, most Americans view that as a good thing that the US has never managed to get itself so diplomatically isolated that it HAD to fight a third of the globe.

As far as Vietnam goes, the US won ever single major battle, including Tet, but discovered that the American people did not have the political will at that time to fight an open ended war with no clear objective to support a regime that couldn't defend itself (now isn't that a troubling bit of history). Aside from the interventions in Latin America, and the Philippine Insurrection, the US has never really fought a long colonial war. Even the Philippine Insurrection was only about 3 years long. Vietnam was viewed as a colonial war by many Americans (the accuracy of that is still hotly contested so I will set it aside, suffice to say a lot of people thought that it was) and so after a while Americans said the hell with it and demanded the troops be returned home.

Too bad, as the Viet Cong had been defeated by 1970, only the North Vietnamese were still in the fight and that fight wasn't going well for them either. (the Time Life series on Vietnam is a good place to get this kind of information and it is readily available).

So Germany had the right to order Russia to stop mobilizing?
Did the US had the right to order Saddam to step down and leave Iraq? An ultimatum was send and ignored. Point goes to Russia.



Germany knew that Russia wasn't mobilizing against her. The Czar and Kaiser had been telegraphing each other, since the incident in Sarajevo.

"The Russian use of mobilization, as originally presented for the Czar's signature, included the whole army, but, for purposes of conciliation, the Czar put his pen through the words, 'general mobilization' and ordered only a partial mobilization - one confined to the four military districts confronting Austria-Hungary."
Vol II, p 7, "History of the World War".
The partial mobilization was on July 28. The general mobilization on July 30. Although Nicholas was trying to take back the general order on Luly 31 his military staff prevented him from doing so. Again a point for Russia.





Really?

26th July: Russia promises that it will help Serbia if it is attacked by Austro-Hungary.

28th July: Austro-Hungarian declares war on Serbia.

31st July: Russia mobilizes its armed forces in support of Serbia.

1st August: Germany declares war on Russia.

2nd August: Italy declares that it does not intend to honour its Triple Alliance obligations and will remain neutral.
What part of: Italy signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 vowing to remain neutral in a French-German conflict, no matter what, did you not understand? (J.H.J. Andriessen - De andere waarheid. blz. 23-25)

So the Italians were just clairvoyant?
No. They were just backstabbing their allies cause they thought they could expand their territory at the expense of Austria in the Balkans once the war was won.

Did the US had the right to order Saddam to step down and leave Iraq? An ultimatum was send and ignored. Point goes to Russia.

Typical "European Elitism" everything goes back to Bush and Saddam. It's a good thing France isn't killing civilians in Ivory Coast!! Which has as much to do with WWI as Bush and Saddam.

Which clearly explains why Germany declared war on Russia 4 days before Austria.



The partial mobilization was on July 28. The general mobilization on July 30. Although Nicholas was trying to take back the general order on Luly 31 his military staff prevented him from doing so. Again a point for Russia.

And General mobilization was instigated because why?

Someone shelling Belgrade? I guess you forgot that minor detail. The fact remains, Russia wasn't mobilizing on it's border with Germany.


What part of: Italy signed a secret treaty with France in 1902 vowing to remain neutral in a French-German conflict, no matter what, did you not understand? (J.H.J. Andriessen - De andere waarheid. blz. 23-25)

What part of defensive treaty do you not understand?
Italy simple abided by the letter of the treaty. Which you keep conveniently ignoring.

I believe this explains it....
" Bismarck begreep dat hij de rivaliteit tussen Oostenrijk-Hongarije en Rusland niet tot een einde kon brengen en omdat hij vreesde dat Oostenrijk-Hongarije zich eventueel tot Frankrijk zou wenden om de eigen militaire en politieke situatie te versterken sloten Duitsland en Oostenrijk-Hongarije in 1879 een geheim defensief verbond: de Zweibund.

Zij beloofden elkaar wederzijdse hulp bij een Russische aanval. (Dit verbond werd lange tijd geheim gehouden: pas in 1887 kreeg Rusland de inhoud hiervan te horen)."

And from a different site
""In 1879 Germany and Austria-Hungary agreed to form a Dual Alliance. This became the Triple Alliance when in 1882 it was expanded to include Italy. The three countries agreed to support each other if attacked by either France or Russia."


Sounds like a defensive treaty to me.

Typical "European Elitism" everything goes back to Bush and Saddam.
It's just a recent event which happens to be relevant to your whining about Germany not having the right to send an ultimatum to Russia to take back it's general mobilisation.

Which clearly explains why Germany declared war on Russia 4 days before Austria.
No it does not.

And General mobilization was instigated because why?

Someone shelling Belgrade? I guess you forgot that minor detail.
Another minor detail. Serbia declared general mobilisation on July 25. Austria July 30.

The fact remains, Russia wasn't mobilizing on it's border with Germany.
Fact remains a general mobilisation meant Russia wasn't just preparing to fight just Austria. And since Austria had no other allies then Germany, Germany had every reason to feel threatened.

What part of defensive treaty do you not understand?
Italy simple abided by the letter of the treaty. Which you keep conveniently ignoring.
The thing you seem to keep ignoring on purpose is that Italy would have remained neutral under all circumstances under the terms of it's treaty whith France.

I believe this explains it....
" Bismarck begreep dat hij de rivaliteit tussen Oostenrijk-Hongarije en Rusland niet tot een einde kon brengen en omdat hij vreesde dat Oostenrijk-Hongarije zich eventueel tot Frankrijk zou wenden om de eigen militaire en politieke situatie te versterken sloten Duitsland en Oostenrijk-Hongarije in 1879 een geheim defensief verbond: de Zweibund.

Zij beloofden elkaar wederzijdse hulp bij een Russische aanval. (Dit verbond werd lange tijd geheim gehouden: pas in 1887 kreeg Rusland de inhoud hiervan te horen)."

Sounds like a defensive treaty to me.
And Austria was under threat of beeing attacked by Russia wasn't it.

Given green light or not, Austria-Hungary started the war. They should've been held responsible not Germany!
Still, the war would have been a small conflict in Eastern Europe if Germany weren't involved. It turned into a global conflict.
Also, don't forget that Austria-Hungary wouldn't have necessarily started the war. Any European power could have. There was the Balkans Crisis of 1904, and the Turkish Crisis of 1908 as well. Each had equal potential of starting WWI, but with a few different players.

Still, the war would have been a small conflict in Eastern Europe if Germany weren't involved.
Or Russia. Or France. Mainly Russia though.

Also, don't forget that Austria-Hungary wouldn't have necessarily started the war. Any European power could have. There was the Balkans Crisis of 1904, and the Turkish Crisis of 1908 as well. Each had equal potential of starting WWI, but with a few different players.
Also let's not overlook the Serbian mobilization on July 25. 3 days before the Austrian DOW. 5 days before Austria mobilized it's troops. War was looming in the air no matter what.

It's just a recent event which happens to be relevant to your whining about Germany not having the right to send an ultimatum to Russia to take back it's general mobilisation.

Whining?

Compared to snide derogatory remarks about the US, regardless of the title of the thread?

Just as relevant as Guernica, then.


Fact remains a general mobilisation meant Russia wasn't just preparing to fight just Austria. And since Austria had no other allies then Germany, Germany had every reason to feel threatened.

Your opinion. Russia was trying to limit the conflict to the Balkans, Germany simply exacerbated the situation.


The thing you seem to keep ignoring on purpose is that Italy would have remained neutral under all circumstances under the terms of it's treaty whith France.

That's your opinion.

IF Germany hadn't declared war on Russia and Russia HAD invaded/attacked Austria, who knows what Italy might or might not have done.


And Austria was under threat of beeing attacked by Russia wasn't it.


But had they been attacked? No.

I hate to bring this up, but the War of 1812 was essentially a tie.

And if the Treaty of Ghent is actually understood, still going on to present day.

The British did blockade the North American coast (damned effectively too), but the US Navy did win several engagements at sea, did manage to defeat the British on the Great Lakes (preventing a successful British invasion of the US), and although the British burned the public buildings in Washington DC, they were defeated when they attacked Baltimore and the British ground commander was killed by an American sniper there.

Yep he was. Anyway, the Battle of Fort McHenry actually helped in the British Defeat at Baltimore. Gotta love forts that survive a British Pounding! :)

The British also lost at New Orleans.

And the only reason why it was included in the War of 1812 is that it took place AFTER Ghent was signed. Alwell. They didn't have todays communication network.

The Revolution was a damned near run thing too, only Yorktown finally ended it, and the Americans were broke, economically exhausted and won because the British finally realized that reconquering the colonies was more trouble than it was worth, and only marginally possible in any case.

Ok, I can give you this point. However, the King just listened to what we had to say, maybe we could've avoided the whole American Revolution thing.

On the plus side, the US survived (1 win, 1 tie) two wars with the Superpower of the 18th and 19th Century (in terms of economic might and naval power) so thats definitely something to be proud of.

:)

just a little note for historical accuracy

Well done. I liked it.

Still, the war would have been a small conflict in Eastern Europe if Germany weren't involved. It turned into a global conflict.


I'll give you the point! *tips his hat*

Also, don't forget that Austria-Hungary wouldn't have necessarily started the war. Any European power could have. There was the Balkans Crisis of 1904, and the Turkish Crisis of 1908 as well. Each had equal potential of starting WWI, but with a few different players.

But the fact remains that it was Austria-Hungary that started the war. If they hadn't had demanded what they did, then maybe we could've avoided this disasterous war for awhile longer. Sometimes though, I'm glad the war happened when it did in the grand scheme of History.

Yes we should Apologies Lord- Dickface was a bastard and his bombing plans were gay.

Dresdens peoples response was appropriate-Hack the Aircrews to death.
My two cents.-Obvioulsy not worth much. ;)

WWI is Serbia's fault!-Damn them for wanting independence.

Whining?
Yes whining.

Compared to snide derogatory remarks about the US, regardless of the title of the thread?
You say it like thats a bad thing. :confused:





Your opinion. Russia was trying to limit the conflict to the Balkans, Germany simply exacerbated the situation.
Yeah right. That must be the reason for their early mobilization. Limitation of the conflict. *laughs*



That's your opinion.

IF Germany hadn't declared war on Russia and Russia HAD invaded/attacked Austria, who knows what Italy might or might not have done.
Exactly what they agreed upon with France. Nothing. As France as the ally of Russia would have been pulled into it anyway. Not that they had a problem with that.




But had they been attacked? No.
The mobilised Russian army suggests that it wouldn't be long. So in the end a DOW was a mere formality. And the war had already started. Serbia mobilzed it's army on July 25. Before the Austrian DOW. And before Austria mobilized it's own troops.

on World War I and how it started...

according to Barbara Tuchman and John Keegan, plus SLA Marshall (three of the best historians of the 20th Century writing in English)....

the evidence is very clear that Serbia was unofficially backing the Black Hand, whose members killed the Archduke. Austria sent an ultimatum that gave Serbia practically no chance of acceeding in the time frame and Austria opened fire on Belgrade (which is on the Austrian/Serbian border) even as the ultimatum ended.

Russia demanded Austria retract the ultimatum and mobilized shortly after... Austria begged for German help, and was given diplomatic support and a promise that it would mobilize. Austria mobilized and war between Austria and Russia became inevitable.

Now things got worse. Germany, worried about Russian mobilization began to prepare to mobilize. However the mobilization plan was for a two front war with France and Russia and this called for a German invasion of Belgium. The Kaiser asked the German generals if a mobilization could be aimed at Russia only and was told that such a change would be disastrous. He caved in to the generals and Germany mobilized, and war with France, and Belgium and inevitably Britian followed. Italy chose to stay out, but then was offered territory by both the Central Powers and the Allies and took the deal from the Allies (and then proceeded to waste hundreds of thousands of lives futilely smashing itself against the Alps the next three years)

Now lets look at culpability. Most English speaking historians blame the Germans for creating a climate (specifically the Kaiser) of tension by starting an unneccessary naval race with the British, and letting the French and Russians sign a defense treaty (when in 1905 he was the Russians only backer in the Russo-Japanese war).

Germany could have told the Austrians to back off, and didn't. ON the other hand, the Austrians had suffered a terrorist attack, and clearly the Serbs were guilty of supporting the movement (although not ordering the attack).

So its probably unfair to blame the Germans for the war guilt of the Great War. They have plenty of responsibility, but more guilt rests on the Serbs, Austrians and Russians (whose governments weren't around anymore at the end of World War I or in the case of Serbia, had certainly paid an awful price for their stupidity... )

Problem was the bitter and disillusioned people in the UK and France wanted somebody to blame, and the Germans were the only Central Powers country that had not already been effectively dismembered.

on World War I and how it started...

according to Barbara Tuchman and John Keegan, plus SLA Marshall (three of the best historians of the 20th Century writing in English)....

the evidence is very clear that Serbia was unofficially backing the Black Hand, whose members killed the Archduke. Austria sent an ultimatum that gave Serbia practically no chance of acceeding in the time frame and Austria opened fire on Belgrade (which is on the Austrian/Serbian border) even as the ultimatum ended.

Russia demanded Austria retract the ultimatum and mobilized shortly after... Austria begged for German help, and was given diplomatic support and a promise that it would mobilize. Austria mobilized and war between Austria and Russia became inevitable.

Now things got worse. Germany, worried about Russian mobilization began to prepare to mobilize. However the mobilization plan was for a two front war with France and Russia and this called for a German invasion of Belgium. The Kaiser asked the German generals if a mobilization could be aimed at Russia only and was told that such a change would be disastrous. He caved in to the generals and Germany mobilized, and war with France, and Belgium and inevitably Britian followed. Italy chose to stay out, but then was offered territory by both the Central Powers and the Allies and took the deal from the Allies (and then proceeded to waste hundreds of thousands of lives futilely smashing itself against the Alps the next three years)

Now lets look at culpability. Most English speaking historians blame the Germans for creating a climate (specifically the Kaiser) of tension by starting an unneccessary naval race with the British, and letting the French and Russians sign a defense treaty (when in 1905 he was the Russians only backer in the Russo-Japanese war).

Germany could have told the Austrians to back off, and didn't. ON the other hand, the Austrians had suffered a terrorist attack, and clearly the Serbs were guilty of supporting the movement (although not ordering the attack).

So its probably unfair to blame the Germans for the war guilt of the Great War. They have plenty of responsibility, but more guilt rests on the Serbs, Austrians and Russians (whose governments weren't around anymore at the end of World War I or in the case of Serbia, had certainly paid an awful price for their stupidity... )

Problem was the bitter and disillusioned people in the UK and France wanted somebody to blame, and the Germans were the only Central Powers country that had not already been effectively dismembered.
Thank you but more importantly America.
Wilson setup the ceasefire before the Armistace and made a condition that germany accept responsibility for the war after seeing the cost of it.
Major Copout!

I think its fair to blame Bulgaria for the loss of WWI just like we should Blame Rumania for WWII

WWI is Serbia's fault!-Damn them for wanting independence.

Ah yes, damn us to hell! Please, oh great masters, forgive our lust for our greatest desire! ;)

I can't really see how the current generation of people/politicians can apologise on behalf of the previous generation. It just wouldn't make any sense, or any major impact. They can extend "sorrow"/"sympathies" which are based on their own beliefs and morals

But (for example) I can't apologise on behalf of the aircrews or the chief air marshal of the RAF, because who am I to do that? I can't truly represent them all (politicians, pilots, Allied armed forces)

The war is over, it was bad, and a sad and unfortunate loss of lives took place, one so heavy that we shouldn't forget about it any time soon (because it very much shaped todays world).

End of story

WWI is Serbia's fault!-Damn them for wanting independence.
They were independent. :rolleyes:
Damn them for their decades of support of pan-Slavic insurgents in the empire. Bosnian Serbs. Which can only be seen in one way. A profocation of Vienna. Something they would not have done without Russian support.

You know the thing that is really annoying me at the moment :headbang: . Its the fact that there are some germans who are trying to make us (The British) apologise for the RAF raid on the german city of Dresden that caused a huge firestorm ruining, pretty much, the entire city.All i can say is eff off untill they apologise for the blitz and every atrocity the commited against the British people (and the world). I know full well the massive number of people killed (between 20,000-45,000 people killed)and the enormous amount of damage caused BUT look at what happened to Britain in the blitz and what happened to Russia. In light of this i would be quite annoyed if our government DID apologise who agrees with me?


I would be mega pissed off. If anyone shold be forced to apologise is any remaining Nazi's. Have you watched 'Auschwitz and the Final Solution'? They don't give a fuck what they did, so they can shove their aplogy up their sausage eating arses!

True! I won't argue there on Nazi election process even though Hitler really did come power though legal means.
Err... yes... I said that.

If Hitler hadn't let up on the RAF, Hitler would've won the Battle of Britain. Instead he changed tactics when the RAF was on the ropes and the rest is history. The RAF got a break and took that break to rebuild. Radar helped out in the Battle of Britain too. When the RAF was rebuilt, it kicked the crap out of the German Air Force and won the battle.
Yes, I know. Thanks for that. The point I was trying to get across was that Hitler's bombing of Britain was the only way he could have won the war.

An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Its the type of guy I am.
I realised that, which is why I said it twice. As a philosophy, I have to say it's excellent. Look at all the problems it's solving in Israel and Palestine, as well as in Northern Ireland and India/Pakistan to name but a few. Notice the sarcasm.

Everyone should apologise to Czechoslovakia! Allies for letting Hitler have the Sudetenland, which led to the Germans taking over Czechoslovakia. Germans for actually taking over the place. and the Russians for taking over Czechoslovakia after that.

What a typical childish statement.

Funny as hell though.

Thank you but more importantly America.
Wilson setup the ceasefire before the Armistace and made a condition that germany accept responsibility for the war after seeing the cost of it.
Major Copout!

I think its fair to blame Bulgaria for the loss of WWI just like we should Blame Rumania for WWII

Wilson's original 14 Points did not call for allocation of war guilt.... that was added later at Versailles by the other Allies

Everyone should apologise to Czechoslovakia! Allies for letting Hitler have the Sudetenland, which led to the Germans taking over Czechoslovakia. Germans for actually taking over the place. and the Russians for taking over Czechoslovakia after that.

probably so, the Czechs got screwed pretty bad by all sides in the 1930s and 1940s.. although the Slovaks got a modicum of independence under German rule

Lose your attitude and maybe we could become friends!


What's wrong with my attitude ?

British newspapers in 1812 and 1813 raised a lot of hell when US frigates defeat RN frigates. It was a bit of an embarrassment. Hardly fatal, as the RN still had 130 frigates to our 8, but embarrassing.

Embarrassment doesn't win wars. And as you point out, it was effectively a draw. I was trying to point out to Cornileu that that doesn't really count as a US victory, especially since the Brits burned down the White House.

the French Army was considered the finest in the world until 1870, but in real terms, the US Army in 1865 or Prussian Army of 1866 would have done exactly the same thing to it that the Prussian Army did to it in 1870. As far as the US fighting a third of the globe, most Americans view that as a good thing that the US has never managed to get itself so diplomatically isolated that it HAD to fight a third of the globe.

We were talking about 1812. That's 53 years before the armies you mentioned. There is little doubt that Napoleon's armies were very definately the equivalent of Hitler's, by the standards of the time, and it was only because his navy wasn't a match for the British that he didn't conquor all of Europe.

As for the diplomatic isolation point, that's fine and dandy. I'm not denying that we lost the War of Independence. I'm simply pointing out that Cornileu is hopelessly over-simplifying events by claiming the US won it single-handedly. If it hadn't been for foriegn pressures and interventions by the other great powers, then the colonists would have been utterly thrashed. They simply didn't have the resources, and they were lucky enough to be in a good position to be a pawn in the European power play at the time.

As far as Vietnam goes, the US won ever single major battle, including Tet, but discovered that the American people did not have the political will at that time to fight an open ended war with no clear objective to support a regime that couldn't defend itself (now isn't that a troubling bit of history). Aside from the interventions in Latin America, and the Philippine Insurrection, the US has never really fought a long colonial war. Even the Philippine Insurrection was only about 3 years long. Vietnam was viewed as a colonial war by many Americans (the accuracy of that is still hotly contested so I will set it aside, suffice to say a lot of people thought that it was) and so after a while Americans said the hell with it and demanded the troops be returned home.

The US has actually, but generally it uses puppets to do the fighting for it. You still pay as much, but you don't have to send out your own children to die. Look at Angola, or the ten years of warfare in Nicaragua.

Too bad, as the Viet Cong had been defeated by 1970, only the North Vietnamese were still in the fight and that fight wasn't going well for them either. (the Time Life series on Vietnam is a good place to get this kind of information and it is readily available).

30, March, 1972, the North Vietnamese Army began a new offensive. More than 20,000 North Vietnamese troops crossed the border into South Vietnam. They take control of Quang Tri and Dong Ha by 1 May. Later in May, they took Quang Tn. The US doesn't fully withdraw, or cease bombing, until October. This does not suggest to me that the North was losing. What actually happened is a good place to get information from.

And also, Vietnam is one of the few wars the US undertook mostly on it's own, and it's the one you lost. Again strengthening the point that Cornileu's statement of 'don't piss us off or we'll kick you in the balls' deeply and obviously fictional. Other US-led wars include The Bay of Pigs (kicked Castro in the balls there, didn't you?).

I'm not saying the US didn't play a vital role in, for example, both World Wars. However, the sheer unadulterated idiotic arrogance of claiming both were US victories and to hell with the rest is utterly disgusting and an insult to the British, French and Russian soldiers who lost their lives in both.

What's wrong with my attitude ?


You're not a far-right halfwitted pro-american with no concept of truth.

As for the whole WW1 thing, war was inevitable anyway. France was itching to have a go at Germany after 1870 ( and so ruined thousands of miles of her farmlands, where you can still find unexploded shells and mines today), Britain was less than happy about the German attempts to equal the 2-1 naval strategy (and thus successfully ruined her naval advantage completely in a ridiculous 4 year bloodbath) , Russia was desperate to find some form of conflict to externalise her growing civil difficulties (and ironically only exacerbated them), Austria Hungary was falling to bits and needed a show of strength to control her empire (Which was completely dismembered as a result), and the Ottoman empire was just going to do whatever the Austrians did (including, it seems, being pulled to little pieces). Italy was just kinda caught up in the excitement, and wanted territories back from Austria anyway (but Italy is just shite at war. They've been occupied more times than Corn's mother ;) ).

You really have to admit, Italy is really the only country that really won. The US got nothing at all, save the weakening of the Great Powers. Britain's Navy never recovered, France's army was effectively wrecked, Germany... Well, we all know what happened there, Austria lost it's empire completely, as did the Turks, and Russia was really really badly hammered in the Treaty of Versialles even thought they'd lost the most people and had been on the winning side until the very last moment. Italy, on the other hand, got the territories they wanted, and remained as crap at war as ever, regardless of casualties.

Naso, I think that Corneliu may be confusing the tactical defeat of the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force (as a result of the Tet offensive, where they sacrificed themselves in order to gain a strategic political defeat in the United States).

After Tet, the Viet Cong effectively disappears as a fighting force - the North Vietnamese Army plays a greater and greater role over time, and is less guerilla-like over time, becoming more and more like a regular Warsaw Pact armored formation.

I do, however, believe that if the US had possessed the necessary political resolve, it could have defeated the North (it would have required invading the north).

However, arms and soldiers then were not nearly as effective as they are now against insurgents. So it would have cost hundreds of thousands more lives.

Picture, if you will, the US losing 55,000 men killed in 9 years in Vietnam. How many have we lost (killed) in Iraq in two years? 1486 in two years?
We're losing men at a rate 1/8th of what we experienced in Vietnam. It makes you wonder how effective the insurgency really is in Iraq - or how effective the US is at fighting one - even if it doesn't win hearts and minds.

The Iraqi insurgents have been reduced to near ineffectiveness. They have no hope of taking over the country, even if the US leaves. They have no ability to directly engage US troops in a fight without taking 90 percent casualties or worse. They can set bombs by the side of the road, but they are far more likely to kill their friends and neighbors than any Americans. They can't capture an American soldier - they have to buy a doll and put the doll on a website and claim they captured an American.

So where we may have made terrible mistakes in Vietnam (especially in the conduct of the war itself, mostly thanks to McNamara, and the idea that you could "send messages" through tactical actions), we don't seem to be making the same mistakes now.

I think that Syria and Iran, for instance, having funded the various insurgent groups, are probably at the point of panic that the insurgency just isn't working out like the one in Vietnam, or the original one in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Maybe that's why they signed an alliance today.

As for the whole WW1 thing, war was inevitable anyway. France was itching to have a go at Germany after 1870 ( and so ruined thousands of miles of her farmlands, where you can still find unexploded shells and mines today), Britain was less than happy about the German attempts to equal the 2-1 naval strategy (and thus successfully ruined her naval advantage completely in a ridiculous 4 year bloodbath) , Russia was desperate to find some form of conflict to externalise her growing civil difficulties (and ironically only exacerbated them), Austria Hungary was falling to bits and needed a show of strength to control her empire (Which was completely dismembered as a result), and the Ottoman empire was just going to do whatever the Austrians did (including, it seems, being pulled to little pieces). Italy was just kinda caught up in the excitement, and wanted territories back from Austria anyway (but Italy is just shite at war. They've been occupied more times than Corn's mother ;) ).

You really have to admit, Italy is really the only country that really won. The US got nothing at all, save the weakening of the Great Powers. Britain's Navy never recovered, France's army was effectively wrecked, Germany... Well, we all know what happened there, Austria lost it's empire completely, as did the Turks, and Russia was really really badly hammered in the Treaty of Versialles even thought they'd lost the most people and had been on the winning side until the very last moment. Italy, on the other hand, got the territories they wanted, and remained as crap at war as ever, regardless of casualties.

The Swiss won WW I and WW II.

You're not a far-right halfwitted pro-american with no concept of truth.

Not true at all Nasopotomia! I just didn't care for his attitude. No agenda whatsoever.

some germans

That is the key part of your entire post. Most Germans I speak to, and I speak to a lot, feel that it's all a load of rubbish stirred up by the far-right as a vote-winner.

Don't be so presumptious.

As to should we apologise, I don't see why we can't show remorse without actually apologising, as if we apologise for that then why not for Dieppe and for bombing the Vichy fleet etc. It'd just be apologising without any real feeling behind it.

Anyway, I don't see why people are asking the Queen to apologise to the Germans as she is one anyway. :rolleyes:

Nice discussion :)

I'm from Germany and I won't apologize for anything what had happend 60 years ago and i don't want the former Allis to do. Most people which were active involved in those cruel war and the Holocaust are already dead. I and the most people in Germany will do their best that it never happens again. But I won't feel guilty, because of something i didn't do.

Not true at all Nasopotomia! I just didn't care for his attitude. No agenda whatsoever.

Then what should my agenda look like ?

They were independent. :rolleyes:
Damn them for their decades of support of pan-Slavic insurgents in the empire. Bosnian Serbs. Which can only be seen in one way. A profocation of Vienna. Something they would not have done without Russian support.


Damn, the world is coming to an end. I actually agree with most of your post!

I don't think there's any need for allied nations to apologize to Germany for Dresden. It happened 60 years ago, everyone is all very sorry for that incredibly terrible few years, let's focus on not repeating things like that.

Besides, if every nation started apologizing to every other nation for the terrible things that they have done to each other over time, then there'd be so much apologizing going on I think I'd be sick. Don't forget that Europe is basically one gigantic graveyard - it's been the stage of millions of battles stretching from the time of the Roman empire to WWII. Not to mention that all those nations that have undergone civil wars (Japan, China, Korea, and to a lesser extent the US, to name a few) would be apologizing to themselves. The Spanish would have to apologize for Cortez, Russia for Stalin, the US would have to apologize to basically EVERY third-world country... it would be one gigantic sorry-fest.

Every nation is guilty of commiting atrocities, including my home of Canada (interning Japanese Canadians during WWII), nobody is innocent here. Let's acknowledge it, certainly. But don't expect everyone to apologize for everything that they've done in the past.

We should apologize for the bombing of any civlian target during any war. It's wrong. It's against the rules of warfare as I see them - that is, don't attack civilians, God damn it.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

The way of God means we must reconcile, Dresden was not necessary, it was a massacre and it takes a braver man to stand up and admit the cruelty of that and many other raids than the apologist whose hatred for Germans clouds his judgment.

I will stand up and be counted: Germany, seeing as I am half British I apologize on behalf of my ancestors for what happened. It was wrong.

We should not apologize! We haven't apologized for Hiroshima nor Nagasaki and we won't either! They had it coming and they had full warning that it was coming!

Asshole, your hatred of Japanese astounds me. When news of the tens of thousands of dead and cities decimated reached Truman's ears he proclaimed the bomb to be the 'greatest thing in History'. As he rots in hell he knows now only God's forgiveness is the greatest thing in History, too late did the murderer realize.

Asshole, your hatred of Japanese astounds me. When news of the tens of thousands of dead and cities decimated reached Truman's ears he proclaimed the bomb to be the 'greatest thing in History'. As he rots in hell he knows now only God's forgiveness is the greatest thing in History, too late did the murderer realize.

you are familar I suppose with the Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, the 2 year aerial bombardment of Chungking by Japanese bombers, the Japanese biological warfare experiments in China (on not only Chinese but also American, Dutch, British and Australian POWs), the consistent Japanese practice of death instead of surrender and suicide if dying in battle if it was hopeless, and of course Pearl Harbor?

Are you familar with the fact that the Japanese government, unlike the German government, has never apologized for these acts that with the exception of Pearl Harbor are all considered atrocities of the worst sort?

You don't have to hate Japan or the Japanese to recognize their behavior brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki on them.

Consider whether the Japanese of that era would have used a nuclear weapon at Pearl Harbor or Chungking if they had one at the time.

By the way, calling someone an "asshole" is considered flaming, so be polite.

you are familar I suppose with the Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, the 2 year aerial bombardment of Chungking by Japanese bombers, the Japanese biological warfare experiments in China (on not only Chinese but also American, Dutch, British and Australian POWs), the consistent Japanese practice of death instead of surrender and suicide if dying in battle if it was hopeless, and of course Pearl Harbor?

Are you familar with the fact that the Japanese government, unlike the German government, has never apologized for these acts that with the exception of Pearl Harbor are all considered atrocities of the worst sort?

I'm aware of the actions that the Japanese took during WWII. They were terrible, on the level with Hitler and Stalin. Nobody is saying those things were good, or that they should not be apologized for as well. It's a show of vanity and pride on the part of the Japanese government that they haven't apologized, although I must doubt the complete truth of your statement; I imagine apologies have been made here and there, though not, perhaps, for the largest atrocities.

You don't have to hate Japan or the Japanese to recognize their behavior brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki on them.

The problem with this reasoning is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained civilians who, beyond living in Japan and paying taxes to the Japanese government, had not exactly committed any crimes. Did they deserve to die because their government and their military was doing terrible things? Your reasoning seems flawed; please elaborate.

Consider whether the Japanese of that era would have used a nuclear weapon at Pearl Harbor or Chungking if they had one at the time.

A hypothetical, of course, but I imagine the Japanese government would not have debated the morality of it, unlike the Americans. But does this justify our using the nuclear bomb on a civilian target, or any civilian bombing at all? Just because one nation is or could hypothetically be evil does not give the United States the go-ahead to commit that same evil act. This is easier to understand on an individual level; just because the kid next to you is cheating on the test doesn't mean you should too. Same thing here. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

Hiroshima was the headquarters of a regional army headquarters, and stationed in that city were 2 infantry divisions, a naval base was present, and in all, nearly 60,000 military personnel where there. Along with the civilian population.

In World War 2 terms that makes it a better military target than say, Dresden or Coventry.

Nagasaki was less of an ideal military target, but it only got bombed because the first target was covered by fog.

For the record, the Japanese were the first nation to begin deliberately targeting civilians in bombing raids. The bombing of Chungking in 1938 (before the German bombing of Guernica that same year) resulted in a Pulitzer price winning photograph of a Chinese child crying, with his clothes burned of, next to his dead mother. Guernica, a German bombing raid, resulted in a Picasso painting.

The German and Japanese bombing raids preceded by 2 years the first British bombing of civilian cities (first RAF raid was in July 1940, and didn't do much damage). Rotterdam and Warsaw both suffered extremely heavy damage from Luftwaffe bombing, and then of course we have the Blitz in Great Britian. The first really effective (in terms of planes actually hitting the target in sufficient numbers to actually do the same damage that the Germans and Japanese had done) was not until late 1942.

In other words, the Axis started it, and no reasonable person on the Allied side in 1941 or later would be inclined to turn the other cheek.

Um... why should you care whether or not the Uk says sorry? This is almost as bad as catholics feeling chagrined because their religion had a sex scandal. It won't affect you and it won't hurt anyone, get over it.

New Shiron:

You sure do know a lot about bombing in WWII! I'm impressed. To be honest my knowledge is superficial at best; in my U.S. History, 1865-Present course, we only covered bombing [the nature, morality and implementation of it] for the WWII part, but we never got into specifics like that.

Something you said though:

In other words, the Axis started it, and no reasonable person on the Allied side in 1941 or later would be inclined to turn the other cheek.

The Axis started it, and the Allies used bombing in return, culminating in the atomic bomb. Does that justify the bombing of civilians, though? I understand why, to a military mind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good or decent targets, but it was still bombing an entire civilian city. The people who ordered the bombs dropped had to have known the civilian casualties would be higher than the military ones.

Yes, the Allies chose not to turn the other cheek; they responded by bombing the Axis powers, arguably worse than the Axis powers ever did. But looking back, from our vantage point here, was this a moral/ethical decision? Was it right to do? Like I said, just because your enemy is evil does not mean you should be as well.

The Axis started it, and the Allies used bombing in return, culminating in the atomic bomb. Does that justify the bombing of civilians, though? I understand why, to a military mind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good or decent targets, but it was still bombing an entire civilian city. The people who ordered the bombs dropped had to have known the civilian casualties would be higher than the military ones.

Yes, the Allies chose not to turn the other cheek; they responded by bombing the Axis powers, arguably worse than the Axis powers ever did. But looking back, from our vantage point here, was this a moral/ethical decision? Was it right to do? Like I said, just because your enemy is evil does not mean you should be as well.

the real culprit is the concept of Total War, and the inclusion of civilians as targets, which dates back to the dawn of war apparently. Hiroshima was merely the logical extension of that and probably not any worse than killing all the men and enslaving all the women when Troy fell Either way, the death toll was awful.

Well.. First, I would say that total war is not the sort of warfare practiced throughout most of history. It arose in the 19th century; before that, warfare was mixed up in economics and mobilization and who could and couldn't fight and all that stuff, as well as the very tactics used. Example: the "gentleman's war" that the British and Americans fought, in which everyone lined up nicely and fired at each other. Also, total war involves mobilizing the whole industry of the nation; that hadn't been done until WWI.

So!

It seems to me that you're admitting that the bombings were indeed wrong - no worse than the murdering and enslaving done during Antiquity. But, if something wrong has been done, is it not agreeable to you to apologize for it? Yes, the current administration didn't bomb Hiroshima, but our current government did. I believe it owes the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as Japan as a whole, an apology. The same goes for every city the Allies bombed.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like that the Japanese haven't apologized. There are a lot of things I don't like, though. Doesn't keep me from doing what I believe is right.

The first official count was 200,000 to 300,000 deaths, over the years it went down to 35,000 (which is an extremly unlikely number, since the city was crowded with refugees). British should face that Dresden was a warcrime, like the raid with the following firestorm on Hamburg, or any raid on a Japanese city, or Coventry.

People should realize that the tactics used by the Allied in the airwar weren't any different to the tactics used by the Axis.

People need to realize that it wasn't the ultra-evil Axis against the super-good Allies. It was war and both sides didn't care how they'd win it.

I don't see why Germany still has to apologize when the others can go around and do as if they had been the non-plus-ultra of goodness (which they clearly were not).

Well.. First, I would say that total war is not the sort of warfare practiced throughout most of history. It arose in the 19th century; before that, warfare was mixed up in economics and mobilization and who could and couldn't fight and all that stuff, as well as the very tactics used. Example: the "gentleman's war" that the British and Americans fought, in which everyone lined up nicely and fired at each other. Also, total war involves mobilizing the whole industry of the nation; that hadn't been done until WWI.

So!

It seems to me that you're admitting that the bombings were indeed wrong - no worse than the murdering and enslaving done during Antiquity. But, if something wrong has been done, is it not agreeable to you to apologize for it? Yes, the current administration didn't bomb Hiroshima, but our current government did. I believe it owes the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as Japan as a whole, an apology. The same goes for every city the Allies bombed.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like that the Japanese haven't apologized. There are a lot of things I don't like, though. Doesn't keep me from doing what I believe is right.

Perhaps that apology will come one day after the Japanese apologize to the Chinese... but don't hold your breath. I am not saying the bombing was wrong. Mostly. It was the only way that the Allies could launch any kind of important offensive for a portion of the way, and it tied down vast amounts of German and Japanese war material, personnel and directly led to the destruction of the German Luftwaffe, which made Allied victory possible sooner. By the way, the atomic weapons were initially planned to be used on Germany, not Japan. But Germany was crushed sooner than expected and so they weren't needed. Dresden was almost certainly unnecessary in hindsight, and responsible Allied leaders, including Churchill and Eisenhower realized it pretty much right away. But the real issue is whether it was viewed as unneccessary before the raids were launched, and no one objected on the Allied side.

The Axis reaped a whirlwind in a literal sense when they started bombing cities in 1938 and after.

Whilst the morality and reasoning behind the opposing sides may have been vastly different, and one could justifiably call one a side for "Good" and another for "Evil". The methods employed by both sides were similar. (Except the Japanese, who waged a far crueler war than the Americans)

Asshole, your hatred of Japanese astounds me. When news of the tens of thousands of dead and cities decimated reached Truman's ears he proclaimed the bomb to be the 'greatest thing in History'. As he rots in hell he knows now only God's forgiveness is the greatest thing in History, too late did the murderer realize.

Sorry dude, but I would rather have a couple of hundred thousand dead in 2 cities than millions dead in an invasion. I suggest you learn more about Japanese culture as well as the projected casualties in an invasion of Japan.

As for being a racist, sorry dude but I'm not that either. I respect the Japanese culture and I respect their people. My parents met in Okinawa Japan and were married there. They have installed into my brain respect for people and for other cultures. To bad no one programed you to be considerate to others.

New Shiron:

You sure do know a lot about bombing in WWII! I'm impressed. To be honest my knowledge is superficial at best; in my U.S. History, 1865-Present course, we only covered bombing [the nature, morality and implementation of it] for the WWII part, but we never got into specifics like that.

I just looked at your location! What part of PA are you at and what university are you attending?

Something you said though:



The Axis started it, and the Allies used bombing in return, culminating in the atomic bomb. Does that justify the bombing of civilians, though? I understand why, to a military mind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good or decent targets, but it was still bombing an entire civilian city. The people who ordered the bombs dropped had to have known the civilian casualties would be higher than the military ones.

Yes, the Allies chose not to turn the other cheek; they responded by bombing the Axis powers, arguably worse than the Axis powers ever did. But looking back, from our vantage point here, was this a moral/ethical decision? Was it right to do? Like I said, just because your enemy is evil does not mean you should be as well.

The bomb was a more of a keep casualties low type bombing in reality

you are familar I suppose with the Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking, the 2 year aerial bombardment of Chungking by Japanese bombers, the Japanese biological warfare experiments in China (on not only Chinese but also American, Dutch, British and Australian POWs), the consistent Japanese practice of death instead of surrender and suicide if dying in battle if it was hopeless, and of course Pearl Harbor?

Are you familar with the fact that the Japanese government, unlike the German government, has never apologized for these acts that with the exception of Pearl Harbor are all considered atrocities of the worst sort?

You don't have to hate Japan or the Japanese to recognize their behavior brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki on them.


And that this behavior brought about the Potsdam statement. The UK, US, and China all called for Japan's unconditional surrender. Which Japan flatly refused.

I just looked at your location! What part of PA are you at and what university are you attending?

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, a subcampus of Pittsburgh roughly 30 minutes west of Pitt.

The bomb was a more of a keep casualties low type bombing in reality

It has been argued that the U.S. could have done more to work with the peace faction in Japan in order to create a coup d'etat or something along those lines; that it opted for the bomb before exhausting all options... I understand that the casualties of an invasion of mainland Japan would have been staggering, but that doesn't excuse other, more peaceful options not being exercised, I think.

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, a subcampus of Pittsburgh roughly 30 minutes west of Pitt.

Cool! I live in a town called Moon Township! A suburb of Pittsburgh.

It has been argued that the U.S. could have done more to work with the peace faction in Japan in order to create a coup d'etat or something along those lines; that it opted for the bomb before exhausting all options... I understand that the casualties of an invasion of mainland Japan would have been staggering, but that doesn't excuse other, more peaceful options not being exercised, I think.

Considering that the Military Junta was incharge of the country, I doubt that a coup would've worked. They believe that surrendering was not an option. Proof of this is when they tried a coup when the Emperor said it was over. That coup failed. I don't think peace would've been achieved without an invasion of the Island. That is my personal opinion though and I base it on their history.

The bomb was a more of a keep casualties low type bombing in reality

As much as I dislike the fact that nukes have been used that is a good point.

And I've always wondered whether if nukes hadn't been used on Japan, would Soviet/US commanders have been more likely to use them against each other in the cold war, as there wouldn't have existed among the populations of the world the knowledge of the true horrors of atomic warfare.

By the way, the UK did apologize. In fact the golden cross on top of the Frauenkirche (church reconstructed lately) in Dresden was sponsored by QE II.

I myself (German) would not know, what to apologize for. My grandfather was 8 years old, when the WWII was over. Neither he, nor my parents have ever killed a person. Furthermore my family has made use of their civil rights to ensure the political Germany the world knows today.

Here, Here!
The fact that some one was born in a place where other people great grandparents did bad things makes them responsible for...nothing.
If my father were a mass murderer (err...he isn't) I would be in no way responsible for it. This apology thing is way out of hand. The most that should ever be asked is a refutement from the government of previous government policy. e.g. "we absolutely do not agree with the previous government's policy of tossing people into ovens." OR "we feel the previous government's policy of nuking non-military sites was totally unacceptable." OR "The present government (we) feel that the fire bombing of cities and the advent of the Spice Girls were actions that should never, ever have been comitted, nor ever repeated."
It isn't exactly the present government's deed to atone for.
BTW I belong to one of the three above. go ahead and guess which.

Take the Swiss approach. Never apologize for anything.

Besides, as we all know, the Swiss win every war.