War Guilt and Why the Allies Won the War

Overall, a pretty good post, Seadog. I agree with most of what you wrote. Indeed, there was a lot of savagery amongst the Native Americans. However, as you admit yourself, the Europeans who arrived had their fair share of savageries as well.

Yes, Jared Diamond has written an excellent book "Guns, Germs and Steel" that quite nicely explains why the Europeans were so successful in world history while the Native Americans lagged far behind in terms of technology and "civilization".

Sorry to correct your own nonsense, here, Seadog. The Channel undeniably has helped the British. In the past 2000 years they have been conquered by outsiders all of three times; by the Romans, by the Anglo-Saxons, and by the Normans. Not bad considering how often Gaul/France, Italia or the German territories have been overrun in the same timespan. The Channel didn't stop the Romans precisely because the Romans were superior in terms of technology and complexity of civilization compared to the Britons. The British weren't united and didn't have a navy so the Romans merely had to cross, establish a base, and move on to conquer the British tribes.

The Channel was also crossed by the Anglo-Saxons but this again was during a period of political fragmentation in Britain. It is not as if the Germanic tribes hadn't tried overrunning Britain earlier. However, the Roman legions and the forts of the Saxon Shore kept them at bay when Gaul and Italia were on an almost regular base towards the end of the Imperial period overrun by similar Germanic tribes. When England was finally united, however, how many times was England conquered by foreign entities? Once. Once in over a thousand years and not once in the last 900 years. And yet in the same time how many times hasn't France and the German territories been overrun by enemy forces? Ever since England was able to build a navy it has been inviolate. The only reason that Britain survived WWII without being overrun by the much superior German Wehrmacht in 1940 was the Channel.

Without the Channel, England would have to fight Continental forces on an even field and rarely is England's army of the same size as its Continental enemies. Because of the Channel the English have been little effected by warfare and it is this experience that has developed the English mentality that we have inherited.

 

I did not say that the English Channel was not a deterrent, only that it is not the sole reason for British safety. No nation is safe from a determined and capable enemy. The United States is not as vulnerable from most attacks, but with the amount of border and some of the problems with our good neighbors to the south, it could happen. As we grow into a global economy, it will be more and more difficult to take over a stable nation. It is the unstable nation that are the concern. And that they could spread the unrest to others.

 

It is a shame that you truly believe this Wilconq.... I pity you

 

How in the world did Mississippi and the Confederacy get drawn into this discussion? "My past countrymen" were ALL Americans from North, South, East and West and it is to them that I am referring, not the Confederacy. I think you just saw the Confederate battle flag inside the state flag and drew the wrong conclusions. No bother. And I stand by my post. Marienbug, do you honestly think that I would be moved from my beliefs by some "scholar" in a college classroom just because he/she said/taught something different? These are some of the main types of people that I resist. Left-wing educators. Colleges across America are full of them. Besides, I already have a history degree.

By using the example of the wheel, I was simply pointing out that Indians were, compared to settlers, a backwards people. Who cares who invented the wheel.

Indians practiced ritual torture and Whites practiced torture for other reasons. Yes, both practiced torture. You're right. Did settlers escaping religious persecution come to America hoping to torture Indians? You know better.

You should understand that the Whites (that fought the Indians) that I am referring to are the ones that made up the country/U.S.A., not Spanish Conquistadors.

Again, pillaging settlers at places like Jamestown, not Spaniards.

On the whole, Indians were not very peaceful or accommodating towards settlers. On the whole. Fact. Were there some exceptions to this? Absolutely. Did I forget about U.S. soldiers killing Indians? No. That just wasn't necessary to get my point across: That Indians were not the peace loving ambassadors of good will that Hollywood has portrayed them as.

Americans should be grateful. Does that include American Indians? Yes that includes American Indians. Especially American Indians. For the same reason todays Blacks should be grateful for the forced migration of their ancestors.

Racist you say? I think not. I have enough Cherokee blood flowing through my own veins as to be able to talk about American Indians. Why would I be racist against myself? I am simply stating the FACTS.

Perhaps your brother should just smoke another joint.

Also, I am not a redneck boy but, in fact, a Southern Man.

One more thing, if you have any money to spare you should seriously consider taking a vaction as you seem wrapped too tight. Have a nice day.

 

I'm not going to get into a long harangue here. Like most of us interested in WWII, I've had to grapple with the 'morality' question ; no sane person can be totally 'happy' with the idea of Dresden or Hiroshima. The lesson that I draw from this is that wars should not be allowed to happen in the first place.

But as for 'moral equivalency' or suchlike - I shall always remember standing alone in the execution building in Plotzensee Prison, Berlin and looking up at the meathooks on which enemies of the Nazi regime were strangled to death, while being filmed. It really did give me the feeling that these were the 'bad guys' who had to be defeated.

 

I'm splitting hairs here, so apologies.
French troops landed in England in the 13th century during one of the Baronial rebellions.
The English coastal town of Winchelsea was regularly raided by the French during the Hundred Years War. Other coastal towns were raided by the Spanish during the 16th century.
French troops built a fort on Inchkeith island in Scotland's Firth of Forth in the 16th century, in an attempt to besiege Edinburgh.
French troops occupied Eilean Donan castle in the Highlands in 1715 in support of the Jacobites, until chased out by the Navy.
French troops landed at Fishguard in Wales(?) in 1798, but were defeated.
Britain might not have been successfully conquered since 1066, but it wasn't through lack of trying. The Royal Navy was the significant factor in preventing this after 1700-ish, but air power relegated this strength to the history books by 1940.
At one point in 1940, the RAF was under orders to drench invasion beaches with Mustard Gas if the Germans landed; several of the airfields where the stuff was stored can still be visited. Would this have been regarded as a 'war crime' if it had happened? Could the real reason why Hitler never ordered the use of gas be due to having knowledge of this plan, rather than his own memories from the Great War?

 

Not much mention of the USSR effort in defeating Germany...

"What defeated the Axis was the enormous production by the Allied powers, especially the United States"

What of Soviet production capability?

"You can't argue that this was due to superior Allied tactics or weaponry as many Axis planes, tanks, etc."

Er... Well yes you can. I would say that by the wars end the US and British/Commonwealth armies were as tactically aware as their German counterparts and had perfected combined arms warfare.

I would also argue that technological superiority means little if the design is too complex to build/maintain and has no fuel to drive/fly it.

"So what held up Germany from conquering Britain? Simply put, the English channel."

So not the Royal Navy or the RAF then? Not too mention the complete lack of German research into amphibious warfare.



As for the Native American thing... Whats that got to do with WW2?

 

Here is a good one for you, the US was not willing to bomb civilian targets in Euope and yet was positively enthusaistic in hammering Japanese cities, that always seemed odd to me.

 

Er, which ones were white?

 

Who pursued bombing civilian targets in Europe?

 

The RAF maybe?

Exactly my point Za, interesting isn't it?

 

Actually I believe that the RAF bombed a German city by accident due to getting a little lost since the bombing mission was at night time, Hitler on the other hand was soooo furious he ordered immediate retaliation. In fact this might be the very same reason why the RAF survived, due to Hitler's decision to bomb cities instead of planes and airports....

Please correct me if im wrong.

 

No one had many qualms about bombing civilian targets. The U.S. felt that precison daytime bombing was less likely to waste bombs on civilian targets, while the British felt that the bomber crews would be safer at night. Both were wrong in the end. The Germans developed techniques to blind the U.S. bombers and night fighters to attack the British.

A major concern, dispute, whatever was over the bombing of Dresden. There was almost no military significance to the total destruction of Dresden. It was a target of revenge undertaken by the British Bombing Command leadership, at least according to many intellectuals.

On the other hand, a lot of the Japanese production was spread out among little family shops. It can be argued that it was a more legitimate target, but I am sure that there was racism and revenge mixed into the decision. No matter what the reason, there was little that could be done to not hit civilians in any decision to attack support operations. Any bombing operation is terrifying in its destruction. With Tokyo, the very nature of the city made fire bombing the most effective way to impact the outcome, but much more horrific in the efect on people.

 

Racism as in dislike for Germans?

 

Why would you anticipate that?

 

While I was referring to the Japanese, to a lesser degree, it could also be said for the Germans. We tend to reduce the humanity of our enemies in order to make killing them easier to endure.

 

Why would one or many have racial opinions toward the Germans, particularly during that time? Which definition of racism are you refering to? Is it the same as Geobbels racism toward the Jews?

 

Exactly, Seadog, just look at the Japanese (can't say J**s in this forum or Otto will jump at you ) in the caricatures and cartoons of the time. Not flattering!



This is one of the pretty ones!

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/e/Q/wwiip117.jpg

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hoosier/images/historical/fire/ww2_jap_poster.jpg

 

Exactly, it was far easier to dehumanise an enemy who looks physically different. Not sure what point you were trying to get at White Flight, thoug it's pretty obvious I wasn't anticipating anything, for one thing you can't anticipate something in the past.