What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

[Goatboy]

I wasnt talking about battle tactics.

I was talking about the first hand reality of war that hits you in the face like a sledge hammer like, for example, the first time you smell something sweetand one of your buddies points out it's the smell of burning human flesh.

See, that wasn't a disparaging comment at all, thank you. Yes I can imagine (or can't imagine I suppose) how that reality is something that I can't possibly know face to face. And the fluidity of your description suggests you do have experience concerning the realities of war. I of course have respect for your personal experience.

But I was referring to the political element of policies such as: treatment of POWs, human rights etc. I may not be a soldier, and despite my degree in international relations, being politically active, running for public office, my interest in respective topics exists from simple fascination (since childhood). So I do think I'm qualified to give an opinion, and I do'nt think "TeeVee" has much to do with it.

The time to execute(or insert whatever term you prefer) the civilian populace is BEFORE you occupy it. That much i agree with, for sure.
Such endeavours are the domain of the Air Force and the Field artillery...

I see something critically different between lining up all stray German citizens (during wartime) and shooting them, and the deaths of those same Germans from strategic bombing. The ends justify the means of the latter, not the former. Western law agrees, and its principles apply across the board, from civilian to the military. The concept of "intent" is pervasive.

If im at war with japan all japanese dwelling in japan and not actively opposing or working against their gov't are my enemies. Even the sexy chicks that work in the seamstress mills sewing the IJA's uniforms.

In the soldier uniform making business? well that would be a military target wouldn't it.

Here's a thought experiment: What about a remote isolated kindergarten building that you knew for a fact (just assume you know for sure somehow) that only 5 year olds would be inside? would you aim your bombs to hit it, if your previous orders were to "destroy every building you see"?

German prison guards at Belsen Belsen received no immunity from the Nuremburg trials for simply "following the orders" of a superior. The Nuremburg trials DICTATED (in blinding precedent affecting law throughout the planet from then on) that the soldier/guard in question has a responsibility to refrain from brutality, and is culpable if he, to put it simply, refrains from refraining.

The only reason we're the "Good guys" is because we won. There was nothing "Good" about our actions. Effective, yes. Good? No.

Who the "Good Guys" are in WW2 isn't debatable, and in my opinion not subject to much credible discussion. Freedom, human rights, liberty etc, aren't debatable concepts. They're self evident IMO. Such concepts exist regardless of who writes what in a history book.

[Bill]

See, that wasn't a disparaging comment at all, thank you. Yes I can imagine (or can't imagine I suppose) how that reality is something that I can't possibly know face to face. And the fluidity of your description suggests you do have experience concerning the realities of war. I of course have respect for your personal experience.

But I was referring to the political element of policies such as: treatment of POWs, human rights etc. I may not be a soldier, and despite my degree in international relations, being politically active, running for public office, my interest in respective topics exists from simple fascination (since childhood). So I do think I'm qualified to give an opinion, and I do'nt think "TeeVee" has much to do with it.

My point is that you don't understand, because until you see a big chunk of meat that you know used to be a human being covered in flies, the reality of what "War" means is very much an abstract.

I can show you 1000 pics of blown up people. It utterly pales in comparison to standing there watching that flesh being picked apart by insects in the hot Panamanian sun...

I see something critically different between lining up all stray German citizens (during wartime) and shooting them, and the deaths of those same Germans from strategic bombing. The ends justify the means of the latter, not the former. Western law agrees, and its principles apply across the board, from civilian to the military. The concept of "intent" is pervasive.

It's the same damned thing as far as im concerned.

Killing is killing, defenseless is defenseless. I fail to see much of a difference.
Not that i'd stand there executing civvies, but i would happily grab a good spot on top of the track to watch the arty falling in the city our forces have encircled.

My point is twofold. First, there is no reason to put yourself in a position to have to take prisoners UNLESS the enemy comes to you asking for surrender, and second, in the end, dead is dead.

In the soldier uniform making business? well that would be a military target wouldn't it.

Exactly my point.

Now apply the same to the farmer that feeds those same soldiers. And the tailor that hems their uniforms. And the shopkeeper that feeds them when they're on leave, or the pharmacist that fills their scripts, or the hospital that treats their wounds, or the whorehouse they frequent to blow off steam, and pretty soon, you see....virtually EVERYTHING is a legitimate military target.

Here's a thought experiment: What about a remote isolated kindergarten building that you knew for a fact (just assume you know for sure somehow) that only 5 year olds would be inside? would you aim your bombs to hit it, if your previous orders were to "destroy every building you see"?

If i thought the war was going to last until those kids were of fighting(or working) age?

Sure, i'd bomb it. No need to let the little tykes live that they may someday kill Americans(or through their endeavors support those who do).

German prison guards at Belsen Belsen received no immunity from the Nuremburg trials for simply "following the orders" of a superior. The Nuremburg trials DICTATED (in blinding precedent affecting law throughout the planet from then on) that the soldier/guard in question has a responsibility to refrain from brutality, and is culpable if he, to put it simply, refrains from refraining.

Funny, cause FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi was not prosecuted precisely because he WAS following orders despite the fact that he (and the ROE in play) executed numerous american civilians in clear violation of US law.

Sometimes "following orders" IS a quite effective excuse. It simply depends on the circumstances is all.

Who the "Good Guys" are in WW2 isn't debatable, and in my opinion not subject to much credible discussion. Freedom, human rights, liberty etc, aren't debatable concepts. They're self evident IMO. Such concepts exist regardless of who writes what in a history book.

So you support those concepts even when it means firebombing a whole nation(or two of them, as the case was) back to Hell IF it's what's needed to win the day?

Good....then my work here is complete, because so do i.

Whether you realize it or not, based on that last paragraph, you are a proponent of total war, as am i.

If i have to kill every last one of the enemy to tame them, then hey...that's their fault, not mine.

[dalem]

However he did take some DD swimmers,

He didn't "take" DD tanks from the Brits because the DD tank was a jointly-developed idea - they were part of Overlord and the U.S. part from the beginning. One of the reasons the U.S. declined the Funnies was because they didn't think they'd need them because they'd have battalions of DD Shermans, U.S. DD Shermans, on the beach in an hour.

Now that doesn't mean that turning down the offer of the Funnies was smart. I personally don't think it was, even in the full context of the time. But the overall casualty bill was much lower than planned for. EVERY beach was planned to be an Omaha, essentially. So I think things worked out pretty darned well, Funnies or not.

-dale

[Goatboy]

My point is that you don't understand, because until you see a big chunk of meat that you know used to be a human being covered in flies, the reality of what "War" means is very much an abstract.

I can show you 1000 pics of blown up people. It utterly pales in comparison to standing there watching that flesh being picked apart by insects in the hot Panamanian sun...

Ok yes, respectfully, I'm sure it does. I'm not debating that.

Sure, i'd bomb it. No need to let the little tykes live that they may someday kill Americans(or through their endeavors support those who do).

I disagree as vehemently as possible on your motive, as well as your statement: "Kill those little tykes because they might grow up and hate America" (basically that's what you said). I can't stress enough my distaste of this idea. Perhaps the discussion on this issue has concluded. No way in hell either one of us will budge.

[dalem]

I disagree as vehemently as possible on your motive, as well as your statement: "Kill those little tykes because they might grow up and hate America" (basically that's what you said).

He didn't say that at all. Snipe is referring to ACTION, not THOUGHT.

-dale

[Bill]

I disagree as vehemently as possible on your motive, as well as your statement: "Kill those little tykes because they might grow up and hate America" (basically that's what you said). I can't stress enough my distaste of this idea. Perhaps the discussion on this issue has concluded. No way in hell either one of us will budge.

I ask you, did Rome have any more problems from Carthage after they razed it to the ground and sewed the soil with salt?

Did the Greeks have any more problems with the Trojans after they burnt Troy to the ground and killed every last Trojan they could find?

How many problems did we have with the Native Americans after the trail of tears?

Morally, you are completely correct, it is HIDEOUS to contemplate what i'm saying....but it is also EXTREMELY effective beyond any dispute.

If the Russkies nuked us and we nuked them back, we'd be killing virtually every last one of them, men and women and children alike...for no more than simple revenge.

If you can accept that, you should be able to accept anything.

[Goatboy]

I ask you, did Rome have any more problems from Carthage after they razed it to the ground and sewed the soil with salt?

Did the Greeks have any more problems with the Trojans after they burnt Troy to the ground and killed every last Trojan they could find?

How many problems did we have with the Native Americans after the trail of tears?

Morally, you are completely correct, it is HIDEOUS to contemplate what i'm saying....but it is also EXTREMELY effective beyond any dispute.

If the Russkies nuked us and we nuked them back, we'd be killing virtually every last one of them, men and women and children alike...for no more than simple revenge.

If you can accept that, you should be able to accept anything.

Got it, I appreciate your explaining the context, especially "Morally, you are completely correct, it is HIDEOUS to contemplate what i'm saying....but it is also EXTREMELY effective beyond any dispute." Yeah that's true, it's a very effective tactic, I agree on that.

[Bill]

"Total war" is brutal beyond any possible comprehension for probably 99.9% of the people alive today- myself included- but the point that is missed by so many is that it's SUPPOSED to be. It is the very reason it is also so effective.

The belief that your enemy can AND will prosecute total war upon you and your populace is the ULTIMATE form of deterrant i can possibly imagine.

The Japanese and Germans paid a HORRIBLE price in order that they might be abject lessons for the rest of the world's nations as to what happens to Pariah states, and those that support them.

So what do we do as soon as we're done killing literally TENS OF MILLIONS of enemy personnel and citizens? We disavow ourselves of the very thing that created our seat of power as one of the two true superpowers in the world post WWII.

And what's happened with most of our wars subsequently? Unfulfilling exercises of political futility that have resulted in over 100,000 dead US troops while not really advancing any of our agendas or achieving any of our goals.

We have transformed war from an act of desperate survival into one of political convenience. And technology is our great enabler. I therefore have great disdain for limited wars, and those that seek to execute them.

I am a firm proponent of the old adage, "If you're going to do something, do it right."

We did WWII right(right up until we let the Japs weasel out of the war with some modicum of their "Honor" intact). We did Grenada right, and for a worthwhile reason. We ended it as we should...with total victory. Likewise for Panama. We did ODS right...right up until we stopped our advance at 100 hours. Had VII corps been allowed to continue it's attack, and the escape routes North to Iraq been sealed by airborne inserted forces, good ole' Saddam would've had no Republican Guard to put down the Shia and Kurd rebels, they'd have overthrown him, and they'd friggin LOVE US for it.

But no, we had to go and betray them in order that we "stop the killing" so Bush didn't look bad politically.(or so that the American people wouldn't be burdened with the knowledge that we were killing Iraqis at an industrialized rate, lest we not feel so good about ourselves anymore and stop buying SUVs or whatever...)

I say fucck that Mr.President. "You" hauled our lads out to the desert, you trained them to kill, you gave them go orders, now stay the fucck out of the way until the job is done, and don't lose your effing backbone when you see the result of YOUR orders on TV. And by ALL FUCCKING MEANS do not invade major countries "on the cheap" because you want to prove how effing smart you are with your new-fangled high-speed low-drag concepts of warfare. When a living military legend like Colin Powell tells you you need 385,000 troops, you don't tell him "No Mr SecState, we're transformational", you effing well do what he tells you because he's trying to save us all from having to eat a big-fat shiit sandwich later on down the road...which by the way, is MIGHTY FUCCKING TASTY right about now, isn't it?

Limited war is FUCCKING STUPID, and a blight upon the purported intelligence of the human race. It is also as inhumane an act as i can imagine because it almost(i say almost because there are exceptions and applications for limited war) invariably unleashes the horrors of war without achieving anything in particular. Or at least, nothing useful.

The Israeli-Lebanon War is the most recent PERFECT example.

Had the Israelis "gone Carthage" on the Lebanese, the issue of Hezbollah would be settled now.

Instead it will fester....endlessly....as "civilized" people publically talk and talk and talk and then privately conspire and conspire and conspire. People will die, nothing will change, new generations of hate will be spawned....blah, blah, blah.

The GWoT is a god-damned joke too. It is as big a joke, and as sick a joke, as the "War on Drugs", or the "War on Poverty", or the "War on Aids".

All we've yet to do is appoint a "Terror Czar"(if we havnt already), and the analogy will be complete.

All we're doing now is spinning our wheels in the sand. About the only thing useful we're doing is killing a shitload of subhuman cockroaches.

Unfortunately, they breed much faster than we're killing them. Much, much faster. Hell, the act of killing them even makes more.

Perhaps...at some point...we will wake up to the reality that the only course of action to achieve the kind of victory we want(without wanting to have to pay for it morally), is to "go Carthage".

Perhaps.

If we'd simply and truly INVADED Afghanistan after 9-11 or not lost our backbone in Iraw in 1991, almost none of this would be happening. Had Clinton OR Bush actually DONE SOMETHING about Korea BEFORE they had nukes, or for that matter, had Truman actually been inclined to WIN the Korean war, none of this crap would be happening now.

So 350,000 S.Koreans and a couple million NORKS would have died. Probably a few thousand Americans too.

In my estimation, that is infinitely better than a million americans 10-15 years from now. If the window for doing something is not already closed, it very soon will be. Hell, NORKS have deen dying in droves under Kim Il Jung for decades. In the longrun, taking out that Regime in 1953 would have SAVED literally millions of lives.

So you see, sometimes your morality is the very thing that causes a cycle of perpetual death.

Our "morality" EMBOLDENS our enemies because it is a HUGE sign of weakness, because morality IS a weakness in world where mother nature governs the actions of nations every much as it governs the actions of wolves. Morality is not a weakness they share, btw.

If you ask me, insisting upon the moral treatment of IMmoral people is pretty god-damned stupid.

Me, when it comes to these things, i am most decidedly Amoral.

[bonehead]

"Total war" is brutal beyond any possible comprehension for probably 99.9% of the people alive today- myself included- but the point that is missed by so many is that it's SUPPOSED to be. It is the very reason it is also so effective.

The belief that your enemy can AND will prosecute total war upon you and your populace is the ULTIMATE form of deterrant i can possibly imagine.

The Japanese and Germans paid a HORRIBLE price in order that they might be abject lessons for the rest of the world's nations as to what happens to Pariah states, and those that support them.

So what do we do as soon as we're done killing literally TENS OF MILLIONS of enemy personnel and citizens? We disavow ourselves of the very thing that created our seat of power as one of the two true superpowers in the world post WWII.

And what's happened with most of our wars subsequently? Unfulfilling exercises of political futility that have resulted in over 100,000 dead US troops while not really advancing any of our agendas or achieving any of our goals.

We have transformed war from an act of desperate survival into one of political convenience. And technology is our great enabler. I therefore have great disdain for limited wars, and those that seek to execute them.

I am a firm proponent of the old adage, "If you're going to do something, do it right."

We did WWII right(right up until we let the Japs weasel out of the war with some modicum of their "Honor" intact). We did Grenada right, and for a worthwhile reason. We ended it as we should...with total victory. Likewise for Panama. We did ODS right...right up until we stopped our advance at 100 hours. Had VII corps been allowed to continue it's attack, and the escape routes North to Iraq been sealed by airborne inserted forces, good ole' Saddam would've had no Republican Guard to put down the Shia and Kurd rebels, they'd have overthrown him, and they'd friggin LOVE US for it.

But no, we had to go and betray them in order that we "stop the killing" so Bush didn't look bad politically.(or so that the American people wouldn't be burdened with the knowledge that we were killing Iraqis at an industrialized rate, lest we not feel so good about ourselves anymore and stop buying SUVs or whatever...)

I say fucck that Mr.President. "You" hauled our lads out to the desert, you trained them to kill, you gave them go orders, now stay the fucck out of the way until the job is done, and don't lose your effing backbone when you see the result of YOUR orders on TV. And by ALL FUCCKING MEANS do not invade major countries "on the cheap" because you want to prove how effing smart you are with your new-fangled high-speed low-drag concepts of warfare. When a living military legend like Colin Powell tells you you need 385,000 troops, you don't tell him "No Mr SecState, we're transformational", you effing well do what he tells you because he's trying to save us all from having to eat a big-fat shiit sandwich later on down the road...which by the way, is MIGHTY FUCCKING TASTY right about now, isn't it?

Limited war is FUCCKING STUPID, and a blight upon the purported intelligence of the human race. It is also as inhumane an act as i can imagine because it almost(i say almost because there are exceptions and applications for limited war) invariably unleashes the horrors of war without achieving anything in particular. Or at least, nothing useful.

The Israeli-Lebanon War is the most recent PERFECT example.

Had the Israelis "gone Carthage" on the Lebanese, the issue of Hezbollah would be settled now.

Instead it will fester....endlessly....as "civilized" people publically talk and talk and talk and then privately conspire and conspire and conspire. People will die, nothing will change, new generations of hate will be spawned....blah, blah, blah.

The GWoT is a god-damned joke too. It is as big a joke, and as sick a joke, as the "War on Drugs", or the "War on Poverty", or the "War on Aids".

All we've yet to do is appoint a "Terror Czar"(if we havnt already), and the analogy will be complete.

All we're doing now is spinning our wheels in the sand. About the only thing useful we're doing is killing a shitload of subhuman cockroaches.

Unfortunately, they breed much faster than we're killing them. Much, much faster. Hell, the act of killing them even makes more.

Perhaps...at some point...we will wake up to the reality that the only course of action to achieve the kind of victory we want(without wanting to have to pay for it morally), is to "go Carthage".

Perhaps.

If we'd simply and truly INVADED Afghanistan after 9-11 or not lost our backbone in Iraw in 1991, almost none of this would be happening. Had Clinton OR Bush actually DONE SOMETHING about Korea BEFORE they had nukes, or for that matter, had Truman actually been inclined to WIN the Korean war, none of this crap would be happening now.

So 350,000 S.Koreans and a couple million NORKS would have died. Probably a few thousand Americans too.

In my estimation, that is infinitely better than a million americans 10-15 years from now. If the window for doing something is not already closed, it very soon will be. Hell, NORKS have deen dying in droves under Kim Il Jung for decades. In the longrun, taking out that Regime in 1953 would have SAVED literally millions of lives.

So you see, sometimes your morality is the very thing that causes a cycle of perpetual death.

Our "morality" EMBOLDENS our enemies because it is a HUGE sign of weakness, because morality IS a weakness in world where mother nature governs the actions of nations every much as it governs the actions of wolves. Morality is not a weakness they share, btw.

If you ask me, insisting upon the moral treatment of IMmoral people is pretty god-damned stupid.

Me, when it comes to these things, i am most decidedly Amoral.

Atleast your honest about how you feel which is more that I can say about our "leadershit" as of late. You are also not alone in how you feel.

[Goatboy]

"Total war" is brutal beyond any possible comprehension for probably 99.9% of the people alive today- myself included- but the point that is missed by so many is that it's SUPPOSED to be. It is the very reason it is also so effective.

The belief that your enemy can AND will prosecute total war upon you and
your populace is the ULTIMATE form of deterrant i can possibly imagine.

The Japanese and Germans paid a HORRIBLE price in order that they might be abject lessons for the rest of the world's nations as to what happens to Pariah states, and those that support them.

Yes they did. And we had every right to use overwhelming military force in that war, to meet our ends, namely: The defeat, occupation, and regime change of Germany.

BUT once German soldiers are captured, AND once German civilians are behind American lines, they're no longer part of the war, and hence are protected from being slaughtered. War crime tribunals are a different matter. To drastically change US policy, to discount military necessity (slaughtering German civilians doesn't win battles, it only creates enemies, and creates patriots in America) is to denounce the very idea of what America stands for -- it's foundations, it's philosophical beliefs, it's very soul.

So what do we do as soon as we're done killing literally TENS OF MILLIONS of enemy personnel and citizens? We disavow ourselves of the very thing that created our seat of power as one of the two true superpowers in the world post WWII.

What you mean destroy our nukes or something? If that's the case then no lol

When a living military legend like Colin Powell tells you you need 385,000 troops, you don't tell him "No Mr SecState, we're transformational", you effing well do what he tells you because he's trying to save us all from having to eat a big-fat shiit sandwich later on down the road...which by the way, is MIGHTY FUCCKING TASTY right about now, isn't it?

They ignored his advice. No wonder he was disgruntled.
Powell was a decent man. I wish he was Bush's VP. Powell justly felt shut out of the loop.

The Israeli-Lebanon War is the most recent PERFECT example.

Had the Israelis "gone Carthage" on the Lebanese, the issue of Hezbollah would be settled now.

Lebanon is a hell of a lot more than just Hezbullah. And if Israel had "gone Carthage" on Lebanon, Israel's security would have been gravely weakened. I assume "gone Carthage" means utterly destroying every house, flattening Beirut (including every Christian area) -- essentially killing half the population say?

Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Europe, China, Russia, would all break relations with Israel, stop trading with Israel -- which necessarily bankrupts the country since small industrialized countries depend heavily on exports. How many nations simply can't do without Israeli products? I can't imagine a US supporting/supplying an Israel bent on such a task either -- it's inconceivable. Ordinary Israelis want to defeat Hizbullah, they do not want to exterminate the entire nation of Lebanon.

I know plenty of Israelis (Israeli born but living in America). I live in Los Angeles. One of my best friends is Israeli born. I have attended passover celebrations where I'm the only guy with blond hair, and also the only German American. Nobody cares that I'm "Aryan" anyways. I sense an amazing cohesion among Israeli Jews, and American Jews in general -- a sense of belonging, of defending, a sense of respecting customs, despite being secular Jews. I never hear "turn the entire country of Lebanon into a smoking crater".

The GWoT is a god-damned joke too. It is as big a joke, and as sick a joke, as the "War on Drugs", or the "War on Poverty", or the "War on Aids".

I agree, the "War on Poverty" will be unsuccessful, the "War on Aids" might be, I'd rather have smarter individuals running it -- like Bill Gates's foundation. The "War on Drugs" is both stupid and wrong.

All we've yet to do is appoint a "Terror Czar"(if we havnt already), and the analogy will be complete.

Terror czar lol.

Perhaps...at some point...we will wake up to the reality that the only course of action to achieve the kind of victory we want(without wanting to have to pay for it morally), is to "go Carthage".
Perhaps.

To "go Carthage" in the Korean war would have necessitated the destruction and invasion of China. Of course we were also at war with large numbers of Soviet pilots. So by your definition, since the best way to fight any war is to "go Carthage", we should have bombed the **** out of the USSR. This example is merely to show that perhaps Total War isn't always the best advisable policy. I'm leaving morality, and concepts such as "winning the peace" out for the moment.

So you see, sometimes your morality is the very thing that causes a cycle of perpetual death.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes the complete opposite. Wisdom decides the best course of action.

Our "morality" EMBOLDENS our enemies because it is a HUGE sign of weakness, because morality IS a weakness in world where mother nature governs the actions of nations every much as it governs the actions of wolves. Morality is not a weakness they share, btw.

Actually our morality is probably the MOST important reason FOR our strength. The principles behind the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution created the foundation for growth -- from vast numbers of immigrants from Europe, the free market system, freedom of speech, and simply our values and beliefs.

Sometimes morality is taken advantage of yes. Terrorists in Baghdad know for a fact that the US isn't going to nuke the city (after US soldiers moved out) in order to kill 5,000 terrorists.

If you ask me, insisting upon the moral treatment of IMmoral people is pretty god-damned stupid.

War criminals get executed. German civilians do not get executed simply for being German.


Have we covered most of the ground here? I think we're familiar with each other's positions.

[Officer of Engineers]

Yes they did. And we had every right to use overwhelming military force in that war, to meet our ends, namely: The defeat, occupation, and regime change of Germany.

BUT once German soldiers are captured, AND once German civilians are behind American lines, they're no longer part of the war, and hence are protected from being slaughtered.

You're ignoring the history. The Germans were rushing towards our lines because whoever ended up behind Soviet lines were not going to be treated with kindness. 90,000 surrendered at Stalingrad. Less than 10,000 made it home. The women were simply just raped.

To "go Carthage" in the Korean war would have necessitated the destruction and invasion of China. Of course we were also at war with large numbers of Soviet pilots. So by your definition, since the best way to fight any war is to "go Carthage", we should have bombed the **** out of the USSR. This example is merely to show that perhaps Total War isn't always the best advisable policy. I'm leaving morality, and concepts such as "winning the peace" out for the moment.

All that needed to be done was for MacArthur to stop and turned around instead of running straight past the 38th. After that, it was too late to "go Carthage."

[Goatboy]

You're ignoring the history. The Germans were rushing towards our lines because whoever ended up behind Soviet lines were not going to be treated with kindness. 90,000 surrendered at Stalingrad. Less than 10,000 made it home. The women were simply just raped.

I'm not ignoring history, I might have not been clear on my point however. When I said "BUT once German soldiers are captured, AND once German civilians are behind American lines, they're no longer part of the war, and hence are protected from being slaughtered." I meant theoretically, legally -- like I was reading from a military code of conduct book or something. And of course that was exactly America's official policy. If America exterminated POWs, and German civilians, I doubt many Germans would be rushing toward US lines.

All that needed to be done was for MacArthur to stop and turned around instead of running straight past the 38th. After that, it was too late to "go Carthage."

I can see MacArthur's motivation for following up on the enormous success of Inchon (more brilliant perhaps than anything he did in WW2), and maintaining the inevitable rout of the retreating NK army past the 38th. Political considerations were ignored unfortunately. A greater understanding of Chinese "thinking" was sorely lacking by US command.

In hindsight, he should have stopped at the 38th I guess, but if you had asked me that same question in 1950, I would have responded differently. Hindsight has 20/20 vision which is what makes historical "what if" scenarios so interesting I think.

[Bill]

Have we covered most of the ground here? I think we're familiar with each other's positions.

To be quite honest, i dont think what ive been saying has really sunk in at all.

Example:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper
So what do we do as soon as we're done killing literally TENS OF MILLIONS of enemy personnel and citizens? We disavow ourselves of the very thing that created our seat of power as one of the two true superpowers in the world post WWII.
Goatboy:
What you mean destroy our nukes or something? If that's the case then no lol

I was not talking about a weapons system. I was talking about total war. We disavowed the very thing that took us on to total victory.

The ONLY thing that could've taken us on to total victory.

That thing being TOTAL WARFARE...

I also dont think you're really getting what total warfare is. It's not "Lets wipe out the civilians", it's "If it's a legitimate target, it's getting attacked- regardless of the body count."

Actually our morality is probably the MOST important reason FOR our strength.

Our morality is the reason that the DPRK is in power today. They are the reason that Saddam was not toppled in 1991. They are the reason we have been so politically limited and inneffective in the GWoT.

That's some strength...

PS: If we did not execute German civilians, what was Dresden? It was an abject lesson in the cost of resistance and collaboration for all the people of the world to see. Sure it was a legitimate target, but that in no way minimizes the psychological effect of firebombing a major first world city to the ground with incendiaries.

We "went Carthage" on Dresden. We should've went carthage during Korea- we DID go Carthage on Korea for a while, and no, that should not have prevented us from advancing in a disciplined fashion and preparing defenses to blunt(or highly minimize) the impending PRC attack that incessant intel reports warned of. Reports that MacArthur flatly ignored or denied. It was the entry of the Chinese into the war that seemed to break our will to endure on to total victory...an early test of the cold war that we failed quite convincingly.

North Korea was the perfect place to anhillate the Chinese, and we failed to ever seriously commit to the goal in any truly major way. Victory in Korea was really a national goal, as it should have been.

And to be quite honest, in 1950, it would've been EXTREMELY unwise for the Soviets to get into a nuke trading contest with the US. Their delivery capabilities at that time WRT CONUS were quite(some would even say extremely) limited. Europe however...

Conversely, the US had the devices and the bombers to remove the Soviet Union from the map. In the end, 10s of millions would've been saved, and hundreds of millions freed from tyranny.

I think had the US pushed the Issue the Reds would've wisely backed down as they did during the Cuban missile crisis. Because even that late into the Cold war they still could not possibly match the US ability to DELIVER massive quantities of reasonably accurate and reliable warheads. Which was sort of the whole point behind them basing them in Cuba to begin with.

[Goatboy]

To be quite honest, i dont think what ive been saying has really sunk in at all.

To be quite honest, I don't think what I've been saying has "sunk in" either :P

Our morality is the reason that the DPRK is in power today. They are the reason that Saddam was not toppled in 1991. They are the reason we have been so politically limited and inneffective in the GWoT.

I think the fact that China borders North Korea might be another reason why we were reluctant to attack. There's an awful lot of history there.

PS: If we did not execute German civilians, what was Dresden? It was an abject lesson in the cost of resistance and collaboration for all the people of the world to see. Sure it was a legitimate target, but that in no way minimizes the psychological effect of firebombing a major first world city to the ground with incendiaries.

What I'm commenting on is the fact that you've stated that you see no difference between killing civilians during strategic bombing campaigns, and slaughtering them after they're behind American lines. Here's a quote from you regarding this topic: "It's the same damned thing as far as im concerned."
No it's not the same thing, it's not the same thing at all and never has been. I'm desperately trying to distinguish the difference here, between these two catastrophically different situations. Given a refusal to distinguish between these two COMPLETELY different topics, it's hard to make my point.

We "went Carthage" on Dresden. We should've went carthage during Korea- we DID go Carthage on Korea for a while, and no, that should not have prevented us from advancing in a disciplined fashion and preparing defenses to blunt(or highly minimize) the impending PRC attack that incessant intel reports warned of. Reports that MacArthur flatly ignored or denied. It was the entry of the Chinese into the war that seemed to break our will to endure on to total victory...an early test of the cold war that we failed quite convincingly.

Total victory? An invasion of China and Vladivostok? What form does your version of "total war" consist of regarding the Korean War? What would have been your recommendation had you been in command?

North Korea was the perfect place to anhillate the Chinese, and we failed to ever seriously commit to the goal in any truly major way. Victory in Korea was really a national goal, as it should have been.

To "annhiliate" the Chinese, you have to invade Manchuria, and most likely the rest of the Middle Kingdom as well. Actually, you'd have to annhiliate the Soviet "expeditionary" air force, along with quite a lot of Soviet Siberian military infrastructure.

And to be quite honest, in 1950, it would've been EXTREMELY unwise for the Soviets to get into a nuke trading contest with the US. Their delivery capabilities at that time WRT CONUS were quite(some would even say extremely) limited. Europe however...

I agree. At that time, had we gotten into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, they would have fared much worse. Nonetheless, nobody wanted to get into a nuke fight. The concept of M.A.D. hadn't been conceived in it's irrefutable glory yet yes, but the "fear" of atomic warfare dominated political discussion.

Conversely, the US had the devices and the bombers to remove the Soviet Union from the map. In the end, 10s of millions would've been saved, and hundreds of millions freed from tyranny.

We had the bombers and the devices to destroy the Soviet Union as a viable functioning society then yes. We certainly would NOT have been thought of in Russia, and in other Warsaw Pact countries as "the guys who freed us from Tyranny" had we annhiliated Kiev, Moscow, Leningrad, Warsaw, Bucharest etc, in the interest of defeating the USSR however, -- especially had American cities been largely spared from nuclear destruction.

Russians are well aware of the concept of tyranny, despite any acquiescence to it. I would guarantee a festering hatred of all things American had all of Russia's major cities been destroyed.

I think had the US pushed the Issue the Reds would've wisely backed down as they did during the Cuban missile crisis. Because even that late into the Cold war they still could not possibly match the US ability to DELIVER massive quantities of reasonably accurate and reliable warheads. Which was sort of the whole point behind them basing them in Cuba to begin with.

A "behind the scenes" agreement seemed like a reasonable course of action to solve that Crisis. I salute JFK for his conduct. He knew when to stand firm, and when to be diplomatic -- for the Cuban Missile Crisis hadn't yet boiled over into "Total War".

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm not ignoring history, I might have not been clear on my point however. When I said "BUT once German soldiers are captured, AND once German civilians are behind American lines, they're no longer part of the war, and hence are protected from being slaughtered." I meant theoretically, legally -- like I was reading from a military code of conduct book or something. And of course that was exactly America's official policy. If America exterminated POWs, and German civilians, I doubt many Germans would be rushing toward US lines.

No, you're still ignoring the history. We were not the ones mistreating Germans behind our lines. The Soviets were ... and we didn't do a damn thing to stop them. Hell, we even encouraged them, allowing Stalin to goto Berlin while we sat back.

I can see MacArthur's motivation for following up on the enormous success of Inchon (more brilliant perhaps than anything he did in WW2), and maintaining the inevitable rout of the retreating NK army past the 38th. Political considerations were ignored unfortunately. A greater understanding of Chinese "thinking" was sorely lacking by US command.

In hindsight, he should have stopped at the 38th I guess, but if you had asked me that same question in 1950, I would have responded differently. Hindsight has 20/20 vision which is what makes historical "what if" scenarios so interesting I think.

I meant, he should have taken on the Chinese instead of leading the longest retreat in USArmy history. Once that happenned, we were no longer interested in "go Catharging" Korea, we were thinking of "go Carthaging Europe." Korea had become a side show at that point.