70th Anniversary of D-Day

[Anomalocaris]

You would think that Hitler would have learned a lesson from history and better prepared his armies when Napolean broke rule number 1.

They thought it would be over by the time winter came. German success in WWI probably led to the overconfidence.

No, it was the catastrophic performance of the soviet army in the short winter war with Finland that gave hitler and Germany confidence.

In 1940 Soviet armies outnumbering the fins 10 to 1 invaded Finland to conquer it. But the fins inflicted setback after setback on the red army and ultimately Stalin had to settled for a negotiated peace.

Prior to this fiasco hitler and the german army actually had high opinion of the skill, equipment and capabilities of the red army. Hitler was as impressed by the display of goose stepping red army soldiers and their toys on the red square every May Day as the soviet public. The conventional wisdom that hitler always intended to invade Russia because of what he said in mein kempf is probably not entirely accurate. He probably did intend to form some sort of indefinite accommodation with Stalin when he first signed the Nazi soviet nonaggression pact in 1939.

But then Stalin invaded tiny Finland, got thrashed, and made hitler think soviet army was weak and Russia was easy picking.

In 1941, he had the means, the opportunity, and the perception that with contribution from german allies he actually had a numerical superiority over the whole of the red army. And didn't red army just proved itself to be a gang of incompetent buffoons? And didn't the whole of red army just move out of their prepared defense in depth positions and station itself near the frontier where his panzer could surround them like he did the French?

What could go wrong?

---

No, we didn't.

Yes we did, the British were bombing Germany at night and the US was in disagreement with this policy because there were to many civilian deaths due to night time bombing. I understand that civilians were killed because we fought to win even at the cost of their lives, but we did try to limit those deaths.

GC

No, US was in disagreement with night bombing because the British were not hitting anything at night. The British considered it a hit if the bomb fell within 10 miles of the target.

The US wanted to bomb during the day because the US thought our bombers had better defences and was better able to survive german daylight fighter defences, and daylight bombing was more accurate.

Civilian casualty was just an ex post cover story to make us sound like nicer guys.

[Brian37]

No, we didn't.

Yes we did, the British were bombing Germany at night and the US was in disagreement with this policy because there were to many civilian deaths due to night time bombing. I understand that civilians were killed because we fought to win even at the cost of their lives, but we did try to limit those deaths.

GC

HELLO MCFLY Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those spared a lot of lives.

You have a lot of fucking nerve talking about sparing lives when your fictional super hero throughout that comic book wreaks of the stench of collateral damage.

War is hell, we both agree. Leave it at that because you are making a fool of yourself.

[Chas]

The greatest mistake made in WWII was the Japanese leaving 4 aircraft carriers afloat, that had been their primary target.

It wasn't a mistake. There were only 3 carriers in the Pacific. Two ( Lexington and Enterprise) were out on assignment delivering aircraft to outlying bases and Saratoga was in San Diego.

Yorktown was in the Atlantic.

Not only the 3 carriers were away from Pearl, but a number of heavy cruisers, cruisers, and destroyers, too.

[RaisdCath]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27700479

I've been to the Normandy beaches and seen the memorials over France from the 2 world wars.

If you've never been it's very emotional. IT's difficult to stand there and read those names without feeling something deeply sad within you. I've never seen the horror of war except through archive footage or news reports, but you get a very small feel for what it's like just standing somewhere surrounded by the signs of death and destruction.

Those poor sods that crossed the channel, never to see home again. Many still teenagers. I've lived a decade longer already than some of them.

Thanks for the posting....it is fitting and just that those men/boys are honored for the sacrifice they made. It is also to be respected that many of them were sure they wouldn't be coming home...and went anyway.

The American soldiers in WWI were of the same kind as were the soldiers on both sides of the Civil War, and certainly the citizen soldiers of the revolution.

One has to wonder tho....even taking into account our present day military (despite a few "bad apples")....whether the same kind of citizens exist in this country today? Given what is seen/heard of today's "younger generation", it is doubtful if they would be able to stand tall and make the same kind of sacrifice if it were called for.

[Brian37]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27700479

I've been to the Normandy beaches and seen the memorials over France from the 2 world wars.

If you've never been it's very emotional. IT's difficult to stand there and read those names without feeling something deeply sad within you. I've never seen the horror of war except through archive footage or news reports, but you get a very small feel for what it's like just standing somewhere surrounded by the signs of death and destruction.

Those poor sods that crossed the channel, never to see home again. Many still teenagers. I've lived a decade longer already than some of them.

Thanks for the posting....it is fitting and just that those men/boys are honored for the sacrifice they made. It is also to be respected that many of them were sure they wouldn't be coming home...and went anyway.

The American soldiers in WWI were of the same kind as were the soldiers on both sides of the Civil War, and certainly the citizen soldiers of the revolution.

One has to wonder tho....even taking into account our present day military (despite a few "bad apples")....whether the same kind of citizens exist in this country today? Given what is seen/heard of today's "younger generation", it is doubtful if they would be able to stand tall and make the same kind of sacrifice if it were called for.

I hope they don't. Here is why. In evolution fights will happen between tribes. There doesn't seem to be a way completely around this. Having said that, I really don't like images of honor and valor as motifs. We need military and cops and firemen. But those are necessities and should not be viewed as defaults. If we are going to be ethical, we should be a species that does not default to those things but treat them as a last resort.

If I run a platoon or police department, the last people I want on those jobs are people who want them just to want them. The ethical ones I consider moral are the ones who do it knowing it needs to be done but wish they didn't have to do it.

Even with WW2 vets, I've heard plenty, including my atheist friend Ben, who say things like, "I did it because it needed to be done, but I did not enjoy killing another human being".

So it depends. You will always need people in a society to protect that society. But I do not want a society of worshipers or ideologues who think patriotism is blindly following. I think we have seen far too much of what happens when people go "gun ho" blindly.

[Anomalocaris]

The greatest mistake made in WWII was the Japanese leaving 4 aircraft carriers afloat, that had been their primary target.

It wasn't a mistake. There were only 3 carriers in the Pacific. Two ( Lexington and Enterprise) were out on assignment delivering aircraft to outlying bases and Saratoga was in San Diego.

Yorktown was in the Atlantic.

The greatest mistake was to send 6 carriers to attack Pearl Harbor.

If the Japanese simply left Pearl Harbor alone, and went after Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Indochina, the USN would likely put war plan orange into effect and send the battle fleet from Pearl Harbor west to relieve Philippine.

This would likely have resulted in a surface battle for which the pacific fleet was under strength, and for which the Japanese navy has been plotting and training for 20 years and had many aces up their sleeves.

It was likely the US pacific fleet would lose the surface action against Japanese combined fleet. The defeat would turn into a catastrophe because the US fleet would have to retreat to Manila and there is would be taken or scuttled as the Japanese occupy Philippines.

The US would end up in much the same material and strategic position in pacific as Pearl Harbor had achieved, but morally the US would be much less well off because there would no sneak attack, and the US would be defeated in a straight fight.

In the end Japan would still lose the war, because economically and industrially japan was simply too feeble to hold out no matter what initial advantage it gained. But they probably could have lasted longer, possibly to 1946 or 1947, and there was also higher chance that the US would settle for a negotiated capitulation of japan, with condition short of occupation, total disarmament, and loss of all territories taken in the previous 50 years, instead of demanding total unconditional surrender.

[Godscreated]

---

Yes we did, the British were bombing Germany at night and the US was in disagreement with this policy because there were to many civilian deaths due to night time bombing. I understand that civilians were killed because we fought to win even at the cost of their lives, but we did try to limit those deaths.

GC

---

HELLO MCFLY Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those spared a lot of lives.

You have a lot of fucking nerve talking about sparing lives when your fictional super hero throughout that comic book wreaks of the stench of collateral damage.

War is hell, we both agree. Leave it at that because you are making a fool of yourself.

Listen this thread has been quite good until now, you are a loud mouth who deserves no respect. Fact if we had not use those bombs we would have had to fight for much longer with more dead on both sides than those two bombs caused, no one wanted to us them it became a necessity to save lives, there were many American moms and dads who were glad we did, they got their sons home, ALIVE.
Also I said we tried to spare civilian lives, today if we kill a civilian in a combat situation the world goes nuts.

GC

[Minimalist]

Yes we did, the British were bombing Germany at night and the US was in disagreement with this policy because there were to many civilian deaths due to night time bombing.

Dresden.

[Nine]

Listen this thread has been quite good until now, you are a loud mouth who deserves no respect. Fact if we had not use those bombs we would have had to fight for much longer with more dead on both sides than those two bombs caused, no one wanted to us them it became a necessity to save lives, there were many American moms and dads who were glad we did, they got their sons home, ALIVE.
Also I said we tried to spare civilian lives, today if we kill a civilian in a combat situation the world goes nuts.

GC

Plus the alternative probably wouldn't have saved many innocent lives considering the best way to disrupt another nation was bombing, instead of a couple of big bombs it would have been thousands of smaller ones over a longer time. Continuing to fight the Japanese on their terms would have been an insane idea.

[Minimalist]

“I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal,” he said. “Fortunately, we were on the winning side.”

U.S. General Curtis LeMay, commander of the Tokyo fire bombing operation