@superbattleshipyamato Agreed, I knew of his damaged arm. I didn’t know he lost a kidney.
Yet another reason . . .
-
Exactly, i understand it as something like unlucky… Fortuna, roman goddess of luck… Well, then you had some unfortunate civilians in the Twin Towers, and surely you can understand and appreciate that those arabs who see the US as an enemy cheered when the towers were attacked.
Yeah, I would too if I thought of the US as the enemy. Though I still don’t see where you’re going with this…
-
Well, i think the term term “unfortunate” is way too sarcastic to be used.
But … i probably really only read too much into/between your lines. -
Fine, then it should be replaced with “tragic, appalling, calamitous, grievous, devastating, et al” to get the point across. However, at the same time, SBRs shortened the war by months - if not years (just look a Polesti for an example) - more lives were saved in the end (I believe so, though the point is debatable). Another comparision was Sherman’s march to the sea. Was what he did wrong? Many Southerns believe so (as I’m sure German civies would of SBRs), but even being affectionate for the South, I still accept what Sherman did as justifiable. And let us not forget this was the era of total war. Humanities, rights, justification, all of these change in total war.
-
@TG:
… However, at the same time, SBRs shortened the war by months - if not years (just look a Polesti for an example) - more lives were saved in the end (I believe so, though the point is debatable). …And let us not forget this was the era of total war. Humanities, rights, justification, all of these change in total war.
The first one is debatable to a point. The second one… is something i can not agree to. It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war. And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.
-
It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war.
Just because its cities weren’t bombed? :-? What US citizens gave was a total war effort, both on the battlefield and on the homefront. Of course, I could take this as a “sarcastic effect” - just as you said with my usage of the word “unfortunate.” :-?
And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the war, and FDR violated similar “human rights” (the fundamental 1st Amendment Included) during his war. Were they wrong for what they did? I say that in wars, the rules in peacetime are more easily bent and some are even broken. Even a blind man can see this.
-
@TG:
It sure was not at all a total war for the US, though it probably was for most of the other major powers in the war.
Just because its cities weren’t bombed? :-? What US citizens gave was a total war effort, both on the battlefield and on the homefront.
Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…
And justifying breaches of human right by declaring the opponent did it first is something that is not suited at all for democracies.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the war, and FDR violated similar “human rights” (the fundamental 1st Amendment Included) during his war. Were they wrong for what they did? I say that in wars, the rules in peacetime are more easily bent and some are even broken. Even a blind man can see this.
That has nothing to do with my point. Just because crimes happen, and even a blind man can see that, doesn’t make them right.
So, yes, i say they were wrong. -
Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…
The British Isles were never invaded. Your second statement is flawed. And the third point is hardly sufficent.
That has nothing to do with my point. Just because crimes happen, and even a blind man can see that, doesn’t make them right.
So, yes, i say they were wrong.Then it would be pointless to try and convince you otherwise then.
-
geez you two there is a special place I set up to argue this in…
-
@TG:
Yup, “just” because you were fortunate enough to have no fighting on your soil and “just” not everything was rationed, and your gov’t “just” didn’t publsih on how you could use acorns for nutrition…
The British Isles were never invaded. Your second statement is flawed. And the third point is hardly sufficent.
True, the third one was for illustration purposes.
Please explain why the second one is flawed.
Please interprete the first one just a very tiny bit more freely. Maybe replace the “fighting on” by “frequent fighting on and over”…I would not have thought that you could be worse than me in picking on words (and not going for the IMHO obvious meaning), yet still accuse me of rethorics…
Then it would be pointless to try and convince you otherwise then.
I had this feeling towards you as well for some time in this thread.
-
Please interprete the first one just a very tiny bit more freely. Maybe replace the “fighting on” by “frequent fighting on and over”…
What’s the difference between that and bombing as I mention earlier?
As for the second, it is impossible to say “everything was rationed” for whatever country. And also, since what important articles weren’t rationed in the US? -
There is no real difference between the bombing you mentioned and my line.
Second, not every food was rationed in the US. I could not find how the rationing developed over the years in the US, if you know more there, would you mind to share that with me? … But of course, it comes down to what you consider “important”. And of course, the rationing was only one example fo the “total war” that you spoke of. How long was the weekly work time in the US in the “total war” era? It was 70h in Germany, with all “unnecessary” companies being closed, gas and electrical power heavily restricted, no cultural or sports events…
and i guess that the situation in the UK (esp. during the Battle in the Atlantic) or SU was only slightly different from the german, in comparison to the situation in the US. -
SUD-
Thanks-You stole my thunder! excellent post!
-
I’d agree that given the effort and sacrifice of the allies on this side of the atlantic, we very much were in total war. Universal conscription, the losses of hundreds of thousands of lives, and the ful out deployment of national resources certainly made this a total war.
There is a consideration with regards to F_alk’s ballyhooing w.r.t. preservation of “human rights”/pre-geneva convention violations.
I think that when a sovereign nation has war declared against it, every effort made to defend itself is justifyable.
Certainly Germans may complain that the allies “overstepped the line”, however given the circumstances (cumination of terror bombings of allied cities and positions, sinkings of millions and millions of tons of food and supplies in effort to starve the nation of Great Britain with the subsequent deaths of thousands of sailors, the need to protect the world from evil aggression), i think that it can be expected that allied commanders might be a little too enthusiastic in fulfilling their missions.
The allies were forced into a position of needing to end the war. F_alk, you have done a poor job of convincing me that the means were inappropriate given the circumstances.
The reason why you and TG might be unable to “convince each other” is that Germany has always been the aggressor, yet has brought the devastation of war to its soil. The allies had been the invaded, the aggreived, and prevailled on foreign soil. F_alk can not understand our position being from the aggressor/devestated nation, and we will not know his, being the defending/victorious nations. -
I think F_alk is expounding on the “Winners-write-history-books” side of things :wink:
-
falk, you said that the germans had a 70h work week? boo frickin hoo. they were the aggressors. they also took on way more than they could handle, fighting US,UK, France, Russia, Canada, etc. , not to mention being under a fascist dictator as opposed to the democracy in the US, who also was not directly affected by the war in Europe (the term being used loosely of course) i should expect the conditions in Germany to be more severe
-
I stand corrected concerning my (former) position towards the total war.
@CC:
The allies were forced into a position of needing to end the war.
Please explain the “forced to need” in that sentence.
GG, you are probably right. … biting my tongue … anyway, i guess none of the USies has ever thought what the next superpower… or history … might judge over and write about them.
-
@F_alk:
I stand corrected concerning my (former) position towards the total war.
@CC:
The allies were forced into a position of needing to end the war.
Please explain the “forced to need” in that sentence.
GG, you are probably right. … biting my tongue … anyway, i guess none of the USies has ever thought what the next superpower… or history … might judge over and write about them.
well, despite the sincerest hopes of Neville Chamberlain and his ilk, Hitler was not going to sit back and take it easy. There was no stopping the consequences of the hubris of the Germans. It was not going to end unless the allies put in the effort of a “Total War”, doing everything believed necessary. The Germans were not going to simply surrender because we asked them too. Not even when we were obviously winning. We needed to end the war with authority.
-
@cystic:
well, despite the sincerest hopes of Neville Chamberlain and his ilk, Hitler was not going to sit back and take it easy. There was no stopping the consequences of the hubris of the Germans. It was not going to end unless the allies put in the effort of a “Total War”, doing everything believed necessary. The Germans were not going to simply surrender because we asked them too. Not even when we were obviously winning. We needed to end the war with authority.
It is true, the war would have been started by Germany, reagardless of what the western allies would have done.
For “not going to surrender”… Well, the Allies had proclaimed officially that they would not stop before the unconditional surrender of Germany. And they did so before Germany declared their “total war”.
The “need to win with authority” more was a remnant of the end of the first WW IMO, to make it impossible that a third WW could be started in another generations time by Germany. -
The problem with you two is that you do not seperate the people and the goverment… several times you have mentioned GERMANY instead of the appropiate NAZIS!!! The german people were oppressed as much as the British were in the Blitz… and we excuse the innocent German people lost because of allied bombing as “Retaliation”… sounds more like “revenge”… most Germans didn’t like Hitler but what could they say, they were too tired from working for 12 hours to resist… War crimes, oh shomolly! both sides were evil from the American at Manzanar, to the British in unseen oppression in there rather unseen empire, to Hitler’s brutal tactics preformed on innocent person’s, to Stalin who just never considered another person a “human”… Regardless of there death counts they did something wrong that has never been forgotten by the descendants of their terror, which we show partiality too… can’t we ever see that a human in misery regardless of whether the shovel he is digging with is manufactured in Germany or Britain has a pain that he is bearing?
GG
-
thanks GG, a good closing comment
….
i tend to get distracted easily when i feel like being attacked/offended. I will stay quiet in this thread.
Suggested Topics
