United state's role in WWII [Archive]

batterisyra

01-28-2005, 03:51 PM

I was just sitting here thinking about how interested people here are in world war 2, and I came to think about how "good" the US really were in this war.

1: didn't the US rape and murder innocents as well? soldiers, no matter how sane before, get ****ed up in war. Now the producers of the game can talk as much about authenticity as they want, but if these horrible things ever happened, they are NOT going to be in the game. now why's that?

2: what would have happened if the bombing of pearl harbour never took place? would US still be so eager to go in and "save the world", or could there be some form of egocentric reasons as well?

glad to recieve some answers, since I'm curious about your view on this.
Now some of you might find these two questions un-american, but since I guess you guys are democratic and my questions are serious I expect serious answers aswell.

thank you.

Firefight700

01-28-2005, 06:37 PM

Hello, I am new to the forums. And I want to give it a shot at these two questions. !. Yes there was rape and murder by some U.S. soldiers during the war. Sadly, it happens in all wars, not only by U.S. soldiers, but by soldiers from all countries. Why would anyone in their right mind want to put something like that in a game. That is the point, it is a game. People of all ages will be playing it, most of all, the younger generations. Making a game authentic is one thing, like buildings, clothes, guns and tactics used, but adding rape and murder is a whole differant story. Not in a game where young kids will be playing it. 2. The U.S. would not have set on the fence much longer. The reason for this is because of how close both Japan and Germany were getting to the front and back doors of the U.S., we would not have left Germany over run England by no means. That would have put them to close to our borders for comfort. The same with Japan, even if tey would not have bombed us, the moment they would have taken Wake Island, we would have been there in big numbers to stop them from getting any closer. Firefight700

ryan_v

01-29-2005, 07:44 AM

1. Well yes, as firefight said, rape and murder is inevitable, especially with all the troops that passed through the ETO. In general, however, almost all U.S. soldiers respected the rights of the civilian population and rape/murder instances were rare. In contrast, Soviet and especially Japanese soldiers were notorious for brutal treatment of conquered civilians. I'm not exactly sure about the Germans, as I haven't run across any statistics or whatnot, but I believe they were somewhere inbetween.

2. The U.S. would have entered the war even if Pearl Harbor wasn't bombed. One can only speculate this, but President Roosevelt was already itching to help Great Britain out. On the Pacific side, it was only a matter of time before the Japanese attacked the United States. They really wanted The Philippines, and obviously it was U.S. territory. Interestingly enough, many Americans questioned why we were fighting Germany, given they weren't the ones who attacked. Anyways, to answer your question, I think the war as we know it was inevitable anyways.

II0_percent

01-29-2005, 12:27 PM

i know why we were fighting italy and germany: they declared war on US. when they do that, we can't sit around waiting for another attack, we have to go in and kick their *** for making such a stupid disicion.

batterisyra

01-29-2005, 06:10 PM

yeah man thats a really mature post.

WE_STAND_ALONE

01-29-2005, 08:18 PM

batterisyra,

I appreciate your questions here on the forums..they are mature questions but I am scratching my head here at question #1...

Are you really wondering WHY a pc-game does not have rape in it?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sounds to me more like you have a point to make than ask a question as incredibly easy to figure out as that.

#2) good question..but "loaded" in anti-americanism....or am I wrong "save-the-world"??

If they did not hit us in Pearl..it would have been something else maybe at a different location due to our embargo to Japan.

greenlionhaert

01-30-2005, 08:02 AM

I have a story of a American attack on civilians in the battle of the bulch (Belgium).

Germans who were stationed for 4 years in a little village near Bastogne were engaged by americans and they evacuated the inhabitants of the village because also many of these soldiers were actually villagers before the war (this village is situated in a part of Belgium in which people speak german, this piece of land was a part of belgium since the treaty of versailles). Because of the anexation by germany all young men were send to the army. While the germans were evacuating the americans started an artillery attack. They knew of the evacuation because they could see it happen from the hill where they were stationed. About then civilians died with the first attack.

This isn't a heroic story about the American army, I know but I wanted to say it.

The role of Americans in WW2 was at the beginning the same as in WW1: extra troops but from the beginning Americans tried to control the war (I'm glad they did). They took the lead from the beginning, this was not in WW1 in which first the americans were ordinary replacements.

Borofsky

01-31-2005, 05:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>1: didn't the US rape and murder innocents as well? soldiers, no matter how sane before, get ****ed up in war. Now the producers of the game can talk as much about authenticity as they want, but if these horrible things ever happened, they are NOT going to be in the game. now why's that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, probably along with British, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, German, and Italian troops.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>2: what would have happened if the bombing of pearl harbour never took place? would US still be so eager to go in and "save the world", or could there be some form of egocentric reasons as well? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We probably would have avoided war with Japan. There's no telling what would have happened if the Japanese ever attacked us, because we simply don't know. So any sort of assumption is opinion.

ahamric

02-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Speaking of Japan, I've always been fascinated with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, or rather, the reasons behind it.

It would seem to me that one of the main reasons for dropping the bombs on Japan was to intimidate the Soviet Union. After all, the dropping of the second bomb was hardly necessary, given the complete ruin of the Japanese command and control structure.

RommelsMind

02-01-2005, 10:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ahamric:
Speaking of Japan, I've always been fascinated with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, or rather, the reasons behind it.

It would seem to me that one of the main reasons for dropping the bombs on Japan was to intimidate the Soviet Union. After all, the dropping of the second bomb was hardly necessary, given the complete ruin of the Japanese command and control structure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, the Japanese didnt surrender until after the dropping of the second bomb. Also I think alot of the reasoning behind dropping the bomb was due to the fact that an invasion of Japan would cost more Allied lives. (Millions) Think of how tough it was to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, seeing as they are a different culture, to die is more honorable than to surrender. After reading books on the battle of Iwo Jima, the fact that more Japanese soldiers led suicidal attacks rather than surrendering. If the allies were to invade Japan (which probably would have been much more costly than Normandy) the war probably would have lasted many more years. Once the allies invaded Fance, it took what? Anotehr year and a half of fighting. Now think of fighting the Japanese culture on their own soil. It wouldnt have been pretty. Also, I remember reading that the Japanese had prepared for an invasion, and after they surrender, many allied trrops found hundreds of mini-subs that held aprox 1-2 men to operate. Now think of what disasters could have lay ahead if there were to be an invasion.

Sgt_George_Luz

02-02-2005, 09:16 AM

1. not even going to bother answering such an ignorant question.
2.trust me...we would have found another reason for entering the war and "saving the world". really it wasent that hard...we had some practice "saving the world" in WW1.

moderator, why is he allowed to post such ignorant questions...close this thread.

ahamric

02-02-2005, 04:17 PM

How much time elapsed between the dropping of the two bombs? A week? Communication in Japan was a complete mess, and I think the second bomb was dropped as much for political reasons as other reasons.

WE_STAND_ALONE

02-02-2005, 07:23 PM

Littleboy was dropped on Hiroshima August 6th

Fatman was dropped on Nagasaki August 9th

even less time..3 days

Borofsky

02-02-2005, 10:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RommelsMind:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ahamric:
Speaking of Japan, I've always been fascinated with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, or rather, the reasons behind it.

It would seem to me that one of the main reasons for dropping the bombs on Japan was to intimidate the Soviet Union. After all, the dropping of the second bomb was hardly necessary, given the complete ruin of the Japanese command and control structure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, the Japanese didnt surrender until after the dropping of the second bomb. Also I think alot of the reasoning behind dropping the bomb was due to the fact that an invasion of Japan would cost more Allied lives. (Millions) Think of how tough it was to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, seeing as they are a different culture, to die is more honorable than to surrender. After reading books on the battle of Iwo Jima, the fact that more Japanese soldiers led suicidal attacks rather than surrendering. If the allies were to invade Japan (which probably would have been much more costly than Normandy) the war probably would have lasted many more years. Once the allies invaded Fance, it took what? Anotehr year and a half of fighting. Now think of fighting the Japanese culture on their own soil. It wouldnt have been pretty. Also, I remember reading that the Japanese had prepared for an invasion, and after they surrender, many allied trrops found hundreds of mini-subs that held aprox 1-2 men to operate. Now think of what disasters could have lay ahead if there were to be an invasion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was estimated that around 500,000 allies would have died had there been an invasion of Japan. There was no "safer" area to land in, and civilians were trained to defend their homes with katanas. Remember, they were a militarist state, therefore fighting and dying at all costs for your homeland was a great honor, and extremely glorfied.

The second bomb was dropped so the Japanese would surrender. To the Japanese, surrendering was the ultimate shame. To surrender meant giving up any value you had as a human being.

In reality, dropping the bombs saved more Japanese lives than it took away.

Crazygopher

02-04-2005, 05:04 PM

I could not help but respond to this thread (being a history teacher and having studied World War II for years now).

Addressing the first question about rape in war, that's about as logical as asking if people die in war? It's inevitible human nature to commit such crimes against civilians in times of war, yet I do not think the United States demonstrated such behavior outside rare individual cases during World War II (Vietnam, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, etc. are a whole different story). Japan, as already stated, was most notorious for such actions, such as the brutality at Nanking. But this is also a generality because not all Japanese soldiers treated people with such brutality. When discussing the war, everyone must realize to make a distinction between generalities and truths. Not all Germans were supportive of the Nazis despite participation in the war (Field Marshall Rommel would be a good example).

As previously mentioned, Brothers in Arms is a video game. It is a portrayal of historical events with entertainment in mind. I doubt too many people would find rape a satisfying or appealing trait to a game. But then again, many seem to enjoy Grand Theft Auto...

In response to the second question about whether or not the United States would have entered the war without Pearl Harbor, it can be easily argued that the U.S. was already in the war, or at the very least it was inevitable with or without Pearl Harbor. The Lend-Lease Act allowed the U.S. to supply Britain's war effort with munitions, fuel, and a number of destroyers, which could be argued as participation in the war to a limited degree. Also, Japan knew it would have to face the United States to have full control of the Pacific, so its attack on Pearl Harbor just happened to be where it started (along with Wake and Guam). Pearl Harbor, however, was the biggest failure by Japan in the war. Americans tend to see Pearl Harbor as a tragic and horrifying event, which it was in many respects, but in truth and retrospect, it was the beginning of the ultimate doom of Japan (i.e. the waking of the Sleeping Giant speech by Yamamoto). Their primary objectives were the aircraft carriers at Pearl, none of which were there at the time. While they did destroy the bulk of the battleships in the Pacific Fleet, it quickly became apparent that the traditional broadside style of naval warfare was over and the beginning of air naval warfare began. As a result, the carriers were the leading factor at Midway and foreshadowed the end to imperial Japan.

Finally (I'm a traditional history teacher that rattles on quite a bit), I have to ask why so many people, even educated ones, feel that any one event requires one cause? The atomic bombs were dropped to stop the war and prevent an invasion, demonstrate the United States' power to the world (particularly the Soviet Union), and in plain ignorance of the destructive power behind the bomb. I would venture to say most ranking military officials could not fathom the power of the bomb without actually seeing it and fully understanding its destructive force, causing their judgement to be a biased towards its use.

I would also like to mention that the United States AIDED in saving the world from tyranny but did not do so alone. It was, afterall, the Soviets that defeated the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk without significant aid from Britain and the U.S., and they were the first ones in Berlin. Neither front could have been won without the other (i.e. Soviets would not have won if the threat of a Western Front was not apparent, and the U.S./British advance would not have been successful had the Soviet Union not occupied most of the crack German regiment on the Eastern Front).

Thanks!

LtBen

02-04-2005, 07:36 PM

Rommel didn't support Hitler's beleifs, but he still respected him to a degree. I think von Rundstedt would be a much more appropriate example, he looked down on Hitler, seeing him as nothing but a "Bohemian Corporal".

greenlionhaert

02-05-2005, 12:22 AM

Rommel knew of the bomb used against Hitler in 1944 and taht's why he had to kill himself, even if he didn't agree on this assault on hitler.

Tjhe poor man was the only great general who I admired because he was no nazi and supported only the german state

quikstrike

02-05-2005, 07:47 AM

I kinda bipassed all the posts, just wanted to say.... without the americans we wouldnt of won the war. In we I mean the Canadians, British, Russian, and pretty much the rest of the world. The one thing I dont like is most of the glory is placed upon the Americans for this war. People tend to forget all the other countries that fought the exact amount and more in the war. Well thats all I have to say, I wish people would go read into the whole aspect of WWII and actually see that the Americans werent the only ones that fought and died. We were all in it together for one perpous. Without eachother I do not believe we would of won the war, but if it were only the Americans, or the Russians, Canadians, or British they would of failed alone. I think people should just open their eyes and not be so stuck up sometimes. This was nothing against the game or anything just contributing to this thread and what alot of people in this world are like. well ttyl.

Bigntall984

02-05-2005, 10:25 PM

I just wanted to add to everyones response to the 1st question. Yes, americans did commit atrocities like rape and the murder of civilians. However, americans didnt commit them on the same level as other countries did. for instance, the russians. Even before the war started Stalin ordered a massive "purge" of his own military, sending them to camps that mirrored hitler's concentration camps. In fact the whole russain theater was one big slaughterhouse. Russian commanders constantly threw their troops recklessly into german positions. tens of thousands died that way in almost every battle. I dont think I need to mention the things the Nazi's did. My point is that while Americans sometimes did things that nobody should be proud of, it wasnt widespread policy to do so.

Vaes

02-07-2005, 07:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greenlionhaert:
I have a story of a American attack on civilians in the battle of the bulch (Belgium).

Germans who were stationed for 4 years in a little village near Bastogne were engaged by americans and they evacuated the inhabitants of the village because also many of these soldiers were actually villagers before the war (this village is situated in a part of Belgium in which people speak german, this piece of land was a part of belgium since the treaty of versailles). Because of the anexation by germany all young men were send to the army. While the germans were evacuating the americans started an artillery attack. They knew of the evacuation because they could see it happen from the hill where they were stationed. About then civilians died with the first attack.

This isn't a heroic story about the American army, I know but I wanted to say it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd like to respond to this story.
I'm a Belgian myself,
and it's true that we anexed "de Oostkantons" after WWI (it's still ours),
as some sort of a punishment for attacking a neutral country.
When the Germans invaded us in 1940,
the people from this region indeed supported the Germans in fighting the Belgian army.
The spies that did reconaissance on the fortresses near liÃÂ¨ge (icluding the fortress of Eben-Emaël) where also mostly inhabitants of this region.
However,
after they were "reunited" with Germany,
they weren't looked upon as "real Germans" anymore.
So by 1945,
these people were just as happy to see the Allies as any other Belgian.
I've never heard of a story of Americans killing civilians in this region...
(I do know that the SS murdered practicly all inhabitants of St-Vith,
---> this was "Germany", they were "traitors".
I do know that my own hometown (Hasselt) en a neighboring town (Genk) were bombed in 1944 by American bombers,
there are various theory's on why these bombings took place.
some say that it was a navigational error,
so they thought they were already in Germany;
others say that the pilots chickened out and dropped their payload too early,
thinking they were flying above a forest...
but they speak Dutch in Hasselt and Genk.

BTW: this "German region" isn't close to Bastogne,
it's close to Aachen.
and for as far as I know,
the men from this region who joined the German army were sent to the Russian front.

Bigntall984

02-07-2005, 11:26 PM

thanks for the input vaes, being American, it was really interesting hearing about the war from a perspective other than american, british or german

red_dog006

02-10-2005, 11:55 AM

Of course there is going to be rape on all sides. When you are a young man staying with young men for 24/7, seen them naked before and you havnt seen a women in years, of course things are going to happen. But I think on the American/British side, the women were excitied and basically handed themselves over most of the time.

As for the Atomic bomb, Russia was an allie so there would be no need to be like, look what we got. We were the only nation that had the bomb. If Germany was in the war a year longer, they would have massed produced the Tiger Tank, their jet, and have an atomic bomb. Yes, they were close to having the atomic bomb. They were supposed to have it way before we did but one of the scientist knew how powerful it was and sabataged it.

At the time of the atomic bomb, no one really new about the radiation and how bad it is for the envirment and everything that goes with it. We just dropped them because we didnt want to have more D-Days and have thousands of lives lost on beaches. Yes the atomic bombs caused about 200,000 deaths, but invasion of beaches and carpet bombing Japan would have cost millions.

Even during the Korean War, we still did not know completly about the Atomic bomb and how distructive it was. When China got into the war and attacked with thousands of troops, within a few days America had 25 cities targeted to have an Atomic bomb dropped on it to stop China, but the president didnt allow it.

steinsoldat

02-11-2005, 12:22 PM

Being a history teacher myself (with family from Northern Europe and all over the US), I have been fortunate enough to see many different sides of the war from a unique vantage point.

To try and make this short: Documented history (letters, diaries, eyewitness accounts, etc.) has shown us that most of the American soldiers and their commanders had the most honorable and pure motives at heart. However, documented history also reveals that the US administration and certain corporations/war profiteers played both sides for various reasons (mostly purely financial). A prime example is unclassified documents revealing the FDR administration had prior knowledge to an impending, large-scale attack on US interests in the Pacific. Also, US companies cooperating to sell shells/bullets, fuel, etc to the Germans AFTER the US got directly involved in the war.

A sticky question that is sure not to be popular with many people on either side of the 'mainstream' fence....

greenlionhaert

02-19-2005, 08:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vaes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greenlionhaert:
I have a story of a American attack on civilians in the battle of the bulch (Belgium).

Germans who were stationed for 4 years in a little village near Bastogne were engaged by americans and they evacuated the inhabitants of the village because also many of these soldiers were actually villagers before the war (this village is situated in a part of Belgium in which people speak german, this piece of land was a part of belgium since the treaty of versailles). Because of the anexation by germany all young men were send to the army. While the germans were evacuating the americans started an artillery attack. They knew of the evacuation because they could see it happen from the hill where they were stationed. About then civilians died with the first attack.

This isn't a heroic story about the American army, I know but I wanted to say it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd like to respond to this story.
I'm a Belgian myself,
and it's true that we anexed "de Oostkantons" after WWI (it's still ours),
as some sort of a punishment for attacking a neutral country.
When the Germans invaded us in 1940,
the people from this region indeed supported the Germans in fighting the Belgian army.
The spies that did reconaissance on the fortresses near liÃÂ¨ge (icluding the fortress of Eben-Emaël) where also mostly inhabitants of this region.
However,
after they were "reunited" with Germany,
they weren't looked upon as "real Germans" anymore.
So by 1945,
these people were just as happy to see the Allies as any other Belgian.
I've never heard of a story of Americans killing civilians in this region...
(I do know that the SS murdered practicly all inhabitants of St-Vith,
---> this was "Germany", they were "traitors".
I do know that my own hometown (Hasselt) en a neighboring town (Genk) were bombed in 1944 by American bombers,
there are various theory's on why these bombings took place.
some say that it was a navigational error,
so they thought they were already in Germany;
others say that the pilots chickened out and dropped their payload too early,
thinking they were flying above a forest...
but they speak Dutch in Hasselt and Genk.

BTW: this "German region" isn't close to Bastogne,
it's close to Aachen.
and for as far as I know,
the men from this region who joined the German army were sent to the Russian front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know as well as I that we both live in Belgium and have Belgian ways of thinking and calculating. When we mean far it can already be a hundred kilometres. For Americans and Britsh 100 km are not that far so if I mean nearby it will be in the surrounding area of 50 km. The men (16 till 18 years old) who had to fight in the Oostkantons (is there an english word for it?) were just recruted because of their young age and were never send to the eastern front because of transport problems. the story was told by an old lady of 75 who was eye-witness and was among these civilians. One of her family members was among those "evacuation-germans". The other germans in the village where they had to go weren't that friendly as the ones who evacuated them.

Vaes

02-20-2005, 07:03 AM

You're right about the interpretation of distances (I did not know you were Belgian http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif );
I usually tell people from abroad the location of a place they don't know by naming the place closest by that they might know,
I expect most Americans and Britts to know Aachen,
and because Aachen is much closer to the oostkantons (I think it does not have an Engish name),
I pointed that out
(also because I expected people to misunderstand and think that Bastogne is almost Germany).
Besides,
when "thinking American" you could say that Bastogne is close to Brussels too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I'm still having some troubles in believing the story,
you first said that these men were there for 4 years,
I don't imagine the Germans having transport-problems back in 1940...
And even if they did have problems with transport they would not have been soldiers,
because they would have never gotten basic training.
If they did ever reach training camp,
they would not have been sent back over there
(either directly to Russia,
or to Littuania ("Letland"?) first, I think)

I've said it before:
I've never heard anything about Americans killing civilians over there,
though I could believe your story in this situation:
A few men from this village are on leave,
the allies reach the village,
these men arrange for the evacuation of the villagers
(and I imagine that they got trough some trouble to get that done).
Of course I can't know, I'm making up a possibility right now,
I could have misunderstood you somewere,
you could have misunderstood that lady,
that lady could have been mistaken about something
(she would have been 12-14 years or so?).

anyway, if this is what happened,
then it looks like I've just learned about something new http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(I'n not in the mood for any heavy discussion anyway.
After 10 days in the mudd with this terrible weather,
it feels good spend a night in barracks,
it's even nice to have drill in the morning and "nettoyage" in the afternoon.
It feels even better to come home,
and I'm definately not tiring myself with being stubborn about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

greenlionhaert

02-21-2005, 11:48 AM

I'm not very accurate and maybe this does the same for the old lady, but She was at that time, I thought, 18 years old. If she was young it could be possible she made a mistake. Maybe the americans couldn't see from a distance that the biggest part of the group were civilians because of the weather that time. I don't want to say that germans were more friendly to civilians then americans because the officers could have the idea to evacuate the civilians and soldier there, and use the civ's as human shields. (But I'm quite certain that many of those germans were actually civilians before they had to go to the army.) It could also be the only incident around bastogne. btw: Is malmedy situated in the "oostkantons"? because this region was also anexed.

jumpmaster82

02-25-2005, 11:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by batterisyra:
I was just sitting here thinking about how interested people here are in world war 2, and I came to think about how "good" the US really were in this war.

1: didn't the US rape and murder innocents as well? soldiers, no matter how sane before, get ****ed up in war. Now the producers of the game can talk as much about authenticity as they want, but if these horrible things ever happened, they are NOT going to be in the game. now why's that?

2: what would have happened if the bombing of pearl harbour never took place? would US still be so eager to go in and "save the world", or could there be some form of egocentric reasons as well?

glad to recieve some answers, since I'm curious about your view on this.
Now some of you might find these two questions un-american, but since I guess you guys are democratic and my questions are serious I expect serious answers aswell.

thank you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe a game starting at the begining of the russian occupation of germany would be more your taste, rape on an un-godly scale, but then again why hate on the ruskies when the americans are so easy to hate after all we have done. Millions exterminated, millions killed in battle, millions raped in the name of revenge and the discussion always comes back to those bloody americans. sad. Talk to any military historian and they will set you straight, we were shipping not only the food that the brits need from us to this very day, but massive amounts of equipment before we were attacked. WE built the equipment, WE built the thousands of ships to carry them through german infested waters. It was Churchill who courted the US, and the US responded. WE responded to our "good" British freinds, years after we were handed horrible weapons in ww1 because the Brits didnt think the americans were worhty of good weapons,they kept them for themselves. Were we attacked in ww1, NO, we still came, fought and died. I ask you, if my country would have given the Brits the "inferior" weapons during ww2 do you think I would ever hear the end of it, you bash my country and raise stupid arguments, and you are the ones with the skeletons in your closets. sad.

dockthedog

03-04-2005, 02:14 PM

These two rhetorical questions donââ‚¬™t warrant and answer. But I would like to offer some comments to the less inane participants.

First, I reject the assumption that soldiers get ââ‚¬Å“*****ed up in war.ââ‚¬Â Not withstanding Hollywood and John Kerryââ‚¬™s testimony, studies have shown time and again that veterans are better adjusted psychologically than their civilian counterparts. For example, the average Vietnam veteran is more successful, healthier, and less likely to develop physiologic problems later in life. Sure, there are some ââ‚¬Å“crazy vetsââ‚¬Â out there, but statistically speaking, vets are in better shape than society as a whole. I know a lot of vets personally; I donââ‚¬™t know single vet that has mental problems.

The same is true of incidents of rape and murder. Sure it happened; after all there were well over 1-millon US soldiers serving in World War 2 who enlisted from all walks of life. But if you compare the rate of rape (# of rapes / # of soldiers serving overseas) perpetrated by US soldiers, Iââ‚¬™m sure youââ‚¬™ll find its far less than the rate of rape perpetrated by just about any other segment of society. Iââ‚¬™m also willing to bet that if you make a similar comparison of US soldiers to other soldiers of WW2, youââ‚¬™ll find the US very near the bottom of the list.

HeavenDeparts

03-04-2005, 07:41 PM

im new is this so.. be nicehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ww2 was a war that had to hapen cas war is how we solve r difrensis. peace and love for r fello man would solve everthing but.. egos prid and greed and golry leve love and go to evil. usa in ww2 was looked at as the saver. but i see it that they killd the most man grils childern and if you think im being dumb than y did we fight ww2 or eny war i thoght i myin gole was peace? but eny ways war is crul with needless bloodshed and pain man will dominate man to his deth. the world cannot go on this way. and i think that this game (BOA) is all gunho you know us is the best us was the right 1s fighting the evil. but thats not right look at this war were in now. they say its for fredom? i dont see how killing them is seting them free. were just doing what gremany did in 1939. so whos evil? is eny 1 right? usa may look nice in your drems and in your games but whats real? and i live in the usa and i have 4 casins and 1 bro is this war were in now.so im not antieUSA. thx for reading this PEACE>

Lt.Jones2005

03-05-2005, 09:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by batterisyra:
I was just sitting here thinking about how interested people here are in world war 2, and I came to think about how "good" the US really were in this war.

1: didn't the US rape and murder innocents as well? soldiers, no matter how sane before, get ****ed up in war. Now the producers of the game can talk as much about authenticity as they want, but if these horrible things ever happened, they are NOT going to be in the game. now why's that?

2: what would have happened if the bombing of pearl harbour never took place? would US still be so eager to go in and "save the world", or could there be some form of egocentric reasons as well?

glad to recieve some answers, since I'm curious about your view on this.
Now some of you might find these two questions un-american, but since I guess you guys are democratic and my questions are serious I expect serious answers aswell.

thank you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Yes like many have said it has and alwas will happen

2)Yes. WE were going to go to war if they didn't pull out of china, that had a embasadar here and it was going back and forth.
The Pearl Harbor attack wasn't suppose to be a surprise attack a messege was suppose to get there 3 Hr. before the attack was suppose to happen. the attack came early planes were faster and fleet was closer than they thought
and the message got delayed do to the decodeing and slow typingbut the japan didn't hit what they wanted they were going for carriers but they were not in dock that day

Imperator91

03-19-2005, 05:00 AM

Ok. Every country in the world has it's low lifes. Rapists, murderers, ect. When you draft, you're going to get some reguardless of where you live. They're still going to do it, despite what country they're in, or what the represent. However, no American soldier was ever ordered to murder an innocent person.

The SS most notably were, and seemed to take great pleasure in it. There are instances of regular army troops executing POW's, but the German Army seemed to respect the Geneva Convention. I don't have a problem with the German Army during WW2 for the most part. I cannot however tolerate anyone boasting of SS accomplishments, and you can expect to hear a good deal from me when anyone.. Especially a citizen of a democratic country has the SS tag in a clan name. It's inexcusable. They weren't better than regular army troops. They were just treated like it.

As for the Japanese. The Japanese, under the twisted mutation of Bushido Code the goverment that took them into WW2 taught them.. They had the right to treat conquered, or surrendered peoples as they pleased. They were completely justified in their countless war crimes. Cannabalism, murder, live experiments and dissections.. The list goes on.

Russians.. The Russians seemed to be extremely angry over the invasion of their country. They though they deserved to pillage Germany in repairations. As for the Russian Goverment and Command. They seemed to herd their troops around, more so than enforcing any strict discipline on the infantry. I don't think they cared either. However, if this had gone on among British or American troops, you know full well they would have been imprisoned or worse. The US outlawed looting. The Russians packed up everything that wasn't nailed down, per Stalin's orders.

For the A-Bomb. There was a standing order known by the United States, that apon an invasion of Japanese held territory, American POW's were to be evacuated. If they could not be evacuated, then they were to be executed. For Japan, seeing as how it was a last stand, this ment apon invasion all US POW's would be executed. Can you see now how many lives that bomb saved? Do you realize how many Japanese would have been killed in an invasion? They conscripted most of their population.

MFFRHadean

03-19-2005, 05:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sgt_George_Luz:
1. not even going to bother answering such an ignorant question.
2.trust me...we would have found another reason for entering the war and "saving the world". really it wasent that hard...we had some practice "saving the world" in WW1.

moderator, why is he allowed to post such ignorant questions...close this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Wow... Now, mind you generally speaking I can sit back and let the ol' American ego run rampant, its normal, every power house does it. But when you say something like that? Oh man do you need to be spanked. (Verbally and Physically)

First... HOW IN THE HELL is that IGNORANT!? Are you ******ed? Do you know the meaning of the word? You think nobody ever did that? American's did that, you bet your *** they did. Hell your pal' George Luz thought he could woo a girl with a pack a smokes and have his way with her. Are they the only ones to do that? No, obviously not. British, Canadian (Oh yeah they did, don't even start), German, Italian, French, Russian, Japanese... they all did it. (most specifically the Russians and Japanese)

As for "Saving the world", WW1, you showed up 3 years late and take the credit? Hah, to those who say America won the war, read up on Vimy Ridge, Read up on Verdun, Read up on the 2nd Battle of Ypres. Then tell me the Americans won that war, THAT was ignorant, friend, to think that just because you showed up for 1 year, and saw little or no trench warfare, you think you won the war? Like i said before, that was ignorance in its prime.

Also, in response to the thread starter. The states would have found an excuse to get in the war with Germany anyhow even if the Japanese had not attacked. A lot of people think Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour, but felt it was necessary in order to catastrophize and get in to help Britain. As for the raping thing, no nation would ever condone their troops raping. hence, you're not gonna play an American-Made game, and have American troops rape. Thanks.

*edit*
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Posted by Imperator
No American soldier was ever ordered to murder a civilian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to believe you man, but I have only one word to say. Dresden.

Imperator91

03-19-2005, 07:22 AM

Carpet bombing was a reality of the time. 66% of all casualties in WW2 were Civilians. US used the same tactic as the British late in the war. Cause a firestorm, destroy everything and ensure the destruction of their local economy. With the lack of precision of the weapons of the time, it had to be done. I don't fault either side. Economic centers needed to be destroyed.

For Dresden the idea put forward by Charles Portal of the RAF, was ment to demoralize the civilian population. Similiar to the effect of terror bombing with the V2's. Although I believe Hitler's motives were based more towards revenge.

Graham_Wright

03-24-2005, 03:03 AM

1) Troops of any nation can be, and doubtless have, been involved in various atrocities throughout the history of conflict. From the WW2 era, the Germans have been left with an unfair legacy, as if they were the sole perpretrators of any such business (NB - im not talking of their political crimes here, but 'war' crimes by troops). Of course, the victorious allies, Britain and the US, are hardly likely to divuldge/debate any crimes their troops committed. I understand that, rightly or wrongly, that Canadian troops in particular had a bad reputation amoing Germans for brutality/murder towards POWs. Also, if you read history books, you will hear of the many rumours in the German ranks at the end of the war that the Americans were shooting men who belonged to elite Wehrmacht Divisions or the Waffen SS. Of course, there is no means to prove this either way. Most likely the rumours were spread by panics after an isolated incident or such like, but I very much doubt it was standard American policy. The war fought in North Africa between the Italian heavy Axis forces and the British Empire, (latterly joined by the US), was a Genmtlemans war fouight with high reagrd for honour and dignity by all sides. The Italian and Western fronts were generally fine. The eastern front was another matter altogether, with the Germans and Sovs treating each other in the most terrible ways as a matter of course. We never hear muich about the Soviet war crimes, nor how Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. I guess thoie dont count as they were on 'our side'. Of course, the most brutal and sadistic crimes, against POWs or civilians, were carried out by the beastly Japanese. We dont hear much debate about their crimes either, and, unlike the Germans, they have make only token efforts at best to apologise or atone for them (showing just how arrogant they are).

2) I doubt the US would have entered the war had it not been attacked at Pearl Harbour. They would have been happy to sit on the fend making a fortune from lend lease equipment to Britain and the Sovs. Who could blame them - why go to war if you arent in danger? On the subject of lend-lease, someone was talking about standards of Allied (US made) equipment. Well, it was generally average at best, particlarly the armoured vehicles they made. I think an awful lot is made out of Pearl Harbour. The US didnt loose any carriers or anything, so although it was a nasty shock, it was not the heavy blow it is pitched as. Whats losing a handful of ships to a nation with the industrial might of America? Nothing. Also, a surprise attack, with no prior declaration of war, shows just how honourable the Japs really are. Incidentally they had committed pearl harbour style surprise attacks manay times before, notably in their wars with Russia.

DarkAutumn

04-02-2005, 08:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sgt_George_Luz:
1. not even going to bother answering such an ignorant question.
2.trust me...we would have found another reason for entering the war and "saving the world". really it wasent that hard...we had some practice "saving the world" in WW1.

moderator, why is he allowed to post such ignorant questions...close this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to flame your post, but if you're going to call upon moderators to censor threads for silly comments, yours ought to be one of them.

The First World War? 1914-1918.
America showed up late - 1917.

Yes, American participation (fresh troops and plenty of them) might've had some effect had the war gone on longer. Then again, look at the appalling casualties suffered. The battles were meatgrinders, total casualties suffered numbered, per battle, hundreds of thousands.

Canada's storming of Vimy Ridge was the ONLY successful Allied offensive of that war. Vimy Ridge was a linchpin of the German defenses.

Experience saving the world? Hardly. Yanks were called 'Doughboys' in WW1 not because they were wealthy compared to troops of other nations but because they were soft. (As in green troops, untried and unhardened by years of war unliked troops of other combatant nations hardened by years of trench warfare.)

As far as the WW 2's concerned, American neutrality was a joke. Americans ticked off by lack of American participation fought in the Spanish Civil War prior to the outbreak of the war in 1939, joined the Chinese Flying Tiger squadron, etc or enlisted in the Canadian Army, etc after the war began.

The critical battle against Nazi Germany was the Allied Second Front in Normandy. Even Hitler said the outcome of the war would be decided by whether or not D-Day could be defeated. And to that end a whole lot of time was spend fooling the Germans into believing the invasion would hit the Pas de Calais, not Normandy.

And as for the Normandy campaign, it was British General Montgomery that planned, implemented, and initially commanded the whole ball of wax. It was his greatest victory. Just because a Yank, Eisenhower, was in overall command doesn't make it an 'American' victory.

These are matters of historical fact & record.
Try checking hard facts, not bullroar myths on the subject because America certainly didn't go it alone and certainly didn't win it alone.

That's not anti-American anything. Just facts.
Americans earned the right to be proud of what their troops accomplished. But not the right to denigrate the contributions of other nations or engage in error-ridden, American-centric revisionist history

As for what the original poster asked about rapes and other aspects of historical accuracy: Why in hell would you wonder about something like that when the Allies went tit-for-tat in terror bombing the German nation in an attempt to demoralize the populace using the same tactics the Germans first used on their victims and on Allied nations such as Britain?

MFFRHadean

04-04-2005, 03:37 PM

Oh man... Can i get a "owned"?

Very well played Dark. Gj sir, i wish i could yell *HUMILIATION* but this is BiA not CS.

Lochmacher

04-06-2005, 03:20 AM

Total war is nothing new... get used to it, as it is only going to get worse (easier to rationalize, accountability is hard to come by nowadays). We Ami's did what we thought right on the grander scale.

There will always be profiteers and traitors, see below.

Each person will act in response to their percieved world, for their benefit, thus we have vast discrepencies in actions taken by soldiers in wartime (crimes, heroics, and cruelty). I will not go further into this, as no-one can hope to generalize the human condition and have it apply universally.

No country deserves the baggage of one person's actions. Don't burden me with guilt for past attrocities that I am not in support of nor was I party to. While I certainly support the study of History and it's widespread effects, I think we all need to step back and view it impartially... no more of this better than/worse than junk please. Each person is entitled to their opinion, yet it would be wise to approach it from more than one angle, no?

Firebombs, Atombombs, even biowarfare. Let's not open this can o' worms, ok? WWI and WWII were horrible examples of humanities animalistic tendencies. Every country has thier ups, downs, and denials of the afore-mentioned.

And the doughboy thing? Could have any possible source, not just your theory http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/origindb.htm . That also holds true for any post here, so let's all hit the books and I'll see you all back here in a week (good luck, as you can continue to trace this stuff back to pre-nation states; with multiple sources for each... Hell, take a month before posting again).

DarkAutumn

04-06-2005, 06:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>...And the doughboy thing? Could have any possible source, not just your theory http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/origindb.htm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My source is quite specific: First hand verbal accounts told to me by a great-Uncle who was there, and who told me his war stories prior to his death in the 1970's.

What the term actually MEANS in a dictionary-sense doesn't matter.
How it was USED does.
And to someone who was there (my mom's uncle) and 3 other of his brothers who also served in WW1, that's what it meant to them.

Google, Yahoo and AskJeeves for meanings of the term, and you'll find that many claim it was a derogatory used by American cavalry to describe American infantry in the 1800's.

Nevertheless, the original intent of the word: as an insult or putdown, was undeniably turned around to be the opposite of that. By Americans.

Same as the demeaning/derogatory slang term 'Canuck' was turned around and embraced by Canadians with positive connotations.

Ranger5thBn

04-14-2005, 10:00 AM

I have read most of these posts now and what I wanted to say in the beginning I wont say...

I will only say these things:

1 - rape is not in video games because because only messed up people would want to rape somone - in real life or in a video game. So, yes, asking why rape is not in this video game IS either very ignorant, or someone is trying to start an argument. which if you'll notice, they have started an argument....

2 - the japanese were not going to surrender after the 1st atomic bomb dropped. After the second bomb, the emperor decided to make a recording that would be broadcast by radio to the allies and the japanese people about the surrender of japan. HOWEVER, before it could be broadcast, some of the emperor's own guard and other soldiers took him captive in hte emperor's palace and were not going to allow the surrender of Japan - they thought if they could stop the broadcast, they would save their people from disgrace. Fortunately, the recording was not found and destroyed, it was broadcast and Japan surrendered.

The decision of the emperor to record the broadcast himself was very significant. Up to this time, very few japanese people were allowed to look at the emperor and few had ever been allowed to hear his voice. The emperor was seen as a god, and because of this the 2 men who recorded the emperor's voice for broadcast refused to see the emperor make the recording or even be in the same room - they were in a small room nearby. They then refused to touch the wax recordings of the emperor's voice - so the 2 copies of the recording were hidden in a closet.

3 - no one nation can take credit for winning either WW2 or WW1 - it was a combination of all the allies together and only together was victory possible.....

having said that....it's time to put my daughter down for a nap....

later

Ranger5thBn

04-16-2005, 09:50 PM

I would like to add one more thing....what Monty planned and the plans that were actually used are totally different. Monty, if I remember right, only had 2 or 3 beahc landings....it was the Americans who expanded it because they knew it would fail otherwise....they made a lot of other changes too....calling it Monty's greatest victory or whatever is like saying that Hitler's greatest victory was Pearl Harbor.....

DarkAutumn

04-17-2005, 06:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ranger5thBn:
I would like to add one more thing....what Monty planned and the plans that were actually used are totally different. Monty, if I remember right, only had 2 or 3 beahc landings....it was the Americans who expanded it because they knew it would fail otherwise....they made a lot of other changes too....calling it Monty's greatest victory or whatever is like saying that Hitler's greatest victory was Pearl Harbor..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That it was Montgomery's greatest victory is a matter of historical fact and record.

Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander of all Allied Forces (Air, Sea, and Land) in the European theatre.

Montgomery was in charge of all Allied ground forces: British, Canadian, American, Polish, Free French, etc. fighting in the Normandy campaign.

He'd already beaten Rommel in North Africa. Now he was expected to do it again in Normandy. And he did.

As commander, Monty took what the Allied planners were thinking of for the Normandy invasion, and used it as the basis for his own plan. A plan which Eisenhower approved.

Events like the liberation of Paris were precisely scheduled in Monty's plan: D+75.
In point of fact, Paris was taken 15 days ahead of Monty's schedule. (That's just one minor example.)

After Patton's screw up closing the Falaise Gap, but prior to Operation Market Garden, and before the Battle of the Bulge: the Allied armies were separated into three Army Groups, commanded by Generals Montgomery, Bradley, and Devers.

The principle of an overall ground commander was abandoned, but Montgomery was quietly reinstated when the Germans broke through during the Battle of the Bulge in order to stop the Germans from reaching the Meuse river, driving on Brussels, etc.

Technically speaking, he's entitled to the credit for the Allies winning that battle too.
Yes, American troops won the battle, with the assistance of British formations. But it was an English General that won it.

Normandy was Montgomery's triumph.
That's just the facts.

RMaule

04-18-2005, 12:58 AM

Heres my view on the US's role in WW2:

If they had not joined the war i could not see us (UK) going to 1944 on our own, sure why had all the commonwealth troops fighting along side us but it was a case of transporting them. Anyway the RAF saved the UK thats a fact not the US however if Germany had conqured the Russkies in '41 then he would have came back and invaded the UK (he might if took Rep. of Ireland aswell, sure they were not in the war but the did have a border with Northern Ireland) if the US did not join the war then i don't think that the UK and Canada could have done D-day on our own so in turn we would of just sat there. If D-day never happened then the Russians would of counqured the whole of Europe (including France) i dread to think what Europe would be like today if that had happened. They would of also invaded the UK in the 50's or so i think.

So if the US never entered the Second world war then thinks would of certanly been differnt either the Russians would of captured the whole of Europe or the Nazi's would of, either way Europe was doomed if the US had not joined.

God Bless America!!!!

God save the Queen!!!!

Ranger5thBn

04-18-2005, 12:07 PM

actually, historic fact is that monty only wanted 3 beach landings and the Americans expanded it to 5. Americans are also responsible for moving the paratrooper landing zones into positions that were close enough to the beaches to do any good at all....yes pretty much all paras were misdropped, but they still were able to help more under the Americans than under the original. Ike only approved it AFTER the changes were made....

and as I recall, the army was held back from the falaise gap and Patton was not happy about that.....

Dont get me wrong, Monty was a good general...but he was not a great one....

DarkAutumn

04-19-2005, 08:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ranger5thBn:
actually, historic fact is that monty only wanted 3 beach landings and the Americans expanded it to 5. Americans are also responsible for moving the paratrooper landing zones into positions that were close enough to the beaches to do any good at all....yes pretty much all paras were misdropped, but they still were able to help more under the Americans than under the original. Ike only approved it AFTER the changes were made....

and as I recall, the army was held back from the falaise gap and Patton was not happy about that.....

Dont get me wrong, Monty was a good general...but he was not a great one.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the Allied nations were in on the planning for D-Day, which was based on lessons learned, in part, from the sacrifice raid on Dieppe in 1942.

Yes, American planners lobbied for changes they felt were salient to the overall plan. But since Montgomery was to be the overall ground-force commander, it was his responsibility to present a plan to SHAEF and Eisenhower for approval. The overall strategic plan used by the Allies WAS his.

Historical Note about Patton:

-Bradley orderd Patton to build up a strong defensive shoulder at Argentan, and then extend the Allied pincers westward through Dreux towards the Seine. Patton didn't and that allowed elements of the German 7th Army and 5th Panzer Army to escape the Allied encirclement.

Keep in mind what the plan was: A pincer movement to encircle the Germans in Normandy and destroy them. Patton disobeyed orders.

-Patton reported Argentan secured on August 11, '44, SEVEN DAYS before it actually was.

-Patton then left a portion of only one of his 3 corps to hold the Argentan hinge, sending some elements of that corp off towards Dreux.

-He sent his entire 20th Corps south-east towards Chartres, and his 12th Corps towards Orleans. Routes, it should be noted, leading for Paris which hadn't yet been liberated.

As a direct result of this, elements of the British, Canadian and Polish forces had to close the Falaise Gap. (Also known, accurately, as 'Patton's Gap'.) The final few miles were sealed off by the Poles and Canadians.

The fault for the casualties suffered by those Allied units lies with Bradley and with Patton.

Now, about Patton being upset being ordered to NOT proceed past Argentan, this is true. But Monty didn't give that order. Remember who did: Bradley ordered him to build up a strong defense at Argentan.

Bradley's reasons for that?

One was the possibility of Allied units shooting at each other by mistake.
Which made no sense, considering the plan WAS to link up and seal off German forces in the Falaise pocket...

Another reason was all the friendly-fire incidents that had been occurring at that time.
Allied troops had been hit repeatedly by their own tactical and strategic aircraft.
That was a very real danger at that time.

Bradley felt he had to reign Patton in: He'd only held his operation command in U.S. 12th Army Group for a few weeks. He'd thus far missed all the Shooting. And he was still smarting from having been relieved of command in the Italian theatre. Patton had one very big chip on his shoulder as a result.

In his defense, Patton's supply lines stretched over 250 miles long back through Le Mans, Laval, and Avranches, and curving back to the Normandy beaches and Cherbourg. He was in a weak position, advanding with a single division that had no hard battle experience.

He couldn't have sealed the gap himself with what he had versus a total of 5 German Panzer divisions and battle groups.

It's just as well he wasn't where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing.

So Patton being unhappy about it is better than him going down in history as another Custer...

He also complained that the RAF were trying to slow him down by dropping landmines from the air ahead of his route of advance. Truth was, it was done by American planes, on Bradley's orders, in the hopes of hindering the German escape.

As for Montgomery being a great General or not, I base my statements, in part, on two excellent resources:

Volume 2 of Nigel Hamilton's biography of Montgomery, which is supported by the actual orders, signals, and conversations recorded during the war.

Volume 2 of General Richard S. Malone's memoirs. ('A World In Flames')

The facts speak for themselves.