I'm not going to run through all of your impressive list, some of it just misses the point within this discussion, and there's some other things that are too apologetic to care about.
"but there's no reason to think that would have happened if Germany hadn't been engaged in war elsewhere, in Russia."
not really the germans themselves knew they were no match for the British on water, thats why they hoped to gain control via air power, but the RAF put an end to that strategy
Talk about being deluded by patriotism sixty years after. You're reasoning as if the Germans would run and hide as soon as the navy boys showed up. The British navy may have been larger but it had to be used to safeguard so many import lines, it's a commonplace that the British Empire always relied on import - tea, oil, cereals, metals etc etc. For a hundred years before the war, Britain would not have managed on home resources for any extended time.
The stockpiling of oil argument is just some legend, even though it's true they were planning to set oil alight at the beaches. War, especially air and tank warfare, takes huge amounts of oil and gas fuels, are you telling me England had stocks of oil inland for even a full year of warfare in 1940? And of course the UK government was aware of this vuilnerable spot. It also had to take a big share in manning and guarding the convoys to Russia, and suffered many losses up there.
"The sinking of the Bismarck itself was more or less a stroke of luck - if the rudder hadn't been hit she'd have escaped"
you don't do much research do you? after the Bismarck sank the aging Hood the royal navy went insane, half the fleet went after the bismarck it was under air bombardment being chased by a cruiser squadron with another closing off its escape and under constant attack by destroyers, that ship was doomed.
Nope, just because the Royal Navy went nuts doesn't mean they had a great chance initially to catch up with her. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen disappeared soon after the battle of the Denmark Strait where the Hood had been sunk, and Bismarck was totally out of sight for forty hours - which is a very long time in sea war. When she was spotted by a UK aircraft she was on the path home to France, and far ahead. The rudder hit was vital in stopping her and robbing her of controlled direction so the Poms could catch up, but it was not the consequence of any British superiority or ingenuity, it was essentially luck.
the massive support the UK had in the US after the Battle of Britain and how profitable it was for the US to support the UK, however the vast majority of US supplies during that war didn't go to the UK they weren't to the USSR.
You don't do much research now do you? There were many US citizens, and many influential people, who trusted Germany and saw England as decadent - still more who thought America should stay out of Europe. Undeniably Roosevelt wanted to support Britain, but he would not have kept doing it forcefully and expending huge credits for year after year if the war had stalled. He was up for reelection in 1944, before then the war would have HAD to show strong progress.
"probably because they haven't had a war in their own country for many generations and haven't had to adapt to neighbours who can push with equal strength for 150 years"
the american civil war took more lives of americans then any other war.
- in US history, that is. The dead in the US civil war are a fraction of the losses many European countries suffered in the two world wars.
"The idea of terror warfare, of striking at civilians to break resistance, had barely been around in WW1"
no the germans were bombing british cities then too.
Not on anything like the scale or intensity that was seen during WW2, not to speak of Vietnam. It was brief attacks, some of them from Zeppelins (and from far lower altitude than during WW2, because those early planes were not able to cruise safely as high as in the 1940s. No big bombing fleets or area bombing.
"But the fact that something isn't mentioned in the law doesn't always mean it's okay"
again your argument is fallacy the allies took great lengths but if the citizenry won't leave choose to stay regardless of warnings what should they do let the nazis use them as shields to defend there troops and war machine? you are being naive they choose to stay despite being warned
Uh, I don't recall hearing about any warnings (air dropped leaflets?) that Dresden would be bombed soon. And where could the unarmed civilians go? By that reasoning, people during the Thirty Years War or the Crusades who were inside a sieged city and who were killed, raped or sold as slaves when their city was taken had only themselves to blame. Ber-limey, they could have sneaked out of the city at night before it was stormed, or they could have proclaimed "we don't want to have anything to do with our prince! this is not our war!" That's exactly what you do as a civilian in wartime, isn't it? Fools.
And it won't do to say "the German people knew cities would be bombed sooner or later". If large numbers of people in Britain had left their cities in 1940, in fear of German bomber squads, you'd have counted them as cowards, right? Okay, no double standards here, sir.
I notice you're not picking up my argument that the Geneva conventions at the time said nothing of civilians under fire, because that kind of thing hadn't happened a lot recently before WW2. Or are you just being ignorant? or saying "war is war"?
"Finally, in The Fog of War McNamara, who was close to the command on the Japan front through 1945, says LeMay and other military bigwigs were aware that the conventional bombings of Japanese cities at that time (leading to ferocious fires) were acts that would have sent them before a court-martial of war crimes if the USA lost the war"
no he doesnt i own the DVD.
Yes he does, that's the gist of what he says early in the film. of course he doesn't say they actually feared being hanged for their bombings - they knew they would not be losing by then and their own side would not be putting them on the bench. But he does say they implicitly acknowledged on the job that they were resorting to extremely unsavoury tactics, and that if the other side had done the same kind - which they sometimes did, but not against civilians on US soil - the US would have (rightfully?) called it war crimes.
After the revolution everything will be different. Your password is 'Giliap'!
reply
share
Jack Doyle
15 years ago
"I'm not going to run through all of your impressive list, some of it just misses the point within this discussion, and there's some other things that are too apologetic to care about."
pity your own one is going to prove so frightfully misinformed
"Talk about being deluded by patriotism sixty years after."
No its called an education, try investing in one, and thus learning history, not just your own misinformed opinion.
"You're reasoning as if the Germans would run and hide as soon as the navy boys showed up. The British navy may have been larger but it had to be used to safeguard so many import lines"
You do realise that the royal navy was larger than the next two largest navies combined in 1940? that within days it completely swept german shipping from the sea, Hitler himself said "i am a coward on water", germany's fleet was extremely small, the surface fleet was bunkered down for most of the war and not a threat. The royal navy had completely blockaded the channel north sea and med.
"it's a commonplace that the British Empire always relied on import - tea, oil, cereals, metals etc etc. For a hundred years before the war"
your lack of knowledge for relevant history betrays, both ww1 and the depression had significantly reduced this, and metal wasn't imported, the british government had a plans in place to feed the british population if food imports became impossible, you have to remember Britain had the most mechanised farming industry in the world. contray to what you may believe the british can survive without tea.
"The stockpiling of oil argument is just some legend,"
afraid not, trying learning some history, dragons are legend WW2 is not.
"even though it's true they were planning to set oil alight at the beaches."
lucky they had the whole of europe's oil imports then
"War, especially air and tank warfare, takes huge amounts of oil and gas fuels,"
yes it does, something the germans were quickly learning
"are you telling me England had stocks of oil inland for even a full year of warfare in 1940?"
well it had enough for the RAF, and they won this battle, so yes it turned out to be enough, especially since they'd been stockpiling it the previous years and were still importing more, something germany couldn't do.
"It also had to take a big share in manning and guarding the convoys to Russia, and suffered many losses up there. "
yes it did but this was later in the war after the threat of invasion was over, do you know the chronology of the war at all?
"Nope, just because the Royal Navy went nuts doesn't mean they had a great chance initially to catch up with her."
now its your knowledge to geography that fails you, it would have to run past Britain to get home. with aircraft and radar searching for her it was inevitibly given the sheer level of determination to sink her.
"was totally out of sight for forty hours - which is a very long time in sea war."
in the age of sail, lol
"When she was spotted by a UK aircraft she was on the path home to France, and far ahead. The rudder hit was vital in stopping her and robbing her of controlled direction so the Poms could catch up, but it was not the consequence of any British superiority or ingenuity, it was essentially luck."
there called aircraft carriers, and when it was stuck as i've explained to you but you've failed to comprehend, the Bismarck was being closed on. You really don't like the "poms" though do you? would you of preferred Australia had sided with germany?
"You don't do much research now do you? There were many US citizens, and many influential people, who trusted Germany and saw England as decadent "
lol, i apparantly do alot more research then you, i advise you to look up Joe Kennedy who supported germany after US public opinion shifted, it scuppered his chances for the presidency.
"He was up for reelection in 1944, before then the war would have HAD to show strong progress."
he was also reelected in 1940, which is a bit more relevant, though it does undermine your point.
"- in US history, that is. The dead in the US civil war are a fraction of the losses many European countries suffered in the two world wars. "
do you actually bother you read the context?
"Not on anything like the scale or intensity that was seen during WW2, not to speak of Vietnam. "
first what relevancy does Vietnam have? second again do you bother reading the context? many raids occurred against british cities and despite causing relatively few casualites they instilled a great deal of TERROR.
"Uh, I don't recall hearing about any warnings (air dropped leaflets?)"
again your knowledge of history fails you, leaflets were dropped and radio transmissions broadcast.
"that Dresden would be bombed soon. And where could the unarmed civilians go? "
out of the city?
"By that reasoning, people during the Thirty Years War or the Crusades who were inside a sieged city and who were killed, raped or sold as slaves when their city was taken had only themselves to blame. Ber-limey, they could have sneaked out of the city at night before it was stormed,"
lol what a pathetic strawman, what was that 500 hundred years earlier, when a city was actually encircled? your obviously not aware of the practice of the time, if a city surrendered then none of that would happen, except the slaves part which is pretty much fiction on your part. If a city resisted and chose to fight its besieges then the custom was to put everyone to the sword as a warning to other cities not to resist, but that has very little relevancy, much like most of your poor arguments.
"If large numbers of people in Britain had left their cities in 1940, in fear of German bomber squads, you'd have counted them as cowards, right? Okay, no double standards here, sir. "
lol that shows your complete ignorance, thats exactly what did happen, millions of children, women, elderly and disabled were evacuated to the countryside to get them out of harms way. lol
"I notice you're not picking up my argument that the Geneva conventions at the time said nothing of civilians under fire, because that kind of thing hadn't happened a lot recently before WW2. Or are you just being ignorant? or saying "war is war"? "
I don't argue with valid points, if you made more i could type alot less.
"Yes he does, that's the gist of what he says early in the film. of course he doesn't say they actually feared being hanged for their bombings "
no it doesn't the film maker implies it.
"and that if the other side had done the same kind - which they sometimes did, but not against civilians on US soil - the US would have (rightfully?) called it war crimes."
you mean as they did in south east asia and against northern australia?
reply
share