Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In an era in which economic assets are also military ones, I understand that certain civilian installations are going to be destroyed in war. I can even accept that many civilians will die in any all out war pursued by an industrialized nation. Thats the depressing reality of the home front (and a wonderful argument against war in the first place). And I agree with M21 that to devote yourself to minimizing civilian losses at the expense of attaining stratetegic victories is a perfect way to lose a war you should be winning.
    But theres still a difference between total war and genocide. Any state that calls itself civilized cannot in good conscience purposefully target non-combatants just because of their nationality.

    Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
    The Germans are lucky we left any of them alive....and so are the Japs.


    Not only does he DESERVE mistreatment, but his home should be fire-bombed and his family burned to a crisp in the firestorm that follows.
    And honestly, who kills people without a second thought? Especially due to their nationality? If you can end human life without your conscience announcing its presence, you should be locked away. I dont understand how you could be proud of that. Germans and Japanese are lucky we left any of them alive?? Thats not war, its way more warped. You must see that pursuing that theory to its conclusion makes you the very evil your trying to combat.

    Comment


    • They were lucky to be alive. More than one country was seeking blood vengence. And we didn't give it a 2nd thought when we firebombed Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and gave the greenlight to Berlin.

      Comment


      • I didnt used to think so, but now I do indeed believe that these civilians were lucky that cooler minds prevailed. Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo were atrocities. The fact that we did not reconsider those brutal actions is not a justification for more of them being committed. Past or present.
        Besides, wouldnt it have brought a quicker end to the war if our air campaign had targeted germany's oil supply rather than its civilian population?

        Comment


        • The civies were not Bomber Harris's targets, the cities were. The civies were just in the way. No city, no factories and consequently no workers, no production.

          Curtis Lemay's believed in firebombing Japan into surrender or into the stone age. Considering that it just took 2 nukes to do it, he had a point.

          Opeation LINEBACKERS I and II targetted steel but we really didn't go out of our way to avoid the civies, did we?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            They were lucky to be alive. More than one country was seeking blood vengence. And we didn't give it a 2nd thought when we firebombed Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and gave the greenlight to Berlin.
            Quite a debate emerged as to the selection of which 4 Japanese cities would be nuked. Kyoto was deemed too historically significant and its devastation was cancelled, due in large part to the growing America idea (by August 1945) that we needed to "win the peace". I think that decision was the correct one. The benefit of an occupied, yet grateful Japan, ruled under MacArthur's wisdom, is testament to the benefits of compassion in this sense.

            Comment


            • Curtis Lemay had plans to firebombed 13 major cities and considering most were paper houses, those two nukes killed a hell of alot less people achieving the same end.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GSpot View Post
                ...wouldnt it have brought a quicker end to the war if our air campaign had targeted germany's oil supply rather than its civilian population?

                Hear hear, I've often wondered the same thing myself :)
                Add to the list his iron ore supplies,his steelworks, naval yards, tank and aircraft and U-boat factories, his munitions factories, his power stations, coal mines etc, and he'd soon be back in the stone age and clamouring for peace :)
                Okay they didn't have smart bombs back then, so maybe the shotgun-pattern approach of area-bombing was to some extent justified, but it still didn't stop Germany producing tanks and aircraft etc virtually right to the end of the war..
                "No matter what losses we inflicted on the German fighter arm in air combat, they would always be there to meet us whenever we crossed the channel" - Spitfire pilot Johnnie Johnson

                Comment


                • Right, Marshall Harris targeted the cities, just like you say. But not the factories particularly. And correct me if Im wrong, but arent cities where civilians generally collect? Can you turn a blind eye to this and convince yourself your bombing one and not the other?
                  And theres a difference between purposefully turning 80% of Dresden into a fireball and destroying civilian targets that are also military assets. All I was suggesting was that gentlemen like Air Marshall Harris take that into account. Furthermore, Dresden wasnt of military value. There werent military targets there for the civies to "get in the way of". So I stick by my hypothesis that destroying Germany's synthetic oil production would have been way, way better than killing civies who supposedly got in the way.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by sappersgt View Post
                    Snipe,
                    You should stop with the ambiguous, wishy washy posts. Why don't you stop sugar coating everything and tell us how you really feel!
                    I sense an implied nod of approval in your last post...my mine-tampering friend.

                    "IF YOU CAN READ THIS, RUN LIKE HELL!"

                    ~Motto that should be on the back of every EOD man's ballistic vest.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GSpot View Post
                      Right, Marshall Harris targeted the cities, just like you say. But not the factories particularly. And correct me if Im wrong, but arent cities where civilians generally collect? Can you turn a blind eye to this and convince yourself your bombing one and not the other?
                      And theres a difference between purposefully turning 80% of Dresden into a fireball and destroying civilian targets that are also military assets. All I was suggesting was that gentlemen like Air Marshall Harris take that into account. Furthermore, Dresden wasnt of military value. There werent military targets there for the civies to "get in the way of". So I stick by my hypothesis that destroying Germany's synthetic oil production would have been way, way better than killing civies who supposedly got in the way.


                      You're not military, so you wouldn't understand.

                      Turning a blind eye to the civie casualties, no, Bomber Harries did not do that. Did it mattered to him? Yes, it did. Was it even a consideration in his decision? No, it was not.

                      And Dresden was a military target because we said it was. It's as simple as that.

                      Comment


                      • The Luftwaffe bombed my mum during a big night raid on Leicester (England) in 1940 when she was 18 but she and her family survived, they simply made their way to the local communal air raid shelter.
                        I was born in 1948 and missed the fun, but later I asked her "Were you scared?"
                        "I don't think so" she replied, "in fact the breadbaskets looked quite pretty floating slowly down through the night sky"
                        Breadbaskets was local slang for clusters of incendiaries and target marker flares..
                        The moral? Jerry bombed us, so it made sense to bomb him back..
                        "When Germany began this war they naievely thought they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them... They've sown the wind and now they're going to reap the whirlwind" - RAF Air Marshall "Bomber Harris".
                        I bear no grudges and in fact I like Germans, they're a strong proud race, I've been in a German PC e-mail strategy game club for 2 years and they're nice guys..
                        PS- At wars end, Hitler had an atomic bomb programme under way and a big transatlantic "Amerikabomber" on the drawing board..

                        (
                        http://www.internetmodeler.com/2006/...book_me264.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          Are you saying that ANY war the United States is involved in REQUIRES us to try to kill every single living soul of that country?
                          Killing is the business of war. I see little reason to eff around.

                          I mean, if you're really serious....the more brutal it is, the quicker it will end, the less frequently it will be engaged in.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          Vast fleets of helicopters roaming the North Vietnamese countryside and shooting ALL humans they can find? (I'm responding to your "You don't want me to kill your farmers? DONT EFFING ATTACK MY COUNTRY!" comment.)
                          JOKER: "How do you shoot women, and children?"
                          MARINE DOOR GUNNER: "Easy, just don't lead 'em so much!"

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          If you had the power to go back in time, and had the power to influence events, would you then make the decision to kill all the Germans and Japanese?, just curious.
                          The germans unconditional surrender is good enough, even for a bastard like me. But the japs...they've never really appologized, and they used to literally eat our POWS among other unbelieveably hideous acts, like, oh....the BATAAN DEATH MARCH or RAPE OF NANKING.

                          We should not have allowed them any conditions to surrender(which really, we did).

                          You can take that to precisely mean: Until they UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED, the mass killing of the Japanese military and populace should've continued unabated.

                          Don't forget the Russians either:

                          Originally posted by mick in england
                          1 - Pres Truman tells Russia to withdraw to her pre-war borders
                          2 - Stalin drags his feet
                          3 - B-29 fleet deployed in Europe
                          4 - Stalin thinks "they'd never nuke us....would they..."
                          5 - Western Allies issue ultimatum to Stalin - "withdraw or face the consequences"
                          6 - Stalin chickens and withdraws...(edit to add) or dies."
                          In 1947 that would've been a very, very one sided affair, and should've been done.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          And his parents, and his little baby, and his one legged uncle, and apparently anyone else in his house.
                          You'd be fine with killing them by accident and calling it 'collateral damage'.
                          At least i have the balls to tell them i meant it.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          It's not exactly military doctrine is it?
                          Ever heard of MAD cuz? What do you think all those firebombing raids were all about? Eh?

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          Certainly the idea that "the penalty for being German is death" is extremely fringe, and always has been.
                          They surrendered. Until they did, that viewpoint was quite popular indeed.

                          Obviously.
                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          Your version of justice perhaps.
                          Justice is merely revenge by another name applied with the approval of the law or a nation. WWII, from the US perspective, was a war of revenge.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          The "justice" you're proposing is the very thing that destroys nations, such as ours. Would the US have been the beacon of liberty during the cold war had we systematically exterminated anyone with a German accent in 1945?
                          Had the germans not surrendered, thats about exactly what would have happened.

                          Seriously, think about what you're saying there troop.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          I'd rather America didn't become that which it fought so hard to defeat. My father was born in Germany in 1942, I'm glad he avoided "justice", for obvious reasons lol.
                          Good thing they surrendered.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          Do you dislike modern, individual Germans and Japanese because of the sins of their grandfathers? just curious
                          I dont like Japanese. No.

                          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
                          I hope denouncing some of your arguments doesn't constitute being wronged :P
                          You only denounced them because you didnt understand what i was saying, i am sure.

                          What was to be our response to a soviet attack on Europe if not EXACTLY what i am saying?

                          Well?
                          Last edited by Bill; 16 Oct 06,, 06:56.

                          Comment


                          • Bill, Check Your Fire, the last few quotes were GSpot, not Mick's. Mick's on your side.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
                              Wow, that was a fine, slightly warped statement. I don't think I understand you either.
                              I have no compunction killing the enemy, in civilian or military versions. All a soldier needs is orders as to which ones it's OK to shoot.

                              Defenseless women and children, no, i would not shoot them. That's what god invented the US Air force and incendiaries for. Largescale slaughter of a civilian populace is the Air Force's job. Afterall, "Napalm sticks to kids."(a popular cadence from my day)

                              I promise i'd feel real bad as i advanced past their burnt out homes and villages though.

                              Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
                              But, according to your statement, how is not also YOUR responsibility to desert if you received orders to murder a German prisoner, since it is morally wrong? Your statement contradicts itself.
                              Killing Nazi prisoners was not morally wrong IMO.

                              I would've refrained, but only because i'd have had orders to do so.

                              To me, if i've been sent to Germany to kill jew and pole slaughtering nazis, it makes little difference if i do it before or after i've captured them.

                              Now tell me, if you were ny neighbor, would you start a fight with me knowing all this?

                              That is the concept behind total war.

                              Deterance.
                              Last edited by Bill; 16 Oct 06,, 06:54.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
                                Killing is the business of war. I see little reason to eff around.


                                Yay, way to go :)
                                Take the Nam fiasco, the lily-livered politicians of that era fouled up big-time.
                                "Washington tied one of my arms behind my back, thus preventing me bringing the war to a swift conclusion" - Gen Westmoreland, overall Commander, Vietnam.

                                HEY SNIPER, you're attributing some quotes to me but they're not mine, some other dood posted them. Adjust your sights huh? ;)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X