Historical Discussions - All Opinions Welcome (1 Viewer)

jazzeum said:
Joe,

I think this is a free ranging conversation and we should just let it go where people want to take it. That's the beauty of a thread like this: it's all over the place.
Click to expand...

You have a point Brad, but a separate forum would make commenting easier imo.

As for the damage done to the railyards at Dresden, only direct hits will damage railway lines because the blast of near misses has absolutely no effect on the actual lines, in any event lines can be quickly repaired. However the damage to the railway buildings etc was extensive.

Here is some info on the raid(s) and we all (including Louis :) ) should note again that it was a combined RAF/USAAF operation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

And here's some stuff on strategic bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing
 
Last edited:
Ozdigger,

I am well aware that Dresden (like all other day and night bombing raids) was a joint RAF - USAF operation. Lik I said, any such attack, if it had no legitimate military target - which this attack may or may not have had - constitutes an atrocity, whether it was an American, Brit or German responsible. Believe me, I have no delusions about the atrocities perpetrated by United States forces, often on our own people (just read Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States" for a frighteningly long list of our government's awful actions). That doesn't make me love this country any less. It just makes me distrust (all) politicians.
 
I don't want to make this into a political discussion but I couldn't agree with Louis more. I was born in 1950 (which may make me older than some of you) and came of age in the 60s and you know what that means. WW 2 had just been around the corner so I have that heritage in me and then I became a teenager in the 60s and started college as the 60s were ending. After all the events that happened in 1968, I lost all my respect for politicians (although they make for fascinating reading) and frankly have less respect than that for today's leaders. Notwithstanding, this country perserveres despite them. As a person who's interested in history, where are today's statesmen who put country ahead of self interest. I don't see too much of it. Where are today's Marshalls, FDRs, Harry Trumans, etc.? As the song goes, "the answer is blowing in the wind."
 
Hi Guys,

This is an interesting thread and I am certainly enjoying the meandering of the topics but I will decline to delve deeper into why I dislike FDR. A lot of people feel really strongly about him for lots of reasons and I dont want to drag this tread into deep political idologic discussions. Hope you all can understand that.

Dave
 
Although I admire FDR, I have one enormous knock on his presidency that we (particularly the legal profession) suffer with to this day: the politicization of the Supreme Court. There certainly was a call for what he planned to do to the "Four Horsemen", and even though "the switch in time saved nine" and he didn't actually pack the court, the damage was done. Prior to that time it was an accepted fact that whatever your party or ideology, the best available legal mind was named to the Court. Probably the best example was Hoover's naming of Cardozo. The situation was as follows: Hoover was a conservative Republican; Cardozo was an activist liberal who had literally remade New York law in his image. Hoover said he couldn't name Cardozo because the Jewish seat on the court was already occupied by Brandeis. Brandeis said that he would step down, because Cardozo was the greatest legal mind of the generation. Hoover said, under those circumstances, that Brandeis could keep his seat and he would appoint Cardozo. That was when giants occupied the Supreme Court: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Louis D. Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter. Today there is not a single Justice who shows any signs of genious (the most intelligent being Scalia, but he is a completely impractical demagogue) because all of the appointments are made on a political/idiological basis. This is the worst after-affect of FDR's presidency, the political debasement of the Supreme Court, the branch of government most responsible for preserving our constitution. That being said, I still rank him second after his cousin Theodore, due to his handling of the Second World War, the greatest challenge ever faced by any president.
 
I feel now would be a good time to leave this 'cover all' thread and start to use specific threads in our new Historical Discussion Forum :)
 
I can not come up with another person other than FDR who in my option from either party that could have pulled this country together. It does not matter if you liked him or not. If what he did was right or wrong it worked and saved our country. Thats the History and none of us can change that.

He put people to work WRA builded roads, public buildings bridges, power Dams. Then there was the busy work just to put out of work people something to do. These men planted trees and did conservation work. They lived on CCC Camp Bases in barracks , had chow halls Px's stood guard duty, drilled like the military. They had to send most of their pay home their family's.
When the US went to war this group of men that passed the physical went straight to the military the rest War production. The CCC camps later on became Army bases or POW camps.
Another thing he started was civilian pilot training. This gave us a great many basic trained pilots. He got Congress to approve these programs because all there states go WRA projects CCC camps & Pilot training bases. ( later to become USAAF Bases)

THERE WAS NO MONEY IN CIRCULATION BEFORE WWII

I remember when Pearl Harbor was bombed and what I was doing.
 
Dear Louis

At least you have some sort of openess and scrutiny in appointments to the Supreme Court rather than our 'electoral dictatorship' - complete with Royal Preogative to go war - thank God for our anachronistic unwritten constitution, House of Lords and Her Majesty as buffers against absolute power. This has been arguably eroded more under 'Mr Blair' than at any other time. Perhaps a drink in the bar chat?

Kevin
 
Beware when politics rears its ugly head!

To Drink in a bar would be great but lets talk about some of your more interesting Regiments or maybe a discussion of the absolute mayhem after the breach of the walls of Badajoz and Wellington's total loss of control of his troops. Anything is better than politics from either side of the pond.

Dave
 
I think we're generally still on safe ground here although getting closing to the edge.
 
The "what's your drink?" part of this thread has been moved to the miscellaneous category.:)
 
I'll try and look at this Hiroshima debate from the people who were around in those days like my father and a neighbor as well as some other vetrans I have met and talked to.

Imagine yourself as a Marine that had managed to survive Saipan and Okinowa or some other hideous hell.Now you are on Okinowa and preparing for the invasion of Japan. Or a raw recruit { like my Father} on a troop transport heading for the Pacific.Now you are faced with an invasion that would be all the Devil himself could hope for.Mr. Long has told me he was certain after all his combat and close calls he knew the odds were against him for survival going into the cauldron again.

I know these guys were glad the bombs were dropped.
Casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinowa were so horrible I can see why Truman made the desicion he did.

Just my 2 cents.Fubar
 
Fubar said:
I'll try and look at this Hiroshima debate from the people who were around in those days like my father and a neighbor as well as some other vetrans I have met and talked to.

Imagine yourself as a Marine that had managed to survive Saipan and Okinowa or some other hideous hell.Now you are on Okinowa and preparing for the invasion of Japan. Or a raw recruit { like my Father} on a troop transport heading for the Pacific.Now you are faced with an invasion that would be all the Devil himself could hope for.Mr. Long has told me he was certain after all his combat and close calls he knew the odds were against him for survival going into the cauldron again.

I know these guys were glad the bombs were dropped.
Casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinowa were so horrible I can see why Truman made the desicion he did.

Just my 2 cents.Fubar
Click to expand...


Well put Fubar,

No disrespect to dissenting option BUT this discussion is an academic one (that’s why we have a forum) and a review of the ethical merits of the decision ignores the overall benefits of ending the War immediately before the proliferating death count climbs further.

Truman made the right decision period.

The Bomb, the Cold War, etc, were inevitable bi-products of this War II regardless of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Regarding FDR, well I’m a republican/ conservative and don’t care much for the social entitlement programs that received there genesis during his era. However, America has been blessed in the past to have the right man as president during some the most critical junctures of our history. FDR was no exception to the rule.

Carlos.
 
Fubar said:
I'll try and look at this Hiroshima debate from the people who were around in those days like my father and a neighbor as well as some other vetrans I have met and talked to.

Imagine yourself as a Marine that had managed to survive Saipan and Okinowa or some other hideous hell.Now you are on Okinowa and preparing for the invasion of Japan. Or a raw recruit { like my Father} on a troop transport heading for the Pacific.Now you are faced with an invasion that would be all the Devil himself could hope for.Mr. Long has told me he was certain after all his combat and close calls he knew the odds were against him for survival going into the cauldron again.

I know these guys were glad the bombs were dropped.
Casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinowa were so horrible I can see why Truman made the desicion he did.

Just my 2 cents.Fubar
Click to expand...

Hi Fubar,
As you know there's a flip side to that coin and it's looking at it from a Japanese civilian point of view. Besides the decision to bomb also had to do with finishing the war before the Russians entered it against Japan. Japan was trying to negotiate peace through the Russians. Was the bomb necessary, was it not? I don't know. Does anybody know it for sure?

Regards,
Paulo
 
Hi FUBAR,

I entered this discussion a little late and have to say that you nailed it right between the eyes! I too have had discussions with vets from that era and they all agree it was the right thing to do. I think most people have forgotten what was at stake during this war. Anyway I think it was the right move by Mr Truman and he saved a lot fo lives on both sides by doing it.

Dave
 
Guys

I just re-read this thread and it is one of the best - and it spawned the 'what's your drink'.:D

The main theme seems to be the legitimacy or otherwise of killing civilians. Going back through history whether it was the Romans ruthlessly destroying anyone who fought back 'over their line in the sand', the thirty years war depopulating Germany in the name of religion (some part to play in the US early development?), Napoleon and his tactic of 'living off the land', the British naval blockade of continental Europe starving people (pick your century), the German U boat blockades of Britain (only a few weeks food left in 1917), the US submarine blockade of Japan (same - did they need the bomb again?), Hilter's quest for Liebensraum, or the development of guerilla war/terrorism when you cannot defeat an army (Vietnam springs to mind until the US pullout, and the Penninsular War from a Spanish perspective) - the problem has always been wrong place wrong time for civilians and man's inherent inhumanity in authoritative positions.

The most recent difference is perhaps the attempt to impose law and a legal system before, during and after the event - but see Louis' comments about the US legal system - change 'US' for any other jurisdiction..... If this debate exists given the extreme circumstances of global conflict in WW2, where does that leave us since then?

Perhaps conventional battles are too difficult to fight just now so we have even more difficult issues to face with greater incongruity and hipocrasy. Did the Romans have to bother about CNN and Al Jezera, or the media in Vietnam?

When it comes to making war, armies are trained and are designed to apply maximum force - teaching minimisation of force whilst putting troops in a war situation is perhaps more difficult than we realise? The British learned this to some extent in Ireland after many mistakes, but it goes some way to explain the normalisation in a battle sirtuation of what is otherwise completely abnormal. I'm not seeking to condone for one second, or even explain - maybe just trying to understand a little.

One test already referred to - if this was your country and kin what would you do......
 
DMNamiot said:
Hi FUBAR,

I entered this discussion a little late and have to say that you nailed it right between the eyes! I too have had discussions with vets from that era and they all agree it was the right thing to do. I think most people have forgotten what was at stake during this war. Anyway I think it was the right move by Mr Truman and he saved a lot fo lives on both sides by doing it.

Dave
Click to expand...

It was absolutely the right thing to do. We were engaged in a no quarter given campaign in the Pacific against a fanatical enemy. Even if it did not save one Japanese life (which I don't believe), it cerainly saved tens of thousands of Americans' lifes. They asked for it and they deserved everything they got, including the A-Bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top