WWII In HD

[Del Zeppnile]

Well, I guess Americans behaved better during the war right? It seems you always do.

Well, coming from a Porto-gueeze that would be a typical response. Especially since your nation conveniently remained neutral during that war; your leaders were in fact sympathetic to the facists. And except for the fact that Churchil was able to FORCE your nation into accepting allied bases on your soil; your nation was about as helpful in the greatest fight for liberty in modern times as a fucking horse with no legs. I personally don't know how your people can live with the shame of it even to this day.

You know for every story your family and friends tell you just remember that some Japanese person is listening to the same stories filled with unspeakable horrors of war.

And what "stories" do you have to share about that war my Porto-geeze friend? Stories of your father and uncles having wine and goat cheese while watching British, Canadian and American soldiers sailing past your shores to do battle with Hitler and Mussolini? How nice and romantic your stories must be.

However you are correct, there are "other stories" about that war, other than those told by Americans and Brits.. Stories of the horrific brutality at the hands of the JAPS against the Filipinos, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Burmese, Indians, Polynesisans and many others. Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Yes, read up on it and then tell me that the Japs were somehow only equal to the Allies in their brutality. Don't you dare lecture me or any other American, Brit, Austrailian, Canadian or grandson of any other Allied soldier about what we know of the Imperial Japanese and thier war against humanity. You can kiss my big white American ass buddy!

In war everybody's a victim, so they have every right to play the victim card as the Americans. Anyway that was so long ago, I always wonder what does it have to do with us now?

WTF does that mean? "In war everybody is a victim"??? How about putting the BLAME on the aggressors you simpleton! How about putting the blame on the Japs and Nazis instead of attempting to place some moral equivalency upon the good guys who were forced to fight those animal bastards?

In fact, you don't even have a right to comment on this topic. I forbid you to open you silly mouth any further on the subject. Japanese and Germans have a right to speak about this topic more than you. They actually have a right to their perspective even if, as in the case with the Jap apologists for the war, I strongly disagree with them. But no member of Portugal should ever say one f-ing word in critisism of Americans of Brits... NOT EVER! You get that Nancy boy!

In keeping with thread: I've always been interested in the subject of WWII and after seeing this post I've been looking at some documentaries on youtube of WWII In Color, great stuff.

Well let us know when you find any clips of Portugese soldiers storming the beaches of Africa, Italy, France or some stinking jungle rock in the Pacific while fighting evil will you? Be sure to share all the brave stories of arial combat and heroic actions by brave young men from your family will you, because we are all just dying to hear them... okay Assclown?

[Joao]

Well, coming from a Porto-gueeze that would be a typical response. Especially since your nation conveniently remained neutral during that war; your leaders were in fact sympathetic to the facists. And except for the fact that Churchil was able to FORCE your nation into accepting allied bases on your soil; your nation was about as helpful in the greatest fight for liberty in modern times as a fucking horse with no legs. I personally don't know how your people can live with the shame of it even to this day.

And what "stories" do you have to share about that war my Porto-geeze friend? Stories of your father and uncles having wine and goat cheese while watching British, Canadian and American soldiers sailing past your shores to do battle with Hitler and Mussolini? How nice and romantic your stories must be.

However you are correct, there are "other stories" about that war, other than those told by Americans and Brits.. Stories of the horrific brutality at the hands of the JAPS against the Filipinos, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Burmese, Indians, Polynesisans and many others. Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? Yes, read up on it and then tell me that the Japs were somehow only equal to the Allies in their brutality. Don't you dare lecture me or any other American, Brit, Austrailian, Canadian or grandson of any other Allied soldier about what we know of the Imperial Japanese and thier war against humanity. You can kiss my big white American ass buddy!

WTF does that mean? "In war everybody is a victim"??? How about putting the BLAME on the aggressors you simpleton! How about putting the blame on the Japs and Nazis instead of attempting to place some moral equivalency upon the good guys who were forced to fight those animal bastards?

In fact, you don't even have a right to comment on this topic. I forbid you to open you silly mouth any further on the subject. Japanese and Germans have a right to speak about this topic more than you. They actually have a right to their perspective even if, as in the case with the Jap apologists for the war, I strongly disagree with them. But no member of Portugal should ever say one f-ing word in critisism of Americans of Brits... NOT EVER! You get that Nancy boy!

Well let us know when you find any clips of Portugese soldiers storming the beaches of Africa, Italy, France or some stinking jungle rock in the Pacific while fighting evil will you? Be sure to share all the brave stories of arial combat and heroic actions by brave young men from your family will you, because we are all just dying to hear them... okay Assclown?

Haha, I have to congratulate you, your post was even better than I expected. I had a good time reading your insults and logic, very entertaining indeed and I'm being honest here.

Ok, now for some serious posting:

Yes it's true what you said about Portugal and WWII, hey you had a Dictator, I guess many people don't know that because he was a very simple and modest man. I don't think any Portuguese is proud of those times, except some old people who are always wishing for the good ol'days to return. Yeah we remained neutral but so many nations did the same, besides what do I have to do with it?

We did participate in WWI so you might find some footage about that if you're so interested.

We have plenty of history man, we're one of the older countries in the world, our foundation dates back tho 11th century, and we did so fighting the moors which are the modern day muslims. We have centuries of battles and we started something called "The Age of Discoveries" in 15th century that eventually led to the "discover" of the continent of north america. We used to have an Empire much like that one Britain once had after us.

We have a vast history. This only goes to show you, sitting on that high chair of yours, that there is a world out there, and there was a time were the colonies of america were nothing but that, colonies. I'm not hating on America, god knows there are a lot of those who do it already, in fact I love American culture and history, well I love culture and history period, I'm only trying to show that history is full of powerful countries that fell, countries and civilizations with a vast and rich history, go learn some history and you might learn something other than arrogance and disdain for other countries.

[Mangani]

Well, I guess Americans behaved better during the war right? It seems you always do.

Well yes the Americans did behave better than the Japanese during WW2. Far far better.

[Mangani]

We have plenty of history man, we're one of the older countries in the world, our foundation dates back tho 11th century, and we did so fighting the moors which are the modern day muslims. We have centuries of battles and we started something called "The Age of Discoveries" in 15th century that eventually led to the "discover" of the continent of north america. We used to have an Empire much like that one Britain once had after us.

Yes that's true. And I believe that Portugal is the oldest ally England has, going back over 600 years. Portugal helped England during wars against the Spanish and French.

[Mangani]

Until Japan apologizes, I mean really apologizes and stops playing the victim card for their actions in WW2; I will continue to call them Japs or worse.

Like I said, Jap isn't a derogatory word. It's just an abbreviation. I won't stop using it. It's not like you are using the word 'Nip' or 'slit eyes'. They would be insults but the word Jap (as far as I'm concerned) is no worse than Brit or Aussie and it's definitely not as bad as saying 'Frog' or 'Kraut'.

So to those who forbid me to say the word Jap, get stuffed. If it's good enough for Formula One then it's good enough for me.

You are also completely right about the Japanese reluctance to admit blame for what they did in WW2. Many Japanese don't accept their country did anything wrong, unlike the Germans who still tend to have a guilt complex decades later.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Mangani

[Del Zeppnile]

Like I said, Jap isn't a derogatory word. It's just an abbreviation. I won't stop using it. It's not like you are using the word 'Nip' or 'slit eyes'. They would be insults but the word Jap (as far as I'm concerned) is no worse than Brit or Aussie and it's definitely not as bad as saying 'Frog' or 'Kraut'.

You are correct sir, it is not offensive in anyway other than the fact that the Japs choose to claim it as being so for no logical reason. And for all the fiercness and bravery of the Jap soliders (although never as effective a fighter as any Yank, Tommy or even The Hun). How they could be such crybabies about the term even to this day is almost facinating. Must have something to do with that infantile Asian custom of "saving face." Something probably pretty hard to do coming from a nation of servient drones who were handily handed their hats in that war.

So to those who forbid me to say the word Jap, get stuffed. If it's good enough for Formula One then it's good enough for me.

Here! Here! Well played sir!

You are also completely right about the Japanese reluctance to admit blame for what they did in WW2. Many Japanese don't accept their country did anything wrong, unlike the Germans who still tend to have a guilt complex decades later.

I work with a 30 something Japanese guy who was born and raised in Japan, but moved with his parents to the U.S. at around age 10. He once told me that as you young boy new to school here in America he was made fun of because he argued in class that the Japanese had won WW2. He told me that he was completly unaware of the true facts regarding the war, and was shocked to learn that he had been lied to in his Japanese history classes in Japan and also by his parents.

This is not an exageration by me, it is the truth. Currently there remains much bad blood between the Chinese and the Japs over Japanese textbooks in Japan. It is a very touchy issue, but the Chinese are angry that Japan still teaches their children that China was not only the agressor in WW2, but also that Japan's part was not brutal. Japan's only response to the charge that they have attempted to re-write the history, has been only to say that their actions in the war were "regretable." No real apology.

And did you hear the news conference in Japan where a Jap reporter asked President Obama if he was sorry for the use of atomic bombs against Japan? Obama did not answer the question (actually acted like he did not hear it). But what he should have said in reply was something like, " Well, is your country sorry for attacking my country and also for other countless acts of rape, murder and brutality?" That's what I would have said to that weasle Jap reporter. F- them for not accepting responsibility for their war! They should be lucky that we didn't scalp the whole tribe of them and hang their shrunken heads from the rearview mirrors of our big American cars as decorations.

Now I need to further "educate" another member of the NATO alliance (one that has never held up their end) and who seems to have come back for a second helping of Del.

[Del Zeppnile]

Haha, I have to congratulate you, your post was even better than I expected. I had a good time reading your insults and logic, very entertaining indeed and I'm being honest here.

Well, I'm pleased that you have been not only amused, but also informed through my posts.

Entertainment and education are just two of the many services I provide here.

Yes it's true what you said about Portugal and WWII, hey you had a Dictator, I guess many people don't know that because he was a very simple and modest man. I don't think any Portuguese is proud of those times, except some old people who are always wishing for the good ol'days to return. Yeah we remained neutral but so many nations did the same, besides what do I have to do with it?

You had nothing to do with it and that is the point. Not you, your father or even your grandfather had anything to do with the Pacific war with Japan (your nation sat that one out). So it really makes no sense for you to presume to make any judgement on the perspectives of the members of any nation who's blood and treasure was expended in that war. Better to remain silent just like your guns were.... get it?

We did participate in WWI so you might find some footage about that if you're so interested.

Very true. Germany declared war on Portugal in WWI, much to your nation's dismay.

We have plenty of history man, we're one of the older countries in the world, our foundation dates back tho 11th century, and we did so fighting the moors which are the modern day muslims.

The reconquesta as well as other European wars to oppose Islam were of great importance to civilization and the world at large. But I was not critisizing you for any of that. We were talking about why America was not in anyway the agressor against Japan, and the underlying sentiments on that issue.

We have centuries of battles and we started something called "The Age of Discoveries" in 15th century that eventually led to the "discover" of the continent of north america. We used to have an Empire much like that one Britain once had after us.

I wouldn't exactly put your "empire" in the same category of the British Empire. Not unless you are going to next attempt to compare such colonies as Angola, Mozambique and Brazil to the United States, Canada and Austrailia.

We have a vast history. This only goes to show you, sitting on that high chair of yours, that there is a world out there, and there was a time were the colonies of america were nothing but that, colonies.

I beleive it's pretty much a forgone conlusion that even as a "colony" (and never a Portugese colony as I pointed out), that America was a much more significant nation than Portugal could ever hope to be.

Hell, just the state of Texas all by itslelf pretty much has you all beat. LOL!

I'm not hating on America, god knows there are a lot of those who do it already, in fact I love American culture and history, well I love culture and history period, I'm only trying to show that history is full of powerful countries that fell, countries and civilizations with a vast and rich history, go learn some history and you might learn something other than arrogance and disdain for other countries.

And I'm not hating on Portugal either. Just amused that you would attempt to compare the Imperial Japanese to the United States.

And I am not on some "high chair" either pal. Although I have taken my time to further entertain and educate you. Plus give you a 'reality check' which BTW is just another of the services I provide.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

That's very very true and I would agree with you for the most part. Like I said though, Hitler ordered the 50mm L/60 gun as early as 1940 and it would have been available (at least in small numbers)for the summer '41 Barbarossa offensive if they had got their fingers out but obviously they didn't feel the need was there. If they had known all about the T34s and KVs I'm sure it would have been a top priority in the months leading up to June 1941 to have the 50mm L/60 in their Panzer IIIs, if only a proportionate number of them. But there were none with the L/60 50mm.

That was the problem with a leadership as the Nazi's, the Fuhrer was the first and last word on what and how thing's where done. We have our own setback's in our government but it's settled with debate's in congress ect...

That's a new one for me. I had never heard of that before. I'm shocked at that. Hitler seemed to take a keen interest in many other weapons developments. He had an in depth knowledge of tank developments and followed them very closely. In fact it was largely through his demand that German tanks got bigger and bigger.

Again, it's not possible for one man to know/lead what is going on in a whole country all on his own! There are may example's of this through out the war. It was also part (a small part) of the Nazi defeat, in a battle and war some order's need to be given by the commander's in the field and not by the leader in the big chair.

The design team's presented Hitler with the mean's to win (at least prolong) the war and Hitler was still living in the past or just someone who was unable to think in the time's to come.

Another example, did you know that Hitler limited the development of all jet aircraft because he thought bomber's would win the war? Bomber's with an on target accuracy of a mile and more? What a joke he was! Sorry if it offends anyone here but I speak the truth!

Even though the Soviets wanted a bigger and more powerful tank to take on the German Tigers and Panthers, the Soviet IS was mainly intended to be a breakthrough tank at weak points in the line (so the claim goes). It's 'high explosive' round was devastating on soft targets. It really didn't have more than 12 rounds of 'armour piercing' shot though and that's a shockingly low number if you are caught in a prolonged fire fight aganist Tigers and Panthers. There was a large battle in May 1944 in eastern Romania where the Grossdeutschland Panzer Divison met IS-2s in numbers for the first time. The Tiger and Panthers had the upper hand because of the long range accuracy of their guns and their ability to fire many more quick shots as well as having superior tactics in open country.

The IS-2 gun was still good and was a danger to even the Tiger and Panther frontally with AP but the Soviet 100mm was better but only the SU100 tank destroyer was fitted with that gun in WW2. It was later seen on the T54/T55 post war.

The German's had the upper hand with there armor indeed, Tiger's had been around for a while (late 1942) and that would give them a great advantage in a battle as the better your crew knows the weapon, the more bug's that have been worked out, the better your odds are at coming up on the winning side of the engagement!

SU100 tank destroyer, most likely designed as a direct reply to the thick armor of the Tiger (up to 104mm) and then the King Tiger (180mm) as well. It only had 75mm of front armor but it packed a wallop in its gun!! With the main gun being on a coaxial movement (no rotating turret), that would have been a downfall of the design, I guess they wanted to just get into range (1500m) and get out as soon as they fired.

Yep, and the sories of how they moved whole factories east of the Ural Mountains when the Germans advanced are amazing. It was the largest industrial migration in history. A truely awesome feat.

Yeah, I remember reading about that too, that was a huge task but they did it!

Great vids. Thanks.

Welcome

That first video with the Panther, I have actually seen that tank up close. I have photos of it. It's at the army technical museum in Koblenz on the Rhine. Nice museum to stop off at, if you are ever over than way.

Cool was it running? You get to climb on it? When I get that way I'll drop in for sure!

[Joao]

Well yes the Americans did behave better than the Japanese during WW2. Far far better.

That's your opinion, I really don't have an opinion aside from thinking that no one is innocent in a war.

Yes that's true. And I believe that Portugal is the oldest ally England has, going back over 600 years. Portugal helped England during wars against the Spanish and French.

Oldest allies yes. I think it's the oldest alliance between two countries in the world, even though it doesn't mean much these days. I don't think the Spanish have any intentions of invading us anytime soon.

Like I said, Jap isn't a derogatory word. It's just an abbreviation. I won't stop using it. It's not like you are using the word 'Nip' or 'slit eyes'. They would be insults but the word Jap (as far as I'm concerned) is no worse than Brit or Aussie and it's definitely not as bad as saying 'Frog' or 'Kraut'.

So to those who forbid me to say the word Jap, get stuffed. If it's good enough for Formula One then it's good enough for me.

You are also completely right about the Japanese reluctance to admit blame for what they did in WW2. Many Japanese don't accept their country did anything wrong, unlike the Germans who still tend to have a guilt complex decades later.

I don't find the word Jap derogatory either, but that can be easily explained: english isn't my mother tongue.

If there are Japanese who don't accept that they're country did anything wrong, then they're exactly like any other person so blindly proud of their country that they can't see their own mistakes. I'm no pacifist, war is a tragic thing but it's a human thing also, and some times there isn't another alternative. But I'm no hypocrite either, I know that if I went to war I would be killing other people too, people as innocent as me.

[Joao]

Well, I'm pleased that you have been not only amused, but also informed through my posts.

Entertainment and education are just two of the many services I provide here.

You had nothing to do with it and that is the point. Not you, your father or even your grandfather had anything to do with the Pacific war with Japan (your nation sat that one out). So it really makes no sense for you to presume to make any judgement on the perspectives of the members of any nation who's blood and treasure was expended in that war. Better to remain silent just like your guns were.... get it?

Yeah I get it nice one there, maybe you should learn from our example. I have thought for some time about whether I should speak about topics that doesn't directly involve me like politics in the US, war and... you know what I mean. But I thought why not? No one is free from being judge by others, that's what I call freedom. I'm perfect aware that my knowledge on such topics can be limited but I try and give a different perspective that's all.

Very true. Germany declared war on Portugal in WWI, much to your nation's dismay.

I don't know who declared war on who, so I'm assuming you're right. It probably has something to do with our alliance with England which Mangani pointed out.

The reconquesta as well as other European wars to oppose Islam were of great importance to civilization and the world at large. But I was not critisizing you for any of that. We were talking about why America was not in anyway the agressor against Japan, and the underlying sentiments on that issue.

I got a bit off topic I know.

You were attacked and responded. Fine. You didn't do anything wrong there. Just don't think that American soldiers are these pure humans full of good intentions and incapable of committing atrocities or war crimes. I always noticed that Americans have a nice way of rewriting history and forget things like the bombing of cities in Germany or Japan, millions of civilians killed by allied troops. Not only Americans other nations too but that doesn't make it right.

I wouldn't exactly put your "empire" in the same category of the British Empire. Not unless you are going to next attempt to compare such colonies as Angola, Mozambique and Brazil to the United States, Canada and Austrailia.

Hey an Empire is an Empire, we had gold and sugar from Brazil, spices from our colonies in India, and slaves from Africa which obviously is a bad thing, but which nation can say that they didn't do anything wrong during their history?

I beleive it's pretty much a forgone conlusion that even as a "colony" (and never a Portugese colony as I pointed out), that America was a much more significant nation than Portugal could ever hope to be.

Hell, just the state of Texas all by itslelf pretty much has you all beat. LOL!

Are we back in Kindergarten? Seriously? I'm proud of my country and I don't feel like my country is less or more, for that matter, than any other country.

And I'm not hating on Portugal either. Just amused that you would attempt to compare the Imperial Japanese to the United States.

And I am not on some "high chair" either pal. Although I have taken my time to further entertain and educate you. Plus give you a 'reality check' which BTW is just another of the services I provide.

I guess you contradicted yourself there. I guess I should be honored that you've taken your time to come down here and talk to me.

I know this might be hard for you to accept but please just hang in there I know you can live with it: America isn't the greatest country in the world, there isn't such thing as the greatest country in the world, and your country did some bad things in the past. Now the good news is every country did so you don't need to feel bad because the US isn't some beacon of light on a hill (did I get that historic sentence right?).

[Mangani]

That's your opinion, I really don't have an opinion aside from thinking that no one is innocent in a war.

It's not just my opinion it's a historical fact. The American soldiers didn't go around torturing and brutally massacaring women and children and the Americans stuck to the Geneva Convention with their prisoners of war.

The brutal treatment the Japanese handed out in their invasion of China (amongst others) and their disgraceful treatment of prisoners of war are historical fact. We all know about the Rape of Nanking, The Burma Death Railway, the Bataan Death March etc etc. The photos of Japanese officers cruelly beheading Allied prisoners of war etc etc. None of these can be denied.

Oldest allies yes. I think it's the oldest alliance between two countries in the world, even though it doesn't mean much these days. I don't think the Spanish have any intentions of invading us anytime soon.

Yes I believe you might be right. The alliance took a nose dive when you sent us Christiano Ronaldo though.

If there are Japanese who don't accept that they're country did anything wrong, then they're exactly like any other person so blindly proud of their country that they can't see their own mistakes. I'm no pacifist, war is a tragic thing but it's a human thing also, and some times there isn't another alternative. But I'm no hypocrite either, I know that if I went to war I would be killing other people too, people as innocent as me.

True. Very true. But like I said, many Japanese were taught that they were the innocent victims and that their country didn't do much wrong. Contrast that to the Germans.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Mangani

[Del Zeppnile]

Yeah I get it nice one there, maybe you should learn from our example. I have thought for some time about whether I should speak about topics that doesn't directly involve me like politics in the US, war and... you know what I mean. But I thought why not? No one is free from being judge by others, that's what I call freedom. I'm perfect aware that my knowledge on such topics can be limited but I try and give a different perspective that's all.

You are entitled to your "perspective", however I would really do my homework before making any claim that any American atrocities against the Japanese are even worth mentioning in view of the scale of Imperial Japan's aggession against so many innocent people during WW2.

You were attacked and responded. Fine. You didn't do anything wrong there. Just don't think that American soldiers are these pure humans full of good intentions and incapable of committing atrocities or war crimes.

Nobody has ever said that American soliders are not capable of, or have never committed any crimes. I certainly never did. However I question your wisdom to imply that there was any equivalency when comparing ANY actions by Americans against the Japanese... even with the use of Atomic bombs. Japan was clearly the aggressor, and they were so against other innocent nations even before they attacked the United States.

For you to say "American soldiers are not these pure..." in context to what occured in WW2 with our enemies; would be like saying, 'British and American soldiers used unecessary force against the Nazis while liberating concentration camps where millions were killed' --- it makes no logical or moral sense.

I always noticed that Americans have a nice way of rewriting history and forget things like the bombing of cities in Germany or Japan, millions of civilians killed by allied troops. Not only Americans other nations too but that doesn't make it right.

You are a fool. Of course it is right to fight evil. You mentioned how Portugal fought against Islam centuries ago to liberate their land. Are you then going to say now that using deadly force against your enemies was "not right"? That it made you just as bad as them because you used force? That there are no circumstances where a nation may defend itself by use of military force? And that the mere political will to defend a nation, or to save others is not something that is good?

People like you disgust me. You complain about the bombing of Germany and Japan by the allies, but you convienently diminish the unspeakable HORRORS perpetrated against humanity by those regimes. Of course there were civilians killed, it's not as if aerial bombing was as surgical an operation as it is today. There are estimates that nearly 70 thousand French civilians were killed by American and British bombing in our operations to free that nation from Nazi occupation... and the French were our allies. A terrible fact of war, but for you to tell me that civilians were killed is not exactly news to me. Certainly it would have been very nice of we did not have to bomb the cities of our enemies. But it would have been nice if they had just surrendered and not forced us to take the extreme measures we had too either. And yes, we even targeted their cities. But we did this to win the war and save lives. Not only the lives of our soldiers, but also the lives our enemies. We desired to end the war.

And you sit there and pass judgment on how we fought that war from the comfort of your home many years later. How nice and convienent that must be. But maybe you should consider this little fact: What did the Western allies (not the Soviets) do after defeating the Germans, Japanese and Italians? Did we convert their lands into our "empires"? Did we enslave their people and plunder their recourses? Or did we rebuild their lands, give them their liberty and welcome them into the family of feedom loving nations? How dare you sit in judgement of us you idiot?

Hey an Empire is an Empire, we had gold and sugar from Brazil, spices from our colonies in India, and slaves from Africa which obviously is a bad thing, but which nation can say that they didn't do anything wrong during their history?

Are we back in Kindergarten? Seriously? I'm proud of my country and I don't feel like my country is less or more, for that matter, than any other country.

Every nation has done things wrong. But how many things has your nation done right? If all you have to be proud about is plundered gold and sugar from Brazil, then good luck.

And BTW, you might stop trying to be proud of the Portugese 'empire' as compared to such great empires as the British Empire. There is really no comparison that can be made there. Nobody outside of your country even remembers anything your nation did that was great. No one like a Winston Churchill, a Napoleaon, Julius Ceasar, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi or anything. No wonder you have difficulty dealing with proud members of other proud nations. It's not something that is in your personal experience.

I guess I should be honored that you've taken your time to come down here and talk to me.

Actually you should be honored that I have taken more than just a few words to talk to you about the reality of good vs. evil. I'm sure you haven't had much of that before in your life. It's not something that you probably talk much about in Portugal... the nation that was sympathetic to Hitler.

I know this might be hard for you to accept but please just hang in there I know you can live with it: America isn't the greatest country in the world, there isn't such thing as the greatest country in the world, and your country did some bad things in the past.

And of course you realize that Portugal isn't even amoung the top 50 greatest nations in the world. So hearing your complaint about my country is only marginally more comical than someone from Bangladesh saying America isn't all that great.

Now the good news is every country did so you don't need to feel bad because the US isn't some beacon of light on a hill (did I get that historic sentence right?).

Which is why so few people from around the world have wanted to leave their native lands and come to America for the last 200 years. Because we are not the beacon of light or freedom, right? Obviously more people think 'Portugal first' when deciding to find a better life where they can be free AND PROUD... don't forget the part about being proud.

That was sarcasm just in case you had difficutly figuring that out.

Good luck with the rest of your education. But please, maybe have someone else be your teacher for awhile. I have other things better to do. Maybe like talk with some of my proud Brit friends here about WW2 and the greatest generation who fought in that war. So please don't feel left out if we leave you out of the conversation.

But of oourse we will have to leave you out. LOL

[greenman]

Yeah and I wonder why that is? I use the word to describe my Jap car; Jap food; cute little Jap chicks, and those silly little sandles that we used to call "Jap flaps".

But really, why are the "Japanese" so upset by an abreviated word like Jap? We say Brits for the British; Canucks for Canadians, and even Ruskies for Russians--- and they aren't upset. And what American (other than maybe a southerner) gets angry about being called a "Yank"?

Face it Japan, you are a defeated nation of emporer worshiping drones, and we will call you whatever the fuck we choose to call you. Some of us have not forgotten what you did to our boys with glee in your eyes and Banzai on your lips.

You ask why "jap" is offencive to some people and then provide the answer within your own post, a words previous useage obviously has a big effect on its meaning.

[Del Zeppnile]

Yeah and I wonder why that is? I use the word to describe my Jap car; Jap food; cute little Jap chicks, and those silly little sandles that we used to call "Jap flaps".

You ask why "jap" is offencive to some people and then provide the answer within your own post, a words previous useage obviously has a big effect on its meaning.

If I had said, " my Brit car, Brit food, cute little Brit girls, and those funky Brit style Doc Marten boots they sell near Picadilly."

I doubt very seriously that any member of the British people would feel personally injured.

So then what is the answer other than it must have something do with the infantile Jap obsession with saving face?

And if that is true; isn't that mentality what got them into all that trouble in the first place?

(although I would never really own a Brit car... since Jap cars are so much more reliable--- LOL)

Edited November 28, 2009 by Del Zeppnile

[Mangani]

I have other things better to do. Maybe like talk with some of my proud Brit friends here about WW2 and the greatest generation who fought in that war.

I will second that. I'd rather talk about WW2 too.

[Del Zeppnile]

I will second that. I'd rather talk about WW2 too.

Mangani,

While watching WW2 In HD I hadn't considered before how the American high command had decided to use our bombers as 'bait' over Berlin in order to draw out the German fighters and hopefully eliminate as many of their numubers prior to the Allied invasion of France. The numbers of losses of our aircrews was absolutly staggering. And figuring that the effectivness in terms of those bombing missions actually proved to be much more limited than first beleived; it gives me a new understanding of the strategy involved in our 'strategic bombing' efforts.

If 'tactical bombing' was the application of military objectives which would have a proximate effect on a campaign. Then 'strategic bombing' was to take a whole other level of gamesmanship; including political considerations (demonstrations of air supperiority to not only the enemy command, civilians and our Soviet allies), but also as with the Berlin raids just prior to the Normandy invasion; in order to force the Germans to expend their fighter resources to our end-game advantage.

In today's type of warfare, it is almost hard to imagine the existence of a prevailing political will in either Washington or London that would use large numbers of our military personel as 'cannon fodder' in the same way that it occured in WW2. Which Btw, pales in comparison to the style of warfare in WW1 and earlier.

I am interested in what your thoughts on how the current political will of our leaders might not be sufficient to fight the next multi-front war in the manner it may require to achieve total victory?

Del

[Mangani]

Mangani,

While watching WW2 In HD I hadn't considered before how the American high command had decided to use our bombers as 'bait' over Berlin in order to draw out the German fighters and hopefully eliminate as many of their numubers prior to the Allied invasion of France. The numbers of losses of our aircrews was absolutly staggering. And figuring that the effectivness in terms of those bombing missions actually proved to be much more limited than first beleived; it gives me a new understanding of the strategy involved in our 'strategic bombing' efforts.

Del,

Is that what the programme touched upon? I haven't seen it. That would be news to me. I cannot speak for the American High Command but that would be a shock to learn if that was the case. I always thought the Americans seemed to share Arthur Harris' belief that stategic bombing was a 'second front' in itself and could very much be at the forefront in winning the war, rather than being a diversary campaign designed to wear down German fighter strength.

Arthur Harris for sure (wrongly or rightly) was definitely of the opinion that full on bombing of the German homeland was the way to take the war to them. Churchill seemed to agree with him in part. As you know, the RAF's Bomber Command lost over 55,000 personel during WW2. Harris was of the belief that flattening German war industry capability and sapping the will of the German people to fight on would be their undoing, particularly in 1942 and 1943. Of course, it didn't quite turn out like that but I can't believe that the likes of Harris would have been so obsessed if all his efforts were simply diversary in nature, just for the sake of pinning down and weakening German fighter strength. He thought he would win the war with his bombers.

I do know that Albert Speer said that another six Hamburg like raids in the summer of 1943 and Germany would have been in real trouble.

If 'tactical bombing' was the application of military objectives which would have a proximate effect on a campaign. Then 'strategic bombing' was to take a whole other level of gamesmanship; including political considerations (demonstrations of air supperiority to not only the enemy command, civilians and our Soviet allies), but also as with the Berlin raids just prior to the Normandy invasion; in order to force the Germans to expend their fighter resources to our end-game advantage.

If that was the case then it certainly worked. Arthur Harris was right about one thing. The air war against Germany was a 'front' all of it's own. The amount of man power needed to police and protect every single piece of air space over Germany took up enormous resources. Not only in fighters which had to be placed almost everywhere but also in anti aircraft (FLAK) batteries. The personnel and equipment used on the home front in Germany could have made a difference elsewhere.

I definitely think Dresden in early '45 was mainly showing off to the Soviets what British and American air power was capable of.

In today's type of warfare, it is almost hard to imagine the existence of a prevailing political will in either Washington or London that would use large numbers of our military personel as 'cannon fodder' in the same way that it occured in WW2. Which Btw, pales in comparison to the style of warfare in WW1 and earlier.

I am interested in what your thoughts on how the current political will of our leaders might not be sufficient to fight the next multi-front war in the manner it may require to achieve total victory?

Del

I would say that it won't be there. Times have changed greatly now. It's not just the political leaders but rather the public. Public opinion counts for a hell of a lot. With today's modern communications and that fact that almost every detail of these wars are immediately shipped back to Joe Schmoe back home I don't think the public will stand for it and this will affect political leadership. Just think, if the BBC or CNN were reporting from the front line during The Battle Of The Somme in 1916 with all those wasted lives there would have been a public revolt. I'm sure of that. This current war in Afghanistan is comparatively small potatoes yet public outcry is huge. Then there would be the desire to try and not upset the rest of the world by usuing full on tactics. I just don't think the will would be there. Hopefully it won't need to be there anyway.

[Del Zeppnile]

Del,

Is that what the programme touched upon? I haven't seen it. That would be news to me. I cannot speak for the American High Command but that would be a shock to learn if that was the case. I always thought the Americans seemed to share Arthur Harris' belief that stategic bombing was a 'second front' in itself and could very much be at the forefront in winning the war, rather than being a diversary campaign designed to wear down German fighter strength.

No they didn't really go into any detail other than to point out that the strategy during the Berlin raids just prior to the Normandy invasion was to draw out the German fighters so that the P-51s could have a crack at them. It was just that this got me thinking about the strategic bombing vs. tactical bombing debate. I know Harris was always in favor of carpet bombing German cities believing that this would be the best way to cripple German industry. And I believe General Arnold held the same view as well, despite whatever ineffectivness may have been the actual case with that type of bombing. I suppose however for political reasons at the time (prior to the Normandy invasion), it was one way to appease the Soviets who were complaining that the Africa and Italy campaings did little to ease their pain.

I just was not aware until it was mentioned in the documentary, that even after the introduction of long range fighter support aircraft into the Allied war; that there may have already been some consideration at Allied Command that carpet (area) bombing was not the main objective. Which would mean that it was actually the 'tactical' benefit of dimminishing the German fighter capablity over targeting German industry which I assumed was the strategy all along.

Arthur Harris for sure (wrongly or rightly) was definitely of the opinion that full on bombing of the German homeland was the way to take the war to them. Churchill seemed to agree with him in part. As you know, the RAF's Bomber Command lost over 55,000 personel during WW2. Harris was of the belief that flattening German war industry capability and sapping the will of the German people to fight on would be their undoing, particularly in 1942 and 1943. Of course, it didn't quite turn out like that but I can't believe that the likes of Harris would have been so obsessed if all his efforts were simply diversary in nature, just for the sake of pinning down and weakening German fighter strength. He thought he would win the war with his bombers.

Yes, and I believe that Air Command under Harris was promising that this would be the result. And of course hindsight is 20/20 as they say, but I believe it was shown after the war that German industry was not as damaged by the concentrated bombing as was the beleif during he war. Partly due to the inaccuracy of much of the bombing. But also because the bombs weren't really big enough to actually destroy all of the machine tools in German industry, as much as the buildings they were in. Whereas bombing rail lines and other transportation with much smaller aircraft probably did more to disrupt the German war efforts than the larger bombing raids with the heavy bombers. And with much less resources required by the Allied airforce.

It may have been a better strategy to flood the skies over Germany with fighters and dive bombers than with medium or heavy bombers and their large crews. There is something to be argued for taking the fight directtly to the soldiers, armor and artillery. Which in the case of the Germans, was their strongest offensive weapon.

I do know that Albert Speer said that another six Hamburg like raids in the summer of 1943 and Germany would have been in real trouble.

Could be. And had it not been for Speer's plan to have German industry as dispersed as it was; maybe it would have only taken a few more raids. But all of that becomes academic, because no matter what else, it always ends up being the "boots on the ground" that actually go in and finish the job. Had there been more close in air support for infantry, armor and artillery; maybe the war would have moved at a bit faster pace.

If that was the case then it certainly worked. Arthur Harris was right about one thing. The air war against Germany was a 'front' all of it's own. The amount of man power needed to police and protect every single piece of air space over Germany took up enormous resources. Not only in fighters which had to be placed almost everywhere but also in anti aircraft (FLAK) batteries. The personnel and equipment used on the home front in Germany could have made a difference elsewhere.

That is a good arguement. But it could also worked the other way in that had the Allies realocated their efforts toward more tactical targets with regard to the ground campaings; that would have freed up a lot of resources.

I definitely think Dresden in early '45 was mainly showing off to the Soviets what British and American air power was capable of.

I agree. By that time the Allied airforces has shifted from having air superiority to having air supremacy -- they could do whatever they pleased. And of course the "strategic" bombing by then had the added effect of demonstrating to the Soviets that we (the British and Americans) could hit ANY target in Europe. However, I don't think Stalin was really too worried, because despite him knowing the Americans were close to deploying atomic bombs (we know this now from declassified Soviet reports), Stalin never indicated that he had any reason to fear the delivery of such a bomb by the Allies. He just acted like he did not know about the a-bomb, thus taking away any deterent threat that Truman and Churchill may have hoped to use against Stalin and the Soviets. They should have just told Stalin outright what they had. Although, and eventually that fact needed to be demonstrated. And of course I believe that was one of the reasons that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been more about the Russians than the Japanese. Japan was already beaten by that point. All they needed was the assurance that their emporer would not be molested, and they were ready to surrender.

I suppose Dresden may have had it worse had the A-Bomb been ready prior to the German defeat.

I would say that it won't be there. Times have changed greatly now. It's not just the political leaders but rather the public. Public opinion counts for a hell of a lot. With today's modern communications and that fact that almost every detail of these wars are immediately shipped back to Joe Schmoe back home I don't think the public will stand for it and this will affect political leadership. Just think, if the BBC or CNN were reporting from the front line during The Battle Of The Somme in 1916 with all those wasted lives there would have been a public revolt. I'm sure of that. This current war in Afghanistan is comparatively small potatoes yet public outcry is huge. Then there would be the desire to try and not upset the rest of the world by usuing full on tactics. I just don't think the will would be there. Hopefully it won't need to be there anyway.

Looking back and trying to judge the decisions of our commanders and leaders during WW2 without being there to know what it was like ... especially for the people of London... is almost impossible now to fathom. But one thing is certain, and that is the war forged a strong national will in the Allied nations to use whatever means necessary to secure complete victory. We have not experienced that actual threat, or the pain required in a long time to have that will again. I suppose even in the case of the United States in ww2; that will had to have a "ramping up effect" before all hell broke loose.

Today I don't see us wanting to really defeat our enemies anymore. We keep playing the same limited conflict game like we did in Vietnam. And even with gains, we still leave our enemies to possibly one day return to do us harm.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

The bombing with airplane's was sill a new and ongoing devolving weapon in the 1940's and I believe that the argument between strategic or tactical is frivolous to even talk about in those day's of high inaccuracy!

No offense to anyone here but, we are not talking about 2 or 5K smart bomb's that you can put through any window of any building you want from 40,000 feet with a stealthy mach 2 vehicle. This is a time when mass communication was a telegraph and analog telephone's, with many area's of our county (USA) still having only a telegraph for sending long distant communication's.

I'm sorry, but I just can't compare the drastic change's that have taken place since then. All you have to do now is disrupt the enemy's communication's and you can invade with little opposition! You just have to be able to hold that ground from pocket's of resistance that will pop up afterwords. Like you said Del Zeppnile, "the guy with the rifle in his hand and a stripe on his sleeve", will have to mop up in the end!

That's about the only thing that you can compare with the old day's of war but, in the old day's, the county you where fighting was all but beaten into submission by year's of ravish and hunger to end the conflict by then. That is where you can have the trouble we are seeing now...When do you pull out? How do you know when you have really won? Does it mean you've won just because your general's have taken up residents in the enemy leaders house after they've been directing hi tech tank's and aircraft in there lands/airspace for a week or two?

Now talking about the 2nd world war and aircraft bombing, the tactical bombing method was used a lot in the war but most of it was in the Pacific theater as the main aim in that part of the conflict was to sink ship's. There where lot's of large city target's to hit but the big thing was to stop the naval aircraft and ship's (mainly the big aircraft carriers). This task is perfect for small plane's with small bomb load's to hit small(er) target's and probably why they where allocated to the war in the east. The war in Europe was a whole different ball game, the name of the game here was to stop the Axis from getting supply's to the front line. Both theater's have need to stop the other side from producing weapon's but it was easier (from range of the aircraft of that time) to bomb (with big bomber's) the home land's of the German's than it was to bomb Japan. By the time the Alis captured airfield's in the Marianas the B29's could reach the mainland of Japan. That was when the heavy bombing of Japan started along with the one's launched from China they could then hit target's in Japan.

The early heavy bombing of Germany was halted by the US because of the loses they where receiving but, the RAF never stopped bombing Germany as they preferred to fly at night. They where still losing planes and men but at a lower rate as it was hard for the German's to know where the plane's where at at night thus harder to shoot down. On the same hand it made it harder for the British to hit there target's relying on only flying and not ever seeing the target's they where laying there egg's on.

By the time of the invasion of France (Normandy 1944) the Germans had little of an air force left and where being soundly hit on all side's by the Alis and where not even able to produce in number's the aircraft (much less the pilot's). Hitler was going totally wack-o and the US had gotten it's war machine to full capacity, so the end was only a mater of how quickly can they get the supplies to the front.

The use of tactical bombing was being exploited in Europe but, the only problem with that was that if you blow up all the bridge's, by the time you move the front line's back you may need those bridge's. You really don't want to do too much damage as shooting your self in the foot to badly will hurt you in the long run!

The German's did move some industry into the hill's where they could not be bombed but that was too little too late if you ask me.

Edited November 29, 2009 by BonzoLikeDrumer

[Joao]

It's not just my opinion it's a historical fact. The American soldiers didn't go around torturing and brutally massacaring women and children and the Americans stuck to the Geneva Convention with their prisoners of war.

The brutal treatment the Japanese handed out in their invasion of China (amongst others) and their disgraceful treatment of prisoners of war are historical fact. We all know about the Rape of Nanking, The Burma Death Railway, the Bataan Death March etc etc. The photos of Japanese officers cruelly beheading Allied prisoners of war etc etc. None of these can be denied.

I guess you're right, even though none of us was there, looking back at what we know... I'm kind of tired of discussing it but I just gotta say that even though I agree with you I can't stop thinking about the atomic bombs and that they were targeted at civilians. Sure we can say that it was for a greater good, meaning the end of the war but still.

Yes I believe you might be right. The alliance took a nose dive when you sent us Christiano Ronaldo though.

Haha, guess you're not a Manchester United fan huh?

True. Very true. But like I said, many Japanese were taught that they were the innocent victims and that their country didn't do much wrong. Contrast that to the Germans.

True. Just go to shows us the power of education and information.

[Joao]

You are entitled to your "perspective", however I would really do my homework before making any claim that any American atrocities against the Japanese are even worth mentioning in view of the scale of Imperial Japan's aggession against so many innocent people during WW2.

You're right I haven't done my homework but apparently some of the Japanese atrocities are well documented and the Americans just went there to fight a war, so I admit you're right, but you can't deny the attack on Japanese civilians by the Americans. I'm talking about the atomic bombs by the way.

Nobody has ever said that American soliders are not capable of, or have never committed any crimes. I certainly never did. However I question your wisdom to imply that there was any equivalency when comparing ANY actions by Americans against the Japanese... even with the use of Atomic bombs. Japan was clearly the aggressor, and they were so against other innocent nations even before they attacked the United States.

For you to say "American soldiers are not these pure..." in context to what occured in WW2 with our enemies; would be like saying, 'British and American soldiers used unecessary force against the Nazis while liberating concentration camps where millions were killed' --- it makes no logical or moral sense.

I too never said that Japan wasn't the aggressor. As for the actions of American soldiers on WWII I stand corrected, if we were talking about other wars however but we're not.

You are a fool. Of course it is right to fight evil. You mentioned how Portugal fought against Islam centuries ago to liberate their land. Are you then going to say now that using deadly force against your enemies was "not right"? That it made you just as bad as them because you used force? That there are no circumstances where a nation may defend itself by use of military force? And that the mere political will to defend a nation, or to save others is not something that is good?

Let me clarify, I don't condemn the decision of America to enter the war, in fact I believe that it was very important for the Allies to win the war, but I think there's a limit, attacking civilians is the limit.

People like you disgust me. You complain about the bombing of Germany and Japan by the allies, but you convienently diminish the unspeakable HORRORS perpetrated against humanity by those regimes. Of course there were civilians killed, it's not as if aerial bombing was as surgical an operation as it is today. There are estimates that nearly 70 thousand French civilians were killed by American and British bombing in our operations to free that nation from Nazi occupation... and the French were our allies. A terrible fact of war, but for you to tell me that civilians were killed is not exactly news to me. Certainly it would have been very nice of we did not have to bomb the cities of our enemies. But it would have been nice if they had just surrendered and not forced us to take the extreme measures we had too either. And yes, we even targeted their cities. But we did this to win the war and save lives. Not only the lives of our soldiers, but also the lives our enemies. We desired to end the war.

And you sit there and pass judgment on how we fought that war from the comfort of your home many years later. How nice and convienent that must be. But maybe you should consider this little fact: What did the Western allies (not the Soviets) do after defeating the Germans, Japanese and Italians? Did we convert their lands into our "empires"? Did we enslave their people and plunder their recourses? Or did we rebuild their lands, give them their liberty and welcome them into the family of feedom loving nations? How dare you sit in judgement of us you idiot?

Well you're judging the Japanese so... I was playing devil's advocate it's something I often do. Of course I condemn what the Nazis, Japanese, Russians, etc... did, the war crimes. I'm not trying to diminish that. What I think is that we should also look at ourselves and judge what we did too, maybe some things, no matter how bad they were, needed to be done and saved lives, maybe on other things we went too far. Who knows? We're all capable of doing bad and good, at the end of the day we're not that different after all, know what I mean?

Every nation has done things wrong. But how many things has your nation done right? If all you have to be proud about is plundered gold and sugar from Brazil, then good luck.

I can see you don't get my point. That is exactly what I'm talking about, I know my country did a lot of bad things in the past but instead of denying I admit we've done some mistakes. I can live with that because I know we've done good things too and besides those times we're different.

And BTW, you might stop trying to be proud of the Portugese 'empire' as compared to such great empires as the British Empire. There is really no comparison that can be made there. Nobody outside of your country even remembers anything your nation did that was great. No one like a Winston Churchill, a Napoleaon, Julius Ceasar, Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi or anything. No wonder you have difficulty dealing with proud members of other proud nations. It's not something that is in your personal experience.

You're right not many people know that but I do and I always feel compelled to share it. We we're very important at some point in time, we haven't been for some time like you angrily pointed out but that's fine really, Empires and big military war machines are overrated anyway. I might sound like this passionate nationalist, but I'm actually not that at all quite the contrary however I like my country I just don't think it's the best country at everything and will criticize when I feel I must.

Actually you should be honored that I have taken more than just a few words to talk to you about the reality of good vs. evil. I'm sure you haven't had much of that before in your life. It's not something that you probably talk much about in Portugal... the nation that was sympathetic to Hitler.

Many nations we're sympathetic to Hitler at that time, Russia even made a pact with him, they didn't have the historic perspective we have now. But like you pointed out before we were neutral.

And of course you realize that Portugal isn't even amoung the top 50 greatest nations in the world. So hearing your complaint about my country is only marginally more comical than someone from Bangladesh saying America isn't all that great.

I'm so offended you have now idea. Lol. Who cares about what country is the best?

Which is why so few people from around the world have wanted to leave their native lands and come to America for the last 200 years. Because we are not the beacon of light or freedom, right? Obviously more people think 'Portugal first' when deciding to find a better life where they can be free AND PROUD... don't forget the part about being proud.

You think America is the only country receiving immigrants? Tonight I was watching a documentary from BBC about crystal meth and, well America has poor people too and problems like unemployment and drugs just like any other country.

That was sarcasm just in case you had difficutly figuring that out.

Good luck with the rest of your education. But please, maybe have someone else be your teacher for awhile. I have other things better to do. Maybe like talk with some of my proud Brit friends here about WW2 and the greatest generation who fought in that war. So please don't feel left out if we leave you out of the conversation.

But of oourse we will have to leave you out. LOL

I agree let's talk about WWII, I only mentioned other things because I knew what kind of answer and attitude I would get from you and I always enjoy a good discussion.

[eternal light]

Unfortunately the United States could not envision a better way to stop the aggression of Japan at the time. I certainly hope that our communication has vastly improved since then, as I never want to see anything like that happen again. But at the time Japan was very aggressive toward the United States, and Americans were understandably perplexed about how to stop that. So they did what they thought best then. We've learned a lot since then, and I think that we look for ways to prevent that sort of thing from happening now.