- Status
M
Mr USA
Guest
*sigh* Ok, apparently half of you are bull-headed or leftist and the other half shouldn't be posting on the subject given that you have no understanding of this period. It is disappointing to think that I've been sincerely trying to offer insight into this great subject and nobody's been listening. Slug man maybe you were right about Americans being weak and ignorant. I'm signing off, so you can debate WW2 and Vietnam without me.
M
Mr USA
Guest
Yeah, I'm defeatist - whatever. I'm not conceding anything. I am leaving this conversation because I have finally wised up that I'm wasting air by having it. I'm tired of giving long, detailed answers, only to have a random person try to retort with two or three brief, opinion-based sentences. This was my mistake. If I wanted an educated discussion about Vietnam or WW2, I should have looked for it on a forum dedicated to history - not one for a card game.
A
Apollo
Guest
MrUSA:
To me, you've been losing the arguments and have resorted to personal attacks and ignoring others' statements. Are you leaving because we're not listening, or because you can't respond to Duel and Baskil?
Um... that's awfully hypocritical. Go up a few posts. That's exactly what you did to Baskil. That's why people responded negatively to you.
To me, you've been losing the arguments and have resorted to personal attacks and ignoring others' statements. Are you leaving because we're not listening, or because you can't respond to Duel and Baskil?
I think it's both.
I also find it slightly amusing that MrUSA, a Magic player AND a history buff, thinks he's the only one with those qualities on this board (I'm guessing if he was arguing with someone on a "history" board and found out they were playing Magic, that conversation would end too)
I also find it slightly amusing that MrUSA, a Magic player AND a history buff, thinks he's the only one with those qualities on this board (I'm guessing if he was arguing with someone on a "history" board and found out they were playing Magic, that conversation would end too)
M
Mr USA
Guest
"Although I would venture to guess that on those types of forums, you will also find those who will ask the same type of questions Baskil and others are asking..."
Wrong. When speaking with a real WW2 historian you would move forward with certain assumptions given: like Germany - bad and USA - good. You wouldn't find such a neophyte posting on a history board.
If you read this whole thread, except for my last two or three posts, you'll see that all my answers have been verbose, with arguments backing them up. My tone changed because I realized I was speaking with a couple of children. I see no value in talking about this subject matter with those who think they know something about world history but really don't. Geez, to think I was standing up to Slug man for people like you.
Wrong. When speaking with a real WW2 historian you would move forward with certain assumptions given: like Germany - bad and USA - good. You wouldn't find such a neophyte posting on a history board.
If you read this whole thread, except for my last two or three posts, you'll see that all my answers have been verbose, with arguments backing them up. My tone changed because I realized I was speaking with a couple of children. I see no value in talking about this subject matter with those who think they know something about world history but really don't. Geez, to think I was standing up to Slug man for people like you.
L
Lotus Mox
Guest
I'm 5 and a half years old.
Germany is and was always the epitome of all evil.
The USA were always good and are the best nation for everyone.
Spiritmonger is overcosted.
I have no idea about history.
Mr USA is the new Messiah.
The Sky is green.
I love fanatics.
And Mountain Dew is a government conspiracy
Germany is and was always the epitome of all evil.
The USA were always good and are the best nation for everyone.
Spiritmonger is overcosted.
I have no idea about history.
Mr USA is the new Messiah.
The Sky is green.
I love fanatics.
And Mountain Dew is a government conspiracy
Wrong. When speaking with any REAL historian, they'd leave out the judgmental "bad" and "good", not assume ANYTHING, and just repeat the facts. They'd leave that stuff to the reader.
They could CHOOSE to leave the historical facts and speculate on whether the actions are "good" or "bad", but then that would be the realm of personal opinion.
Sorry, but to be honest, I'd rather NOT have a seemingly close-minded person as yourself defend "us" against Slug Man. No thanks.
M
Mr USA
Guest
Do you actually fool yourself with this baloney? If you do, then I pray that lump on your head heals. It really is clouding your thinking. WW2 Historians don't debate whether what Germany did was right or wrong. It is understood they tried to subjugate half the world and exterminate those they deemed unworthy to live, civilians who they thought were life forms lower than bugs. Hello? In the realm of reality, this is BAD. Have you been to Dachau or Nuremberg and seen the concentration camps? I have. Perhaps if you did, you'd understand this better. You must be a liberal democrat, that can only explain your flawed thinking. I bet you love Clinton too.
I'm sorry I did stand up for you, being that it is leftists like you that make this nation weak.
I'm sorry I did stand up for you, being that it is leftists like you that make this nation weak.
Yeah, it's too bad the facts state that the US pretty much didn't care or bother to investigate rumors of such concentration camps despite them being so "bad". In fact, with a few exceptions, they sent boatloads of Jews (and probably anyone else) seeking asylum in the US back to Europe.
Oh, and of course the US didn't bother to declare war on Germany first either, that's how concerned they were with being "good".
No, it only took the invasion of Germany in '45(?) to realize what had been going on... hindsight is great in 20/20, but don't fool yourself thinking that the US went in with high and mighty morals. Otherwise, you're as good as those "revisionist historians" who would have you believe the Holocaust never happened...
Oh, and of course the US didn't bother to declare war on Germany first either, that's how concerned they were with being "good".
No, it only took the invasion of Germany in '45(?) to realize what had been going on... hindsight is great in 20/20, but don't fool yourself thinking that the US went in with high and mighty morals. Otherwise, you're as good as those "revisionist historians" who would have you believe the Holocaust never happened...
M
Mr USA
Guest
"Yeah, it's too bad the facts state that the US pretty much didn't care or bother to investigate rumors of such concentration camps despite them being so "bad"."
Whose facts, yours? I've heard this racist statement before and it's people like you that wrongfully bring the shame of it. What documentary, book or article did you read this in? Is it mainstream history? Doubtful. Besides, if USA wanted to investigate, do you think Germany would have obliged them? I'm sure the high command would have welcomed a hostile nation snooping around, looking for more excuses to demonize them, and then informing the world about their secret operation.
BTW: You didn't address my previous post. Do you acknowledge that Germany's actions were bad? Have you been to Dachau or Nuremburg? It was convenient for you to sidestep and attack an old part of our discussion. Here is a link to a site where there is another reference to the axis being evil. http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm It’s in the last paragraph of the section “History of the WW 1939-1945”. Hmm, this is a Dutch site, isn’t it?
"Oh, and of course USA didn't bother to declare war on Germany first either, that's how concerned they were with being "good"."
Because we didn't declare war now we're considered not good? We put a stop to naked aggression in the Pacific and in Europe at a high cost, and you are going to diminish the good that this brought? I heard someone earlier say that war is never good. So getting involved in war is not good and you say that not getting involved in war is not good. Which is it?
One way or another, we were going to enter the war. We did it for reasons of decency (good) AND for reasons of national security (neither good, nor bad). The problem was that WWI was still fresh on everybody's mind, so people wanted to remain isolationist. The leaders of our country realized that in order to mobilize and energize the country we couldn't simply declare war and throw ourselves into the fray. If you think we should have, then you have no clue about logistics. We had to convert our industry to produce tools of war and organize our military. As events of the war unfolded people became so disturbed that they became very anxious to get involved. Pearl Harbor helped, it helped a lot, but it was not the only motivating factor. These aren't my closed-minded opinions. It is mainstream history.
To anybody reading, please don’t shoot down my sources (saying it is only the US opinion) unless you have other legitimate sources you can offer that are better than mine. I’ve given some examples of my sources: John Keegan, Robert Leckie, Steven Ambrose. The points I've made here and in previous posts are supported by these authors.
Whose facts, yours? I've heard this racist statement before and it's people like you that wrongfully bring the shame of it. What documentary, book or article did you read this in? Is it mainstream history? Doubtful. Besides, if USA wanted to investigate, do you think Germany would have obliged them? I'm sure the high command would have welcomed a hostile nation snooping around, looking for more excuses to demonize them, and then informing the world about their secret operation.
BTW: You didn't address my previous post. Do you acknowledge that Germany's actions were bad? Have you been to Dachau or Nuremburg? It was convenient for you to sidestep and attack an old part of our discussion. Here is a link to a site where there is another reference to the axis being evil. http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm It’s in the last paragraph of the section “History of the WW 1939-1945”. Hmm, this is a Dutch site, isn’t it?
"Oh, and of course USA didn't bother to declare war on Germany first either, that's how concerned they were with being "good"."
Because we didn't declare war now we're considered not good? We put a stop to naked aggression in the Pacific and in Europe at a high cost, and you are going to diminish the good that this brought? I heard someone earlier say that war is never good. So getting involved in war is not good and you say that not getting involved in war is not good. Which is it?
One way or another, we were going to enter the war. We did it for reasons of decency (good) AND for reasons of national security (neither good, nor bad). The problem was that WWI was still fresh on everybody's mind, so people wanted to remain isolationist. The leaders of our country realized that in order to mobilize and energize the country we couldn't simply declare war and throw ourselves into the fray. If you think we should have, then you have no clue about logistics. We had to convert our industry to produce tools of war and organize our military. As events of the war unfolded people became so disturbed that they became very anxious to get involved. Pearl Harbor helped, it helped a lot, but it was not the only motivating factor. These aren't my closed-minded opinions. It is mainstream history.
To anybody reading, please don’t shoot down my sources (saying it is only the US opinion) unless you have other legitimate sources you can offer that are better than mine. I’ve given some examples of my sources: John Keegan, Robert Leckie, Steven Ambrose. The points I've made here and in previous posts are supported by these authors.
I can only say I remember reading it whenever some Jewish article on the Holocaust comes up in the paper. I also know that perhaps maybe two boatloads of Jews who were seeking asylum were admitted to the US, many others were turned away. I have to admit I am not equipped to qualify it in any specific source
. However, perhaps "if you've heard this racist statement" before (and how exactly is it racist is another question), you can debunk it for me.Why does not being able to investigate such rumors let the US off the hook? There are SO many other means of trying to uncover the truth 35-41 that I won't even list them all.
I agree that Germany's action were "bad". What I don't agree with is trying to say the US entered the war for "good" reasons (i.e. stopping the atrocities). That's like the saying the US Civil War was begun for the purpose of ending slavery.
Oh yeah, Dutch site. Not that it's a bad site, but weren't they also one of Germany's victims? Where's an Axis site?
And you still haven't answered one of MY old questions: Are there any books from Axis countries that depict the Axis as "evil" and the Allies as "good" (especially in the title)?
No, what I'm saying is if we were so "good" and intent on stopping any atrocities that apparently we knew about, judging from the beginning of your post, we should have declared war immediately and first.
So what you're saying is that we used 39-41 to transform our industries from peacetime to wartime? So by 1941, we were ready to go?
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
But since I am neither young nor stupid, I only have one question to ask, and it relates directly, specifically, and solely to the "USA = Good" assertion.
The question is this:
"In what ways, specifically, can the dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian populations be considered a 'good' act?"
The question is this:
"In what ways, specifically, can the dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian populations be considered a 'good' act?"
M
Mr USA
Guest
Wow. It seems that I'm fending off lunges from somebody new every day.
Chaos Turtle: The bomb. Good point. There are a lot of complex issues surrounding the bomb. The books, however, tell us that it was a calculated decision. Operation Downfall/Olympic was designed around the invasion of the Japanese home islands. A major concern about this operation was that expected US casualties were estimated to be over 250,000. Considering how willing the Japanese were to die for their cause, one can only imagine what their military and civilian loses would have been. The body count would have been higher if the US had forced Japan to surrender by conventional means. Therefore, our leaders felt that the bomb would render a quicker, less bloody ending of the war. Keep in mind that scientists weren't aware of the consequences of radiation at that time. Our president was struggling with the decision, but the act was seen as necessary. Check this site, it tells the story of quite well: http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html
Using the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can't be considered a good thing per se since it was an act that caused many deaths. But the reasons for using it were good. The intention was to save lives given the alternatives, which it did.
Chaos Turtle: The bomb. Good point. There are a lot of complex issues surrounding the bomb. The books, however, tell us that it was a calculated decision. Operation Downfall/Olympic was designed around the invasion of the Japanese home islands. A major concern about this operation was that expected US casualties were estimated to be over 250,000. Considering how willing the Japanese were to die for their cause, one can only imagine what their military and civilian loses would have been. The body count would have been higher if the US had forced Japan to surrender by conventional means. Therefore, our leaders felt that the bomb would render a quicker, less bloody ending of the war. Keep in mind that scientists weren't aware of the consequences of radiation at that time. Our president was struggling with the decision, but the act was seen as necessary. Check this site, it tells the story of quite well: http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html
Using the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can't be considered a good thing per se since it was an act that caused many deaths. But the reasons for using it were good. The intention was to save lives given the alternatives, which it did.
L
Lotus Mox
Guest
The winner of a war always declares what's good and what's evil, if for instance Germany would've won the war, everyone would believe that the Jews, USA, Russia, etc. were evil and the Good Aryan German saved the world from the influence of unworthy races. And people would believe what they say and see nothing wrong with it.
I live in Germany I know what happened during the WW2. My grandparents told me about their live during Nationalsocialism, what a shock it was when they realized that the Nationalsocialism's way of thought was really wrong after Germany got defeated. And how defeated it was, they bombed away complete cities, an act of Good?
There's no such thing as an universally Good and Evil, these terms are always defined by current standards of thoughts. What's accepted as Good now can be Evil in 100's of years. You'll never know.
And I'm neither stupid nor a child anymore.
Please do not offend people by saying that they have no idea what they talk about. Thanks.
I live in Germany I know what happened during the WW2. My grandparents told me about their live during Nationalsocialism, what a shock it was when they realized that the Nationalsocialism's way of thought was really wrong after Germany got defeated. And how defeated it was, they bombed away complete cities, an act of Good?
There's no such thing as an universally Good and Evil, these terms are always defined by current standards of thoughts. What's accepted as Good now can be Evil in 100's of years. You'll never know.
And I'm neither stupid nor a child anymore.
Please do not offend people by saying that they have no idea what they talk about. Thanks.
M
Mr USA
Guest
Lotus Mox - You're back? I thought I shut you down last week.
"if for instance Germany would've won the war, everyone would believe that the Jews, USA, Russia, etc. were evil and the Good Aryan German saved the world from the influence of unworthy races."
You believe this? If you do, then it's a good thing you weren't around in the 30's-40's otherwise you would have been a good nazi soldier. Your words speak to this.
"There's no such thing as an universally Good and Evil, these terms are always defined by current standards of thoughts."
Ok, I'll play your game - in terms of TODAY'S standard of thoughts Germany was bad. Starting a war that killed over 55 million people is bad. Incinerating six million Jews is bad. Understand? Should I spell it more clearly for you? German people knew all the bad that was being wrought by their country, they just turned a blind eye to it.
"if for instance Germany would've won the war, everyone would believe that the Jews, USA, Russia, etc. were evil and the Good Aryan German saved the world from the influence of unworthy races."
You believe this? If you do, then it's a good thing you weren't around in the 30's-40's otherwise you would have been a good nazi soldier. Your words speak to this.
"There's no such thing as an universally Good and Evil, these terms are always defined by current standards of thoughts."
Ok, I'll play your game - in terms of TODAY'S standard of thoughts Germany was bad. Starting a war that killed over 55 million people is bad. Incinerating six million Jews is bad. Understand? Should I spell it more clearly for you? German people knew all the bad that was being wrought by their country, they just turned a blind eye to it.
D
Duel
Guest
Wrong on two counts, Mr. USA.
1: We turned a blind eye to Germany too, we knew about their agression, concentration camps, etc.
2: German people organized some of the most effective resistance. Many were Nazis, most were people who wouldn't stand up for others, which is a lesser fault, but many fought actively against the Nazi party and died for it.
And, check me if I'm wrong, but you DID just admit that the US was not good to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populaces, right? a yes or no will do.
Killing over 6 million indians is bad, got it? Dropping Atomic weapons on civilian targets as opposed to military ones is bad, got it? Slavery is bad, got it? Can I compare what Americans did to the Native Americans to what Nazi's (Not germany, Nazis) did to the jews? Yes. I can.
One last thing, I'd appreciate it if you stopped insulting us. Between the comments like "I thought I shut you down last week" and "No real historian would approach it like such a neophyte", I'm beginning to feel annoyed. If you can't win without insulting us, then I'll be only too glad to have you "not deign to argue" with us.
No "real" historian would sink to the level of insulting people who don't see things your way. Weren't you the one who claimed that if the whole world was against you, you were obviously evil? Well, if we all disagree with you....
1: We turned a blind eye to Germany too, we knew about their agression, concentration camps, etc.
2: German people organized some of the most effective resistance. Many were Nazis, most were people who wouldn't stand up for others, which is a lesser fault, but many fought actively against the Nazi party and died for it.
And, check me if I'm wrong, but you DID just admit that the US was not good to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populaces, right? a yes or no will do.
Killing over 6 million indians is bad, got it? Dropping Atomic weapons on civilian targets as opposed to military ones is bad, got it? Slavery is bad, got it? Can I compare what Americans did to the Native Americans to what Nazi's (Not germany, Nazis) did to the jews? Yes. I can.
One last thing, I'd appreciate it if you stopped insulting us. Between the comments like "I thought I shut you down last week" and "No real historian would approach it like such a neophyte", I'm beginning to feel annoyed. If you can't win without insulting us, then I'll be only too glad to have you "not deign to argue" with us.
No "real" historian would sink to the level of insulting people who don't see things your way. Weren't you the one who claimed that if the whole world was against you, you were obviously evil? Well, if we all disagree with you....
M
Mr USA
Guest
"There are SO many other means of trying to uncover the truth 35-41 that I won't even list them all."
Why leave out the details? Please indulge me.
"Are there any books from Axis countries that depict the Axis as "evil" and the Allies as "good" (especially in the title)?"
Honestly, I'm not sure. But that is irrelevant, since I know for sure that literature from the rest of the world concurs that the Allies were on the side of "right" and the Axis were on the side of "wrong".
"we should have declared war immediately and first."
This statement is ridiculous. Like I said in a previous post, if you believe this then you have no clue about logistics or the sociopolitical situation of the time.
"So by 1941, we were ready to go?"
No, we weren't. Remember that Operation Torch wasn't launched until late in 1942 and that operation went abysmally. Our soldiers were poorly trained and poorly equipped. If we would have engaged the Germans any sooner, the only thing it would have done was get more US boys killed with little or no gain.
Why leave out the details? Please indulge me.
"Are there any books from Axis countries that depict the Axis as "evil" and the Allies as "good" (especially in the title)?"
Honestly, I'm not sure. But that is irrelevant, since I know for sure that literature from the rest of the world concurs that the Allies were on the side of "right" and the Axis were on the side of "wrong".
"we should have declared war immediately and first."
This statement is ridiculous. Like I said in a previous post, if you believe this then you have no clue about logistics or the sociopolitical situation of the time.
"So by 1941, we were ready to go?"
No, we weren't. Remember that Operation Torch wasn't launched until late in 1942 and that operation went abysmally. Our soldiers were poorly trained and poorly equipped. If we would have engaged the Germans any sooner, the only thing it would have done was get more US boys killed with little or no gain.
- Status