Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Bush (The most powerfull man i the world!)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18 December 2002, 07:21 PM
  #31  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Simple. Those two events brought the war to an end, simply, quickly and efficiently
Exactly how since by August 1945 the allies had already capured Berlin and taken over the government and the Russians had started to attack Japan which meant all the European and American forces only had one adversary left namely Japan. Japan could have been destroyed easily since the allied forces had complete control of tha air but quite simply the yanks wanted to try out their new toys on civilians.



Another point that really irritates me is this habit people have of saying that Hiroshima was bad because women and children were killed. Sorry, but AFIAC, it doesn't make a rat's **** of a difference who gets killed

In my opinion killing innocent people is wrong but the case could be made that male civilians pose a threat to an invading army but women and children obviously don't so why kill them.


Why then do the Bush lovers think so many people have such hatred for the United States ?
Old 18 December 2002, 07:22 PM
  #32  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

er, no. bit of a ham-fisted nobber really....
Old 18 December 2002, 07:25 PM
  #33  
MarkO
Scooby Regular
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

In my opinion killing innocent people is wrong but the case could be made that male civilians pose a threat to an invading army but women and children obviously don't so why kill them.
Absolute rubbish. Consider vietnam and the african conflicts (Congo, etc) and you'll see that women and children can be just as lethal (if not more so) than men.
Why then do the Bush lovers think so many people have such hatred for the United States ?
Because 95% of Americans are arrogant, self-centred insular tossers? (controversial, I know, but hard to deny ).
Old 18 December 2002, 07:41 PM
  #34  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

In that case you believe fully in the idea of genocide since potentially every one you leave alive after a conflict is a threat waiting for someone to prove they are a threat (since no japanease women or children killed any allied soldiers) is unaccepable to you interesting logic.

No one has made any mention of the USA using its UN vetos to stop any punishment being handed out to Israel for the invasion of Palestine and the nurder of innocent people and children (113 childredn killed this year btw) Since the USA is the deciding factor in allowing Israel free reign in the middle east that would make them legitimate enemies of palestine and its allies. Since people have defended the killing of civilains in military conflicts you have just made a great case for the justification of 9/11 thanks for coming see you later bye.

Old 18 December 2002, 07:42 PM
  #35  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Exactly how since by August 1945 the allies had already capured Berlin and taken over the government and the Russians had started to attack Japan which meant all the European and American forces only had one adversary left namely Japan. Japan could have been destroyed easily since the allied forces had complete control of tha air but quite simply the yanks wanted to try out their new toys on civilians.
the yanks wanted to try out their new toys on civilians
in case you hadn't noticed, japan had already been destroyed. but the culture was kamikaze combined with mass suicide in the face of enemy invasion - or did you just fall asleep when the teacher got to the bit about saipan, guam and iwo jima?

would *you* have invaded and risked massive casualties on your own side involving a turkey shoot of people refusing to surrender on imperial orders - when the alternative was end the war decisively with a shock to the enemy of unendurable proportions.

clearly yes, in which case, don't join the army as you'll be fragged by your own side. probably in the naafi. still in your civvies.

i'm sorry but your (mis)interpretation of history and the context of the japanese as opponents is clouded by some seriously stellar anti-american prejudice that does you no favours.

wishing you a merry christmas. or is christmas simply a US-backed corporate capitalist conspiracy to further its aims of cultural and economic imperialism?

christ-on-a-pony, what a mentalist. go join the SWP: at least you'll find someone there who agrees with you.




Old 18 December 2002, 07:44 PM
  #36  
MarkO
Scooby Regular
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

In that case you believe fully in the idea of genocide
Whoa!!!!!!! Erm, no, not at all. That's the worst piece of straw-man argument I've seen. I don't condone genocide at all, and that's not what I said. I simply said that to claim the use of a tactical nuke is okay if it kills just men, but it's bad if it kills women and children, is just stupid.
Old 18 December 2002, 07:59 PM
  #37  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post


there's more to the world than the sodding israel/palestine argument...as was being discussed here until you brought it up. predictably. again.

start a separate topic on it if you want a catfight & i guarantee i'll have no interest whatsoever.

(yawn).

Old 18 December 2002, 08:07 PM
  #38  
MarkO
Scooby Regular
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Interesting. I'd never read about Iwo Jima until today. Just found out a bit about it.
Old 18 December 2002, 08:17 PM
  #39  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exclamation


quite. worse than the eastern front in many ways. it still beggars my belief.

but hey! i drive a japanese car ...
Old 18 December 2002, 08:33 PM
  #40  
MarkO
Scooby Regular
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

but hey! i drive a japanese car ...
That's nothing. I realised a few moments ago that I'm sitting reading all about Iwo Jima with my project manager sitting behind me. Not so bad, except that I work for the largest Japanese bank, and he's Japanese.

<closes IE>
Old 18 December 2002, 09:29 PM
  #41  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

First point I have never claimed that it was OK to use the bomb on men but not women and children but accepted that the only possible explaination for deliberate attacks on civilians could be the possible threat of resistance and I thaught that I would get that argument in first before somone else did.

The idea that the use of atomic weapons was to prevent further casualties is absolutly laughable. Despite five treaties from 1899 to 1938 all calling the act of attacking civilians Barbaric despite many senior US army officials pointing out that use of the atomic bomb without warning was contrary to "the position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation, especially since Japan seems close to surrender." the USA still used the H-bomb without giving the japanease any threat or warning of the fact. Inspite of many scientists suggesting demonstrating the full impact of the bomb in front of the representetives of the UN to show Japan the power of atomic weapons on a barren desert or island in order to give Japan the option of surrender.


President Trueman himself said that he orderd the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target so "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

So even most senior Americans new that the use of nuclear weapons was completely unjustified so why don't you two.



With regards to Israel and Palestine I bring this up because the original thread was about Bush as a leader and wether or not he is an idiot who is stirring trouble around the world. The fact is the acts of his and previous American governments have caused terrorism to exist to the extent it does today because of the "we are good you are bad so we can kill you mentality that exists in the USA's government and people today. By invading more countries and killing more people all he has done is build up more support for terrorists around the world. Why does Bush think he can assinate people with no trial around the world in any country imagine if the same happens in reverse. So yes I think I have presented a good argument for the claim for Bush being an idiot without even mentioning his use of the word 'pakies' in speeches or hundreds of other things I could fill thid forum with. The H-bomb debate was only started to demonstrate that when western countries commit murder its always justified in the name of peace and saving lives but if an Islamic country does the same its murder or terrorism. Why don't you make an active try to see these situations from the other side of the coin and then see of you still think bush is an idiot,



Old 18 December 2002, 09:35 PM
  #42  
MarkO
Scooby Regular
 
MarkO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

I never denied the fact that Bush is an idiot. I think he's a complete idiot.
Old 18 December 2002, 10:36 PM
  #43  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

So I've only got skip jack left to argue with then why won't somone else join in.


Must be because I'm clearly right as always.
Old 18 December 2002, 11:50 PM
  #44  
hotsam
Scooby Regular
 
hotsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

I also dislike Bush. I voted for Gore.

As for the revisionist history you keep spewing, has it ever crossed your mind that after 4 years of war, Truman just wanted it over with? How many millions of Japanese would have died if the war had ended in 1946 or 1947 instead of in 1945? What would the result of been if the Soviets had occupied the northern islands?

Was Hiroshima any worse than Dresden? What difference does it make if you destroy a city using one bomb or thousands of bombs?

Yeah...America should stop interefering in the world. That Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe...pah! What a stupid idea. Helping to found the UN...what an annoyance! Shelling out foreign aid left and right...how stupid! Sending in troops because the Europeans don't have the guts...well maybe that is a bad idea.

The truth is, when you're the "top dog", people are going to hate you. I seem to remember the British Empire sticking their noses in other people's business, along with the French, Spanish, Dutch, Italians, and Germans when they had their turn. Why aren't you complaining about the Romans, the Vikings, and those damn Spartans?
Old 19 December 2002, 01:04 AM
  #45  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

has it ever crossed your mind that after 4 years of war, Truman just wanted it over with?
Trueman still diddn't believe the use of the H-bomb against civilian target was justified though which was my point can't you read properly.

Was Hiroshima any worse than Dresden? What difference does it make if you destroy a city using one bomb or thousands of bombs

Dresden was bad but over 200,000 people diddn't die from the blast and the years of radiation poisoning and I have never defended acts violence against any nations civilians. again can't you read


How many millions of Japanese would have died if the war had ended in 1946 or 1947 instead of in 1945?


The war was almost over it was widely considerd that Japan was about to surrender since the allied forces had complete control of the air and sea and Japan had very low mineral and agricultural resources if the bomb was dropped to end the war why not test in full view of the united nations and make the threat first to give the japanease the opportunity to surrender(as was suggested by many scientists at the time). Once more try to read and understand what has already been written.

Shelling out foreign aid left and right...how stupid! Sending in troops because the Europeans don't have the guts..

the only reason the USA joined the war was because of pearl harbour and by that time England had proved it could match the German army and almost already won the battle of Britan. Diddn't have the guts? are you a total moron Hitler had no wish to fight England claiming that as an Anglo Saxon race we were aceptable to his Ayran Nation but what he really mean't was he new he couldn't win. Hitler's mistake was invading Russia which was where all his damaging losses came America involvement was meaningless once that happend.

The truth is, when you're the "top dog", people are going to hate you
no when you are arrogant ****** who think that are always right and justified and when you interfear with other nations politics to suit your own ends when you stir up hatred around the world and then wonder why people hate you thats why terrorists blow you up. Your problem is believing the propaganda served up to you by your government but you can't help your stupidity.




Why aren't you complaining about the Romans, the Vikings, and those damn Spartans?

Because they are no longer around. are you taking the **** or are you really that thick ?

The American attitude today is similar to that of the ***** but I don't think that you will ever be in a position to understan that.
Old 19 December 2002, 02:06 PM
  #46  
hotsam
Scooby Regular
 
hotsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Do your research regarding the Japanese situtation at the end of the war. They had been hoarding supplies in Japan and also still controlled China and Korea.

From An Invasion Not Found in the History Books
By James Martin Davis
Reprinted from the Omaha World Herald, November 1987

During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese kamakaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighters daily flew unmolested over Japan.

What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland.

As part of Ketsu-Go, the name for the plan to defend Japan -- the Japanese were building 20 suicide takeoff strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases.

On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.

The Japanese had 58 more airfields in Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.

Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5, 651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12, 725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.

By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.

Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikaze would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy -- some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles -- when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.

The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and two cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms.

Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.

The goal of the Japanese was to shatter the invasion before the landing. The Japanese were convinced the Americans would back off or become so demoralized that they would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender and a more honorable and face-saving end for the Japanese.

But as horrible as the battle of Japan would be off the beaches, it would be on Japanese soil that the American forces would face the most rugged and fanatical defense encountered during the war.

Throughout the island-hopping Pacific campaign, Allied troops had always out numbered the Japanese by 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1. In Japan it would be different. By virtue of a combination of cunning, guesswork, and brilliant military reasoning, a number of Japan's top military leaders were able to deduce, not only when, but where, the United States would land its first invasion forces.

Facing the 14 American divisions landing at Kyushu would be 14 Japanese divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 tank brigades and thousands of naval troops. On Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favor of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labor battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns.

The Japanese defenders would be the hard core of the home army. These troops were well-fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit.

Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of offshore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches. Coming ashore, the American Eastern amphibious assault forces at Miyazaki would face three Japanese divisions, and two others poised for counterattack. Awaiting the Southeastern attack force at Ariake Bay was an entire division and at least one mixed infantry brigade.

On the western shores of Kyushu, the Marines would face the most brutal opposition. Along the invasion beaches would be the three Japanese divisions , a tank brigade, a mixed infantry brigade and an artillery command. Components of two divisions would also be poised to launch counterattacks.

If not needed to reinforce the primary landing beaches, the American Reserve Force would be landed at the base of Kagoshima Bay November 4, where they would be confronted by two mixed infantry brigades, parts of two infantry divisions and thousands of naval troops.

All along the invasion beaches, American troops would face coastal batteries, anti-landing obstacles and a network of heavily fortified pillboxes, bunkers, and underground fortresses. As Americans waded ashore, they would face intense artillery and mortar fire as they worked their way through concrete rubble and barbed-wire entanglements arranged to funnel them into the muzzles of these Japanese guns.

On the beaches and beyond would be hundreds of Japanese machine gun positions, beach mines, booby traps, trip-wire mines and sniper units. Suicide units concealed in "spider holes" would engage the troops as they passed nearby. In the heat of battle, Japanese infiltration units would be sent to reap havoc in the American lines by cutting phone and communication lines. Some of the Japanese troops would be in American uniform, English-speaking Japanese officers were assigned to break in on American radio traffic to call off artillery fire, to order retreats and to further confuse troops. Other infiltration with demolition charges strapped on their chests or backs wold attempt to blow up american tanks, artillery pieces and ammunition stores as they were unloaded ashore.

Beyond the beaches were large artillery pieces situated to bring down a curtain of fire on the beach. Some of these large guns were mounted on railroad tracks running in and out of caves protected by concrete and steel.

The battle for Japan would be won by what Simon Bolivar Buckner, a lieutenant general in the Confederate army during the Civil War, had called "Prairie Dog Warfare." This type of fighting was almost unknown to the ground troops in Europe and the Mediterranean. It was peculiar only to the soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese on islands all over the Pacific -- at Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Prairie Dog Warfare was a battle for yards, feet and sometimes inches. It was brutal, deadly and dangerous form of combat aimed at an underground, heavily fortified, non-retreating enemy.

In the mountains behind the Japanese beaches were underground networks of caves, bunkers, command posts and hospitals connected by miles of tunnels with dozens of entrances and exits. Some of these complexes could hold up to 1,000 troops.

In addition to the use of poison gas and bacteriological warfare (which the Japanese had experimented with), Japan mobilized its citizenry.

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour.
ONE THOUSAND DEAD EVERY HOUR.

As for your other points:

Diddn't have the guts?
I was referring to the current situation where the US does the fighting and the Europeans do the clean-up/nation building.

are you a total moron Hitler had no wish to fight England claiming that as an Anglo Saxon race we were aceptable to his Ayran Nation but what he really mean't was he new he couldn't win.
Explain the Battle of Britain then.

Hitler's mistake was invading Russia which was where all his damaging losses came America involvement was meaningless once that happend.
Hitler's other major mistake was switching from attacking British airfields to attacking cities. This mistake saved the RAF from destruction.

Are you aware that the British and Americans killed more Germans in the 60 days after D-Day than the Russians did at the entire Battle of Stalingrad? Are you also aware that the Russians were fighting with weapons mainly supplied by the United States and the Lend-Lease act?

If American (and British) involvement was so meaningless, then explain Stalin's desperate attempts to have the US and UK invade France and start a two-front war?

no when you are arrogant ****** who think that are always right and justified and when you interfear with other nations politics to suit your own ends when you stir up hatred around the world and then wonder why people hate you thats why terrorists blow you up. Your problem is believing the propaganda served up to you by your government but you can't help your stupidity.
No need for childish name calling. The US is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If the US doesn't get involved, they are accused of being isolationist and self centered. If the US does get involved, they are accused of interfering in world affairs and being a bully.


That aside, I do not support the United States government's (my government)actions is Iraq. I do not support Bush.
Old 19 December 2002, 02:20 PM
  #47  
dsmith
Scooby Regular
 
dsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Hmmm about to ga nd do some googling but I did see one bit in this that I dont understand..

Inspite of many scientists suggesting demonstrating the full impact of the bomb in front of the representetives of the UN to show Japan the power of atomic weapons on a barren desert or island in order to give Japan the option of surrender.
It was my understanding that the UN was created after the war. Prior to the war it was the "League of Nations" ? I have no idea whether that organisation was still in existence come 1945.

Deano
Old 19 December 2002, 02:38 PM
  #48  
hotsam
Scooby Regular
 
hotsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

The UN officially started in October 1945.

The League of Nations pretty much broke up when WWII started.

[ American Arrogant ***** ] The US wasn't even a member of the League of Nations, so it was a useless organization anyway [ /American Arrogant ***** ]

(That was sarcasm, Mr evolution)
Old 19 December 2002, 02:55 PM
  #49  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

mr evolution

once more your grasp of fact continues to elude you. hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs using enriched uranium 235. the H-bomb uses plutonium, was not perfected and tested until the 1950s and is a considerably more destructive weapon.

the rest is too tiresomely predictable to waste my time on. you ask why no-one else joins in. it's because you're talking revisionist rubbish that nobody else agrees with.

and on a general point of order regarding the dresden raid. stalin requested that both the USAAF and RAF hit this target based on (incorrect) soviet intelligence that the dresden railhead was packed with retreating divisions of wehrmacht troops. it was, as we know with hindsight, packed with refugees, also running from the advance of the red army. (source, Berlin, The Downfall by Anthony Beevor, 2002).

Old 19 December 2002, 03:03 PM
  #50  
hotsam
Scooby Regular
 
hotsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

As a follow up to Skipjack:

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945.
source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
Old 19 December 2002, 06:36 PM
  #51  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

hotsam

not sure what point you're making here but here goes:

granted: it was a target in harris' area bombing strategy, but it only became one very late in the war because of the enormous railhead that was a major junction for troops evacuating the east as the russians advanced. dresden had not been area bombed before 1945 (but it had been the subject of smaller raids as a secondary/tertiary target).

dresdeners had an ultimately ironic saying that should the day come that their city be terror-bombed then they had truly lost the war.

nuremburg, hamburg, cologne: they were all were flattened for military/industrial reasons and the (largely unsuccessful) attempt to crack german civilian morale.

but the reason why casualties where so much higher in dresden - and why it was specifically targeted for area bombing for the *first time* in the war was because soviet intelligence said it was packed with tens of thousands of retreating troops - and they demanded that the city be hit en masse. the russian intelligence was wrong, either by accident, design or lack of concern and the rest is unfortunate history.

this is new information published by anthony beevor this year from previously secret soviet documents now released under vladimir putin.
Old 19 December 2002, 08:31 PM
  #52  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

It was my understanding that the UN was created after the war. Prior to the war it was the "League of Nations" ? I have no idea whether that organisation was still in existence come 1945.

the actual quote I was referring to was from the Frank report

"before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island."

I could not remember the exact quote and diddn't think it was all that relavent to the discussion



once more your grasp of fact continues to elude you. hiroshima and nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs using enriched uranium 235. the H-bomb uses plutonium, was not perfected and tested until the 1950s and is a considerably more destructive weapon.

Once again it ws a small error made because i was in a rush and once again not relavent to the discussion at hand.


Your whole extract form From An Invasion Not Found in the History Books is probably rubbish I diddn't waste the time to read it all but since the death of One hundred million referred to the mass suicide that the Emperor was expected to order if Japan was going to lose the war and since the author claims knowingly that one thousand would die every hour (how does he know this exactly ?) thats all I need to read to know the auther was full of ****. All of which was irrelavent to the point that a demonstration and a threat of nuclear capeability (at the time the power of nuclear weapons was relativly unknown) would have been a more logical step to end the war as even Trueman himself said only militry bases and objectives should be targeted.

A few minor inacuracies have been commented on but the main basis of my argument has not been touched in any way at all so I will highlight them again .


1> THe USA consistently interfears in the politics of other countries namely Vietnam Cuba Afganistan assisantions in Yemen the Israel and Palestine situation etc. How can any one claim this is acceptable for the basic reason that we are good they are evil as claimed by George Bush.

2>The USA new full well that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait if he is so evil why did USA and England supply him with weapons and why did USA not say first that they would support Kuwait if he invaded. (this is a fact I have seen repeated by different politicions and I have nver seen disputed btw)

3> The reason the USA supported Saddam was to help him in the war against Iran. Why what had it got to do with USA who won that war.

4> I have demostrated quite clearly that there were better alternatives to dropping atom bombs in Japan and these were considerd at the time in numerous reports by Universities and high ranking military staff. so why not try a less violent solution fist. This argument was made even stronger by Trueman himself believing that violence against civilians was wrong and by Roosevelt's statment in 1939
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.

As well as theUnanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938. which stated


Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;

Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;

Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;

Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;

Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;
5> I bring up Palestine again because None of you can justify Americas acions in the middle east and their suport of Israels atrocities there. Since almost every UN nation believes Israel should be forced to take acount for its actions and the USA vetos this does this not give Palestine and its people a legitimate case for its hatred of America. Therfore getting to point 6.


6>> My last point is a simple one if you do believe that the west has the right to target civilians then surely terrorists have that right as well. Since both sides believe or claim the have to kill to end further casualties/save their homelands way of life etc.








Old 20 December 2002, 05:30 PM
  #53  
skipjack
Scooby Regular
 
skipjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z.
Old 21 December 2002, 01:29 PM
  #54  
Mr evolution
Scooby Regular
 
Mr evolution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

That must be your way of telling me yep you win your ***** is bigger your wife is better looking your car is faster your house is bigger ........
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
Ganz1983
Subaru
5
02 October 2015 09:22 AM
dantiel
General Technical
8
29 September 2015 11:33 PM
LSherratt
Non Scooby Related
20
28 September 2015 12:04 AM



Quick Reply: Bush (The most powerfull man i the world!)



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 PM.