Political Crossfire Forums

[mendosan]

Hotdog wrote: And I also salute the Brazilians who were the only South Americans to enter WW2 on the side of the allies.

:-D

Thats a fascinating piecae of history that!

Brazilian Expeditionary Force

[DSwain]

Hotdog wrote: And I also salute the Brazilians who were the only South Americans to enter WW2 on the side of the allies.

:-D

Hotdog please, be not so churlish. Lest we forget the contributions made by Venezuela and Uruguay, declaring war on the Axis in the dark days of 1945......

[Zampano]

From what many deem a Christian perspective (and many more deem a communist perspective), perhaps none of these soldiers deserve to be honoured at all.
This comes off the topic but in essence, each of the soldiers in WW2 were both A) human, and B) taking orders from others. Those who believe in the interconnectedness of lives will know that it came by chance that the the allied troops did not grow into the SS, or the CSIS (nervous glance), instead.
In conclusion, there is no moral difference between any person on the Earth, whether it be Hitler or Ghandi, rather it all comes in on chances and unlucky opportunities.

[Hotdog]

DSwain wrote: Hotdog wrote: And I also salute the Brazilians who were the only South Americans to enter WW2 on the side of the allies.

:-D

Hotdog please, be not so churlish. Lest we forget the contributions made by Venezuela and Uruguay, declaring war on the Axis in the dark days of 1945......


*gulp* Ye gads! - but yonder scribe from northern clime doth spake not a lie with this timely riposte to better inform the woeful negligence of my antipodean oafish self! O fie, for shame - a curse be upon my miserable head for havingeth so churlishly overlooked this most gallant generosity on the part of these noble-spirited Banana Republics...

:lol:

[cap'n queasy]

bob.appleyard wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't agree with that at all. They got what they deserved for Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbour was a military outpost in the Pacific, within bombing range of Japan, that was being stacked up with bombers, and with a Commander-in-Chief who was openly declaring his intent to bomb the hell out of them, to "make their paper cities burn." The Japanese state at this point was unquestionably one of the most authoritarian cess-pits of the 20th Century, and I would judge their actions in Pearl Harbour to be aggression. Under the doctrine of preventive war (dressed up as pre-emptive war, as all wars of prevention are), it was completely justified.

Those who accept the doctrine of preventive war should agree with their actions in this case, and not judge the ensuing war as their responsibility. If they support prevention dressed up as pre-emption in some cases (e.g. when they are the perpetrators) but not in others (e.g. when they are the victims) then they are a complete hypocrite, and should never open their mouth in matters of right and wrong and expect to be taken seriously.

Pearl Harbor was not within bombing range of Japan. :lol:

Japan attacked it because it was the main supply depot for the Philippines and Guam, which they intended to take. They had to neutralize our Pacific fleet so they could continue their plans to invade several other countries.

What a ridiculous assessment.

[Mr.Bill]

Quote: Pearl Harbour was a military outpost in the Pacific, within bombing range of Japan,

A) the range of B-17's or B-25's wouldn't allow it to reach Japan from Pearl. The Dolittle raid proves that.

B) In 1941 the US had about 150 B-17's, About 50 were in the whole Pacific theater. Even if they could reach Japan 50 were hardly enough to do any serious damage.

C)The real bombing campaign against Japanese home islands did not begin until the capture of islands capable of serving as air fields for the bigger and more powerful B-29, a plane having twice the range of the B-17. Even the B-29 by 1944 couldn't have reached Japan from Pearl.

I have no idea where you got the idea the US was planning to bomb Japan from Pearl in 1941/42. It was technically impossible.

[Spider]

The Russian wrote: It is bitter irony that nobody chooses to honor the soviet dead that fought on the same side as the allies, and without whose sacrifices millions upon millions of american, british and french would have died whether the normany invasion succeded or not, with or without hitler entering eastern europe with the majority of his forces. Nor are they recognized for majorly helping bring an end to the pacific conflict with Operation August Storm.

You would rather recognize your cold war allie that commited countles atrocities not to their own men but YOURS and YOUR allies? It should not be forgotten that China was a US allie as well, and they could not believe their eyes when the US supported Japan after the war, flying in the face of human sensibility for the atrocities commited across the pacific and in china with things like the rape of nan king and canibalism.

Sometimes I fear I dont understand the american psyche when it contradicts with what I have learned as being kind, humane, and reasonable.

And to THIS DAY the Japanese REFUSE to apolagise for what they did in china... I mean mearly apolagize... and their current presidenial leader visited the shrine dedicated to the leaders of the crime against humanity that was perpetrated on chinese soil by the japanese.

If your refering to lack of movies on it, hollywood tends to make movies about americans, so the russian side of that war, with pretty much no Americans in it, really isn't that marketable. You should watch Enemy at the Gates, however. That was brilliant.

And I agree with you over the China/Japan issue.

[Spider]

As per Flags of our Fathers....I give it 8/10.

Just don't expect it to be a war movie in any kind of tradtional sense...the actual scenes of the battle on Iwo Jima are disjointed flashbacks from the poor bastards who had their pictures taken raising that flag. While extremely well done, the combat footage in the film presents almost no continuity with regards to the actual beginning-to-end conflict, since fully half the movie takes place back in the states.

You think America is too nationalistic now....(insert long whistle) this film's greatest success is in portraying hyper-nationalistic america of the 40's and its hunger for heroes, fictional or otherwise. The movie is more of a look at America of this period, with the backdrop of war driving pretty much every decision and motivation. If your looking for something along the lines of Saving Private Ryan...this isn't it. Well, parts of it are.

What will actually be far more interesting is the forthcoming "sequel" dealing with the Japanese side of events. The Japanese, by the way, are treated almost entirely as a mere faceless enemy. You don't see much of them at all, but rather the effect of their entrenchenched positions.

Anyways, worth seeing, if not exactly what I was expecting.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: What will actually be far more interesting is the forthcoming "sequel" dealing with the Japanese side of events. The Japanese, by the way, are treated almost entirely as a mere faceless enemy. You don't see much of them at all, but rather the effect of their entrenchenched positions.


That interesting, because I have seen interviews with soliders in the battle and many said they never saw the enemy dead or alive. Seems the Japanese made an effort to retrieve the dead during the night hours to stop the US getting a gauge on the casualty rates, as well as the creep out value of never seeing who was shooting at you all night

[DSwain]

Spider wrote: As per Flags of our Fathers....I give it 8/10.

Just don't expect it to be a war movie in any kind of tradtional sense...the actual scenes of the battle on Iwo Jima are disjointed flashbacks from the poor bastards who had their pictures taken raising that flag. While extremely well done, the combat footage in the film presents almost no continuity with regards to the actual beginning-to-end conflict, since fully half the movie takes place back in the states.

You think America is too nationalistic now....(insert long whistle) this film's greatest success is in portraying hyper-nationalistic america of the 40's and its hunger for heroes, fictional or otherwise. The movie is more of a look at America of this period, with the backdrop of war driving pretty much every decision and motivation. If your looking for something along the lines of Saving Private Ryan...this isn't it. Well, parts of it are.

What will actually be far more interesting is the forthcoming "sequel" dealing with the Japanese side of events. The Japanese, by the way, are treated almost entirely as a mere faceless enemy. You don't see much of them at all, but rather the effect of their entrenchenched positions.

Anyways, worth seeing, if not exactly what I was expecting.

Nice review, Spider

[Simon De Montfort]

bob.appleyard wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I don't agree with that at all. They got what they deserved for Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbour was a military outpost in the Pacific, within bombing range of Japan, that was being stacked up with bombers, and with a Commander-in-Chief who was openly declaring his intent to bomb the hell out of them, to "make their paper cities burn." The Japanese state at this point was unquestionably one of the most authoritarian cess-pits of the 20th Century, and I would judge their actions in Pearl Harbour to be aggression. Under the doctrine of preventive war (dressed up as pre-emptive war, as all wars of prevention are), it was completely justified.

Those who accept the doctrine of preventive war should agree with their actions in this case, and not judge the ensuing war as their responsibility. If they support prevention dressed up as pre-emption in some cases (e.g. when they are the perpetrators) but not in others (e.g. when they are the victims) then they are a complete hypocrite, and should never open their mouth in matters of right and wrong and expect to be taken seriously.

You need to delete this post. It shows a real lack of understanding of the events which you have opined on.

Stick to writting about the Middle Age I have seen you post good stuff about that in the past.

[thundertaker]

DSwain wrote: The Russian wrote: It is bitter irony that nobody chooses to honor the soviet dead that fought on the same side as the allies, and without whose sacrifices millions upon millions of american, british and french would have died whether the normany invasion succeded or not, with or without hitler entering eastern europe with the majority of his forces. Nor are they recognized for majorly helping bring an end to the pacific conflict with Operation August Storm.

You would rather recognize your cold war allie that commited countles atrocities not to their own men but YOURS and YOUR allies? It should not be forgotten that China was a US allie as well, and they could not believe their eyes when the US supported Japan after the war, flying in the face of human sensibility for the atrocities commited across the pacific and in china with things like the rape of nan king and canibalism.

Sometimes I fear I dont understand the american psyche when it contradicts with what I have learned as being kind, humane, and reasonable.

And to THIS DAY the Japanese REFUSE to apolagise for what they did in china... I mean mearly apolagize... and their current presidenial leader visited the shrine dedicated to the leaders of the crime against humanity that was perpetrated on chinese soil by the japanese.

Where has anyone in this thread denigrated the tens of millions of Soviet dead from WW2? The Soviets were our allies and I am happy to salute and honour them - ditto the Generalissimo and the Nationalists in China.

The Soviet Army was full of rapist asshats who violated virtually every woman in Eastern Europe, and pillaged with ever more barbaric intensity the closer they got to Germany.
They were usefull no doubt in helping to bring down Nazi Germany, but they instituted their own form of cruelty and oppression in the territories they 'liberated'. I view them the same way I would a burglar fighting another burglar in my home for a bigger share of the spoils. Useful under the circumstances, but not worth honouring.
I honour the servicemen of the western alliance, for helping to bring down the nazis, but also crucially for stopping the Soviets rampaging all across the continent of Europe.......

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: DSwain wrote: The Russian wrote: It is bitter irony that nobody chooses to honor the soviet dead that fought on the same side as the allies, and without whose sacrifices millions upon millions of american, british and french would have died whether the normany invasion succeded or not, with or without hitler entering eastern europe with the majority of his forces. Nor are they recognized for majorly helping bring an end to the pacific conflict with Operation August Storm.

You would rather recognize your cold war allie that commited countles atrocities not to their own men but YOURS and YOUR allies? It should not be forgotten that China was a US allie as well, and they could not believe their eyes when the US supported Japan after the war, flying in the face of human sensibility for the atrocities commited across the pacific and in china with things like the rape of nan king and canibalism.

Sometimes I fear I dont understand the american psyche when it contradicts with what I have learned as being kind, humane, and reasonable.

And to THIS DAY the Japanese REFUSE to apolagise for what they did in china... I mean mearly apolagize... and their current presidenial leader visited the shrine dedicated to the leaders of the crime against humanity that was perpetrated on chinese soil by the japanese.

Where has anyone in this thread denigrated the tens of millions of Soviet dead from WW2? The Soviets were our allies and I am happy to salute and honour them - ditto the Generalissimo and the Nationalists in China.

The Soviet Army was full of rapist asshats who violated virtually every woman in Eastern Europe, and pillaged with ever more barbaric intensity the closer they got to Germany.
They were usefull no doubt in helping to bring down Nazi Germany, but they instituted their own form of cruelty and oppression in the territories they 'liberated'. I view them the same way I would a burglar fighting another burglar in my home for a bigger share of the spoils. Useful under the circumstances, but not worth honouring.
I honour the servicemen of the western alliance, for helping to bring down the nazis, but also crucially for stopping the Soviets rampaging all across the continent of Europe.......

But without the Red Army holding down all of those German divisions, how many more soldiers would have been lost by the Western Allies? If I'm presented with two choices - 5 million dead Brits and fewer raped German women or half a million dead Brits and an awful lot more raped German women - a real Hobson's Choice - I know which I find to be the least unpalatable.

I hold with what Air Marshall Harris said: the Germans sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

[thundertaker]

Quote: If I'm presented with two choices - 5 million dead Brits and fewer raped German women or half a million dead Brits and an awful lot more raped German women - a real Hobson's Choice - I know which I find to be the least unpalatable.

It was never our choice to make. The Nazis decided to make war on the Soviets for their own reasons, and the Soviets responded with equal or even greater ferocity.........

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: Quote: If I'm presented with two choices - 5 million dead Brits and fewer raped German women or half a million dead Brits and an awful lot more raped German women - a real Hobson's Choice - I know which I find to be the least unpalatable.

It was never our choice to make. The Nazis decided to make war on the Soviets for their own reasons, and the Soviets responded with equal or even greater ferocity.........

But surely then it was a case of whomever is my enemy's enemy is my friend? In which case the principle still stands - each Soviet fighting man who faced off against a German reduced the fighting capacity the enemy could deploy against the Western Allies, thus reducing our loss of life; I will happily honour that.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Theres not enough games or movies set from the Axis standpoint. While there regimes were undoubtably evil, within there armed forces they still had more than a bit of valour and plain old genious.

[milo1047]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Theres not enough games or movies set from the Axis standpoint. While there regimes were undoubtably evil, within there armed forces they still had more than a bit of valour and plain old genious.

I agree. I've recently been doing research into Romania durng WWII and they are universally and consistently described by the Germans as being brave and capable fighting men.

[Mr.Bill]

milo1047 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Theres not enough games or movies set from the Axis standpoint. While there regimes were undoubtably evil, within there armed forces they still had more than a bit of valour and plain old genious.

I agree. I've recently been doing research into Romania durng WWII and they are universally and consistently described by the Germans as being brave and capable fighting men.

I'm sure the Romanians were brave and capable fighters, but unfortunately for the German 6th Army they weren't capable enough.

[Snake]

superskippy wrote: Curiously would you also feel good about honoring the Wermacht and Waffen SS troops who fought and died in some god forsaken place to the last man? The insane march of Wenck's troops to safety of the Allied lines? Certaintly great feats and "heroic" but would you also want to honor them? That depends on the circumstances.

[lovebush]

Melcar wrote: [
How quick things turn political :roll: .
I guess no one is able to see these pictures in a rational and "scientific" light. It always has to turn into politics and "morality". You do know he made two films right, each one telling each side's stiory? Personally, as both a history and warfare enthusiast/afficionado, I will be seeing both these films.

On a political forum no less, Go figure. Im looking forward to seeing it any way, you shouldnt expect a history lesson from hollyweird. Hey that brings up a great topic. see my new thread!