Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

The U.S. war crime North Korea won’t forget

Recommended Posts

On 4/23/2017 at 6:45 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Pretty much all of history. The only sustained period of time where noncombatants had an ok time was the 18th century, and that went kaput once the French Revolution kicked off. As HR said, War is hell.

Heck slaughtering civilians was just the start.  Typically they would take the women and young kids as their own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2017 at 0:12 PM, HR_Poke said:

War is hell. Atrocities were committed in every war I can think of. Their are no civilized wars. Fire bombing was just on a grander scale due to technology. Romans loved to crucify anyone and everyone after a victory and sell women and children into slavery.

Having spent some time in the Philippines I saw some pictures and heard stories about some of the things the Japanese did to the Filipinos, it's enough to make you vomit. Things like throwing infants in the air and spearing them with bayonets or raping women. The Baatan Death March and the abuse of POW's by the Japanese against both American and Filipino people might be one of the most atrocious situations of war crimes being committed in modern history. 

I can't sing and I can't dance but I can make romance - Macho Man Randy Savage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Heck slaughtering civilians was just the start.  Typically they would take the women and young kids as their own.  

In one of my early college English courses I read a paper on sports fanaticism. It posited that one of the reasons fans of team sports are so passionate may be instinctual. For thousands of years victory or defeat in battle had enormous ramifications for the group as a whole, not just the combatants. Sports, team sports in particular, are a way of fostering this primal competition, albeit with in a controlled setting with much lower stakes. But regardless of those lower stakes, there can still be that profound sense of importance among sports fans over meaningless contests. So if you were to believe the author, Space Jam is a much deeper take on athletic competition than it seems.

"The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all."

Cormac McCarthy

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Akkula said:

Maybe or they could have ended up like the soviet satellite states or maybe Spanish control of Latin America and slowly lost power.   I think sometimes people are overly focused on military success and underestimate how powerful passive resistance and civil society can be.   India could not be under British rule forever and South Africans defeated an apartheid state.  I think the Nazis could have held Europe but western Europe and UK would have been hard for them to pacify for the long term.   Africa,  Middle East and South Asia would have also been hard to hold.  One only needs to look at colonization by Europe of counties to see how hard it is to maintain control with brute force alone without the people behind you. 

Passive resistance has never worked.  

India, Latin America and South Africa all got their so called freedom because the oppressors lost their will to be brutal.   For many like Britain and Spain it just wasn't economically viable anymore.  Passive resistance just gets you killed when faces with Nazis, Soviets or Saddam Hussain or anyone willing to be brutal.   Only outside intervention and military overthrow work against brutal oppressors.

Guys like Martin Luther King or Ghandi weren't passive they were very aggressive.   They went to the worst of the worst places and put the brutal systems in the spotlight.  The spotlight kept them alive in worlds where the brutality of the former regimes was not acceptable anymore.   There was nothing passive about it though, they were trying to keep it non-violent to survive.  The point was to expose the brutality because it wasn't acceptable to the populace if exposed.

All your examples were places where the economic reasons to keep control disappeared long before that control was given up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

In one of my early college English courses I read a paper on sports fanaticism. It posited that one of the reasons fans of team sports are so passionate may be instinctual. For thousands of years victory or defeat in battle had enormous ramifications for the group as a whole, not just the combatants. Sports, team sports in particular, are a way of fostering this primal competition, albeit with in a controlled setting with much lower stakes. But regardless of those lower stakes, there can still be that profound sense of importance among sports fans over meaningless contests. So if you were to believe the author, Space Jam is a much deeper take on athletic competition than it seems.

Yeah it makes sense to me.   I don't think it's an accident that between the Big 10 Flagship schools and the SEC Flagship schools you 80% recreate the sympathies of the civil war and no school current D1A State Flagship is on the wrong side.   

Both schools have passion and viewership that exceeds other conferences.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Passive resistance has never worked.  

India, Latin America and South Africa all got their so called freedom because the oppressors lost their will to be brutal.   For many like Britain and Spain it just wasn't economically viable anymore.  Passive resistance just gets you killed when faces with Nazis, Soviets or Saddam Hussain or anyone willing to be brutal.   Only outside intervention and military overthrow work against brutal oppressors.

Guys like Martin Luther King or Ghandi weren't passive they were very aggressive.   They went to the worst of the worst places and put the brutal systems in the spotlight.  The spotlight kept them alive in worlds where the brutality of the former regimes was not acceptable anymore.   There was nothing passive about it though, they were trying to keep it non-violent to survive.  The point was to expose the brutality because it wasn't acceptable to the populace if exposed.

All your examples were places where the economic reasons to keep control disappeared long before that control was given up.

I think the same factors that cause people to lose the will to be brutal would be the same.  How long would Germany want its people stung along in far flung places?  Would the population eventually get war weary and get tired of spending their blood and treasure?  Perhaps it wouldn't make economic sense to hold all this territory.   What exactly are the economic incentives to hold some of this territory and is it more trouble than it is worth?  What happens when the population just starts working less hard or maybe "forgets" to do something and machines break down and the economy runs poorly?  All of that is a form of passive resistance and it can eat away at the ruling regime.  I just think it would be very hard for a regime to dominate a population that doesn't want that kind of government and knows a different and better way for the long term.  In the short term it could work but I don't think it lasts for decades and decades.  The Spanish were very brutal in the New World but they just couldn't hold it and receded for a lot of these reasons.  Hitler was the first one to commit Genocide in the TV era so I wonder how many of these other genocides would have been closer to our consciousnesses if they were on TV an replayed on the history channel ad nauseum.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I think the same factors that cause people to lose the will to be brutal would be the same.  How long would Germany want its people stung along in far flung places?  Would the population eventually get war weary and get tired of spending their blood and treasure?  Perhaps it wouldn't make economic sense to hold all this territory.   What exactly are the economic incentives to hold some of this territory and is it more trouble than it is worth?  What happens when the population just starts working less hard or maybe "forgets" to do something and machines break down and the economy runs poorly?  All of that is a form of passive resistance and it can eat away at the ruling regime.  I just think it would be very hard for a regime to dominate a population that doesn't want that kind of government and knows a different and better way for the long term.  In the short term it could work but I don't think it lasts for decades and decades.  The Spanish were very brutal in the New World but they just couldn't hold it and receded for a lot of these reasons.  Hitler was the first one to commit Genocide in the TV era so I wonder how many of these other genocides would have been closer to our consciousnesses if they were on TV an replayed on the history channel ad nauseum.  

I think the Nazis would've either wiped out the indigenous populations or relocated them to non-Nazi controlled areas.  Their goal was to repopulate the Reich with Aryans.  Can't do that with indigenous people around.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Yes among other things.   The Nazis were so smart in so many ways it is amazing the dumb mistakes they made.

Not building a strategic bomber lost them the Battle of Britain.   They almost took out the ability of the English to use their airfields with Medium bombers and if they had built something comparable to the allies lancaster or B-16 they take out England in 1940 and there is no two front war.

Germany was starving for oil in 1941 and they move troops from their push to the caucasus oil fields to their push on moscow.   The early winter and massive mud flows caught them 20 miles away from moscow and they never got the oil fields.    The movement of those troops cost them the war.   Then their focus on an unimportant city named Stalingrad which should have just been bypassed and ignored made the mistake worse.

If Germany had done things well, they have taken Russia all the way to the Urals which is effectively the country and Britain before the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

 

Biggest mistake the Nazis made were being Nazis.  If they had gone into eastern Europe as actual liberators rather than the conquering a$$hats they were they would have steamrolled the Soviets.  Many in places like Ukraine at first greeted the Germans as heroes, that was until the "heroes" started mass executions.  Thing is if the Nazis weren't the genocidal nationalist racists they were, they wouldn't have started the war that they did.  As Mug beat me to it.

46 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I think the Nazis would've either wiped out the indigenous populations or relocated them to non-Nazi controlled areas.  Their goal was to repopulate the Reich with Aryans.  Can't do that with indigenous people around.

Yep this, the Nazi's couldn't act as liberators because their plan for eastern Europe was eliminate enough if not all of the indigenous people to make way for a super Germany.

Now back to my reply to bluerules009

I would argue the Battle of Britain was not that close.  While RAF group 11 was hurting RAF groups 10 and 12 were still at strength.  Even before the Luftwaffe switched from targeting the airfields to London the attrition rates were in favor of the Brits.  I don't think if Germany had the equivalent of B-17's that would have changed this.  What fighters are going to escort those bombers?  German fighters didn't have the range of later American fighters, and consider that the U.K. had better radar.  Further, Germany didn't have the industrial output or manpower of the U.S. and the U.S. wasn't able to put together a strong enough strategic air force to solely defeat a nation until the development of the atomic bomb.  Could the Battle of Britain have gone worse for the RAF, yes, but I don't think the German's having a four engine bomber would have allowed them to achieve their objectives for the Battle of Britain.  I think (this is partially tic) it is more likely the Germans would have over complicated and over engineered their strategic bomber resulting in a resource hog that would have a bigger negative impact on their overall wartime production.  

20 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

America did not defeat the Nazis.   D-day and Patton did not defeat the Nazis.   The Russians defeated the Nazis before Americans ever landed on the beaches of Normandy.   All of this hyperbole about Germany taking out America after it finished with the Soviet Union and Britain ignores the facts of history.   Germany was defeated by the Russians and although it would have taken them longer had we not landed at D-day, the outcome was already inevitable.  Germany had lost the war by September of 1943.

This irrational fear of WWII germany comes out of a lot of government propaganda.   FDR wanted everyone to think the loss of 200K+ americans was not an unnecessary waste, but the facts are it was.


As for who beat the Nazis, it wasn't just the Soviets, the Yanks, the Brits, or the Dominion.  It was the allies that beat the Nazis.  Sure most of the dying and slaughter occurred on the Eastern Front.  That said a lot of resources were tied down in Western Europe and Germany.  Lots of fighters and 88's remained to defend against the strategic bombing campaign.  Plenty of German troops were in Norway, France, Italy, and North Africa.  Take away the effort of the Western Allies in a hypothetical scenario and all those resources and troops are freed up for the eastern front coupled with the lack of lend lease to the Soviets, and the Eastern Front would have been a much closer run fight.    I will also add while the Soviets may well have beaten the Nazis on their own without any aid from the allies.  Without the effort of the Western Allies, western Europe would have been under one oppressive authoritarian Government one way or another.  Maybe it would have been under the sickle and hammer or maybe under the swastika.  Either way neither a Soviet nor Nazi dominated Western Europe would have helped the U.S. to achieve the economy it did in the 1950's.  

I would agree, as I see no way for Germany to invade the U.K., I don't see Germany able to invade the U.S. at least in the mid 1940's.   As things were going in 1944, what D-Day and the subsequent campaign ensured was that Western Europe would not fall under Soviet Rule.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

Biggest mistake the Nazis made were being Nazis.  If they had gone into eastern Europe as actual liberators rather than the conquering a$$hats they were they would have steamrolled the Soviets.  Many in places like Ukraine at first greeted the Germans as heroes, that was until the "heroes" started mass executions.  Thing is if the Nazis weren't the genocidal nationalist racists they were, they wouldn't have started the war that they did.  As Mug beat me to it.

Yep this, the Nazi's couldn't act as liberators because their plan for eastern Europe was eliminate enough if not all of the indigenous people to make way for a super Germany.

Now back to my reply to bluerules009

I would argue the Battle of Britain was not that close.  While RAF group 11 was hurting RAF groups 10 and 12 were still at strength.  Even before the Luftwaffe switched from targeting the airfields to London the attrition rates were in favor of the Brits.  I don't think if Germany had the equivalent of B-17's that would have changed this.  What fighters are going to escort those bombers?  German fighters didn't have the range of later American fighters, and consider that the U.K. had better radar.  Further, Germany didn't have the industrial output or manpower of the U.S. and the U.S. wasn't able to put together a strong enough strategic air force to solely defeat a nation until the development of the atomic bomb.  Could the Battle of Britain have gone worse for the RAF, yes, but I don't think the German's having a four engine bomber would have allowed them to achieve their objectives for the Battle of Britain.  I think (this is partially tic) it is more likely the Germans would have over complicated and over engineered their strategic bomber resulting in a resource hog that would have a bigger negative impact on their overall wartime production.  


As for who beat the Nazis, it wasn't just the Soviets, the Yanks, the Brits, or the Dominion.  It was the allies that beat the Nazis.  Sure most of the dying and slaughter occurred on the Eastern Front.  That said a lot of resources were tied down in Western Europe and Germany.  Lots of fighters and 88's remained to defend against the strategic bombing campaign.  Plenty of German troops were in Norway, France, Italy, and North Africa.  Take away the effort of the Western Allies in a hypothetical scenario and all those resources and troops are freed up for the eastern front coupled with the lack of lend lease to the Soviets, and the Eastern Front would have been a much closer run fight.    I will also add while the Soviets may well have beaten the Nazis on their own without any aid from the allies.  Without the effort of the Western Allies, western Europe would have been under one oppressive authoritarian Government one way or another.  Maybe it would have been under the sickle and hammer or maybe under the swastika.  Either way neither a Soviet nor Nazi dominated Western Europe would have helped the U.S. to achieve the economy it did in the 1950's.  

I would agree, as I see no way for Germany to invade the U.K., I don't see Germany able to invade the U.S. at least in the mid 1940's.   As things were going in 1944, what D-Day and the subsequent campaign ensured was that Western Europe would not fall under Soviet Rule.   

Anyone who has studied the battle of Britain knows there were several times the British were just able to get their planes in the air to defend against raids.   If the germans had used heavy bombers all those planes would have been destroyed on the ground.

 

Sorry the Russians with the support of American equipment beat the Nazis.   The second front or threat of a serious cross channel invasion, wasn't even a concern until 1943 and the Nazis were already beat.

 

The Germans couldn't foreseeably invade the US, that is just ignorance.

You are right though the D-Day invasion was all about keeping the Russians from taking all of Europe which is of course the start of the Cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akkula said:

I think the same factors that cause people to lose the will to be brutal would be the same.  How long would Germany want its people stung along in far flung places?  Would the population eventually get war weary and get tired of spending their blood and treasure?  Perhaps it wouldn't make economic sense to hold all this territory.   What exactly are the economic incentives to hold some of this territory and is it more trouble than it is worth?  What happens when the population just starts working less hard or maybe "forgets" to do something and machines break down and the economy runs poorly?  All of that is a form of passive resistance and it can eat away at the ruling regime.  I just think it would be very hard for a regime to dominate a population that doesn't want that kind of government and knows a different and better way for the long term.  In the short term it could work but I don't think it lasts for decades and decades.  The Spanish were very brutal in the New World but they just couldn't hold it and receded for a lot of these reasons.  Hitler was the first one to commit Genocide in the TV era so I wonder how many of these other genocides would have been closer to our consciousnesses if they were on TV an replayed on the history channel ad nauseum.  

So under your "Theory", North Korea should fall to a popular uprising any day.

You are a complete idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2017 at 6:43 PM, Rocket said:

The part I have struggled with and will most likely never agree with in a million lifetimes is bombing civilians. Imo bombing civilians is the most brutal and inhumane thing a man could ever do. Throughout history, when was it ever considered ok to slaughter civilians? I can't think of any other wars where this was considered honorable or civilized. What happened to the days of armies meeting on a battlefield and fighting each other? We crossed a major line.

Lol at this post.  You know what happened after those armies met on the battlefield?  The murder, rape and usually the enslavement of civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2017 at 0:10 PM, FresnoFanatic said:

And don't forget genocide made America possible in the first place.

National borders are instruments for the rich and those compliant to the rich.  The compliant will work their jobs and fight their wars....We compliant have to eat and want the best of what's left....so we comply and blame those who don't comply when things go south.

FFS the drivel posted in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

Anyone who has studied the battle of Britain knows there were several times the British were just able to get their planes in the air to defend against raids.   If the germans had used heavy bombers all those planes would have been destroyed on the ground.

 

What is the differences between RAF groups 10, 11, 12? Which of these RAF groups had their bases actually attacked?  Were Allied strategic bombers able to destroy all the German planes on the ground?  There was a reason the Luftwaffe did not attack the air fields of two of those groups, they did not have the fighters with sufficient range to escort their bombers to those targets.  It wasn't the bombers hurting the RAF it was the escorting fighters causing more damage.  Similar to Big Week in 1944, the U.S. bombers served as bait while the fighters really tore up the Luftwaffe.   No escort and your bombers are going to suffer without inflicting much damage.  As RAF Groups 10 and 12 were effectively outside the fighter range of the Luftwaffe, even if the Luftwaffe destroyed RAF group 11 and their airfields the other two were still there and could be used to counter the Luftwaffe.  Also even while the Luftwaffe was still attacking RAF group 11's airbases the attrition rates were in favor of the Brits.  Germany was hoping for one of two things.  The first, to degrade the RAF to allow operation suicide er operation sacrificial offering of many German soldiers to the English Channel, er Operation Sea Lion (I hope my snark here demonstrates my thoughts on the feasibility of Sea Lion).  Or the second, to bring the U.K. to the peace table.  Brits were fighting a long term war of attrition which is why they deployed their fighter units as they did.  Brits were winning this fight.

Quote

Sorry the Russians with the support of American equipment beat the Nazis.   The second front or threat of a serious cross channel invasion, wasn't even a concern until 1943 and the Nazis were already beat.

 


In a world were it was just Soviets vs Nazis, I wouldn't agree that the Nazis were already beat in 1943 on the eastern front. Historically, considering they were at war with not just the Soviets but the Western Allies as well, yeah it was bleak.   For me Kursk was really the end for the German hope of any sort of favorable or even lenient peace.,  Before Kursk they were able to mount large offensives on the eastern front, never could after.  Thus, in my mind any sort of redeployment of troops and equipment prior and during Kursk matters.   The second fronts were of enough concern to keep hundreds of thousands to millions of German soldiers away from the eastern front at that time.  The North African campaign resulted in 424,335-524,335 Axis casualties either KIA or captured (272,341-372,341 Italian and 151,994 German).  All those thousands of fighters and 88's kept in Germany.  That was all before Kursk.  Would they have changed the tide on the eastern front in 1943, I dunno, but they would have helped.  Even those hundreds of thousands of Italians would have helped in preventing Soviet success they obtained by exploiting the gaps between the German army groups.  Based off what I have read, I think sufficient men and equipment were kept in Germany and those other areas that was detrimental to their effort on the eastern front.  How much of a difference they would have made is unknowable, what we do know is that the historical effort of each played a role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.  This is why I say the Allies beat the Nazis as it is unknowable how a 1 vs 1 of the Germans vs the Soviets alone, or the U.K. alone, or the U.S. alone would have resulted. 

Quote

The Germans couldn't foreseeably invade the US, that is just ignorance.

You are right though the D-Day invasion was all about keeping the Russians from taking all of Europe which is of course the start of the Cold war.


I would agree that Germany could not invade the U.S. in any sort of foreseeable alternate reality.  Maybe after years of control of Europe, but I think you and I agree that wasn't going to happen.  And now to tie this back to closer to the OP.  A lot of these sorts of discussions, this post included to an extent, deal with a lot of what if's.  As far as Korea goes, I would be hard pressed to think the regime of a reunified peninsula under the North Korean flag would be any different than North Korea is today.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

What is the differences between RAF groups 10, 11, 12? Which of these RAF groups had their bases actually attacked?  Were Allied strategic bombers able to destroy all the German planes on the ground?  There was a reason the Luftwaffe did not attack the air fields of two of those groups, they did not have the fighters with sufficient range to escort their bombers to those targets.  It wasn't the bombers hurting the RAF it was the escorting fighters causing more damage.  Similar to Big Week in 1944, the U.S. bombers served as bait while the fighters really tore up the Luftwaffe.   No escort and your bombers are going to suffer without inflicting much damage.  As RAF Groups 10 and 12 were effectively outside the fighter range of the Luftwaffe, even if the Luftwaffe destroyed RAF group 11 and their airfields the other two were still there and could be used to counter the Luftwaffe.  Also even while the Luftwaffe was still attacking RAF group 11's airbases the attrition rates were in favor of the Brits.  Germany was hoping for one of two things.  The first, to degrade the RAF to allow operation suicide er operation sacrificial offering of many German soldiers to the English Channel, er Operation Sea Lion (I hope my snark here demonstrates my thoughts on the feasibility of Sea Lion).  Or the second, to bring the U.K. to the peace table.  Brits were fighting a long term war of attrition which is why they deployed their fighter units as they did.  Brits were winning this fight.    


In a world were it was just Soviets vs Nazis, I wouldn't agree that the Nazis were already beat in 1943 on the eastern front. Historically, considering they were at war with not just the Soviets but the Western Allies as well, yeah it was bleak.   For me Kursk was really the end for the German hope of any sort of favorable or even lenient peace.,  Before Kursk they were able to mount large offensives on the eastern front, never could after.  Thus, in my mind any sort of redeployment of troops and equipment prior and during Kursk matters.   The second fronts were of enough concern to keep hundreds of thousands to millions of German soldiers away from the eastern front at that time.  The North African campaign resulted in 424,335-524,335 Axis casualties either KIA or captured (272,341-372,341 Italian and 151,994 German).  All those thousands of fighters and 88's kept in Germany.  That was all before Kursk.  Would they have changed the tide on the eastern front in 1943, I dunno, but they would have helped.  Even those hundreds of thousands of Italians would have helped in preventing Soviet success they obtained by exploiting the gaps between the German army groups.  Based off what I have read, I think sufficient men and equipment were kept in Germany and those other areas that was detrimental to their effort on the eastern front.  How much of a difference they would have made is unknowable, what we do know is that the historical effort of each played a role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.  This is why I say the Allies beat the Nazis as it is unknowable how a 1 vs 1 of the Germans vs the Soviets alone, or the U.K. alone, or the U.S. alone would have resulted.    Very few troops were kept busy anywhere else.


I would agree that Germany could not invade the U.S. in any sort of foreseeable alternate reality.  Maybe after years of control of Europe, but I think you and I agree that wasn't going to happen.  And now to tie this back to closer to the OP.  A lot of these sorts of discussions, this post included to an extent, deal with a lot of what if's.  As far as Korea goes, I would be hard pressed to think the regime of a reunified peninsula under the North Korean flag would be any different than North Korea is today.     

A unified Korea under the same regime as North Korea would like Vietnam and China became citizens of the world in at least an economic sense and be far different today without the American army poised on its border.    Trade and security would necessarily mean more freedom and wealth for its citizens.

 

 

At the most there were 2 divisions of German troops in Africa.  Most of the time there was less then that all the rest were Italian.  There were less then 400K german troops in army group C defending Italy the rest were Italian.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Germans-not-win-the-Battle-of-Britain

1. Technological failure
The Germans bombers were designed to be "flying artillery", providing close support to advancing ground units. The Ju-87 and 88, the Do-17, and the He-111 lacked the range, the bomb capacity, and the defensive armament to accomplish what was demanded of them in the Battle of Britain.
The Bf-109 fighter lacked the armament and the range to adequately defend the German bombers, while the Bf-110, with the speed and range requirements lacked the agility to defend itself from Spitfires and Hurricanes, let alone keep the bombers safe.
Of course, the British possessed two excellent fighters, the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire which could intercept and destroy the enemy aircraft.

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-luftwaffe-fought-the-battle-of-britain

Its lack of heavy bombers made it difficult to inflict strategically significant damage on British targets. The Luftwaffe’s fighter force had no effective method of plotting the positions of Fighter Command aircraft and also lacked any means of ground-to-air control of its machines.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-britain

The Luftwaffe, with its lack of heavy bombers and failure to fully identify critically important targets, never inflicted strategically significant damage. It suffered from constant supply problems, largely as a result of underachievement in aircraft production. Germany’s failure to defeat the RAF and secure control of the skies over southern England made invasion all but impossible. British victory in the Battle of Britain was decisive, but ultimately defensive in nature 

https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-the-Germans-in-the-battle-of-Britain-had-heavy-bombers-like-the-B-17-or-B-24-or-at-latter-stages-the-B-29-Would-that-give-them-an-advantage-as-such-that-they-could-shut-the-British-down-in-the-early-stages-of-the-war

What would have happened if the Germans in the battle of Britain had heavy bombers like the B-17 or B-24 or at latter stages the B-29? Would that give them an advantage as such that they could shut the British down in the early stages of the war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Lol at this post.  You know what happened after those armies met on the battlefield?  The murder, rape and usually the enslavement of civilians.

Hilarious, the point I'm trying to make is, try not to get into a whoever is the most ruthless wins the game mentality. To the victor the spoils but not everyone loses their humanity in the process, not everyone partakes in rape and murder, just the rapists and the murderers.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rocket said:

Hilarious, the point I'm trying to make is, try not to get into a whoever is the most ruthless wins the game mentality. To the victor the spoils but not everyone loses their humanity in the process, not everyone partakes in rape and murder, just the rapists and the murderers.

Ok, so I am seeing no difference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

A unified Korea under the same regime as North Korea would like Vietnam and China became citizens of the world in at least an economic sense and be far different today without the American army poised on its border.    Trade and security would necessarily mean more freedom and wealth for its citizens.

I will have to comment on the rest of the post later when I have some more time.  The difference between Vietnam China vs North Korea is the Kim regime.  Ho Chi and Mao did not establish a dynasty like Kim did.  I do not see them opening up like China and Vietnam, and it certainly wouldn't be as economically vibrant as South Korea is today.  South Korea was able to explode economically even with the massive North Korean Army on their border.  North Korea did not, why?  Keep in mind that there is no reason for North Korea to be as destitute as they are given they could trade with the USSR and China.  Even before all these nuclear sanctions the Kim mode of operation has been to keep the people under their thumb.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

I will have to comment on the rest of the post later when I have some more time.  The difference between Vietnam China vs North Korea is the Kim regime.  Ho Chi and Mao did not establish a dynasty like Kim did.  I do not see them opening up like China and Vietnam, and it certainly wouldn't be as economically vibrant as South Korea is today.  South Korea was able to explode economically even with the massive North Korean Army on their border.  North Korea did not, why?  Keep in mind that there is no reason for North Korea to be as destitute as they are given they could trade with the USSR and China.  Even before all these nuclear sanctions the Kim mode of operation has been to keep the people under their thumb.
 

I agree it would not be economically like South Korea.  It also wouldn't be like North Korea today.    It would probably be similar to a Libya under Gaddafi or Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2017 at 10:59 PM, just_chris said:

Having spent some time in the Philippines I saw some pictures and heard stories about some of the things the Japanese did to the Filipinos, it's enough to make you vomit. Things like throwing infants in the air and spearing them with bayonets or raping women. The Baatan Death March and the abuse of POW's by the Japanese against both American and Filipino people might be one of the most atrocious situations of war crimes being committed in modern history. 

The Japanese were very brutal in their treatment of civilians and pows.  During WWII and the second Sino-Japanese War directly preceding it they are estimated to have killed between 3 and 14 million non-combatants intentionally without any military advantage.  Very cruel stuff and not mentioned much in Japanese history books but there is a growing movement to come to grips with it.  For a couple years of college I roomed with two different Japanese students and their history of WWII is very focused on the use of atomic bombs....ask them about about what happened in Korea and China during their occupations of and they really had no clue.  It's not just the victors who get to write their history.

All things being equal fat people use more soap

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...