Printable View
the pacific was a bloody no holds barred war that was second pony behind the european theater. most people don't know how terrible the war was for both navy men and the marines who had to take those tiny islands.Quote:
Not America's finest moment.
all in all america's fighting men performed far more humanely than the japanese.
But I'm not talking about WW2!
your talking about before? thats irrelevant to this thread topic. ill just trot out an example fo some other agression before the war for japan.Quote:
But I'm not talking about WW2!
I'm not comparing American and Japanese war crimes. I was originally making a point about the similarity between General Patton's and General Smith's "orders" in WW2 and the Philippine-American War, respectively. We seem to have gotten off track there.Quote:
your talking about before? thats irrelevant to this thread topic. ill just trot out an example fo some other agression before the war for japan.
Aza your fighting a losing battle.
The American occupation of the philipines at the turn of the century isn't even taught in schools
yes mostly due to misunderstanding each other. yes there is definitely a similarity with a key difference. smith was fighting an insurrection and patton was fighting a war technically by the geneva convention.
i would probably look sideways at all the flips in that situation too if they were shooting me from th bushes one day and then selling me a soda the next.
doesnt excuse the killings of course, just explains the paranoia better.
So an inseruction isnt guided by Geneva?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
That should make Iraq and Afghanistan allot eaiser then...
no i believe it is, wha ti am saying is that you are going to be much more suspicious of the natives when your fighting a rebellion rather than liberating a country.Quote:
So an inseruction isnt guided by Geneva?
That should make Iraq and Afghanistan allot eaiser then...
There's certainly some interesting parallels between that war and the Vietnam War.
- Guerrilla War in Southeast Asia
- Americans + Collaborators vs Revolutionaries
- America Asked by Revolutionaries For Aid Against Colonial Oppressors (Spanish)
- Previous War of Independence Against Said Oppressors
- Similar War Crimes on Both Sides (killing of civilians by Americans, collaborators by Filipinos, the old "bury-them-neck-deep-in-dirt-and-leave-them-for-the-ants" trick)
- Exposure of Brutality of War by American Media
- Anti-war Activism by Well-Known Figures/"Celebrities"
- Ridiculously High Native Casualties (Philippines - up to 1.2 million (~15%), Vietnam - up to 5 million (~12%)
I guess America technically beat the Filipinos, but they had to give up the islands 30 years later.
"Flips"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Pejorative for "Felipe's"?
George Washington was fighting an insurrection. Freedom is relative.
The American and British obsession with Rommel doesn't come from trying to cover up our inadequecies, but from the fact that the dude consistently kicked our butts. The US and UK really didn't have so many set back and outright defeats handed to them by anyone other than Rommel, so the acheivments of other German generals - say Mannstein - go overlooked because Mannstein never had the opportunity to beat the tar out of us. So it stems mainly from ignorance.
have you guys ever met filipinos. as a navy brat they sort of follow around the bases like a little entourage doing all the tasks neede dto keep it running, marrying sailors (i have alot of half asian friends) etc.Quote:
"Flips"?
They go by filipino or flip for short for all the ones i meet. it isnt insulting or anything. its just shorting the word.
Geography? Is that what the US civil war was all about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Fighting a rebelion, liberating a country. Are you sure about both those mission objectives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
The US annexed the Philipines and installed more US friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan - which some might go as far as to term "proxies".
I am currently reading an essay on Patton. Well, he was a strange guy to say the least: loved by (most of) his men, in a constant competition for fame with Montgommery and a daredevilish general.
On the other hand: He despised jews, blacks & homosexuals.
He sort of admired the SS in a strange way. When the war was won, the Western politicians realized that there was a big threat coming from the Soviet Union.. General Patton was dreaming of rearming a couple of Waffen SS divisions to incorporate them into his US Third Army "and lead them against the Reds". Patton had put this plan quite seriously to General Joseph T. McNarney, deputy US military governor in Germany.
In Bad Tölz the 17. SS-Panzergrenadier-Division surrendered to him and saluted him with "S*** Heil!". He was very impressed not to say overwhelmed.
#Considering the above I would not be surprised in case he protected war criminals.
lol i was talking about ww2 and the Philippines. jumping to conclusions, neh?Quote:
Fighting a rebelion, liberating a country. Are you sure about both those mission objectives?
The US annexed the Philipines and installed more US friendly governments in Iraq and Afghanistan - which some might go as far as to term "proxies".
It was for Lee and Jackson the two best confederate generals and amny other southern officers. Lee didnt even like slavery....... which makes the civil war all the bitter. The southerners doing the actual fighting were all the poor white boys fighting for an ideal they would probably never reach and never be accepted, that of planter status. The planters sat at home (with notable exceptions of course)" keeping down" slave insurrectionsQuote:
Geography? Is that what the US civil war was all about?
Quite, actually. Many a soldier fought for their state simply out of loyalty. The most famous example would be Mr. Lee, who Centurion has already pointed out. Lincoln himself was rather racist, although quite a moderate given his contemparies, and his goal was to strengthen the North, not to free slaves. Not to say that race wasn't an issue, but most Northerners fought because the South just seceded from the USA. The South obviously found the loss in plantation revenue alarming, but the poor white workers with no land didn't have much to do with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
So Lee fighting to keep Slavery was a none racist when Lincoln, racist, abolish slavery…
Give me more of the second who went against his prejudices and less of the first fighting to keep injustice on the name of what: Caste privileges.
For sure, abolition was not the goal of the war, but Union. But it was still Lincoln who abolish slaver after Antietam (?), preventing a general revolt in the plantation as the slaves knew freedom would come, it was no need to raise up…
This probably saved USA from another big problem…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Right, that is no different to almost any other war -people fighting for their own interests and those of the people close to them. To call it "geography" is apologistic, presenting the motivation as a regretable accident of fate rather than a timeless truism that Humans are selfish and self motivated. Did Lee not go to West Point? Did he not swear fealty to the Republic as all West-pointers did?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
I agree with Brenus regarding who should receive more plaudits: the one pushing progress and the alleviation of suffering (although its not like there was ever speedy or swift progress for Blacks...). Even 'Mr Humanist par excellence' Thomas Jefferson, despite abhoring the concept of slavery, continued to own slaves on his plantation!
Contrary sir, Lincoln freed no slaves. He emancipated slaves in lands over which he had no control. The slaves he had control over, he did not emancipate. In a way we could say that Lincoln was a terrorist. His purpose for emancipation was not to "prevent a general revolt in the plantation," rather he was hoping this step would incite slave revolts and make the war easier for the North to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Slavery in the U.S. is a topic we should avoid placing blame on as all were culpable. The first abolitionist society counted B. Franklin and Dr B. Rush as founding members, both owned slaves prior to that. John Adams father-in-law, a Massachuesettes preacher, home of the abolitionist Yankees - slaveholder. Who made fortunes importing slaves? Those same Yankees.
Lee? Father was govenor of Virginia. Uncle proposed independence for the colonies, that Lee? He never owned slaves. He probably believed in the states right to secede just as much as the people in the Hartford Convention, yet when his state legislature asked his opinion he advised them not to. Look up those Hartford Convention guys. Simply put it's best not to try and put any Americans on the morale high ground when it comes to slavery, they were all stained.
George Washington, Monroe, Madison, Jackson....... the list goes on and on and on. Its best to look beyond slavery when judging early presidents otherwise most of our founding fathers, if not all, would be evil. My point is that for many of the south's soldiers who were superior fighters better led it was a matter of geography. The issue of slavery was just the spark that blew up the Union. It is not the dominating reasont he war occured. what happened was the south was afraid of being outvoted on EVERYTHING but especially slavery after being so dominant in politics for so long.Quote:
Contrary sir, Lincoln freed no slaves. He emancipated slaves in lands over which he had no control. The slaves he had control over, he did not emancipate. In a way we could say that Lincoln was a terrorist. His purpose for emancipation was not to "prevent a general revolt in the plantation," rather he was hoping this step would incite slave revolts and make the war easier for the North to win.
Slavery in the U.S. is a topic we should avoid placing blame on as all were culpable. The first abolitionist society counted B. Franklin and Dr B. Rush as founding members, both owned slaves prior to that. John Adams father-in-law, a Massachuesettes preacher, home of the abolitionist Yankees - slaveholder. Who made fortunes importing slaves? Those same Yankees.
Lee? Father was govenor of Virginia. Uncle proposed independence for the colonies, that Lee? He never owned slaves. He probably believed in the states right to secede just as much as the people in the Hartford Convention, yet when his state legislature asked his opinion he advised them not to. Look up those Hartford Convention guys. Simply put it's best not to try and put any Americans on the morale high ground when it comes to slavery, they were all stained.
Ah. Again.
Lee and Lincoln and the thin separation between men, the moving fence between good and evil, we can be all nazi depending circumstances etc.
Was Lincoln a successful Milosevic?
Lincoln never owned slaves. One said he was racist. Perhaps. But the result of his political life was to free the slaves. It was not the goal, but the result.
You can say want you want. In declaring that all slaves will be free, he set-up the term for the Confederation for peace… Not return to post war situation.
Lee was perhaps a good man, but he fought for a bad cause. Did the South have the right to secession? I don’t know, but in starting the war it stop all others options for negotiation.
So whatever Lee was thinking about slavery he fought to keep it.
One frees the slaves.
One fights to keep them in chains…
My choice is clear…
Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Ain´t Patton and war crimes the topic here? I was really interested in the opinions about him.
https://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3391/orlmente.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I know an 87 year old man whom disagrees with you, Hans
I'm starting to feel like a broken record. The information is all out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Excuse me, PJ, but are you trying to say that there was no difference between Allies/Soviets and Nazis? If so, you really shouldn't bother...
Are you attempting to take a **** on my family history. And even if they did shoot prisoners that is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING like physically raping thousands of women and killing thousands more civilians. And how about Japanese POW camps, real human those places.Quote:
Not true. The Marines - fueled by a government sponsored dehumanization campaign - put even the Rape of Nanking to shame in the way they conducted the war. Now we're constantly told how virtually no Japanese soldier surrendered. One of the most under-reported aspects of the war.
You are agruing a totally bogus point by trying to match a cucumber with a zucchini.