Military Buffs I need your help.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other?

Which argument are you speaking of?

And I doubt you know much of what I do or don’t believe. I know that the Germans killed many civilians by mass execution. I also know that the resistance was a big problem for the Germans. They in turn relied on terror as a means of countering this activity. I also know that in many areas of the western Soviet Union, the Germans were initially seen as liberators. I guess it was the lesser of two evils logic at work there. But I also have no love for the Russia of Stalin. It must have been very distasteful to have to sit down with them as allies.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I am not a supporter of the German involvement in the war. I do have a certain amount of respect for the skill with which the military practiced the art of war. But I do not support the reasons for it or the actions of the government and it special organizations. And I also have nothing but contempt for the existing command structures that existed in the allied camps at the start of the war. England was poorly led at the start and the inaction of the government after declaring the war was borderline stupidity. And they continued to be poorly lead all through the war. This was offset by exceptional political leadership in large part. And as for the French actions, well let’s just not go there. There is nothing good that can be said of it. As for America, we were not much better off. We were reliant on out of date ideas and technology, and totally unprepared. The fact that we were able to reverse this in less than two years is a tribute to the abilities of the American people of the times.

[rextorres]

Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line?

[ December 14, 2003, 05:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons.

[rextorres]

Pulling out the "Nazi card" may have been hyperbolic, but Thermodyne's logic is exactly the same logic the German's were using as they were rounding up Russian civilians and shooting them. You can dismiss me for merely pointing this out or point out to Thermodyne where his logic could lead.

[ December 14, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions.

and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation.

[Cyrien]

Korea wasn't a war it was a police action by the UN, the Last "War" the US engaged in was WW2. I believe that exception was already made for those. Of course now someone will come up and ask what the difference is since you are just as dead in one as the other. Well according to US and international laws there are actually quite a few differences. I won't go into those now just stating they exist.

As for thermo's arguments being the same reason that Germany executed whole villages. WRONG!

The Germans didn't kill them because they were potential warriors. The Germans killed them because they were lower than human. They weren't of the superior race and so should be exterminated before they contaminated the superior race.

The Germans were engaged in an act of Genocide that would have continued after the War was over if they had won until there were none of the inferior people left anywhere in the world.

The other argument only applies to such targets during time of actual conflict. They are valid targets to harm the enemy but not for the purpose of total annihilation of the entirety of the people. It is not an act of Genocide but of Total War.

Germany: Kill everything until it is dead forever.

Total War: Kill everything until it surrenders.

I would argue there is a vast morale difference between the two.

Germany killed those people even if they were citizens of Germany. The US might deport or lock away in detention camps (I won't call them concentration camps because they weren't. There is a vast difference between the Nazi concentration camps and the Japanese detention camps in the US. The camps in the US were awfull but not on the German scale.) but it didn't exterminate its own people when it went to war against nations of origin for those people.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line?

That is total bull poop Rex. The Nazi’s committed acts of racial cleansing, and they handed out summery executions as a means of controlling indigent populations. They even did some strategic bombing of England. But as a whole, the killings of civilians were tactical and meant to achieve local control of small areas. The mass killings were genocide and had little to do with winning of wars. They were racial cleansing pure and simple. Other than trying to choke off the Atlantic supply lines, Germany never really made much of an effort at winning the economic war. This is laid at the feet of their air planers. They never planed for a long strategic air campaign, and concentrated on tactical air to an almost total extent. This was addressed later in the war when the German strategic rocket forces were brought down upon England.