WW2 Revisionist History (1 Viewer)

This is one of the most interesting threads I've participated in for several months, which is why I've voted it a 5-star rating.

Cheers
H
 
I agree completely, H!
It is healthy to use the mind to debate issues with others, and is a real treat for me conversing with member of other countries than my own, to understand where they are coming from, even if I disagree with their viewpoint. Sometimes it is good to put the toy soldiers down for a little while and sit back and think about why they exist in the first place. Thank you all. Mike
 
Please keep the thread limited to WW II and not to current politics.
 
I agree, this is a great thread, UK Reb, Jazz, great posts.

Brad (Jazzeum) hit the nail on the head, the Japanese leadership was a direct cause and the reason the bombs were used.

TD
 
tdubel said:
I agree, this is a great thread, UK Reb, Jazz, great posts.

Brad (Jazzeum) hit the nail on the head, the Japanese leadership was a direct cause and the reason the bombs were used.

TD
Click to expand...

I'd like to take the credit Tom but I don't think I said that although I do agree with the thought and UK Reb's was a very cogent post, perhaps the best one since this thread started.

With respect to the portion about Dresden, there were some military targets there. The question is whether it was necessary at that point in the war. Reasonable minds can differ, have differed and will probably continue to differ so I would direct you to Hastings' Armageddon for a fuller exposition as well as other suggested sources for reading.

Regarding Hiroshima being a warning, it served two purposes: to help end the war and as a warning to the Soviets. By that time, we were basically in a transition to post WW II politics. Trouble was, the Soviets had infiltrated the Allies and when Truman told Stalin at Postdam that they had a new terrifying bomb, it didn't exactly have the effect that was intended.
 
UKReb said:
Interesting comments guys and all have raised valid points. However, the subject originally was based on a particular book but as Brad mentioned back awhile it appears very few have read it. I have already posted my view of that book and although the thread has kept to the generic topic I feel like contributing my 10 cents worth to what is being currently discussed.

Revisionism especially WWII appears to hold a peculiar attraction for a number of our Western authors today which I believe has affected a vast majority of American and British under 30's most of them being taught by our younger academics that the bombing of Dresden etc was absolutely unnecessary and Hiroshima was nothing more than a strategic ploy to frighten Stalin.

I deliberately stated Western authors as you would be hard pressed to find the Russians stating much about the Hitler/Stalin pact or that when the Luftwaffe was bombing England, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore. Yet when Germany invaded Russia, Britain sent food and supplies across in ships on those dreaded Russian convoys. They do not write of the murder of millions of German citizens from April through to June 1945 or the mass slaughter of Polish officers or the semi genocide of their own civilians after '45

Likewise the Chinese who now preach that WWII was all about the gallant Mao's partisans but not that they killed 50 million of their own people.

The Japanese are now happy supplying all of us TV's and cars and never mention the millions of Asian civilians they butchered and the utter brutality meted out to Allied POW's

Of course we bombed German and Japanese cities, but this was total war when up to 10,000 innocent civilians a day were being gassed in death camps. The Nazis were rampaging through the Balkans and Western Europe murdering hundreds per week as were the Japanese throughout the Pacific area. And the Nazi boffins and engineers were pressing ahead in a breakneck effort to create ballistic missiles, jet aircraft and other terror weapons. There were very few options in how to stop these monstrous regimes apart from bombing them out of existence. But whatever mistakes and lapses committed by the Allies (and there were many) they all pale into comparison to the savagery of the Axis and the Communists.

I remember a historian stating something on the lines of that if there was any justice in the world we would have the ability to transport our homegrown and severest critics across time and space and put them down in the Warsaw ghetto or the Kwai railroad then flip them on to Omaha beach or place them in an overloaded B-29 taking off from Tinian with the crew on amphetamines to keep them awake for their 15 hour mission over Tokyo-just ordinary guys doing a job of ridding the world of two very evil regimes.

That is why I wear my red poppy every Rememberance day with pride and I wear it for those Allied boys who gave their lives so I can enjoy what I do today. I do not wear it for the Germans Japanese or the Russians but that's because I rarely read or listen to revisionism history.
Reb
Click to expand...

Superb post Reb really spot on.And as Harry said earlier this is one of the most enjoyable and interesting threads in a long time.

Rob
 
I understand the author and the show are basically saying that we were no better than the axis powers because we supposedly used the same tactics and associated with the same despots, but i would wonder what these folks thought was the alternative methods to prosecute the war?
Ray
 
I am getting in this late. I was on a train at dinner with one of those guys. An educated man supposedly. I think he was a bigot actually. Said the holocaust was all made up! I grew up seeing hundreds of those pictures of survivors of various extermination camps. This guy made me sick. I would have clobbered him myself except he had some kind of disability that kept him from eating normally. Maybe hatred does that to you. Eats you from the inside out. Who knows. All I know is this guy was not having a pleasant life. Maybe some of these revisionist guys have similar problems. My point is they probably deserve their miserable lives.
They are troublesome to us history types. Hopefully We will be the ones to remind those who forget. I will not.
 
Let these revisionists and deniers of the Holocaust think what they like,you can't change people like that.As long as WE tell the next generation what REALLY happened and what the allies had to do then the flame of rememberance will keep burning.

Rob
 
kilted vampire said:
I am getting in this late. I was on a train at dinner with one of those guys. An educated man supposedly. I think he was a bigot actually. Said the holocaust was all made up! I grew up seeing hundreds of those pictures of survivors of various extermination camps. This guy made me sick. I would have clobbered him myself except he had some kind of disability that kept him from eating normally. Maybe hatred does that to you. Eats you from the inside out. Who knows. All I know is this guy was not having a pleasant life. Maybe some of these revisionist guys have similar problems. My point is they probably deserve their miserable lives.
They are troublesome to us history types. Hopefully We will be the ones to remind those who forget. I will not.
Click to expand...

I would have clobbered him myself except he had some kind of disability that kept him from eating normally.

Might the eating problems possibly have been due to the deserved punch in the mouth the Dude probably received from someone not quite as nice as yourself, KV...???

Cheers
H
 
Great post KV.

For mine, holocaust deniers are about as dangerous as it gets, because the holocaust is about as bad as it gets. Believing in bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or the abominable snow man doesn't do anybody any harm. Believing that the holocaust did not happen does. If you don't believe that the holocaust happened, then the chances of it happening again are that tiny little bit greater. When the consequences are so grave, that tiny little bit scares the ... out of me. It happened. It happened in Europe in the 40's, but it also happened in Rwanda-Burundi and in the Balkans in the 90's too. It happened in Matabeleland in Zimbabwe. Sadly, I suspect that it also has happened in countless other places that my ignorance prevents me from listing.

When someone tells you another person is not worth as much as you are, then you can't walk away- you HAVE to tell them that they're wrong.
 
Right on Fellas!

Just remember, knowledge is power! Happy Independence Day to the US guys! And the rest of the day to you all , sirs
 
Harrytheheid said:
I would have clobbered him myself except he had some kind of disability that kept him from eating normally.

Might the eating problems possibly have been due to the deserved punch in the mouth the Dude probably received from someone not quite as nice as yourself, KV...???

Cheers
H
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing!:p:D
 
jazzeum said:
I'd like to take the credit Tom but I don't think I said that although I do agree with the thought and UK Reb's was a very cogent post, perhaps the best one since this thread started.

With respect to the portion about Dresden, there were some military targets there. The question is whether it was necessary at that point in the war. Reasonable minds can differ, have differed and will probably continue to differ so I would direct you to Hastings' Armageddon for a fuller exposition as well as other suggested sources for reading.

Regarding Hiroshima being a warning, it served two purposes: to help end the war and as a warning to the Soviets. By that time, we were basically in a transition to post WW II politics. Trouble was, the Soviets had infiltrated the Allies and when Truman told Stalin at Postdam that they had a new terrifying bomb, it didn't exactly have the effect that was intended.
Click to expand...

Potentially a justification for the first bomb , but the second?
Robert Macnamara posed the question in the "Fog of War"

" * Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
 
redhugh said:
Potentially a justification for the first bomb , but the second?
Robert Macnamara posed the question in the "Fog of War"

" * Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
Click to expand...

The power to judge others when you win:D. I bet that's the point LeMay wanted to remark. I believe the Holocaust was a war crime, the cold blooded massacre of Chinese civilians was a war crime, the mistreatment/execution of prisoners was a war crime, this by the standards of that time ( the only ones that can matter, by the way ). These acts did not mean to win the war, just to:
a) Eradicate the Jewish or pointlessly massacre the Chinese for the sake of cruelty;
b) Torture and mistreat prisoners for the same sake of cruelty.
With the A bombs I believe there was a clear purpose: winning the war. And at the time bombing cities and civilians was part of the war, the Axis powers did it, the Allieds retributed, the A bomb was another new form of bombing, very heavy civilian casualties happened at other Japanese or German cities besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the bomb's effects were not well known, especially the radiation part. So, based on the objective and on the logic of winning the war without an invasion of Japan and the tremendous casualties both sides would suffer, I would not call these bombings war crimes. Another thing is: were the A bombs really necessary at a moment when even amongst the Japanese government there were the radical military on one side and the peace pursuers on the other, at a moment when peace negotiations seemed to be just around the corner? Would these negotiations have failed? Would the radicals have won? Questions I believe without answer.

Paulo
 
VIRIATO said:
The power to judge others when you win:D. I bet that's the point LeMay wanted to remark. I believe the Holocaust was a war crime, the cold blooded massacre of Chinese civilians was a war crime, the mistreatment/execution of prisoners was a war crime, this by the standards of that time ( the only ones that can matter, by the way ). These acts did not mean to win the war, just to:
a) Eradicate the Jewish or pointlessly massacre the Chinese for the sake of cruelty;
b) Torture and mistreat prisoners for the same sake of cruelty.
With the A bombs I believe there was a clear purpose: winning the war. And at the time bombing cities and civilians was part of the war, the Axis powers did it, the Allieds retributed, the A bomb was another new form of bombing, very heavy civilian casualties happened at other Japanese or German cities besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the bomb's effects were not well known, especially the radiation part. So, based on the objective and on the logic of winning the war without an invasion of Japan and the tremendous casualties both sides would suffer, I would not call these bombings war crimes. Another thing is: were the A bombs really necessary at a moment when even amongst the Japanese government there were the radical military on one side and the peace pursuers on the other, at a moment when peace negotiations seemed to be just around the corner? Would these negotiations have failed? Would the radicals have won? Questions I believe without answer.

Paulo
Click to expand...
Misgivings about the bombing were expressed by important military figures of that time.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
 
Very interesting post. If such illustrious Americans voiced their doubts in such a way, then maybe some of our friends at this forum will not «shoot us out of the sky» for having similar doubts:D:D:D

Paulo
 
redhugh said:
Misgivings about the bombing were expressed by important military figures of that time.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think that Eisenhower (busy fighting in Europe) or Leahy (a member of the staff who had not heard a Japanese shot fired in anger) had the slightest clue about whether the Japanese were ready to surrender. I can only assume that Nimitz would make a completely false statement like that if it were taken "out of context" i.e. maybe he was defending the value of the Navy's contribution as compared to the airforce. The facts, as evidenced by dead bodies, was that the closer we got to the main islands, the harder the Japanese fought. In fact, after the first atomic bomb had been dropped, when certain members of the Japanese high command were preparing to concede defeat, a military coupe attempted to take over to prevent the surrender. If we thought the japs were about to surrender, and there was no need for an invasion or such an invasion would be a walk over, why did we order half a million body bags? Sorry, but I just don't buy that a people who had just fought so stubornly on Iwo Jima and Okinowa were going to just call it day when we landed on their sacred home turf.
 
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