Big thumbs up for the US

[Eki]

You probably thought I'd never say that, but for once there's a good reason:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/un.hiroshima.ceremony/index.html#fbid=OwoJHHBZz7L&wom=false


United States Ambassador John Roos also attended, marking the first time the United States has sent an envoy to the Hiroshima memorial ceremony.

Maybe the US isn't that petty and vindictive after all.

[Eki]

More:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/participates-hiroshima-memorial-time/?test=latestnews

That will send the Japanese a message saying "We're not your enemies anymore".

[anthonyvop]

Obama just insists on embarrassing my country.

[Eki]

Obama just insists on embarrassing my country.
Cuba? Or maybe Spain?

[tannat]

Will the headline in December be "Japan sends envoy to Pearl Harbor?"

[anthonyvop]

Will the headline in December be "Japan sends envoy to Pearl Harbor?"

Or Bataan?
Or Nanking?
Or Korea?

[Jag_Warrior]

More:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/participates-hiroshima-memorial-time/?test=latestnews

That will send the Japanese a message saying "We're not your enemies anymore".

I think when we rebuilt their country, that pretty much told them that we weren't their enemies anymore. They could have easily found themselves as a colony of the Allies/U.S. after World War II. At the very least, they could still be paying tribute to their conquerors. But last I checked, Japan was the 2nd (though now moving to 3rd with China's emergence) largest economy in the world. So despite getting the crap beaten out of them after losing WWII, they're doing pretty well now. We pay for their defense and they can use their money for R&D and infrastructure.

I believe in the concept of "total war". So if the thought of being totally destroyed bothers someone, don't start a war with a militarily strong nation. Simple as that. And if you do, well... what happens, happens. :dozey: But in the end, Japan has gotten the best end of this deal. So I suggest they just shut-up and move on. Japan has been pretty much let off the hook for its war crimes, so best to keep that can of "poor us" worms shut, IMO. There are more than a few still alive in China, Korea and various Pacific islands who could fill a stadium, and would probably say that the Japanese got what they had coming to them.

[Eki]

I hope so.

[Eki]

I believe in the concept of "total war". So if the thought of being totally destroyed bothers you, don't start a war with a militarily strong nation.
I don't believe in the concept of "total war", I believe in minimizing the damages and forgiveness. Finland started the Continuation War against the Soviet Union, yet the Soviet Union settled for a negotiated peace and didn't insist a total surrendering. And the Soviet/Russian leaders have visited the Finnish Tomb of the Unknown Soldier just like the Finnish leaders have visited the Soviet/Russian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. For those I respect the Russians more than I respect the Americans.



Japan has been pretty much let off the hook for its war crimes,
Not as much as the US has for its war crimes.

[Eki]

The US invaded and occupied Hawaii before Japan, so Pearl Harbor wasn't American territory, but in anthonyvop's terms disputed territory. But thumbs up for Clinton who acknowledged that and apologized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii


Overthrow of 1893 — the Republic of Hawaii (1894–1898)

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen "not guilty" from any responsibility for the overthrow.[37] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[36][38][39][40]
In 1993, a joint Apology Resolution regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.[40] It is the first time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.

ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu, formerly the residence of the Hawaiian monarch, was the capitol of the Republic of Hawaii.
The Provisional Government of Hawaii ended on July 4, 1894, replaced by the Republic of Hawaii.
The first Japanese immigrants arrived in Hawaii in 1885 as contract laborers for the sugar cane and pineapple plantations. Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii began when Puerto Rico's sugar industry was devastated by two hurricanes in 1899. The devastation caused a world wide shortage in sugar and a huge demand for the product from Hawaii. Hawaiian sugar plantation owners began to recruit the jobless, but experienced, laborers in Puerto Rico. Two distinct waves of Korean immigration to Hawaii have occurred in the last century. The first arrived in between 1903 and 1924; the second wave began in 1965.

Annexation — the Territory of Hawaii (1898–1959)

After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii's annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He met with annexationists from Hawaii Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch and William Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, McKinley agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.[41] The president then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for approval.
The Newlands Resolution in Congress annexed the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. Despite some opposition in the islands, the Newlands Resolution was passed by the House June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.
In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years. Plantation owners and key capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions, or "factors," known as the Big Five, found territorial status convenient, enabling them to continue importing cheap foreign labor; such immigration was prohibited in various states.

I also don't believe in total surrendering, but in resistance. If you insist total surrendering, you can easily end up in guerrilla warfare for decades, like the US did in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel has done in the Middle East.

[anthonyvop]

I don't believe in the concept of "total war", .


So?

I don't believe in Jealous, Illogical, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, Fascists and yet you exist!

[Rollo]

Will the headline in December be "Japan sends envoy to Pearl Harbor?"

It would be a pretty out of date headline, especially considering that there is the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai‘i and has been there since at least 1965.

http://jcch.com/

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't believe in the concept of "total war", I believe in minimizing the damages and forgiveness.

We have a philosophical difference of opinion there.



Not as much as the US has for its war crimes.

When has the U.S. ever done anything that would even begin to compare to what the Japanese did before and during WWII? There is not a major country on the face of the earth that doesn't have SOME blood on its hands. But when a country had a POLICY which made it acceptable to take foreign girls as young as 10 or 11 and make them sexual playthings for bored soldiers, and then that country refuses even now to acknowledge the horror of that, IMO, that is a country that deserved every right hook, body blow and uppercut that we laid on them. It's unfortunate that so many Japanese noncombatants lost their lives in the atomic attacks that ended Japan's war effort. But it would have been even more unfortunate for more American soldiers to have died trying to take Japan house by house. I believe in "total war" because it works. It has always worked. It worked for William Tecumseh Sherman as well as it worked for Julius Caesar. It blows away the illusion that war can be neat & tidy. It makes war less socially acceptable, not more. It makes countries think twice about waging war when they know that their entire nation might be turned into a fireball. But even in total war, it is not acceptable to rape and torture just for the "fun" of it. So whatever past actions the U.S. might have engaged in, our society, unlike Japanese society, has not been willing to just sweep anything and everything under the rug.

IMO, we should never be apologetic to the Japanese for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They should be glad that they surrendered when they did, so that they didn't have to face another mushroom cloud over another of their cities. I know there is a movement in Japan right now which is trying to get such an apology from us. The way I see it, they got massive Allied financial assistance, perpetual U.S. taxpayer funded military protection (until we finally go bankrupt) and a U.S. trade policy which allows Japanese companies to FREELY do business here, while they continue to have protectionist trade policies there. So they need to stop whining for an apology and be thankful for all that we have given them. And since the glass house they have from WWII is bigger than ours, like I said, they'd be better off leaving that can of worms alone.

[tannat]

It would be a pretty out of date headline, especially considering that there is the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai‘i and has been there since at least 1965.

http://jcch.com/

I made a quick "off the cuff" comment, Rollo..

Cheers on the education :up:

[Bob Riebe]

So?

I don't believe in Jealous, Illogical, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, Fascists and yet you exist!
HOOO-WHEE-- that was a good one; to the point and truthful.

[Hondo]

More:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/06/participates-hiroshima-memorial-time/?test=latestnews

That will send the Japanese a message saying "We're not your enemies anymore".

I, personally and inclusively, don't know anybody that loses sleep over our atomic attack on the Empire of Japan. There are all manner of "what if..." scenarios that deal with how the war could have or should have ended differently. I have read of some where Japan was trying to surrender by going through Russian diplomatic channels but Stalin wouldn't pass on the messages until he was in a position to also declare war on Japan with sufficient troops in place to gain territorial concessions, which he did.

As far as "not being your enemies anymore...", we sent plenty of those long before Pearl Harbor saying "if you stop your invasion of China, we won't be enemies anymore." They chose to ignore them.

The Japanese bit off far more than they could ever chew and paid a high price for their folly. Perhaps that's what they should discuss at their memorial services.

[Eki]

Or England in Ireland?
Yes. Although England didn't usually use excessive force to retaliate the attacks of the local resistance or trying to prevent them. They did enough to contain the problem, but not too much to aggravate it. After all, the situation seems now be quite good. And that's not thanks to total surrendering of the Irish, but to negotiations and compromises.

[Eki]

So?

I don't believe in Jealous, Illogical, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, Fascists and yet you exist!
But do you think being a jealous, illogical, anti-American, anti-semitic fascist is a good idea that works? That's the point. You obviously think total warfare is a good idea that works.

[Eki]

The way I see it, they got massive Allied financial assistance, perpetual U.S. taxpayer funded military protection
Let's turn that around and ask if YOU would like Japan to take care of the military protection of the US or live on Japanese hand outs? Would you like to have Japanese military bases in the US?

The reason the US wants to take care and supervise the Japanese military defense is that they don't want to let the Japanese military to grow that big and powerful that they could take care of it by themselves and maybe become a potential military threat again.

[anthonyvop]

You obviously think total warfare is a good idea that works.


It is and it did. Just ask Japan and Germany.

[markabilly]

I also don't believe in total surrendering, but in resistance. If you insist total surrendering, you can easily end up in guerrilla warfare for decades, like the US did in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel has done in the Middle East.
that makes no sense.......there was not an insistence on total surrender, but a lack of total warfare of kill them all without mercy....even if it means a few nukes on civilain targets...but no, we going to do a police action.....

[markabilly]

But do you think being a jealous, illogical, anti-American, anti-semitic fascist is a good idea that works? .

well you are working at the taco bell, stuffing those tacos....

like your description of yourself.... jealous, illogical, anti-American, anti-semitic fascist :up:

wish I could have said it first......got any children named adolf??

[Hondo]

Let's turn that around and ask if YOU would like Japan to take care of the military protection of the US or live on Japanese hand outs? Would you like to have Japanese military bases in the US?

The reason the US wants to take care and supervise the Japanese military defense is that they don't want to let the Japanese military to grow that big and powerful that they could take care of it by themselves and maybe become a potential military threat again.

The USA took Japan under it's protection after WW II to keep the Soviets and other communist nations out. Japan has and has had it's own National Defence Force since the adoption of it's new constitution after the war, although it is doubtful whether it could stop a Soviet move against it. The defense force can be as large as the Japanese care to spend. They are forbidden by their own constitution to start offense military operations outside of their borders. They could amend their constitution if they wished but have generally found it cheaper to shrug their shoulders and point at their constitution when it comes to joining UN actions which, amongst other things, keeps their oil supply running.

I seriously doubt the Japanese want to have another go at the US regardless of how large their military may become. But if they want to, have them take a number and get in line. We'll be with them as soon as we can.

[Jag_Warrior]

The USA took Japan under it's protection after WW II to keep the Soviets and other communist nations out. Japan has and has had it's own National Defence Force since the adoption of it's new constitution after the war, although it is doubtful whether it could stop a Soviet move against it. The defense force can be as large as the Japanese care to spend. They are forbidden by their own constitution to start offense military operations outside of their borders. They could amend their constitution if they wished but have generally found it cheaper to shrug their shoulders and point at their constitution when it comes to joining UN actions which, amongst other things, keeps their oil supply running.

^^^This is correct.



I seriously doubt the Japanese want to have another go at the US regardless of how large their military may become. But if they want to, have them take a number and get in line. We'll be with them as soon as we can.

I agree. Japan is now a pacified, largely non-military nation. Whether they're currently 2nd or 3rd, the Japanese get their global strength from the size of their economy, not the size of their army/navy/air force.

[Eki]

It is and it did. Just ask Japan and Germany.
? They both lost and millions of their citizens died. The US didn't lose as much, but still almost half a million Americans died:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

No, I still don't believe total warfare was/is a good idea for anyone.

[anthonyvop]

? They both lost and millions of their citizens died. The US didn't lose as much, but still almost half a million Americans died:



Yep and The Murderous Nazi and Tojo regimes were stopped.

Let me clue you in to 2 little facts.

#1 Japan ATTACKED the US
#2 Germany DECLARED WAR on the US.

Now taking those 2 facts into account I fully expected the US to do everything within it's power to destroy both Governments. Not to partake in a holding action. Not to negotiate but to Destroy so that the US would never have to worry about it's citizens being attacked again. Unconditional Surrender.

Seeing as Japan was in no way interested in unconditional surrender the US had no choice but to destroy them with every means available.

End of Debate!

[Eki]

Yep and The Murderous Nazi and Tojo regimes were stopped.

Let me clue you in to 2 little facts.

#1 Japan ATTACKED the US
#2 Germany DECLARED WAR on the US.

Actually Japan attacked Hawaii and Germany was so far away they couldn't reach the US to do much damage there. Negotiated peace treaties would probably have saved hundreds of thousands of people. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand declared a war against Finland, but there was no total warfare. Britain bombed a harbor in Finland and killed one dock worker, and that was about it.

[anthonyvop]

Actually Japan attacked Hawaii and Germany was so far away they couldn't reach the US to do much damage there. Negotiated peace treaties would probably have saved hundreds of thousands of people. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand declared a war against Finland, but there was no total warfare. Britain bombed a harbor in Finland and killed one dock worker, and that was about it.

OMG Are you really that ignorant of History?

Some more facts for you to dwell on.

Hawaii is part of the USA.

Germany had negotiated non-aggression pacts with both the UK and the USSR.

Negotiation with an evil regime only benefits the Evil regime.

[Eki]

OMG Are you really that ignorant of History?

Some more facts for you to dwell on.

Hawaii is part of the USA.

No, it was disputed territory that the US had illegally invaded and occupied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii


Overthrow of 1893 — the Republic of Hawaii (1894–1898)

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen "not guilty" from any responsibility for the overthrow.[37] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[36][38][39][40]
In 1993, a joint Apology Resolution regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.[40] It is the first time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.

[Mark in Oshawa]

We have a philosophical difference of opinion there.

When has the U.S. ever done anything that would even begin to compare to what the Japanese did before and during WWII? There is not a major country on the face of the earth that doesn't have SOME blood on its hands. But when a country had a POLICY which made it acceptable to take foreign girls as young as 10 or 11 and make them sexual playthings for bored soldiers, and then that country refuses even now to acknowledge the horror of that, IMO, that is a country that deserved every right hook, body blow and uppercut that we laid on them. It's unfortunate that so many Japanese noncombatants lost their lives in the atomic attacks that ended Japan's war effort. But it would have been even more unfortunate for more American soldiers to have died trying to take Japan house by house. I believe in "total war" because it works. It has always worked. It worked for William Tecumseh Sherman as well as it worked for Julius Caesar. It blows away the illusion that war can be neat & tidy. It makes war less socially acceptable, not more. It makes countries think twice about waging war when they know that their entire nation might be turned into a fireball. But even in total war, it is not acceptable to rape and torture just for the "fun" of it. So whatever past actions the U.S. might have engaged in, our society, unlike Japanese society, has not been willing to just sweep anything and everything under the rug.

IMO, we should never be apologetic to the Japanese for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They should be glad that they surrendered when they did, so that they didn't have to face another mushroom cloud over another of their cities. I know there is a movement in Japan right now which is trying to get such an apology from us. The way I see it, they got massive Allied financial assistance, perpetual U.S. taxpayer funded military protection (until we finally go bankrupt) and a U.S. trade policy which allows Japanese companies to FREELY do business here, while they continue to have protectionist trade policies there. So they need to stop whining for an apology and be thankful for all that we have given them. And since the glass house they have from WWII is bigger than ours, like I said, they'd be better off leaving that can of worms alone.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this was Jag, not Tony with this posting. Telling all you US haters (hello Eki) that all Americans pretty much are on side with this one...

Apolgizing for dropping the Bomb's of Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes when Japan will completly admit they were a nation that raped, pillaged and stole everything not nailed down from 1933 to 1945. THAT wont happen...

The Marshall Plan of the US is proof positive that Americans are a far more kind conquerer than any other nation on earth......and it wasn't about conquest....it was about righting the balance...

[Mark in Oshawa]

EKi, as for Hawaii, the Americans under Clinton apologized to the Native Hawaiians for that. Maybe you would feel different if Finland actually conquered something...

[chuck34]

My grandfather was on a troop transport ship docked in New Guinea when he heard about the Japaneese surrender. He and all his fellow sailors went up on deck to celebrate, and were struck by an awe inspiring sight. Hundreds, maybe thousands of transport ships as far as the eye could see in various states of being loaded, all for the invasion of Japan. How many hundreds of thousands of men on both sides would have been killed with an all out invasion? Just look at the fact that we were still using Purple Hearts ordered for that invasion up through the first Gulf War.

No, despite the ravings of Anti-Americans like Eki, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrific, SAVED more lives than it killed.

[Eki]

Maybe you would feel different if Finland actually conquered something...
They did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_conquest_of_East_Karelia_(1941)

I don't know if Finland has apologized, but at least several Finnish political leaders spent years in prison after the war as war criminals and Finland paid $300 millions of war reparations to the Soviet Union.

[Eki]

No, despite the ravings of Anti-Americans like Eki, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrific, SAVED more lives than it killed.
Negotiations before an all-out invasion would have saved even more. As far as I know, the Japanese had practically all but surrendered already before the A-bombs and were ready for negotiations.

[anthonyvop]

No, it was disputed territory that the US had illegally invaded and occupied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

The Queen of Wikipedia strikes again.

Even if it was disputed in your world of rainbows and unicorns Japan had no claim whatsoever on Hawaii........So your argument is moot.

[anthonyvop]

Negotiations before an all-out invasion would have saved even more. As far as I know, the Japanese had practically all but surrendered already before the A-bombs and were ready for negotiations.

Are you serious?

Japan tried to negotiate a truce to save their genocidal asses. They were not ready to accept Unconditional Surrender which was the only option.

In your world Germany would still be under Nazi Control.

[Eki]

Are you serious?

Japan tried to negotiate a truce to save their genocidal asses. They were not ready to accept Unconditional Surrender which was the only option.

Nobody don't accept unconditional surrender if they have a chance to go on fighting. If you want to stop a war short and minimize losses on both sides, you shouldn't insist on unconditional surrender. Luckily the Americans were smart enough to let the Emperor keep his life, freedom and partly his position too, otherwise the Japanese would have fought to the death. After the Emperor surrendered, there was no other option for the Japanese but to surrender too. Afghanistan is different, there is no central figure who could surrender for the whole Afghanistan, or even the whole Taliban, and therefore the fighting will go on and on and on...

[anthonyvop]

Nobody don't accept unconditional surrender if they have a chance to go on fighting. If you want to stop a war short and minimize losses on both sides, you shouldn't insist on unconditional surrender. Luckily the Americans were smart enough to let the Emperor keep his life, freedom and partly his position too, otherwise the Japanese would have fought to the death. After the Emperor surrendered, there was no other option for the Japanese but to surrender too. Afghanistan is different, there is no central figure who could surrender for the whole Afghanistan, or even the whole Taliban, and therefore the fighting will go on and on and on...

So you think it would have been a good Idea to leave the Nazis and the genocidal, Tojo Government in power?

[Jag_Warrior]

If you start a fight, then the tables turn and your opponent comes back strong... and then pulls a gun, cocks it and points it at your head, my advice would be to go for the unconditional surrender. But the Japanese elected to take two rounds to the head instead. That was their choice. Why would I feel sorry about that? They have no one but themselves to blame for what happened. And considering where they are now (and how they got there), I expect a "Thank you for rebuilding us after you had to destroy us, Uncle Sam." But I'll be damned if we should ever consider an apology for bombing them. If anything, they should apologize for bombing Pearl Harbor and for the atrocities they committed in Nanking and other places. But clearly, they're not going to do that (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/world/asia/19iht-nanking.1.6208148.html). Screw 'em. They'll either get over it or they won't.

Lesson: don't let your mouth write checks that your azz can't cash. And if you start to lose, wave the white flag before your opponent polishes you off totally.

[airshifter]

Actually Japan attacked Hawaii and Germany was so far away they couldn't reach the US to do much damage there.

Strange, but there are sunken ships not far from me that can be dived from the shore, and German U-boats sunk them.



I also notice that you failed to mention that this instance was the first time the UN secretary general took part in such a ceremony. I'm sure this is evidence that they are just as evil as the US now.

[Eki]

So you think it would have been a good Idea to leave the Nazis and the genocidal, Tojo Government in power?
No, but I would have allowed them to withdraw to within their own borders, forget about the "final solution" and the "1000 years Reich" and resign from power.

[anthonyvop]

No, but I would have allowed them to withdraw to within their own borders, forget about the "final solution" and the "1000 years Reich" and resign from power.

And why would they have done that? Negotiations? Threats?
Are you that naive?

[Eki]

And why would they have done that? Negotiations? Threats?
Are you that naive?
Because they may have seen they're going to lose eventually and this way they could have had a chance to save their lives and freedom. At least they would have been given a chance to throw in the towel. Finland agreed to make a peace with the Soviet Union both in March 1940 and in September 1944, because they realized they were going to lose anyway sooner or later and this way they could at least make a tolerable deal sooner instead of an unconditional surrender later.


At least Himmler was ready to negotiate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler


In the winter of 1944–45, Himmler's Waffen-SS numbered 910,000 members, with the Allgemeine-SS (at least on paper) hosting a membership of nearly two million. However, by early 1945 Himmler had lost faith in German victory, likely due in part to his discussions with his masseur Felix Kersten and with Walter Schellenberg.[22] He realized that if the Nazi regime were to survive, it needed to seek peace with Britain and the United States. He also believed that Hitler had effectively incapacitated himself from governing by remaining in Berlin to personally lead the defence of the capital against the Soviets.
To this end, he contacted Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden at Lübeck, near the Danish border. He represented himself as the provisional leader of Germany, telling Bernadotte that Hitler would almost certainly be dead within two days. He asked Bernadotte to tell General Dwight Eisenhower that Germany wished to surrender to the West. Himmler hoped the British and Americans would fight the Soviets alongside the remains of the Wehrmacht. At Bernadotte's request, Himmler put his offer in writing.

So was Hess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess#Flight_to_Scotland


Like Goebbels, Hess was privately distressed by the war with the United Kingdom because he, like almost all other Nazis, hoped that Britain would accept Germany as an ally. Hess may have hoped to score a diplomatic victory by sealing a peace between the Third Reich and Britain,[16] e.g., by implementing the behind-the-scenes move of the Haushofers[clarification needed] in Nazi Germany to contact Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton.[17]
On 10 May 1941, at about 6:00 P.M., Hess took off from Augsburg in a Messerschmitt Bf 110, and Hitler ordered the General of the Fighter Arm to stop him (squadron leaders were ordered to scramble only one or two fighters, since Hess' particular aircraft could not be distinguished from others).[18] Hess parachuted over Renfrewshire, Scotland on 10 May and landed (breaking his ankle) at Floors Farm near Eaglesham.[citation needed] In a newsreel clip, farmhand David McLean claims to have arrested Hess with his pitchfork.[18]

[anthonyvop]

Because they may have seen they're going to lose eventually and this way they could have had a chance to save their lives and freedom. At least they would have been given a chance to throw in the towel. Finland agreed to make a peace with the Soviet Union both in March 1940 and in September 1944, because they realized they were going to lose anyway sooner or later and this way they could at least make a tolerable deal sooner instead of an unconditional surrender later.


At least Himmler was ready to negotiate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler



So was Hess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess#Flight_to_Scotland

So you would have been OK with the Nazis to go on Committing Genocide and remain a threat to the world?

[gloomyDAY]

Even bigger thumbs-up on this move (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_as/as_vietnam_us_military_mates).

America is making the right move by steadying relations with Asian countries.
China is probably going to be a little upset that America is playing in their backyard, but tough!

[Rollo]

Negotiations before an all-out invasion would have saved even more. As far as I know, the Japanese had practically all but surrendered already before the A-bombs and were ready for negotiations.

No-one knows.

The Potsdam Declaration was issued on the 26th of July. Japan initially rejected the terms of surrender because they included the removal of the Emperor. On the 30th of July they asked for 14 days to consider the proposal, and were granted it.
Important Date: The Japanese were given until the 13th of August.

On July 2, Hirohito flew to Vladivostok for a conference with Stalin. At this point we either have to concede that Hirohito was either looking for an ally for negotiations with Potsdam, or perhaps to for Japan to become a Soviet Protectorate. I guess we'll never know.

On the 3rd, The US Air Force destroyed Vladivostok's air strip and port facilities citing that intelligence had detailed "important activity in that area". It has never been stated by US official just what that "important activity" was, but it effectively locked Hirohito in Soviet territory.

On the 5th, the Japanese parliament was deadlocked 6-6 on whether to accept the terms of surrender; Hirohito had the casting vote but he couldn't issue it because he was still stuck in Vladivostok's because the US Air Force destroyed all the air and sea ports.
The Japanese PM Kantaro Suzuki issued a statement of "Mokusatsu" with regards the instrument of surrender.

On the 6th of August, 140,000 people were killed by the first nuclear bomb. This was 8 days before the Japanese would have been required to surrender. Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th.

Make up your own mind.
What does Mokusatsu mean? What would have Hirohito done if he'd been allowed to fly back to Japan? Who honestly knows?

Personally I think that dropping the bomb did save more lives than would have been killed if an invasion had taken place, but that might have never have happened, and at any rate it was slated for X-Day and Y-Day which wouldn't have been until November 1, 1945 and March 1, 1946.


It makes countries think twice about waging war when they know that their entire nation might be turned into a fireball. But even in total war, it is not acceptable to rape and torture just for the "fun" of it. So whatever past actions the U.S. might have engaged in, our society, unlike Japanese society, has not been willing to just sweep anything and everything under the rug.

IMO, we should never be apologetic to the Japanese for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They should be glad that they surrendered when they did, so that they didn't have to face another mushroom cloud over another of their cities. I know there is a movement in Japan right now which is trying to get such an apology from us.

I kind of half agree with this and half not.

The Japanese treatment of peasantry throughout South East Asia and Prisoners of War was evil. Although dropping the bombs did achieve the ends required, it was cowardly and ultimately I think unjustified.

On the other hand apologizing doesn't really achieve anything useful or lasting - Actual action does. I think that both Japan and the United States have both showed that action several thousand times over.

I don't think however they they should be glad that they didn't have to face another mushroom cloud, as I don't think that the first two were justified, not what was to follow:
"the next bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18."
- Major General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project. August 10, 1945.
I think that that "next bomb" would have been just as cowardly and unjustified as the two which proceeded it.

[anthonyvop]

No-one knows.

The Potsdam Declaration was issued on the 26th of July. Japan initially rejected the terms of surrender because they included the removal of the Emperor. On the 30th of July they asked for 14 days to consider the proposal, and were granted it.
Important Date: The Japanese were given until the 13th of August.

On July 2, Hirohito flew to Vladivostok for a conference with Stalin. At this point we either have to concede that Hirohito was either looking for an ally for negotiations with Potsdam, or perhaps to for Japan to become a Soviet Protectorate. I guess we'll never know.

On the 3rd, The US Air Force destroyed Vladivostok's air strip and port facilities citing that intelligence had detailed "important activity in that area". It has never been stated by US official just what that "important activity" was, but it effectively locked Hirohito in Soviet territory.

On the 5th, the Japanese parliament was deadlocked 6-6 on whether to accept the terms of surrender; Hirohito had the casting vote but he couldn't issue it because he was still stuck in Vladivostok's because the US Air Force destroyed all the air and sea ports.
The Japanese PM Kantaro Suzuki issued a statement of "Mokusatsu" with regards the instrument of surrender.




Where did you get that crap?

The Emperor never left Japanese soil doing WW2
Hirohito never went to Russia
The US did not bomb Vladivostok(That is beyond ridiculous)
The Parliament could only recommend to the Emperor. The Emperor was not a "Deciding Vote".....He was the Only Vote.

And the Potsdam Declaration did not set a date of August 13th. It didn't set any date.


Potsdam Declaration
July 26, 1945
(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

[Rollo]

Where did you get that crap?

The Emperor never left Japanese soil doing WW2
Hirohito never went to Russia
The US did not bomb Vladivostok(That is beyond ridiculous)
The Parliament could only recommend to the Emperor. The Emperor was not a "Deciding Vote".....He was the Only Vote.

You'll find details in Thomas Parrish's book: Roosevelt and Marshall: Partners in Politics and War , though he seems to reference George C. Marshall's four part biography quite a bit.
Herbert Bix's book Hirohito And The Making of Modern Japan also looks at where the emperor went based on government documents.


And the Potsdam Declaration did not set a date of August 13th. It didn't set any date.

I never said it did, you're putting words into my mouth:

The Potsdam Declaration was issued on the 26th of July. Japan initially rejected the terms of surrender because they included the removal of the Emperor. On the 30th of July they asked for 14 days to consider the proposal, and were granted it.


Sorry, but I said that Japan had asked for time to consider it, not that the declaration itself had a date set. These are very different concepts, but somehow I doubt that you know the difference.

[anthonyvop]

Sorry, but I said that Japan had asked for time to consider it, not that the declaration itself had a date set. These are very different concepts, but somehow I doubt that you know the difference.

You wrote:


Important Date: The Japanese were given until the 13th of August.

The rest of your stuff just came from a bunch of conspiracy theorists who write garbage because they can sell it to people like you who won't question it's validity.

[Rollo]

The rest of your stuff just came from a bunch of conspiracy theorists who write garbage because they can sell it to people like you who won't question it's validity.

Such as:


Hirohito never went to Russia

Really?

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/hirostal96.jpg

Oops. Hirohito never went to Russia indeed... feh. I'd rather believe properly researched material than heresay from you.

[Eki]

So you would have been OK with the Nazis to go on Committing Genocide and remain a threat to the world?
No, as I said, stopping the genocide would have been one of the main peace terms, as well as resigning from power and new free elections.

[anthonyvop]

Such as:


Really?

http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/hirostal96.jpg

Oops. Hirohito never went to Russia indeed... feh. I'd rather believe properly researched material than heresay from you.


Funny how that picture has Stalin but not Hirohito! It is Japanese Foreign Minister Yōsuke Matsuoka but I guess they all look the same to you.

And it isn't 1945 but actually 1941.

http://plhb.tripod.com/p1.html

[DexDexter]

If you start a fight, then the tables turn and your opponent comes back strong... and then pulls a gun, cocks it and points it at your head, my advice would be to go for the unconditional surrender. But the Japanese elected to take two rounds to the head instead. That was their choice. Why would I feel sorry about that? They have no one but themselves to blame for what happened. And considering where they are now (and how they got there), I expect a "Thank you for rebuilding us after you had to destroy us, Uncle Sam." But I'll be damned if we should ever consider an apology for bombing them. If anything, they should apologize for bombing Pearl Harbor and for the atrocities they committed in Nanking and other places. But clearly, they're not going to do that (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/world/asia/19iht-nanking.1.6208148.html). Screw 'em. They'll either get over it or they won't.

Lesson: don't let your mouth write checks that your azz can't cash. And if you start to lose, wave the white flag before your opponent polishes you off totally.

How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.

[Jag_Warrior]

How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.

I would say that's very likely - especially in the 40's. I'd say our overall view of "Orientals" was very similar to the British and the French at that time: interesting but inferior.

I'd say there was a fair lack of cultural understanding on both sides. But the problem is, when you're losing... and badly at that, you better (quickly) figure out what your opponent might do to you if you don't surrender.

[BDunnell]

Why the hell are we even discussing the reasons behind going to war in 1939-41? Bit late, isn't it? On this subject, what's done is well and truly done.

[airshifter]

How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.

That is a two way street. Admiral Yamamoto advised that the bombing of Pearl Harbor would have the opposite effect of that Japan predicted, stating it would not cause us to surrender but strengthen our resolve to win at all costs.

And this was the man that planned the invasion.

We had a clear understanding of why they did not wish to surrender, but apparently they had no clear understanding of why they shouldn't have attacked us, or the fact that we were not going to negotiate based on their hostile actions.

[anthonyvop]

Funny how that picture has Stalin but not Hirohito! It is Japanese Foreign Minister Yōsuke Matsuoka but I guess they all look the same to you.

And it isn't 1945 but actually 1941.

http://plhb.tripod.com/p1.html

Rollo?


Hello?


No Comment?

[Rollo]

Rollo?
Hello?
No Comment?

Mokusatsu :D

You are aware that Matsuoka is the chap in the middle, ie the guy with the hat on, aren't you?

Obviously a tripod website with such delights as this:
http://plhb.tripod.com/p212.jpg
is highly credible.

[DexDexter]

That is a two way street. Admiral Yamamoto advised that the bombing of Pearl Harbor would have the opposite effect of that Japan predicted, stating it would not cause us to surrender but strengthen our resolve to win at all costs.

And this was the man that planned the invasion.

We had a clear understanding of why they did not wish to surrender, but apparently they had no clear understanding of why they shouldn't have attacked us, or the fact that we were not going to negotiate based on their hostile actions.

I doubt that very much. If you don't understand the Iragi on this day and age, I very much doubt the US government understood the Japanese and how they should be dealt with back in WWII. Still, they were the ones who started it.

[anthonyvop]

Mokusatsu :D

You are aware that Matsuoka is the chap in the middle, ie the guy with the hat on, aren't you?



No it is not.

Give it up. Hirohito never met with Stalin in 1945. The US never bombed Vladisvostok.

[Bob Riebe]

How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.
If the Japanese did not understand U.S. culture, they should have kept their planes at home.
Stupidity has just rewards and Japan reaped three-fold.

[DexDexter]

If the Japanese did not understand U.S. culture, they should have kept their planes at home.
Stupidity has just rewards and Japan reaped three-fold.

So you're not going to even ponder the question I presented. What kind of chit chat is that?

[Bob Riebe]

So you're not going to even ponder the question I presented. What kind of chit chat is that?
NO.
Japan had already invaded China, had a war with Russia in northern China, the U.S. had already seen all of Japanese culture it needed to, plus the U.S. did not attack Japan.

The soon to be, General Chenault had been a part of the International Squadron and he along with other pilots had brought back facts about how the Japanese treated the Chinese, Washington was well aware of what type of murderous criminals the Japanese military was.

[Eki]

NO.
the U.S. did not attack Japan.

They didn't? How do you explain the US military bases in Japan and the atom bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US did way more than was needed to keep the Japanese away from the US soil. You can't claim it was just defensive warfare from the US part.

[Bob Riebe]

They didn't? How do you explain the US military bases in Japan and the atom bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US did way more than was needed to keep the Japanese away from the US soil. You can't claim it was just defensive warfare from the US part.
The U.S defended itself, and took the war to the enemy that attacked the U.S. and its allies.

Any one country who is attacked and does not counter-attack in defense to the utmost degree, the ideal is to the obliviation of the enemy, is a fool who deserves what ever comes its way.

[Eki]

The U.S defended itself, and took the war to the enemy that attacked the U.S. and its allies.

Any one country who is attacked and does not counter-attack in defense to the utmost degree, the ideal is to the obliviation of the enemy, is a fool who deserves what ever comes its way.

So, you agree that Al Qaeda should plot more 911 attacks now that the US invaded Afghanistan? And the Taliban should take their fight also to the US?

IMO the ideal is to the make the enemy understand fighting is not worth it.
That's what the Soviets did to the Germans in Stalingrad and the Finns did to the Soviets in Suomussalmi and Tali-Ihantala.

[DexDexter]

NO.
Japan had already invaded China, had a war with Russia in northern China, the U.S. had already seen all of Japanese culture it needed to, plus the U.S. did not attack Japan.

The soon to be, General Chenault had been a part of the International Squadron and he along with other pilots had brought back facts about how the Japanese treated the Chinese, Washington was well aware of what type of murderous criminals the Japanese military was.

I was talking about cultural anthropology, but forget it.

[Tomi]

I was talking about cultural anthropology, but forget it.

Lol, are you trying to rise the level of the discussion, better to keep it on Colt/ Donald Duck level, so that the other guy understand what you talk about.

[Roamy]

Let's turn that around and ask if YOU would like Japan to take care of the military protection of the US or live on Japanese hand outs? Would you like to have Japanese military bases in the US?

The reason the US wants to take care and supervise the Japanese military defense is that they don't want to let the Japanese military to grow that big and powerful that they could take care of it by themselves and maybe become a potential military threat again.

I don't know why we would not let them rebuild their military might. We are OK with Iran building Nukes. Maybe they could pop a few terrorists over in that part of the world. Or even that kim jong puke. We should take our bases out of there and save the money - we have Guam and that is close enough.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Lol, are you trying to rise the level of the discussion, better to keep it on Colt/ Donald Duck level, so that the other guy understand what you talk about.

The thing is, the constitution that the Commander of the the U.S. occupying force drafted for Japan, has stuck and the Japanese still live by it. Colt, Donald Duck, Gummy Bears, heavy metal and most other things American/Western thrive on Japanese soil.

[Hondo]

How well did the Americans understand Japanese culture back in the 40's? Maybe a lack of understanding a foreign culture (from the US side) played part in Japan refusing to surrender. The wars America has fought recently (especially Iraq) show a clear lack of understanding of non-Western type cultures and their reactions to things.

The same could easily be asked of the Japanese understanding of American culture at the time. The overwhelming consensus in the Japanese military and political community was that Americans had no stomach for war and would not fight, least of all to secure the liberty of a bunch of Asians. They thought if they could destroy our immediate strike capability, we would sit the rest of it out.

Funny thing about Americans and our culture. We will roll over for all kinds of nonsense so you never really know what you might do that will thoroughly piss us off. However, once pissed, we are an extremely dangerous adversary and will do whatever is seen fit to destroy you and your ability to make war. Note that "insurgencies" and general hooliganism does not constitute war in the conventional sense of a recognized government fielding conventional forces against the same.

Insurgencies are a different matter and can only be stopped by effective destruction of the groups manpower and logistics base. The argument of "...every time you kill, you compel others to join their ranks..." is a lot of tosh espoused by the fashionably stupid. The people that join these organizations would be attracted to any outlaw cause because it's their only hope for advancement and enrichment in their native society anyway. You either goatherd as nothing behind a donkey cart your entire life like your father and grandfather or you grab an AKM and go marauding with the boys, basking in the respect of the common people. What they call respect is fear. The fear the common people have of an unstable loose cannon in their midst with an automatic weapon that may kill with impunity for the slightest of reasons. The problem with giving in to insurgency groups is that one, it will cause even more to join their ranks (everybody loves a winner) and two, it will give birth to other groups that don't like things the way they are and want their own piece of the pie too. So you either combat insurgency or you dissolve the government and let anarchy reign and just allow everybody to do what they want as long as they are big enough and bad enough to do it. Now everybody is happy because everybody is in charge. It is working to some extant in Somalia right now.

Iraq was a mistake based upon the gratitude of the populations liberated from Nazi control after WW II. The nations that could, immediately began to form democracy based governments and used those as a basis to improve their standards of living. It never occurred to us that given the gift of liberty from a dictator, the Iraqis would be completely helpless, unable, and unwilling to shoulder the tasks and responsibilities needed to make democracy work. It would seem they are much happier having one guy in charge even if he feels the need to imprison and kill a couple of thousand from time to time.

Lastly, we in the west understand the need for wars, but we prefer short wars. 5 years is about our max before we start grumbling. We have high standards of living in our countries and want to get back to our leisure time activities, jobs, and families. Nosing into conflicts in areas where a donkey cart is high tech and and the standard of living is what it was 100 years ago is something we should avoid. If they want better, let them fight for it themselves. I never would have run my head about bagging Bin laden. I would have and would still gather all the intelligence I could on al-Qaeda and use either high tech like drones, small special forces, and quick, shoot n' scoot strikes to keep them backing up.

[Eki]

Iraq was a mistake based upon the gratitude of the populations liberated from Nazi control after WW II. The nations that could, immediately began to form democracy based governments and used those as a basis to improve their standards of living. It never occurred to us that given the gift of liberty from a dictator, the Iraqis would be completely helpless, unable, and unwilling to shoulder the tasks and responsibilities needed to make democracy work. It would seem they are much happier having one guy in charge even if he feels the need to imprison and kill a couple of thousand from time to time.

How about Afghanistan? A former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri wrote in his column few days ago that the Finnish peace keepers in Afghanistan are there protecting opium production, because the current Karzai government in Afghanistan is corrupted to the core with drug money.

[Easy Drifter]

The latter part of Fiero's post, which you ignore Eki, deals very well with the situation in Afghanistan.
There is little doubt the current regime is corrupt and I think most countries involved would love to get out but at the present time cannot see how to do so without allowing the Taliban to regain control. Then the massacres would begin and the country would go even further backwards.
The countries who actually are fighting the Taliban terrorists being the US, UK, Holland and Canada would all like to get out but are hoping for a stable honest Govt first.
I, personally doubt that will happen.

[Bob Riebe]

I was talking about cultural anthropology, but forget it.
I was speaking of war and those who start them; you can live in Neverland if you wish, but like Chamberlain, such naive thinking is dangerous at best.

[Eki]

The latter part of Fiero's post, which you ignore Eki, deals very well with the situation in Afghanistan.
There is little doubt the current regime is corrupt and I think most countries involved would love to get out but at the present time cannot see how to do so without allowing the Taliban to regain control. Then the massacres would begin and the country would go even further backwards.
The countries who actually are fighting the Taliban terrorists being the US, UK, Holland and Canada would all like to get out but are hoping for a stable honest Govt first.
I, personally doubt that will happen.
Seems like the Afghans don't believe in it themselves either. Recently, three Afghan officers came to Finland to get training at our artillery school. After arriving here, two of them asked for an asylum in Finland.

[Hondo]

How about Afghanistan? A former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri wrote in his column few days ago that the Finnish peace keepers in Afghanistan are there protecting opium production, because the current Karzai government in Afghanistan is corrupted to the core with drug money.

I am a student of military history and the strategic, operational, and tactical application of military forces. I once earned my living teaching the use of small arms and the application of small unit tactics to engage unconventional forces. The biggest reason the US situation in Afghanistan is so ridiculous is as I have stated before but y'all refuse to see and refuse to believe. We have no defined mission in Afghanistan but will remain there until the idiot Obama decides what he will do about Iran. Our presence in Afghanistan is nothing more than a staging area for an invasion of Iran. Even the Iranians have wised up to this now and are making preparations. Don't think for a minute that our top military men really believe they can do anything useful in Afghanistan. We pretty much ran the Taliban and al-Qaeda out, smacking them about and putting some severe hurt on them in the process. Neither group is anywhere near as strong as it was and the Afghans are well capable of making life miserable for them should they decide they want to.

Every government out there is rife with corruption of some sort be it drugs, fooling with expenses, or passing laws favorable to good friends. If Finland wants out, pack up and leave. You don't need corruption for an excuse. As soon as Obama realizes Iran isn't worth messing with, our troops will come home from Afghanistan and hopefully we will avoid this "long term for no permanent reward" type of campaign in the future.

[Hondo]

Seems like the Afghans don't believe in it themselves either. Recently, three Afghan officers came to Finland to get training at our artillery school. After arriving here, two of them asked for an asylum in Finland.

Do you blame them? Coming from Afghanistan to a free, western culture with TV, movies, cars, motorcycles, women in short skirts, nightlife, personal freedoms, and many personal opportunities, I'd want to stay too.

You going to let them in?

[Easy Drifter]

As I expect Fiero will agree the most effective way to deal with guerilla/terrorists is small special forces units like the SAS, Delta Force and Canada's J2T2. Especially ones who can live off of the country and remain mostly out of sight and cooperating with locals.

[airshifter]

I doubt that very much. If you don't understand the Iragi on this day and age, I very much doubt the US government understood the Japanese and how they should be dealt with back in WWII. Still, they were the ones who started it.

You might want to read up on Yamamoto, and his studies in the US. It's not as if the US has isolated itself from other cultures over the years. I'd venture to bet that the US government employs more various cultural experts from other countries than any other nation, including those employed in their military joint commands.

The US had anticipated even higher casualties in the Pacific campaigns, so it's not as through we underestimated the resolve and will of the Japanese. We had planned for the invasion of Japan and used the nukes as a last hope to get into the minds of the public enough to force surrender. Had we not understood the culture we likely would have never recovered from Pearl Harbor, yet the US overcame a tactical disadvantage to finally cause a surrender.

I would say that they should have listened to the man they best trusted to execute Pearl Harbor, who told them they were heading in a direction they likely would not return from.

[Mark]

I would say that they should have listened to the man they best trusted to execute Pearl Harbor, who told them they were heading in a direction they likely would not return from.

Who knows what direction it would have all taken if the Japanese had not attacked American interests. It's quite possible that the USA would have remained out of both Europe and the Pacific. Although I believe that Britain and it's allies at the time could have successfully stopped Germany from invading the UK I very much doubt we could have forced Germany into a total surrender.

[Easy Drifter]

No one knows but there is a good chance the Soviet Union would have taken all or almost all of Europe.
Of course once Germany pulled, as they would have, almost all troops out of France and the low countries to defend Germany, Britain might have been able to attack the continent without US aid.
Almost certainly have been a different world.

[Hondo]

We would have continued with sanction upon sanction while Japan absorbed as much of China and other Asian nations as it could until it was forced to stop by the lack of troops to occupy any more territories. By then, the sanctions would have little effect due to all the raw materials Japan would have acquired with her "new" lands.

There is a lot of documentation that Hitler never wanted war with England. He liked, respected, and had a certain kinsman-ship feeling towards them. I have seen speculations about Hitler NOT stopping his troops outside of Dunkirk and putting the British forces in the bag before the evacuation could start. If Hitler had gone public, again stating he did not desire war with England along with an offer to send their troops home as proof of his word, Churchill's government might have fallen and the whole thing would have stopped there.

The USA was already playing fast and loose with all kinds of laws by supplying England with all manner of war material and attacking German warships on the high seas so I think we would have come into it openly if England were invaded.

[Tazio]

No one knows but there is a good chance the Soviet Union would have taken all or almost all of Europe.
Of course once Germany pulled, as they would have, almost all troops out of France and the low countries to defend Germany, Britain might have been able to attack the continent without US aid.
Almost certainly have been a different world.There is as much, if not better chance Russia would have taken a serious "Beat-Down" from Germay and Japan without The US being involved in the war with Japan than there would be of it occupying continental Europe! IMO :s ailor:

[Eki]

There is as much, if not better chance Russia would have taken a serious "Beat-Down" from Germay and Japan without The US being involved in the war with Japan than there would be of it occupying continental Europe! IMO :s ailor:
That's what I think too. Especially if Britain had made peace with Germany or even allied with them against the Soviets.

[Camelopard]

As I expect Fiero will agree the most effective way to deal with guerilla/terrorists is small special forces units like the SAS, Delta Force and Canada's J2T2. Especially ones who can live off of the country and remain mostly out of sight and cooperating with locals.

It didn't work for the Soviet special forces (Spetsnaz) in Afghanistan, so why do you think it would work now? You also seem to forget that the afghanis have been defeating foreign 'invaders' going back to what was called 'the big game' in the 1800's.

Something else you have forgotten is that in your list of countries in an earlier post (quote "The countries who actually are fighting the Taliban terrorists being the US, UK, Holland and Canada" unquote), you seemed to have forgotten that Australia and New Zealand also have troops in Afghanistan including SAS units, I suppose that the talkback radio stations where I presume you get most of your knowlege from does not mention that!

[Camelopard]

'the big game' in the 1800's.

bugger, that of course should be "The Great Game......"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game


Whilst I'm at it you mention these special forces "cooperating" with the locals!

Have you ever stopped to consider that the "locals" may not want to cooperate with these special forces?

[Easy Drifter]

I do not listen to talk radio or any radio.
I do read extensively.
The 4 countries I mention are the ones doing most of the heavy lifting and suffering the most casulties in their regular troops.
Special Forces are a totally different matter and game.
Special Forces, especially the SAS including the Aussies, have had the most success against terrorists and literally operating without major support in hostile territory.
Maybe it won't work in Afghanistan but it sure has elsewhere.
I know exactly how they operate.
Nobody has ever really subdued the Afghanis.

[Hondo]

Except for special forces checking an area out for a week and the odd "shoot n' scoot", I wouldn't be on the ground at all in Afghanistan. The special forces could be inserted for missions lasting from a week to ten days or less. They would be under orders to avoid contact unless, at the very end, they were to snatch a bad guy VIP. They might be used to laser paint distant targets. On a shoot n' scoot, 20-30 troopers would airlift in, kill every thing they could and grab whatever documents they could find within 10 minutes, and then get out of there. Surrender would not be requested or accepted. I would not have any troops stationed on the ground.

[Tazio]

Except for special forces checking an area out for a week and the odd "shoot n' scoot", I wouldn't be on the ground at all in Afghanistan. The special forces could be inserted for missions lasting from a week to ten days or less. They would be under orders to avoid contact unless, at the very end, they were to snatch a bad guy VIP. They might be used to laser paint distant targets. On a shoot n' scoot, 20-30 troopers would airlift in, kill every thing they could and grab whatever documents they could find within 10 minutes, and then get out of there. Surrender would not be requested or accepted. I would not have any troops stationed on the ground.And then after they extract/kill the VIP (making a BFD on the news about it) another one is created.
:s ailor: Let's just get everyone the feck out period!

[Eki]

And then after they extract/kill the VIP (making a BFD on the news about it) another one is created.
:s ailor: Let's just get everyone the feck out period!
Exactly. The Muslim fighters don't have a living central figure like Hitler, Emperor Hirohito or the Pope. The only ones who really matter to them are Allah and Mohammed. You can't kill Allah and Mohammed is already dead, so what do you do.

[Hondo]

Ignoring them will not make them stop or go away. If anything, it will increase their ranks. There's nothing like success to boost membership. They don't need a central figure. The rank and file will have an AK and anything they want on demand. Do you think after having that sort of personal power they are going to return to goat herding again?

[Jag_Warrior]

You might want to read up on Yamamoto, and his studies in the US. It's not as if the US has isolated itself from other cultures over the years. I'd venture to bet that the US government employs more various cultural experts from other countries than any other nation, including those employed in their military joint commands.

I would say that they should have listened to the man they best trusted to execute Pearl Harbor, who told them they were heading in a direction they likely would not return from.

Nicely put. That was the point I was trying to make. Once you're stumbling on your back foot, it's rather naive (and kind of late in the game) to think that your opponent is going to take time out to further study your culture... especially when he can smell victory at that point. If anything, they made a serious error in not better understanding our culture BEFORE they attacked Pearl Harbor and killed thousands of Americans.

Another thing that I would say didn't help any plea for patience or using an alternate means to make them surrender (an invasion) was the American experience with Japanese suicide attacks. Well before the end of the war, the Japanese had gained a reputation as fierce warriors who preferred death over surrender. To them, surrender meant dishonor. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. While I greatly admire that way of thinking, I know that it also means that if you don't win, you are likely going to die. And if that was your philosophy in 1940, don't be crying the blues in 2010.

[Bob Riebe]

Nicely put. That was the point I was trying to make. Once you're stumbling on your back foot, it's rather naive (and kind of late in the game) to think that your opponent is going to take time out to further study your culture... especially when he can smell victory at that point. If anything, they made a serious error in not better understanding our culture BEFORE they attacked Pearl Harbor and killed thousands of Americans.

Another thing that I would say didn't help any plea for patience or using an alternate means to make them surrender (an invasion) was the American experience with Japanese suicide attacks. Well before the end of the war, the Japanese had gained a reputation as fierce warriors who preferred death over surrender. To them, surrender meant dishonor. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. While I greatly admire that way of thinking, I know that it also means that if you don't win, you are likely going to die. And if that was your philosophy in 1940, don't be crying the blues in 2010.

Very well put foreward.

[Bob Riebe]

Exactly. The Muslim fighters don't have a living central figure like Hitler, Emperor Hirohito or the Pope. The only ones who really matter to them are Allah and Mohammed. You can't kill Allah and Mohammed is already dead, so what do you do.
That depends whether one is Shia or Sunni.

Remember there is a dogma reason they kill each other.

[Tazio]

Ignoring them will not make them stop or go away. If anything, it will increase their ranks. There's nothing like success to boost membership. They don't need a central figure. The rank and file will have an AK and anything they want on demand. Do you think after having that sort of personal power they are going to return to goat herding again?No! I think they will go back to being poppy growing misogamists like they have been for the last 300 years. :dozey:
We have the technical expertise to observe them via satellite, and lob a cruise missile in every once in a while. Terrorism is nothing new; trying to beat it is a waste of time. Quit believing the bullsh!t propaganda machine and maybe address that question I posed to you about your racist comments on the drowning victims in Louisiana! :arrows:

[markabilly]

No! I think they will go back to being poppy growing misogamists like they have been for the last 300 years. :dozey:
We have the technical expertise to observe them via satellite, and lob a cruise missile in every once in a while. Terrorism is nothing new; trying to beat it is a waste of time. Quit believing the bullsh!t propaganda machine and maybe address that question I posed to you about your racist comments on the drowning victims in Louisiana! :arrows:
nuke them and then gather up the glass left behind for coke bottles....
as in the wise worlds of george, not that george, but the real george, five star Patton....

INfZPrVFky4&NR

[Eki]

That depends whether one is Shia or Sunni.

Remember there is a dogma reason they kill each other.

Neither the Shia or the Sunni have a living central figure/leader who has the right to make decisions for all Shias or all Sunnis.

[Bob Riebe]

Neither the Shia or the Sunni have a living central figure/leader who has the right to make decisions for all Shias or all Sunnis.
Nope they have dead ones, that makes them more dangerous.

[Mark]

Another thing that I would say didn't help any plea for patience or using an alternate means to make them surrender (an invasion) was the American experience with Japanese suicide attacks. Well before the end of the war, the Japanese had gained a reputation as fierce warriors who preferred death over surrender. To them, surrender meant dishonor. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. While I greatly admire that way of thinking, I know that it also means that if you don't win, you are likely going to die. And if that was your philosophy in 1940, don't be crying the blues in 2010.

Which is what made the Pacific a little different from Europe. At least the Germans, if surrounded and faced with a hopeless situation would be more likely to surrender (despite frequent orders from Hitler to fight until the last man). Whereas you knew with the Japanese it was going to be a fight to the death.

[DexDexter]

Funny thing about Americans and our culture. We will roll over for all kinds of nonsense so you never really know what you might do that will thoroughly piss us off. However, once pissed, we are an extremely dangerous adversary and will do whatever is seen fit to destroy you and your ability to make war. Note that "insurgencies" and general hooliganism does not constitute war in the conventional sense of a recognized government fielding conventional forces against the same.
.

No doubt, the US is the biggest military power in the world, I don't think anybody disagrees with you. In fact you guys are very lucky, you've never had to fight a total war like we Finns, for example. Nobody's attacked your mainland soil with all they've got. Bombing a military base isn't really the same thing as dozens of planes bombing your capital city or hundreds of thousands of soldiers crossing your borders with an aim to destroy you and your culture.

[Tazio]

No doubt, the US is the biggest military power in the world, I don't think anybody disagrees with you. In fact you guys are very lucky, you've never had to fight a total war like we Finns, for example. Nobody's attacked your mainland soil with all they've got. Bombing a military base isn't really the same thing as dozens of planes bombing your capital city or hundreds of thousands of soldiers crossing your borders with an aim to destroy you and your culture.Having fought a devastating civil war I think America qualifies as having fought in total war.
I believe we didn't equal the amount of casualties during that conflict alone, from all other wars we were involved in combined untill The First Iraq War. :dozey:

[Mark]

Having fought a devastating civil war I think America qualifies as having fought in total war.
I believe we didn't equal the amount of casualties during that conflict alone, from all other wars we were involved in combined untill The First Iraq War. :dozey:

The American civil war was devastating, of that there is no question. But it was still more leaned towards the older type of limited conflict, of large armies fighting it out on battlefields. There were aspects of total war in there, but they were not all encompassing.

[Tazio]

The American civil war was devastating, of that there is no question. But it was still more leaned towards the older type of limited conflict, of large armies fighting it out on battlefields. There were aspects of total war in there, but they were not all encompassing.I beg to disagree my man! :vader:
You need to bone up on your American Civil War History. Pay close attention to Sherman’s march to the sea. Talk about a people willing to fight to the death. Southern prisoner of war camps that made Russia look like “Club Med" There was nothing left of the Confederacy. Scorched Earth Policy that made what the Germans did to Western Russia look like Something Wade would do to the street in front of his house. :s ailor:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Having fought a devastating civil war I think America qualifies as having fought in total war.
I believe we didn't equal the amount of casualties during that conflict alone, from all other wars we were involved in combined untill The First Iraq War. :dozey:
Actually, More American's died in the US Civil War than in any other war, and it isn't even clos.

First Iraq war? The US lost maybe 4000 casaulties in all those years in Iraq....That many died in Pickett's charge at Gettysburg......

The US Civil War was a TOTAL war. The most lethal conflict of that century.....and the first war where the civilians were in the crosshairs, as it was mentioned. Sherman's March to the Sea and the sacking of Columbia SC later on was as vicious as anything seen in years...

[Tazio]

Actually, More American's died in the US Civil War than in any other war, and it isn't even clos.

First Iraq war? The US lost maybe 4000 casaulties in all those years in Iraq....That many died in Pickett's charge at Gettysburg......

The US Civil War was a TOTAL war. The most lethal conflict of that century.....and the first war where the civilians were in the crosshairs, as it was mentioned. Sherman's March to the Sea and the sacking of Columbia SC later on was as vicious as anything seen in years...Ok Mark you misunderstood my comment (which was awkwardly worded) let me try again:
There were more U.S, casualties in "The American Civil War" than in all other US wars combined up until that number was reached during the first gulf war. You’re dealing with an American over here, one that is your elder! ;) :s ailor:

[Tazio]

BTW This was my mother's (who considered herself a tremendous patriot) favorite poem.

Barbara Frietchie

Up from the meadows rich with corn,
Clear in the cool September morn,

The clustered spires of Frederick stand
Green-walled by the hills of Maryland.

Round about them orchards sweep,
Apple and peach tree fruited deep,

Fair as the garden of the Lord
To the eyes of the famished rebel horde,

On that pleasant morn of the early fall
When Lee marched over the mountain-wall;

Over the mountains winding down,
Horse and foot, into Frederick town.

Forty flags with their silver stars,
Forty flags with their crimson bars,

Flapped in the morning wind: the sun
Of noon looked down, and saw not one.

Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then,
Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;

Bravest of all in Frederick town,
She took up the flag the men hauled down;

In her attic window the staff she set,
To show that one heart was loyal yet,

Up the street came the rebel tread,
Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.

Under his slouched hat left and right
He glanced; the old flag met his sight.

'Halt!' - the dust-brown ranks stood fast.
'Fire!' - out blazed the rifle-blast.

It shivered the window, pane and sash;
It rent the banner with seam and gash.

Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff
Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf.

She leaned far out on the window-sill,
And shook it forth with a royal will.

'Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag,' she said.

A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
Over the face of the leader came;

The nobler nature within him stirred
To life at that woman's deed and word;

'Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog! March on! he said.

All day long through Frederick street
Sounded the tread of marching feet:

All day long that free flag tost
Over the heads of the rebel host.

Ever its torn folds rose and fell
On the loyal winds that loved it well;

And through the hill-gaps sunset light
Shone over it with a warm good-night.

Barbara Frietchie's work is o'er,
And the Rebel rides on his raids nor more.

Honor to her! and let a tear
Fall, for her sake, on Stonewalls' bier.

Over Barbara Frietchie's grave,
Flag of Freedom and Union, wave!

Peace and order and beauty draw
Round they symbol of light and law;

And ever the stars above look down
On thy stars below in Frederick town!

John Greenleaf Whittier

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok Mark you misunderstood my comment (which was awkwardly worded) let me try again:
There were more U.S, casualties in "The American Civil War" than in all other US wars combined up until that number was reached during the first gulf war. You’re dealing with an American over here, one that is your elder! ;) :s ailor:

I can only go by what I read....but that is ok. I am glad you clairified it....and you are correct.

I just am a big reader and fan of US Civil War history...but the first thing you learn when reading that is the slaughter that was that war....and it was the reason why the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WW1 and WW2. Unlike the European powers, Americans in 1914 knew what happens when you put masses of men in front of rapid firing weapons....

[DexDexter]

Actually, More American's died in the US Civil War than in any other war, and it isn't even clos.

First Iraq war? The US lost maybe 4000 casaulties in all those years in Iraq....That many died in Pickett's charge at Gettysburg......

The US Civil War was a TOTAL war. The most lethal conflict of that century.....and the first war where the civilians were in the crosshairs, as it was mentioned. Sherman's March to the Sea and the sacking of Columbia SC later on was as vicious as anything seen in years...

I took a course on the US Civil War at the university and from what I remember the medicine of the time didn't make the casualties any lower since they didn't know anything about, for example, hygiene.

[anthonyvop]

There were more U.S, casualties in "The American Civil War" than in all other US wars combined up until that number was reached during the first gulf war.

The U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths in the Persian Gulf War.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I took a course on the US Civil War at the university and from what I remember the medicine of the time didn't make the casualties any lower since they didn't know anything about, for example, hygiene.

Well no one really did back then. It was all thought about as the war went on though. The effort was made in the end.

No...in many ways, it was the first modern war. First use of Ironclad's against each other, first real use of railways for logistics on a mass scale. First war to use a form of the machine gun (the Gatling gun saw action in the latter part of the war for the Union). First use of aviation (balloons) for artillery spotting.

What you see in WW1 was the height of what was started in Crimea and later in the US Civil War, or as my southern friends would say, the "War between the States"

[Tazio]

The U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths in the Persian Gulf War. It is my understanding that that number (if it is correct) took us over the top.
:s ailor: So what is your point? :confused:

[anthonyvop]

It is my understanding that that number (if it is correct)
Your not


took us over the top.

your wrong.


:s ailor: So what is your point? :confused:

Isn't it obvious?

[Tazio]

your wrong.



Isn't it obvious?No it is not Mensa. :crazy:
Military Casualty: "A serviceman who is killed, wounded, captured, or missing as a result of enemy action."
The comment is one I heard made at the time. I don't even remember the source.
Perhaps you can produce a list of all U.S. War casualties per conflict and we can compare them with one from just The Civil War, one that includes all casualties.

What is obvious is that you are an antagonistic Troll :dozey:

[Roamy]

Screw all this who cares - move on. We are going to have to worry about surviving the next nuclear war. China now has the big aircraft carrier missile good to 1000 miles. Russia is building enough sh!t and lying to the Mac Daddy. Iran will come on full fledge in a couple of years. Something is gonna glow and I hope it won't be us. Maybe the TIREs have the right idea - let them all in and we only have to worry about the roadside bombs.

[DexDexter]

Screw all this who cares - move on. We are going to have to worry about surviving the next nuclear war. China now has the big aircraft carrier missile good to 1000 miles. Russia is building enough sh!t and lying to the Mac Daddy. Iran will come on full fledge in a couple of years. Something is gonna glow and I hope it won't be us. Maybe the TIREs have the right idea - let them all in and we only have to worry about the roadside bombs.

That talk belongs to 80's, now the only real danger is a dirty bomb by terrorists, and sadly that is a very real possibility.

[anthonyvop]

That talk belongs to 80's, now the only real danger is a dirty bomb by terrorists, and sadly that is a very real possibility.

George Santayana would hold you up as a shining example.

[Eki]

George Santayana would hold you up as a shining example.
Hannu Salama would hold you up as a flaming idiot.

[DexDexter]

George Santayana would hold you up as a shining example.

Who is he? Any relation to Carlos Santana, him I know... :D Edit: And by the way, you cannot "repeat" a nuclear war.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Who is he? Any relation to Carlos Santana, him I know... :D Edit: And by the way, you cannot "repeat" a nuclear war.

George Santayana was a Spanish philosopher I believe, but I don't know any of his work.

[anthonyvop]

George Santayana was a Spanish philosopher I believe, but I don't know any of his work.

Spanish/American Philosopher best known for:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[anthonyvop]

you cannot "repeat" a nuclear war.

You can't?


Ask the Japanese!

[janvanvurpa]

Actually, More American's died in the US Civil War than in any other war, and it isn't even clos.

First Iraq war? The US lost maybe 4000 casaulties in all those years in Iraq....That many died in Pickett's charge at Gettysburg......

The US Civil War was a TOTAL war. The most lethal conflict of that century.....and the first war where the civilians were in the crosshairs, as it was mentioned. Sherman's March to the Sea and the sacking of Columbia SC later on was as vicious as anything seen in years...


mark, wrong as usual, Why do you write without any effort, and superficial effort at being correct/
I know you wannabe an American, is this constant exaggeration and near constant always wrong a part of your trying to "pass' schtick?

less than 1 seconds reseach gets you some real figures for what you insanely, absurdly, make up for Picketts charge dead figures:

Pickett's Charge was a bloodbath. While the Union lost about 1,500 killed and wounded, the Confederate casualty rate was over 50%.
Pickett's division suffered 2,655 casualties --->>(498 killed, ,<----643 wounded, 833 wounded and captured, and 681 captured, unwounded). Pettigrew's losses are estimated to be about 2,700 (470 killed, 1,893 wounded, 337 captured). Trimble's two brigades lost 885 (155 killed, 650 wounded, and 80 captured). Wilcox's brigade reported losses of 200, Lang's about 400. Thus, total losses during the attack were 6,555, of which at least ---.1,123 Confederates were killed,--- on the battlefield, 4,019 were wounded, and a good number of the injured were also captured. Confederate prisoner totals are difficult to estimate from their reports; Union reports indicated that 3,750 men were captured.

It is monstrously exaggerated figures made up, and repeated with never a second's effort by people like you which gives Americans an absurdly twisted, wrong and puffed up sense of themselves, and which underlies the common and justified opinions of most of the world that Americans are both irredeemably ignorant and blowhards not worth attempting to converse with..

You fit right in..

It was bloody enough, why do you have to make up figures 400% higher?

[Bob Riebe]

The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222


The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000


The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:

The Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War.

Some of the great blood baths of the war came as Grant drove on Richmond in the spring of 1864- Confederate casualties are missing for this campaign, but were enormous. The Federal toll:The Wilderness, May 5-7: 17,666
Spotsylvania, May 10 and 12: 10,920
Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16 4,160
Cold Harbor, June 1-3: 12,000
Petersburg, June 15-30 16,569


These total 61,315, with rolls of the missing incomplete.
The Appomattox campaign, about ten days of running battles ending April 9, 1865, cost the Union about 11,000 casualties, and ended in the surrender of Lee's remnant of 26,765. Confederate dead and wounded in the meantime were about 6,500.
Lesser battles are famous for their casualties. At Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, General Hood's Confederates lost over 6,000 of 21,000 effectives -most of them in about two hours. Six Confederate generals died there.
Hood lost about 8,ooo men in his assault before Atlanta, July 22, 1864; Sherman's Union forces lost about 3,800.
The small battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, August 10, 1861, was typical of the savagery of much of the war's fighting. The Union force Of 5,400 men lost over 1,200; the Confederates, over 11,000 strong, lost about the same number.
The first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, though famous as the first large engagement, was relatively light in cost: 2,708 for the Union, 1,981 for the Confederates.
The casualty rolls struck home to families and regiments.
The Confederate General, John B. Gordon, cited the case of the Christian family, of Christiansburg, Virginia, which suffered eighteen dead in the war.
The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, in a charge at Petersburg, Virginia, 18 June, 1864, sustained a "record" loss of the war-635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes.
Another challenger is the 26th North Carolina, which lost 714, of its 800 men at Gettysburg-in numbers and percentage the war's greatest losses. On the first day this regiment lost 584 dead and wounded, and when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound.
The 24th Michigan, a gallant Federal regiment which was in front of the North Carolinians on the first day, lost 362 of its 496 men.
More than 3,000 horses were killed at Gettysburg, and one artillery battalion, the 9th Massachusetts, lost 80 of its 88 animals in the Trostle farmyard.
A brigade from Vermont lost 1,645 Of its 2,100 men during a week of fighting in the Wilderness.
The Irish Brigade, Union, had a total muster Of 7,000 during the war, and returned to New York in '65 with 1,000. One company was down to seven men. The 69th New York of this brigade lost 16 of 19 officers, and had 75 per cent casualties among enlisted men.
In the Irish Brigade, Confederate, from Louisiana, Company A dwindled from 90 men to 3 men and an officer in March, '65. Company B went from 100 men to 2.
Experts have pointed out that the famed Light Brigade at Balaklava lost only 36.7 per cent of its men, and that at least 63 Union regiments lost as much as 50 per cent in single battles. At Gettysburg 23 Federal regiments suffered losses of more than half their strength, including the well-known Iron Brigade (886 of 1,538 engaged).
Many terrible casualty tolls were incurred in single engagements, like that of the Polish Regiment of Louisiana at Frayser's Farm during the Seven Days, where the outfit was cut to pieces and had to be consolidated with the 20th Louisiana. In this action one company of the Poles lost 33 of 42 men.
One authority reports that Of 3,530 Indians who fought for the Union, 1,018 were killed, a phenomenally high rate. Of 178,975 Negro Union troops, this expert says, over 36,000 died.
Some regimental losses in battle:Regiment Battle Strength Per Cent
1st Texas, CSA Antietam 226 82.3
1st Minnesota, US Gettysburg 262 82
21st Georgia, CSA Manassas 242 76
141st Pennsylvania, US Gettysburg 198 75.7
101st New York, US Manassas 168 73.8
6th Mississippi, CSA Shiloh 425 70.5
25th Massachusetts, US Cold Harbor 310 70
36th Wisconsin, US Bethesda Church 240 69
20th Massachusetts, US Fredericksburg 238 68.4
8th Tennessee, CSA Stone's River 444 68.7
10th Tennessee, CSA Chickamauga 328 68
8th Vermont, US Cedar Creek 156 67.9
Palmetto Sharpshooters, CSA Frayser's Farm 215 67.7
81st Pennsylvania, US Fredericksburg 261 67.4


Scores of other regiments on both sides registered losses in single engagements of above 50 per cent.
Confederate losses by states, in dead and wounded only, and with many records missing (especially those of Alabama):North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724


(Statisticians recognize these as fragmentary, from a report of 1866; they serve as a rough guide to relative losses by states).

In addition to its dead and wounded from battle and disease, the Union listed :D eaths in Prison 24,866
Drowning 4,944
Accidental deaths 4,144
Murdered 520
Suicides 391
Sunstroke 313
Military executions 267
Killed after capture 104
Executed by enemy 64
Unclassified 14,155


Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts," by Burke Davis

This Page last updated 11/01/04

[Eki]

Almost 5000 drowned in prison? We're they waterboarding?

[DexDexter]

You can't?


Ask the Japanese!

There's never been a nuclear war.

[anthonyvop]

There's never been a nuclear war.

WW2 was a nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons were used so it was a Nuclear war.
In fact it was a "limited" nuclear war. Something my Hammock making, Birkenstock wearing friends said was an impossibility.

[Eki]

WW2 was a nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons were used so it was a Nuclear war.
In fact it was a "limited" nuclear war. Something my Hammock making, Birkenstock wearing friends said was an impossibility.
It was limited only because A-bomb was the biggest the US got and Japan had no nuclear weapons to retaliate with. A nuclear war is a war where both parties have enough nukes to destroy each other completely.

[Bob Riebe]

It was limited only because A-bomb was the biggest the US got and Japan had no nuclear weapons to retaliate with. A nuclear war is a war where both parties have enough nukes to destroy each other completely.
jA-jA-JA-- if that makes you feel better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

WW2 was a nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons were used so it was a Nuclear war.
In fact it was a "limited" nuclear war. Something my Hammock making, Birkenstock wearing friends said was an impossibility.

Limited nuclear war? Boy....like we want to see one of THOSE again!!!

[anthonyvop]

Limited nuclear war? Boy....like we want to see one of THOSE again!!!

Why not?

It worked out great for the Allies! Saved a lot of lives and ended a horrible war.

[Eki]

Why not?

It worked out great for the Allies! Saved a lot of lives and ended a horrible war.
And which horrible war would you like to stop with a nuclear weapon?

What if al-Qaeda managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in Florida, would it still be desirable?

[DexDexter]

Why not?

It worked out great for the Allies! Saved a lot of lives and ended a horrible war.

Come on, quit joking.

[anthonyvop]

And which horrible war would you like to stop with a nuclear weapon?

None right at this time.


What if al-Qaeda managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in Florida, would it still be desirable?
Nope.

But if Hitler had the Bomb and he dropped one on NY you would celebrate it.

[Eki]

But if Hitler had the Bomb and he dropped one on NY you would celebrate it.
It might have stopped the WW2 short and saved lives.

[anthonyvop]

It might have stopped the WW2 short and saved lives.

And you would have loved that. You would celebrate the fact that Hitler could have continue his reign of Terror. You would have been satisfied to know that Hitler was getting rid of the Jews.

You are one sick pup!!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It might have stopped the WW2 short and saved lives.

Hitler save lives? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

Does this win the prize for the most stupid argument ever on these forums? "You love nuclear war!" "You love Hitler!"

[Jag_Warrior]

Come on, quit joking.

He's not joking.

Be afraid. Be very afraid... :dozey:

[ShiftingGears]

It might have stopped the WW2 short and saved lives.

Oh I see what you did there :p :

[anthonyvop]

He's not joking.

Be afraid. Be very afraid... :dozey:

Yea. We all know that hundreds of 1000's of US lives pales in comparison to the lives of those attacked the US and murdered and raped millions!

[Bob Riebe]

With the possible exception of Eki, and his befuddled idea that mankind is good at heart, had the bomb not been used, and no one knew what the results actually were, I guess the Chamberlain wannabes here actually think it would not have been used, probably in a larger quatity later.

[Eki]

Oh I see what you did there :p :
Good. Anthonyvop didn't see, and I was not surprised.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yea. We all know that hundreds of 1000's of US lives pales in comparison to the lives of those attacked the US and murdered and raped millions!

Go back and read the exchange and then get back to me... or not.