Wow, Allied POWs in the Pacific

[Joe Bob]

Loser....all I see is blah, blah, blah......

[eastbay]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

WTF is seriously wrong with you?

They were American citizens with full rights. They were all tarred with the same brush by pure bigoted racism. No trials, no evidence, personal property configated and given to white people.

What part of that is American values? What part of that is supported by the US Constitution or Bill of Rights?

And as evidence for your opinion, you cite a wacko right wingnut author. Not a peer reviewed historian. In fact no peer reviewed historian or professional historical journal has validated or agreed to any of his nonsense. He is a political commentator (BS peddler).

There were a mere handful of American citizens that had any involvement with Imperial Japan. Less that .001% by my count. How and why is that grounds for punishing them all?

Actually, that link can start your education on the issue if you so desire, but somehow I doubt you will. Easier to drink the propaganda. Your modern sense of 'American' citizen and 'full civil rights' during WWII is laughable.

But, because the book is written by a 'wingnut' in your estimation, it must have no facts? I have read many books and have been to the internment camps, have you?

Whereas the enlightened French treatment of the 'Vichy" and the collaborators was much more high minded and sophisticated, wasn't it?

To be lectured about civil and human rights by a european is most amusing.

[nostatic]

There frankly is enough racism and selective memories to go around. My undergrad advisor was sent to Manzanita. Not a party, but certainly pales in comparison with the Japanese atrocities in China. Of course just because someone else acts worse than you does not excuse the behavior.

The glossing over of the Rape of Nanking and related matters compared to the continued high visibility of the plight of Jews before/during WW2 is interesting and predictable given the biases in the western world. They are ugly incidents in the history of humans, but not all atrocities are treated equally in hindsight.

[dondarnell]

Let's start with the Revolutionary War. France saved our asses then.

WW I, American was late to the party and had very little affect on the war. American soldiers were poorly trained, ill equipped (they had to use French and British equipment as there own was nearly useless), and required months of training in France just to be partially able to hold their own against the retreating Germans.

WW II, Americans were late to the party again but fought much better. Of course so did the Free French, Free Poles, British, Canadian, Free Belgium and Resistance from most Western European countries. The French Resistance provided the vast majority of intelligence required for D Day. And of course the Russians were the single most important player in Europe responsible for the German defeat.




Well, you got the Revolutionary War part right. The rest, not so much.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by eastbay

Actually, that link can start your education on the issue if you so desire, but somehow I doubt you will. Easier to drink the propaganda. Your modern sense of 'American' citizen and 'full civil rights' during WWII is laughable.

But, because the book is written by a 'wingnut' in your estimation, it must have no facts? I have read many books and have been to the internment camps, have you?

Whereas the enlightened French treatment of the 'Vichy" and the collaborators was much more high minded and sophisticated, wasn't it?

To be lectured about civil and human rights by a european is most amusing.

The joke is quite funny but it is entirely on you.

As an American citizen and vet who was raised in California and who still spends several months of the year there, I have visited the internment sites in in three States. I have read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have a Masters in History with my specialty in WW II. I attended the War College while in service.

What do you have as any kind of expertise?

Point out the factual errors in my posts, not your opinions, but facts that can be verified.

Read the link you posted, it is full of criticisms for this political hack from historians. I haven't even mentioned the crap he spouts about hating Muslims. Just what do you use for evidence? Lies, political rants and rightwingnuts apparently serve your purposes very well. Not a single peer-reviewed history journal has commented favorably on this book. Not even from Conservative historians. If this is an example of the quality of books you read, then I understand your lack of intelligence.

History on the other hand, documented, peer-reviewed historical evidence is meaningless to you. We know your type.

Now just go and play, while the adults laugh at your ignorance.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by dondarnell

Well, you got the Revolutionary War part right. The rest, not so much.

Please post the evidence to correct me.

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by dondarnell

Let's start with the Revolutionary War. France saved our asses then.

WW I, American was late to the party and had very little affect on the war. American soldiers were poorly trained, ill equipped (they had to use French and British equipment as there own was nearly useless), and required months of training in France just to be partially able to hold their own against the retreating Germans.

WW II, Americans were late to the party again but fought much better. Of course so did the Free French, Free Poles, British, Canadian, Free Belgium and Resistance from most Western European countries. The French Resistance provided the vast majority of intelligence required for D Day. And of course the Russians were the single most important player in Europe responsible for the German defeat.




Well, you got the Revolutionary War part right. The rest, not so much.

The French were late to the party back in the 1700s. They only got invloved due to economics. They liked American textiles and raw materials that were denied to them by the English export laws.

As to WWI, the people did not want to get involved. WWII about the same, the Pearl Harbor thingy got us off the couch. Germany declared war on the US....then started attacking US shipping in the Atlantic in earnest. There were "incidents" prior to the formal declaration.

Part I liked....US sent scrap metal to Asia and was the primary source of the metals used to build the war machines.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by dondarnell

Let's start with the Revolutionary War. France saved our asses then.

Agreed.

WW I, American was late to the party and had very little affect on the war. American soldiers were poorly trained, ill equipped (they had to use French and British equipment as there own was nearly useless), and required months of training in France just to be partially able to hold their own against the retreating Germans.

I vehemently disagree. In fact the US's entry in the war tipped the balance. Up to that time Germany (and to a lesser degree Austria and Bulgaria) had succeeded in knocking one of the Entente partners out each year of the war starting in 1916. And this was in spite of Germany repeatedly being dragging them into bad situations by Austro-Hungary.

Serbia - conquered in 1914 by Austria and Bulgaria
Montenegro - Surrendered in 1916
Russia - Separate peace in 1917
Romania - Separate peace in May 1918

The Germans consistently had far fewer casualties than the Allies, once again in spite of being dragged into bloodbaths like Carpathian campaign of the Winter and Spring of 1915. For the most part the entire war took place on Allied territory. If it hadn't been for American support, the Germans would most likely have punched right through the Allied lines on the Western Front in the spring offensives of 1918. While the US troops didn't start to fight in any significant quantities until the summer of 1918, the logistics and manpower impact can't be denied. For example just by occupying quiet sections of the lines in the first half of 1918, the Americans allowed the French and British troops enough of a respite to regroup and consolidate their forces. They also allowed the French and British to commit their reserves with the knowledge that American troops would be available for future use. I'd argue that the key to the Allies success was the British Navy's success in limiting Germany's access to the US during the war. In 1914 Germans constituted the largest ethnic group in the US, most of which had emigrated in the previous 50 years and still spoke German and had connections in Germany. Germany sent the commercial submarine Deutschland to the US twice in 1916 to try to maintain connections with that group and formally with the US (as well as drop off saboteurs). But two trips in 3 years was not enough to keep the US either Neutral or pro-German. Compound that by the propaganda failure of the unrestricted U-Boat campaign and inept diplomacy on the part of the Germans and the result was that they pushed the US to the allied side.

In regards to WWII, I tend to be in agreement with Tabs. Sure the Russians provided a lot of man-power (and territory) in the war against the Germans, but I'm not convinced that the they, the British and the Free French could have beaten the Germans on their own. Also note that Russia absolutely refused to engage the Japanese, and didn't declare war on them until the last weeks of WWII when it was clear that the Americans, British and Australians were immanently going to defeat them. So one reason why they had so many troops to apply against Germany is because they were willing to allow the Japanese Empire to continue in the Pacific.

Also, without American supplies, it's not clear that the British could have cleared the Germans out of North Africa. (Once again the Germans seemed to have a knack for partnering with countries who constantly dragged them into bad situations.) Without the German defeat in North Africa, it's not clear that the Allies could have rolled up through Italy, tieing up the German forces in that theater as they did.

So once again, I see that the US's impact in WWII was similar to it's impact in WWI -- it decided the war.

[john70t]

The lines of "us and them" "good and evil" were not as clear-cut as the pictures in our children's history books.

Hitler had appeasment by Chamberlain, Vichy France, and a pack with Stalin. Many Americans were initially against fighting for far away Europe. Many U.S. companies(and parts of U.S. government) were doing good business with the Nazi's before, during, and after the war.
Democracy didn't mix with either Fascism or Communism back then.

Consider the example of John Rabe, the asian version of Shindler, where a major German company with Nazi ties initially supplied the enemies of it's allie. It's interesting to see Chinese in German uniforms fighting Japanese.

There were great divisions in the motivations of the Axis powers as well. The German Wermark and the Nazis often clashed, as did the Imperial NavyAirforce and the Army. Many Okinawans were as afraid of the mainlanders as they were of us barbarians.

Not cut-and-dry.

[romad]

Sorry to burst the alternative world view but, the US was the primary reason both axis threats failed.

Without the initial material and political support of the USA, Britain doesn't survive.

If Britain doesn't survive .....Russian goes down hard, no way Russian survives
a full German effort.

[john70t]

The Russian air force had their own "ultimate weapons" begining into production in 1944, a lot of unavigatable space, and a lot of motivated people.
Ground troop can't survive without big supply chains, and they are easy to break without foot/horse traffic.

Even without the U.S. involvment, there was no way a victorious Axis could maintain a forceful empire for very long while a guerilla war was being fought simultaneously throughout.

5-20 years tops before it came crashing down, spliting up, or the Axis at war with itself.

[romad]

I think its pretty cut and dry......there is no "quote" alternate defeat of the Axis power without direct US involvement. Are there alternate final outcomes for sure, but not in any 6 year time frame of the actual history. It is unimaginable what the last seventy years would have be like, if the US didn't intervene. Its just lucky"in a historical context", that both axis powers were to say a bit "over ambitions"

Just delaying Barbarosa one year to secure N Africa and the Med, would have made it impossible for the US to react. Again there are many alternative, but none that defeat the axis without US involvement.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by romad

I think its pretty cut and dry......there is no "quote" alternate defeat of the Axis power without direct US involvement. Are they alternate final outcomes for sure, but not in any 6 year time frame of the actual history. It is unimaginable what the last seventy years would have be like, if the US didn't intervene. Its just lucky"in a historical context", that both axis powers were to say a bit "over ambitions"

Just delaying Barbarosa one year to secure N africa and rthe Med, would have made impossible forthe US to even react. Again there are many alternative, but none that defeat the axis without US involvement.

There are so many incredible what-ifs with regard to WWII. What if, say around 1942, Hitler had told his generals, "You guys run the war from now on and I'll be the political figure/head of state, ok? I want all conquered land to remain under German control and I want all the Jews in that land exterminated. Other than that, you guys do what needs doing and I'll see that you get the tools and political cover." Imagine if he had really done that. WWII would have been a stalemate and the ensuing Cold War would have been between the US and Nazi Germany with Hitler dying of old age in the 1970's.

[wdfifteen]

We didn't learn a lot about WWII in school, probably because our parents lived through it and they thought they would tell us about it. Ironically, my father never talked about WWII until he got alzheimers and his short term memory went. Then he would sit for an our telling stories about being in the Philippines, often off color stories right in the cafeteria in full hearing of everyone.
I just read a book by William Manchester - Goodbye Darkness. It was an interesting insider memoir of WW II in the pacific.

[Jim Bremner]

$10.00 says that the Russians STILL have USA produced goods left over from "the great war"

[eastbay]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

The joke is quite funny but it is entirely on you.

As an American citizen and vet who was raised in California and who still spends several months of the year there, I have visited the internment sites in in three States. I have read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have a Masters in History with my specialty in WW II. I attended the War College while in service.

What do you have as any kind of expertise?

Point out the factual errors in my posts, not your opinions, but facts that can be verified.

Read the link you posted, it is full of criticisms for this political hack from historians. I haven't even mentioned the crap he spouts about hating Muslims. Just what do you use for evidence? Lies, political rants and rightwingnuts apparently serve your purposes very well. Not a single peer-reviewed history journal has commented favorably on this book. Not even from Conservative historians. If this is an example of the quality of books you read, then I understand your lack of intelligence.

History on the other hand, documented, peer-reviewed historical evidence is meaningless to you. We know your type.

Now just go and play, while the adults laugh at your ignorance.

snap, crackle, POP! WooHoo! excuse me while I take a victory lap!

[daepp]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Another excellent, very personal account is:

Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption, by Laura Hillenbrand.

This is a must read! I cannot emphasize it enough. I actually met the main character many years ago, and boy does he have a story to tell! He's 94 today and still exercising regularly!

[pwd72s]

Two of my uncles served...both Army air corps. One in Europe, flying B-17's, the other a "communications officer" in the Pacific. Never quite heard the details, but he retired a full bird in the 1960's.

Cindy's Uncle was 1st Cav, Guadalcanal...didn't know until I read his Obit last year that he was silver star & purple heart.

Probably most families can relate tales of those who served. WWII was a biggie, no doubt!

[GH85Carrera]

“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.”

General George S. Patton

[RPKESQ]

First off, many Countries helped defeat Germany. All paid in blood.

But the single Country who made the largest effort, obtained the largest share by far of actually killing Germans and tied down the vast majority of German forces from 1941 to 1945 was the USSR.

Everybody loves to speculate.

What if.....


How about examining the actual known facts?


Russia kicked the Japanese butt so bad in the East in 1939 in Manchuria. Japan never threatened the USSR again allowing Stalin to utilize the huge (over 5 million) population of military reserves. That is why the Russians did not fight the Japanese when we were. The US asked for the Russian’s help since the US was having much difficulties in the Pacific in 1943-1945.

All the vast speculations about if Germany did not attack the West and used her full power to attack Russia in 1940 is interesting as a parlor game, but doesn’t hold much validity when you look at actual combat forces, training and material at the time.

Germany did not have the combat experience, material or active divisions to launch a successful invasion of Russia in 1939 or 1940. The German Order of Battle clearly shows this as does the OKW records of all German divisions. The German experience in Poland in 1939 is ample evidence for this. All units suffered higher than expected casualties and slower progress. Many pieces of equipment were found to be deficient in design. Training was discovered to be not in tune with modern warfare. A major rework of the German forces was undertaken. In 1940 the attack on the Low Countries and France showed considerable improvement, but the Germans were very thinly spread and had to strip the Eastern Front to have barely enough forces on the Western Front.

Russia had territory to sacrifice to gain time and move production facilities beyond the range of German aircraft. This she did with enormous casualties. Much like what the US did in the Pacific with the Philippines and Midway, Wake, etc.

Russia was out producing the Germans decisively by 1942 in all categories. By the end of 1941 and early 1942 Russian had stopped the Germans cold and destroyed the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. As well as returning the Caucasus oil fields to Russia.

The immediate Russian offensive (as soon as the weather allowed) made a huge bulge into the German lines. This was stopped by both weather and increased German resistance. That was the point where Germany lost all ability to make any significant offensive inroads on the Eastern Front.

The German offensive at Kursk was doomed to failure from the start. Germany was quickly being bled white by Russia. She had to scrape together units from the Western Front in order to have sufficient forces to attack the Kursk salient. Germany also had to delay the attack in order to build new tanks, aircraft and artillery as these had been depleted in large numbers on the Eastern Front.

Russia had no such shortages. Russian factories were running 24/7 and producing weapons at a faster rate than even the US in several categories. The respective Order of Battle for both sides tells the story quite clearly from January 1943 to July 1943. Russia had no problem stopping the Kursk offensive within a few miles and immediately launching major offensives in August, September, January and March which effectively put the Germans into an increasingly rapid retreat all along the Eastern Front, which continued all the way through the remainder of 1944 and ended in 1945 in Berlin.

Lend Lease supplies did not arrive in any sufficient amounts until mid 1943. So the defeat of German forces in front of Moscow, the Russian Winter offensive of 1941 and early 1942, the blunting of the Central German summer offensive of 1942, the total destruction of the entire German 6th Army at Stalingrad in late1942 and early 1943 and the Russian Winter offensive of early 1943 to create and fortify the Kursk salient was all accomplished by virtually 100% Russian effort.

Not bad for having no US help.

And no sign of not being able to continue if US help had not arrived.