U.S. military acknowledged killing 23 civilians

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Okay, I'm gonna have to remember this, heartc ... my nominee for 2010 Best of Subsim Post of the Year.

Mine too

[HunterICX]

@Heartc: Well said!

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Damn HeartC...absolutely beautiful. It is the likes of you that I know my uncle did not die in vain flying his B17 over the Kiel subpens June 13th 1943.

If there's one group of people that I admire the most of World War 2 it has to be the bomber crew of the USAAF and RAF.

Their nerves and bravery where really put to the test as they had to take the beating the enemy was able to throw at them, there's no cover for them in the skies and they had to remain in formation to make sure their effort will result in the maximum amount of damage it could inflict on the enemy's war effort.

what makes them so special to me, that when they returned to base completly trashed by the enemy's defences that most of them didn't hesitate to go back and do it again.

I admire their spirit, dedication and sacrifice that helped inflicting damage on the enemy's war capabilities and made the freedom of europe possible.

and this has to be the most beautifull tribute I've ever seen about the B-17 and the crew:

Your uncle was a great man, Chris

Regards,
Wim

HunterICX,

http://www.stevenroyedwards.com/bombingofnijmegen.html

heartc,

if the Americans were so set on promoting freedom in the world then they should've acted when the nazi star was still in ascent. Throughout the 30's the Americans were very silent and yes, even collaborated with the nazis and helped their warmachine get on it's feet. In the US the German American Bund was very popular having rallies in, among other places, the packed Madison Square Garden. Only with Pearl Harbor and acts of aggression against the US by the nazis did US get fully into the war and then they delayed the opening up of the second front until very late in the war.

Also during the reign of Soviet Union the US was pretty happy to divide the resources with the Soviets and not really challenge their grip on Europe. Proxy wars in the third world don't look like the acts of the vanguard of freedom but rather the continuation of the age old rule of the colonialists. And this was the role that the US tried and is still trying to grasp, the role of the colonial master in the third world given up by the Europeans. Too bad the US is constantly getting it's ass handed to it by small poor developing nations.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

@Heartc: Well said!



If there's one group of people that I admire the most of World War 2 it has to be the bomber crew of the USAAF and RAF.

Their nerves and bravery where really put to the test as they had to take the beating the enemy was able to throw at them, there's no cover for them in the skies and they had to remain in formation to make sure their effort will result in the maximum amount of damage it could inflict on the enemy's war effort.

what makes them so special to me, that when they returned to base completly trashed by the enemy's defences that most of them didn't hesitate to go back and do it again.

I admire their spirit, dedication and sacrifice that helped inflicting damage on the enemy's war capabilities and made the freedom of europe possible.

and this has to be the most beautifull tribute I've ever seen about the B-17 and the crew:

Your uncle was a great man, Chris

Regards,
Wim

I can only second this, the casualty rates of the B17s over Europe was horrendous, and the courage it took those men to go up there with nowhere to hide, nothing to do except hope that you'd make it back or if the worst came to the worst make it out of the plane alive.
God bless him

[heartc]

Just the facts as I see them guys.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

heartc,

Well I got to express my view concerning the US so I'm happy.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

if the Americans were so set on promoting freedom in the world then they should've acted when the nazi star was still in ascent. Throughout the 30's the Americans were very silent and yes, even collaborated with the nazis and helped their warmachine get on it's feet. In the US the German American Bund was very popular having rallies in, among other places, the packed Madison Square Garden. Only with Pearl Harbor and acts of aggression against the US by the nazis did US get fully into the war and then they delayed the opening up of the second front until very late in the war.

The United States decided very early on to avoid 'entanglements' with European powers. One of our earliest internal battles was between Secretary Of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton over the latest war between the British and the French. Jefferson and his Republicans were afraid of siding with the British because the Revolution was still fresh in their minds. Hamilton and his Federalists were afraid of siding with the French because this new Revolutionary government was not the same one that had helped us during our revolution, and in fact had murdered the king who did help us.

This cause a lot of hostility between the two parties, including calling each other 'Anglomen' and 'Francomen'. The end result is that America has always been reluctant to get involved in European politics. This was true in our delayed entry into World War One as well.

But we aren't perfect, not by a long shot. Vietnam showed that quite plainly.

Also during the reign of Soviet Union the US was pretty happy to divide the resources with the Soviets and not really challenge their grip on Europe. Proxy wars in the third world don't look like the acts of the vanguard of freedom but rather the continuation of the age old rule of the colonialists. And this was the role that the US tried and is still trying to grasp, the role of the colonial master in the third world given up by the Europeans.

And there are Americans who feel exactly the same way, which is another thing that sets us apart. You aren't bringing up anything that hasn't been argued here for years. Are we being colonialists, or aren't we. We don't know ourselves, but at least we keep the discussion open.

Too bad the US is constantly getting it's ass handed to it by small poor developing nations.

And that's another misconception on your part and ours. It happens not because we are beaten, but because we play too nice. Britain lost India because they were polite and friendly with the people they subjugated. If Russia or Germany had controlled India Ghandi would have been a bug stain the first time he spoke up. The Brits put up with that sort of thing.

And so do we. We 'lost' in Vietnam because half of us were convinced we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We made up 'rules' and then we played by them. "Don't bomb here." "Don't go there." We could have easily wiped out any North Vietnamese resistance, but we refused to bomb Hanoi, and we refused to slaughter civilians wholesale like some countries would have. We could have dominated the whole country easily, but we didn't want to end up in a war with the Russians and the Chinese, who were supporting North Vietnam. We also had the problem that if we had won, what would we do with it? We would have forced ourselves into the position of dominating a people thousands of miles away who didn't want us there. Control of that type has never been our aim. We got involved because we thought we were helping the good South Vietnamese against the evil North Vietnamese. We got uninvolved because we realized we were wrong.

Now to Iraq. We didn't "get our ass handed to us". We stomped the Iraqi army into the ground and won easily in a matter of weeks. Ever since then we've had to face the fact that we're trying to police a country against a secret army which is willing to blow up their own people just to make a point, and it's looking more and more like it may just be impossible.

And you haven't answered heartc's question of what the world would have looked like if there was no America.

It's easy to hate, and it's easy to find fault. On some subjects you seem very reasonable. When America and Israel crop up you seem to do nothing but attack and spit venom. There is no discussing those subjects with you - just fighting and hatred.

What if there was no USA? Well Europe would be much stronger militarily then it is today. Why? Because I suppose it would have to be. Today Europe can lean on the US as a kind of a crutch, a helper. US nukes and military exist so that Europe doesn't need to have that many of them. UK is getting rid of the Tridents and many Euro nations are getting rid of military service. Not Finland though.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

What if there was no USA? Well Europe would be much stronger militarily then it is today.

Mate, if there was no US, Finland would be a very small smear under the Soviet boot.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Mate, if there was no US, Finland would be a very small smear under the Soviet boot.

Look who's talking, the British who promised us help in the Winter War and then didn't deliver. Maybe you should just keep quiet about Finland.

I piss on your brandy-sipping Churchill.

"Some chicken. Some neck."

Some ****ing liar.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Mate, if there was no US, Finland would be a very small smear under the Soviet boot.

What exactly US did for Finland? Serious , curious question.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Look who's talking, the British who promised us help in the Winter War and then didn't deliver. Maybe you should just keep quiet about Finland.

I piss on your brandy-sipping Churchill.

"Some chicken. Some neck."

Some ****ing liar.

And maybe you should just keep quiet about everything you post here.

Your about as welcome and popular as a fart in a spacesuit by my estimation....Mr ITG

You should learn some civility and respect for your peer group.

You'd be amazed how quickly it might be reiprocated.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

What exactly US did for Finland? Serious , curious question.

Not anything directly, however without the US to check the Soviet advance through Nazi territory the Soviets would have just marched through to the Channel (eventually, although the Germans would have had more forces to throw against them, so the timeframe is liquid, heck, it's quite possible some kind of treaty might have been reached, but I doubt it).
With the Soviet Union in power of most of Europe and the US nowhere to be seen, there would have been little to nothing to stop the Soviets from eating up the whole of Scandinavia and probably the UK too given enough time, since they would have had no-one and nothing to check them.
This is speculative though, and I admit things could have panned out differently, Finland was good at eating Soviet attacks so perhaps the Soviets would have decided that they weren't worth the trouble and gone around them...but with no other real trading partners than the USSR, Finland would have eventually slipped into a left-wing government no doubt, likewise the UK if we were still independent, and then probably joined the Warsaw Pact if it had been made.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Look who's talking, the British who promised us help in the Winter War and then didn't deliver. Maybe you should just keep quiet about Finland.

I piss on your brandy-sipping Churchill.

"Some chicken. Some neck."

Some ****ing liar.

Says the man who slept under Hitlers umbrella

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Look who's talking, the British who promised us help in the Winter War and then didn't deliver. Maybe you should just keep quiet about Finland.

I piss on your brandy-sipping Churchill.

"Some chicken. Some neck."

Some ****ing liar.

Huh?