PDA

View Full Version : RAF British Commonwealth did well in WW2..?



MB_Avro_UK
10-20-2007, 04:42 PM
Hi all,

It seems to me that that members of the RAF British Commonwealth did rather well in WW2.

Measured with regard to their numbers.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
10-20-2007, 04:42 PM
Hi all,

It seems to me that that members of the RAF British Commonwealth did rather well in WW2.

Measured with regard to their numbers.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

K_Freddie
10-20-2007, 05:14 PM
Yes.. we did didn't we.. err!! I mean my grandparents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Jolly good show, what!

Actually down this way in ZA, it was a 40/60 vote in favour of the allies. A lot of people here deeeedn't like the brits. There was a little private war down here to weed out the axis supporters supplying 'refueling stations' for the U-boats and also ship related info. Interesting stuff
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WTE_Googly
10-20-2007, 06:50 PM
I've just been reading a really good book called 'Night after Night,' which is about New Zealand Bomber Command crews during the second world war. Very good book and highly recommended, as it goes through the stories of those who flew, and doesn't go through the politics what happened.

I might post the gist of some of these stories when I get a bit of spare time later on.

Xiolablu3
10-21-2007, 05:32 AM
I am especially proud of their stand in the beginning of the war.

To go to war in order to save an ally, not for personal gain, and to stem a warmongering nation, with dubious ideals. And this was before anyone knew anything at all about the Holocaust.

And then to stand alone against 3 major powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, also including all the little 'hangers on' like Rumania,Croatia, Yugoslavia and Hungary. Its quite surprising that they managed to keep going.

Britain and the Commonwealth were fighting on so many fronts.

Shame they couldnt save Poland from RUssia at the end of the war, but Britian was in absolutely no state to go to war with Russia over Poland again in 1945. She was bankrupt.

The fate of Poland after the war is Russias fault, not Britians, as far as I can see.

Kernow
10-21-2007, 06:03 AM
Reading Mel Rolfe's books about Bomber Command crews and their experiences during the war, I noticed that almost every crew - even on 'RAF' sqns - contained some Commonwealth nationality. The exceptions, where all the crew is British, tend to be chapters on crews at the start of the war, like the Whitley crew who spent some time adrift in the North Sea.

Wepps
10-21-2007, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

It seems to me that that members of the RAF British Commonwealth did rather well in WW2.

Measured with regard to their numbers.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Extraordinarily well.

Figure they faced the Luftwaffe with 650 fighters. And WON.

A year later the Russians faced them with 20,000 aircraft, and WON, but lost all 20,000 by the end of the first year.

It really is amazing.

R_Target
10-21-2007, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And then to stand alone against 3 major powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Commonwealth stand alone against Japan?

mynameisroland
10-21-2007, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And then to stand alone against 3 major powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Commonwealth stand alone against Japan? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Singapore? Burma? Hongkong?

Feathered_IV
10-21-2007, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And then to stand alone against 3 major powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Commonwealth stand alone against Japan? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear. Eight pages, easy.

R_Target
10-21-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pearl Harbor, Clark Field, Corregidor, Bataan?

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, all I'm saying is that nobody stands alone when the Japanese attacked everyone at the same time.

general_kalle
10-21-2007, 07:22 AM
thing is that USA i pretty much stronger than the Commonwealth so the point is that a few brave troops did really well.

yes the americans also did well...some places
but they were so much stronger so its not that of an Archivement.

you cant argue the Americans were much stronger.

K_Freddie
10-21-2007, 08:06 AM
Found this very interesting document about the things we take for granted in a war. It's about the ZA military but is relevant to all.

Military Survey and Mapping (http://academic.sun.ac.za/mil/scientia_militaria/Internet%20Vol%2032(1)/hap-andre.pdf)

MB_Avro_UK
10-21-2007, 04:18 PM
Hi all,

The British Commonwealth nations such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand and South Africa amongst others committed themselves greatly to the success of the R.A.F.

For instance, the Canadians were a substantial proportion of Bomber Command.

The losses of Commonwealth aircrew were huge.

I feel that the contribution of Commonwealth aircrews has been forgoton http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-21-2007, 04:28 PM
Not by me, Avro, old chum.

Sailor Malan
Pat Pattle
Al Deere
just for starters.

Aussie Dambusters. Johnson's Canucks. Ulric Cross. Just of the top of my head.

Let's remember the aircrew from occupied Europe while we're at it.

Kernow
10-21-2007, 04:36 PM
And India. A lot of the 8th Army's experienced troops were Indian. The Burma campaign was fought with Indian army units and Indian Air Force sqns. ('Indian' includes troops from what became Pakistan, as well as Nepal and India itself.)

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-21-2007, 04:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

R_Target
10-21-2007, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

The British Commonwealth nations such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand and South Africa amongst others committed themselves greatly to the success of the R.A.F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel that the contribution of Commonwealth aircrews has been forgoton http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgotten by who though? It seems to me that most people are aware that the RAF was not exclusively English.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-21-2007, 04:45 PM
British wartime posters made it clear, I think.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LF2/INF3_0318.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LF2/INF3_0319.jpg

Britain may have stood alone - but only geographically.

Phas3e
10-21-2007, 04:47 PM
Aparently New Zealand had the highest ace/pilot ratio of any country.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-21-2007, 04:49 PM
Highest casualty ratio per serviceman, too.

MB_Avro_UK
10-21-2007, 04:55 PM
Good posts Low_Flyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Ratsack
10-21-2007, 09:18 PM
IBTK

Ratsack

Xiolablu3
10-21-2007, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pearl Harbor, Clark Field, Corregidor, Bataan?

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, all I'm saying is that nobody stands alone when the Japanese attacked everyone at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Werent Britain/Nz/Aus/Canada trying to help China through-out 1939-41?

I thought the Commonwealth were fighting Japan well before Pearl Harbour, perhaps I am wrong.

na85
10-21-2007, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

For instance, the Canadians were a substantial proportion of Bomber Command. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also the BCATP was conducted here.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 12:01 AM
I didnt realise that SIngapore was such a big battle.

I had gathered that Percival had basically given in as soon as the going got tough. In fact it was a savage, nasty battle, with around 1,000,000 civilains all crammed into the area that the British were trying to defend to escape the Japanese forces.

The Commonwealth forces had no armour at all and only 10 Hurricanes versus the hundreds of attacking Japanese planes. In the end, most guns had run out of ammunition, and the Japanese had cut off the water supply.

With the situation in chaos, and all the shelling causing terrible civilian casuaties..Percival called a Staff meeting where they realised they had two options left.

1. Launch an immediate Counterattack with infantry against Japanese armour and air forces, and try to retake the water supplies.

2. Surrender.

All Officers at the meeting agreed such a counter attack was impossible.


'Alexandra Hospital massacre
At about 1pm on February 14, Japanese soldiers approached the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. No resistance was offered by anyone in the building. Despite this, the Japanese attacked and killed the medical staff and patients, including an allied corporal who was lying on an operating table. The following day, about 200 male staff members and patients, many of them unable to walk, were ordered to march about 400 metres to an industrial area. Some were carried and anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms and were imprisoned overnight, without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment. The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.'


Just what planet were these Japanese, Nazis etc on?!!? Things like this ^ (including holocaust etc) get me so mad....


Anyway, good write up of the Singapore battle :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore

Whirlin_merlin
10-22-2007, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pearl Harbor, Clark Field, Corregidor, Bataan?

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, all I'm saying is that nobody stands alone when the Japanese attacked everyone at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The Britian stood alone against Japan idea is wrong, but not for the reason you give. Japan did not attack everyone at once.

This Britian alone thing gets both overdone and underdone.
Of course Britian wasn't 'alone' it is fair however to say that there was a period were she took the brunt of things.
Not to be disrespectful/ungratefull but New Zealand etc families weren't having ton after ton of bombs dropped on them.

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt realise that SIngapore was such a big battle.

I had gathered that Percival had basically given in as soon as the going got tough. In fact it was a savage, nasty battle, with around 1,000,000 civilains all crammed into the area that the British were trying to defend to escape the Japanese forces.

The Commonwealth forces had no armour at all and only 10 Hurricanes versus the hundreds of attacking Japanese planes. In the end, most guns had run out of ammunition, and the Japanese had cut off the water supply.

With the situation in chaos, and all the shelling causing terrible civilian casuaties..Percival called a Staff meeting where they realised they had two options left.

1. Launch an immediate Counterattack with infantry against Japanese armour and air forces, and try to retake the water supplies.

2. Surrender.

All Officers at the meeting agreed such a counter attack was impossible.


'Alexandra Hospital massacre
At about 1pm on February 14, Japanese soldiers approached the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. No resistance was offered by anyone in the building. Despite this, the Japanese attacked and killed the medical staff and patients, including an allied corporal who was lying on an operating table. The following day, about 200 male staff members and patients, many of them unable to walk, were ordered to march about 400 metres to an industrial area. Some were carried and anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms and were imprisoned overnight, without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment. The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.'


Just what planet were these Japanese, Nazis etc on?!!? Things like this ^ (including holocaust etc) get me so mad....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the same planet every group that dehumanizes its enemies and slaughters them is on. It was, it is and it will happen again in the future. It's human nature to act this way in a law free evironment with no appearant consequences to fear. More with some, less with others.

That said, the japanese treatment of prisoners was extraordinary bad, kinda comparable to how russians and germans treated each others prisoners. But you get to understand it better if you dig a bit into japanese culture at that time. Japanese were as racists as were the caucasians at this point in history considering their own percieved supremacy. And unlike in the west, where nowadays even a harmless and simple term like "Japs" is frowned upon by the political correctness league, racism is still very present in Japan today. That is meant not as an excuse, but an explaination. Added to that, the more rigid a society is, the lesser freedom it enjoys, the harsher and excessive those people act within extreme situations once the boundaries fall. Abu ghurayb is the perfect example of how such things happen even in western societies to this day if common soliders think they wont be punished for what they do and even get encouraged by their superiours.

Sergio_101
10-22-2007, 01:21 AM
#1, Britian did a marvelous job before the US got involved.

#2, Japan did NOT move against allied posessions in the Asian theatre untill soon after Pearl Harbor.

The Nip's knew the US fleet could have given them a hard time. It had to be neutralised before an attack on British holdings in Asia.

Sergio

HotelBushranger
10-22-2007, 01:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Nip's knew </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif IBTL! IBTL!!!

Anyway, before all this goes sour, I'd just like to acknowledge every single country that contributed in whatever way to beat the Axis, regardless of how much or how little they did.

Cheers!

VonShlagnoff
10-22-2007, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pearl Harbor, Clark Field, Corregidor, Bataan?

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, all I'm saying is that nobody stands alone when the Japanese attacked everyone at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, Kessarine, Anzio, Omaha, all by yourselves you managed to screw them up too!

WTE_Googly
10-22-2007, 03:51 AM
But we digress...

Lets not lock this, useful info could appear for those who don't know quite as much about their own air forces in WW2, and an oportunity to learn about less well known pilots from more 'forgotten' countries.

HotelBushranger
10-22-2007, 03:55 AM
A really good website for aces:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/

Got a lot of minority countries in it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

R_Target
10-22-2007, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Werent Britain/Nz/Aus/Canada trying to help China through-out 1939-41?

I thought the Commonwealth were fighting Japan well before Pearl Harbour, perhaps I am wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that although Hong Kong was effectively surrounded, the actual fighting didn't start until the Japanese invasion on December 8 1941, about eight hours after the PH attack.

R_Target
10-22-2007, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VonShlagnoff:
Yup, Kessarine, Anzio, Omaha, all by yourselves you managed to screw them up too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Your mediocre attempt is sure to garner some replies though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
10-22-2007, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
The Britian stood alone against Japan idea is wrong, but not for the reason you give. Japan did not attack everyone at once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, maybe I should have been a little clearer on that. The attacks were not simultaneous, but were all in a relatively brief time frame. I guess if you wanted to be precise, PH was attacked before Hong Kong, Burma, or Singapore.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This Britian alone thing gets both overdone and underdone.
Of course Britian wasn't 'alone' it is fair however to say that there was a period were she took the brunt of things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's certainly not in dispute by me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not to be disrespectful/ungratefull but New Zealand etc families weren't having ton after ton of bombs dropped on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but they weren't Japanese bombs falling on London, Coventry, etc. I was speaking strictly in the context of the Pacific Theatre.

Polyperhon
10-22-2007, 05:01 AM
Do you know the history of Marmaduke Pattle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaduke_Pattle

RegRag1977
10-22-2007, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt realise that SIngapore was such a big battle.

I had gathered that Percival had basically given in as soon as the going got tough. In fact it was a savage, nasty battle, with around 1,000,000 civilains all crammed into the area that the British were trying to defend to escape the Japanese forces.

The Commonwealth forces had no armour at all and only 10 Hurricanes versus the hundreds of attacking Japanese planes. In the end, most guns had run out of ammunition, and the Japanese had cut off the water supply.

With the situation in chaos, and all the shelling causing terrible civilian casuaties..Percival called a Staff meeting where they realised they had two options left.

1. Launch an immediate Counterattack with infantry against Japanese armour and air forces, and try to retake the water supplies.

2. Surrender.

All Officers at the meeting agreed such a counter attack was impossible.


'Alexandra Hospital massacre
At about 1pm on February 14, Japanese soldiers approached the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. No resistance was offered by anyone in the building. Despite this, the Japanese attacked and killed the medical staff and patients, including an allied corporal who was lying on an operating table. The following day, about 200 male staff members and patients, many of them unable to walk, were ordered to march about 400 metres to an industrial area. Some were carried and anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms and were imprisoned overnight, without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment. The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.'


Just what planet were these Japanese, Nazis etc on?!!? Things like this ^ (including holocaust etc) get me so mad....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the same planet every group that dehumanizes its enemies and slaughters them is on. It was, it is and it will happen again in the future. It's human nature to act this way in a law free evironment with no appearant consequences to fear. More with some, less with others.

That said, the japanese treatment of prisoners was extraordinary bad, kinda comparable to how russians and germans treated each others prisoners. But you get to understand it better if you dig a bit into japanese culture at that time. Japanese were as racists as were the caucasians at this point in history considering their own percieved supremacy. And unlike in the west, where nowadays even a harmless and simple term like "Japs" is frowned upon by the political correctness league, racism is still very present in Japan today. That is meant not as an excuse, but an explaination. Added to that, the more rigid a society is, the lesser freedom it enjoys, the harsher and excessive those people act within extreme situations once the boundaries fall. Abu ghurayb is the perfect example of how such things happen even in western societies to this day if common soliders think they wont be punished for what they do and even get encouraged by their superiours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bewolf, once again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Whirlin_merlin
10-22-2007, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
The Britian stood alone against Japan idea is wrong, but not for the reason you give. Japan did not attack everyone at once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, maybe I should have been a little clearer on that. The attacks were not simultaneous, but were all in a relatively brief time frame. I guess if you wanted to be precise, PH was attacked before Hong Kong, Burma, or Singapore.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This Britian alone thing gets both overdone and underdone.
Of course Britian wasn't 'alone' it is fair however to say that there was a period were she took the brunt of things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's certainly not in dispute by me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not to be disrespectful/ungratefull but New Zealand etc families weren't having ton after ton of bombs dropped on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but they weren't Japanese bombs falling on London, Coventry, etc. I was speaking strictly in the context of the Pacific Theatre. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I was switching about theatre's, my comments were about the thread title. Only my first sentence was 'aimed' at you and I was thinking about China as I made it. I agree that PH was the real 'show-opener' in the PTO for US and Commonwealth alike.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt realise that SIngapore was such a big battle.

I had gathered that Percival had basically given in as soon as the going got tough. In fact it was a savage, nasty battle, with around 1,000,000 civilains all crammed into the area that the British were trying to defend to escape the Japanese forces.

The Commonwealth forces had no armour at all and only 10 Hurricanes versus the hundreds of attacking Japanese planes. In the end, most guns had run out of ammunition, and the Japanese had cut off the water supply.

With the situation in chaos, and all the shelling causing terrible civilian casuaties..Percival called a Staff meeting where they realised they had two options left.

1. Launch an immediate Counterattack with infantry against Japanese armour and air forces, and try to retake the water supplies.

2. Surrender.

All Officers at the meeting agreed such a counter attack was impossible.


'Alexandra Hospital massacre
At about 1pm on February 14, Japanese soldiers approached the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. No resistance was offered by anyone in the building. Despite this, the Japanese attacked and killed the medical staff and patients, including an allied corporal who was lying on an operating table. The following day, about 200 male staff members and patients, many of them unable to walk, were ordered to march about 400 metres to an industrial area. Some were carried and anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms and were imprisoned overnight, without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment. The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.'


Just what planet were these Japanese, Nazis etc on?!!? Things like this ^ (including holocaust etc) get me so mad....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the same planet every group that dehumanizes its enemies and slaughters them is on. It was, it is and it will happen again in the future. It's human nature to act this way in a law free evironment with no appearant consequences to fear. More with some, less with others.

That said, the japanese treatment of prisoners was extraordinary bad, kinda comparable to how russians and germans treated each others prisoners. But you get to understand it better if you dig a bit into japanese culture at that time. Japanese were as racists as were the caucasians at this point in history considering their own percieved supremacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand your point, yes SOME caucasions were racist around 1940, but you would be hard pushed to find a brutal act like the massacre of a hospital, by the British, Commonwealth. French or Americans at this point in history (1941-45). We can all find brutal acts by nations if we go back far enough, but by the 20th century modern Nations 'knew better', yet still the Nazis and Japanese seemed to ignore it and go with the 'anything goes' policy.

Barbaric acts certainly happen less and less in the Ameri/Euro/Russo world as time goes on. SO yes they will happen again, but at least now Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime, thanks to our Grandfathers.

IMO You should change your point to 'some' caucasions, not 'the' caucasions.

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt realise that SIngapore was such a big battle.

I had gathered that Percival had basically given in as soon as the going got tough. In fact it was a savage, nasty battle, with around 1,000,000 civilains all crammed into the area that the British were trying to defend to escape the Japanese forces.

The Commonwealth forces had no armour at all and only 10 Hurricanes versus the hundreds of attacking Japanese planes. In the end, most guns had run out of ammunition, and the Japanese had cut off the water supply.

With the situation in chaos, and all the shelling causing terrible civilian casuaties..Percival called a Staff meeting where they realised they had two options left.

1. Launch an immediate Counterattack with infantry against Japanese armour and air forces, and try to retake the water supplies.

2. Surrender.

All Officers at the meeting agreed such a counter attack was impossible.


'Alexandra Hospital massacre
At about 1pm on February 14, Japanese soldiers approached the Alexandra Barracks Hospital. No resistance was offered by anyone in the building. Despite this, the Japanese attacked and killed the medical staff and patients, including an allied corporal who was lying on an operating table. The following day, about 200 male staff members and patients, many of them unable to walk, were ordered to march about 400 metres to an industrial area. Some were carried and anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms and were imprisoned overnight, without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment. The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.'


Just what planet were these Japanese, Nazis etc on?!!? Things like this ^ (including holocaust etc) get me so mad....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the same planet every group that dehumanizes its enemies and slaughters them is on. It was, it is and it will happen again in the future. It's human nature to act this way in a law free evironment with no appearant consequences to fear. More with some, less with others.

That said, the japanese treatment of prisoners was extraordinary bad, kinda comparable to how russians and germans treated each others prisoners. But you get to understand it better if you dig a bit into japanese culture at that time. Japanese were as racists as were the caucasians at this point in history considering their own percieved supremacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand your point, yes SOME caucasions were racist around 1940, but you would be hard pushed to find a brutal act like the massacre of a hospital, by the British, Commonwealth. French or Americans at this point in history (1941-45). We can all find brutal acts by nations if we go back far enough, but by the 20th century modern Nations 'knew better', yet still the Nazis and Japanese seemed to ignore it and go with the 'anything goes' policy.

Barbaric acts certainly happen less and less in the Ameri/Euro/Russo world as time goes on. SO yes they will happen again, but at least now Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime, thanks to our Grandfathers.

IMO You should change your point to 'some' caucasions, not 'the' caucasions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't equate racism with brutality. Those two don't nesseraily go along hand in hand. The one makes the other just more likely.
If you see how the japanese, even american japense, were treated by the US, or the blacks as we are at that old done to death topic, don't tell me there was racism only with very few ppl within the caucasian population. And caucasians do not enncompass the british only, but pretty everything considered "white". So I won't change my notion that most ppl back in those days were prone to racism. Actually, most ppl are to this very day, without even noticing. It's a more subconcious thing that "always" happens when you encounter ppl not emmbedded within your own cultural environment. Basicly it's just another part of daily life prejudices towards even your closest friends. Racism is a very specific term given to a much broader aspect of natural human behaviour. The only real difference is the social acceptance of vocalisation of such notions, and banning the attempts to make "racism" into some sort of political program and the direct targeting of other social/culturual groups at least in western countries over the last decades. Which, btw, is to be congratulated, but won't change the underlying instincts to reject other people's way of life, which usually gets stronger the older the average person gets.

To bring this all back to topic, what the japanese did was wrong, by all morale accounts and for the sake of a working civilisation. But, it's not too far fetched to grasp "why" they did it once you get out of the "all must bow to the western -&gt;theoretical&lt;- values" coffin.

P.S. "SO yes they will happen again, but at least now Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime, thanks to our Grandfathers."

That I pretty much consider a myth. As much as I would like to actually see this happening. Trials like Milosovich or Hussein are the krass exception, not the rule, and only happening if the western powers or the US actually go to war against such nations. Right out of the hat I could name dozens of nations with massacres and racisms without anybody giving a s..t .

The US, the nation I thought was the principle in human rights, in freedom and democracy in former times, didnt even sign up to the International Court of Justice, instead even threatening it. So no, there is no justice, just national interests.

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand your point, yes SOME caucasions were racist around 1940, but you would be hard pushed to find a brutal act like the massacre of a hospital, by the British, Commonwealth. French or Americans at this point in history (1941-45). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we forget about terror/firebombing of cities and their civillian population, yup. And there`s plenty of ugly things both in Normandy and in the Ardennes you can find on both sides. Get the blinkers off. War is ugly, and it ain`t about angels vs. demons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can all find brutal acts by nations if we go back far enough, but by the 20th century modern Nations 'knew better', yet still the Nazis and Japanese seemed to ignore it and go with the 'anything goes' policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only they..?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Barbaric acts certainly happen less and less in the Ameri/Euro/Russo world as time goes on. SO yes they will happen again, but at least now Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime, thanks to our Grandfathers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you`re merely naive... go to a World Press Photo if you want to see the evidence.
And do you really think that Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime? Do a little reading on the ICC... though I agree the situation is better, but that`s largely due to the lessons learned from WW2 and the crimes committed on both sides. It`s an entirely different matter how those proud and noble principles are being put in practice..

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

If we forget about terror/firebombing of cities and their civillian population, yup. And there`s plenty of ugly things both in Normandy and in the Ardennes you can find on both sides. Get the blinkers off. War is ugly, and it ain`t about angels vs. demons.

Only they..?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to completly disagree here. Firebombing hardly had anything to do with racism. It was about pure destruction to win the war. Same with the atrocities in the Ardennes or Normandy. Those hardly were done with racism in mind, rather nationalism and a complete erroding of values due to what war does to the human mind.

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 07:40 AM
It was re:brutal act and not the :racism issue (not that the cause make any different for the victim..). Yes, us proud Europeans never committed barbarities like killing wounded in PoWs in hospital, we merely levelled whole cities. Aye, that`s different.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Speaking of racism, I don`t think the Hospital event had anything to do with it, rather, it`s an Asian war waged Asian standards for waging war, rather different and more extreme than ours. It comes from a culture that thinks in master and servant, and quite readily accepts total annihilitation, total submittance, total sacrafice for the greater group, humiliation of defeat, with PoWs being despisable, inhuman 'things' who were too 'coward' to live up to those standards. Hardly anything Japanese-specific in it, just look at the other wars of the Asian region. All ruthless, without mercy shown on either side, frighteningly annihilition-oriented. Just look at Korea or Vietnam. Quarter was not given, nor asked for. From that POV, it was rather consequent.

Let`s face it, in the PTO, Europeans waged a war in Asia against Asians - frankly it`s somewhat odd to complain about they (the Asians, Japanese, but also the Chinese) were not conducting that war following European values (which Europeans themselves did not give sh*t either most of the time, if I may add) instead of their own set of 'warrior code'.

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 07:44 AM
Jup, true, I can pretty much agree to that. I don't see it as a contradiction, either.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 08:12 AM
How can you possibly compare bombing of cities, which EVERY Nation did during WW2, with slaughtering staff and patients in a a hospital with bayonets, or setting up death camps for the extermination of an entire race?

When Germany bombed Britian in 1940 it was the worst bombing anyone had ever suffered. Its not surprising that they retaliated in force. They caused terrible fies on the London docks in 1940/41, and the centre of Coventry, hardly 'military targets'.

The point is that the Axis powers took brtuallity and terrible acts much further.

The idea/aim of bombing Germanies cities was to try and cripple the war machine or bring Germany to surrender. Britain dropped only leaflets until Germany invaded France.

Just what was the idea/aim of slaughtering a whole hospital of patients and staff (and similar acts all over), or the Genocide of an entire 'untermenschen'?


I dont think I am being naive - We HAVE learned to be more compasionatte over time. Particularly in Europe/Americas/India.

300 years ago there were beheadings in London. 200 years ago there were public hangings. 100 years ago there were private hangings. In the 1960's Capital punishment was banned in Britain.
Wars today are nothing like the Roman times. We dont see Arenas of death where Women are raped by animals in front of crowds, or Men slaughter each other in an arena. Even Fox Hunting is banned in Britain now - seen as barbaric.

The Axis powers, particularly Germany and Japan seemd to take a step back in time and forget all we have learned over the years.

Thinking about it, Beowulf is absolutely right when he says its mostly to do with racism. Germany wasnt so barbaric to the Anglo Saxons as it was to the Jews and Russians. Japan just seemed to regard enemies as fair game for any treatment.

I didnt mean to spark a debate on this anyway, my comment 'what planet were they on?' was meant more as a remark than a real question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 08:25 AM
There it goes, the lily white angles against the dark hordes of Satan. Attrocities done by 'my' side are OK, justifiable and even neccesarry, same attrocities committed by the 'other' side are despisable, uncomparable and unjustified. Such hospital stories are by the dozen on the eastern front, wheter you want to acknowledge or not.

I don`t care wheter a biased, tunnel visioned fanboy finds my POV 'disturbing' or not. It`s obvious your only distinction between crime and 'things that everyone did' is based on solely who`s blood was shed. It`s a crime when they shed our blood. It`s OK when we shed theirs. The sole logic behind your apoligist/revisionist stance.
London docks and Coventry`s aircraft industry not being military targets... oh well, whatever you say. 'Our blood'.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:

P.S. "SO yes they will happen again, but at least now Nations are held to account for their actions in wartime, thanks to our Grandfathers."

That I pretty much consider a myth. As much as I would like to actually see this happening. Trials like Milosovich or Hussein are the krass exception, not the rule, and only happening if the western powers or the US actually go to war against such nations. Right out of the hat I could name dozens of nations with massacres and racisms without anybody giving a s..t .

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, its a big step to walk into a country and claim you know whats best for them, as we have seen in Iraq.

So they are slaughtering each other - may not stability come from this fighting?

Do we have a right to intervene?

I agree with what you are saying, but its a very big decision whther or not to intervene in a countries internal affairs. There has to be one BIG problem in there for the world to agree that outside powers should intervene.

Even in Iraq, most of the world was against US/US/Commonwealth involvement for the most recent Iraq war, even after Saddams crimes in the past.

I dont think that its that Western countriesd dont want to intervene, its just that they are unsure whether they have the right to or not.

At the very least, brutal regimes and dictators usually get crippling economic sanctions for all they are worth. Plus the world press is constantly on their backs.

Bremspropeller
10-22-2007, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can all find brutal acts by nations if we go back far enough, but by the 20th century modern Nations 'knew better', yet still the Nazis and Japanese seemed to ignore it and go with the 'anything goes' policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Indochina and Algeria come to my mind, that was after WW2, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even in Iraq, most of the world was against US/UK/Commonwealth involvement for the most recent Iraq war, even after Saddams crimes in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is, the participants of Desert Storm had the chance to get Saddam in 1991, but they didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At the very least, brutal regimes and dictators usually get crippling economic sanctions for all they are worth. Plus the world press is constantly on their backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latest happenings in Burma show a different image.
It's more like no western country has the balls to go in there, just because the Chinese are sitting 'round the corner.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
There it goes, the lily white angles against the dark hordes of Satan. Attrocities done by 'my' side are OK, justifiable and even neccesarry, same attrocities committed by the 'other' side are despisable, uncomparable and unjustified. Such hospital stories are by the dozen on the eastern front, wheter you want to acknowledge or not.

I don`t care wheter a biased, tunnel visioned fanboy finds my POV 'disturbing' or not. It`s obvious your only distinction between crime and 'things that everyone did' is based on solely who`s blood was shed. It`s a crime when they shed our blood. It`s OK when we shed theirs. The sole logic behind your apoligist/revisionist stance.
London docks and Coventry`s aircraft industry not being military targets... oh well, whatever you say. 'Our blood'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually removed that quote when I edited it.

however:-

How you can possibly equate intentionally slaughtering a Hospital patients and staff with bayonets, or the holocaust, with Aircraft bombing is quite incredible.

'Biased tunnel vision fanboy', http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can all find brutal acts by nations if we go back far enough, but by the 20th century modern Nations 'knew better', yet still the Nazis and Japanese seemed to ignore it and go with the 'anything goes' policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?
Indochina and Algeria come to my mind, that was after WW2, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, the World has become a better place since WW2. Evildoers have no place to hide any longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

Bremspropeller
10-22-2007, 08:38 AM
The result is the same, so why can you actually not?

You're killing innocent people anyway.

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

How you can possibly equate intentionally slaughtering a Hospital patients and staff with bayonets, or the holocaust, with Aircraft bombing is quite incredible.

'Biased tunnel vision fanboy', http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Holocaust part is your addition, of course. I did not 'equate' anything with it. Oh, the strawmen lives forever.

How can I possibly equate intentionally slaughtering a Hospital patients and staff with bayonets with intentionally slaughtering a city`s civillian population with aircraft bombing... well, because quite simply it`s the same thing happening with different means and on a different scale, with the same intent. What is the difference between shooting two man and blowing up two hundred with a bomb, apart from scale ? What makes the difference for you is the nationality of the victims, and who their victimiser is, and not the acts they are suffering, independantly of the participants.

Ernst_Rohr
10-22-2007, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It was re:brutal act and not the :racism issue (not that the cause make any different for the victim..). Yes, us proud Europeans never committed barbarities like killing wounded in PoWs in hospital, we merely levelled whole cities. Aye, that`s different.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Speaking of racism, I don`t think the Hospital event had anything to do with it, rather, it`s an Asian war waged Asian standards for waging war, rather different and more extreme than ours. It comes from a culture that thinks in master and servant, and quite readily accepts total annihilitation, total submittance, total sacrafice for the greater group, humiliation of defeat, with PoWs being despisable, inhuman 'things' who were too 'coward' to live up to those standards. Hardly anything Japanese-specific in it, just look at the other wars of the Asian region. All ruthless, without mercy shown on either side, frighteningly annihilition-oriented. Just look at Korea or Vietnam. Quarter was not given, nor asked for. From that POV, it was rather consequent.

Let`s face it, in the PTO, Europeans waged a war in Asia against Asians - frankly it`s somewhat odd to complain about they (the Asians, Japanese, but also the Chinese) were not conducting that war following European values (which Europeans themselves did not give sh*t either most of the time, if I may add) instead of their own set of 'warrior code'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that inst entirely valid.

Prior to WW2, the Japanese were very "modern" by Western standards of conduct. The Western observers of Japanese forces (mostly Brits btw) during the Russo-Japanese War were slavishly complimentary of Japanese conduct to prisoners AND toward the civilian population.

In comparison to other "modern" Western nations, Japan's conduct prior to the 1930's was seen as very progressive. Now, the Koreans and Chinese would dispute that pretty vehemently, but you have to remember that the Japanese conduct in Asia was EXACTLY the same as any other major powers up until the 1930's.

While the Japanese certainly did some horrible stuff in China prior to WW2, they were no better or worse than any of the major powers who were also there.

In fact, there is a pretty good case to be made that Japanese militarism and the rise of the military government during the late 20's and 30's was in part due to the treatment of Japan by the other world powers.

As far as racism goes, racism was endemic to all of Europe and Asia at the time. The only major power that made at least some attempt at equity at the time was France, who had at least some tradition of upward mobility for non-whites. In fact, French equity toward non-white servicemen during WW1, including officer commissions, had scandalized American and British officers, and was seen as an example of "weakness" by their German rivals.

There is a case to be made that the Japanese attitudes and conduct towards other Asian cultures, while poor to begin with, was in fact "legitimized" by the conduct of the European powers in Asia. In particularly the UK, who the Japanese identified with strongly and patterned themselves off of.

Oddly enough, the Japanese used Western racism as a justification for their actions in Asia. While the Japanese were just as racist (and getting worse over time in fact) they argued that it was "better" to be conquered by Japan since at least they were at least Asian and would treat their fellow Asians better than white Europeans. Obviously the Koreans and Chinese disagreed strongly, and still bear far more animosity towards Japan than to the West.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-22-2007, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
IBTK

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing, ain't it? More reliable than a railway timetable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
10-22-2007, 09:42 AM
Anyway...there was a Commonwealth pilot who...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It was re:brutal act and not the :racism issue (not that the cause make any different for the victim..). Yes, us proud Europeans never committed barbarities like killing wounded in PoWs in hospital, we merely levelled whole cities. Aye, that`s different.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Speaking of racism, I don`t think the Hospital event had anything to do with it, rather, it`s an Asian war waged Asian standards for waging war, rather different and more extreme than ours. It comes from a culture that thinks in master and servant, and quite readily accepts total annihilitation, total submittance, total sacrafice for the greater group, humiliation of defeat, with PoWs being despisable, inhuman 'things' who were too 'coward' to live up to those standards. Hardly anything Japanese-specific in it, just look at the other wars of the Asian region. All ruthless, without mercy shown on either side, frighteningly annihilition-oriented. Just look at Korea or Vietnam. Quarter was not given, nor asked for. From that POV, it was rather consequent.

Let`s face it, in the PTO, Europeans waged a war in Asia against Asians - frankly it`s somewhat odd to complain about they (the Asians, Japanese, but also the Chinese) were not conducting that war following European values (which Europeans themselves did not give sh*t either most of the time, if I may add) instead of their own set of 'warrior code'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that inst entirely valid.

Prior to WW2, the Japanese were very "modern" by Western standards of conduct. The Western observers of Japanese forces (mostly Brits btw) during the Russo-Japanese War were slavishly complimentary of Japanese conduct to prisoners AND toward the civilian population.

In comparison to other "modern" Western nations, Japan's conduct prior to the 1930's was seen as very progressive. Now, the Koreans and Chinese would dispute that pretty vehemently, but you have to remember that the Japanese conduct in Asia was EXACTLY the same as any other major powers up until the 1930's.

While the Japanese certainly did some horrible stuff in China prior to WW2, they were no better or worse than any of the major powers who were also there.

In fact, there is a pretty good case to be made that Japanese militarism and the rise of the military government during the late 20's and 30's was in part due to the treatment of Japan by the other world powers.

As far as racism goes, racism was endemic to all of Europe and Asia at the time. The only major power that made at least some attempt at equity at the time was France, who had at least some tradition of upward mobility for non-whites. In fact, French equity toward non-white servicemen during WW1, including officer commissions, had scandalized American and British officers, and was seen as an example of "weakness" by their German rivals.

There is a case to be made that the Japanese attitudes and conduct towards other Asian cultures, while poor to begin with, was in fact "legitimized" by the conduct of the European powers in Asia. In particularly the UK, who the Japanese identified with strongly and patterned themselves off of.

Oddly enough, the Japanese used Western racism as a justification for their actions in Asia. While the Japanese were just as racist (and getting worse over time in fact) they argued that it was "better" to be conquered by Japan since at least they were at least Asian and would treat their fellow Asians better than white Europeans. Obviously the Koreans and Chinese disagreed strongly, and still bear far more animosity towards Japan than to the West. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


... it`s refreshing to see these kind of well thought-out and reasoned post on the rare occasions on this board. Thank you, I`ve found it interesting series of thoughts on the subject.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-22-2007, 10:01 AM
Indeed, Avro. Pat Pattle is mentioned in Roald Dahl's autobiographical work 'Going Solo' - which has some of the most honest and self-effacing accounts of air combat I've ever read. A small part of a bigger story, but well worth seeking out. (Pattle was Dahl's C.O.)

Ernst_Rohr
10-22-2007, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

... it`s refreshing to see these kind of well thought-out and reasoned post on the rare occasions on this board. Thank you, I`ve found it interesting series of thoughts on the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, its my History degree and years of hobby research actually being useful. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MB_Avro_UK
10-22-2007, 11:18 AM
Hi all,

I've found your posts regarding the Asian 'war culture' both informative and thought provoking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maybe one of you should start another thread regarding this topic as I feel that it has no place here?

@ Low-Flyer. Yes, I read Dahl's book several years ago and agree with you regarding his accounts of aerial combat. He was part Norweigan IIRC? Not quite Commonwealth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro (English with a Commonwealth girlfriend!).

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The thing is, its a big step to walk into a country and claim you know whats best for them, as we have seen in Iraq.

So they are slaughtering each other - may not stability come from this fighting?

Do we have a right to intervene? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq was not about human rights. If it was just that, the US would have to invade and fight a lot of countries. If that claim by the US was to be trusted, the whole western world would have been with the US. Frankly, the liberation and democracy aspect came way too late in the debate and only after no WMDs were found, something the rest of the world didnt expect anyways. So no, nobody believed the US in its rightous intentions there. It was about oil, square and simple. And I use the US in this reply as symbol for the western world in general, including Europe. We all are to blame here.

The only incident I can remember, where the western world really did act upon barbarism and atrocities was in Yugoslavia, and there only when it was almost too late and in the middle or Europe. The pretenses over the Yugoslavian war may have been proven wrong in the aftermath, but, at least the intentions were good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I agree with what you are saying, but its a very big decision whther or not to intervene in a countries internal affairs. There has to be one BIG problem in there for the world to agree that outside powers should intervene.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, by that argument France and the UK would have never declared war on Germany. Denazification would never have taken place. To be honest, and from my perspective, that is a frightening thought. I am very happy, and very thankful, that those countries back then went to war in the first place. And even if it does not always show here when I post, I am indeed very grateful for this, as are by far most of my countrymen. I have no whatsoever doubts, in the long run this applies to populations in authocratic countries as well. Only that nowadays no country, neither the US, nor Britain, nor any other country has the patience to stay in such environments until the job is done anymore. In Iraq, the US waged an extremly ill prepared war, with too few troops, expecting Iraqis to shower the troops with flowers. Why didnt that happen? Because the opposition against Saddam was acting in the aftermath of the first gulf war, expecting aid and help from the US, which didnt happen. It was all about politics, not human rights, democracy or freedom. His adversaries came into the open and Saddam dealt with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Even in Iraq, most of the world was against US/US/Commonwealth involvement for the most recent Iraq war, even after Saddams crimes in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check above. the reason for this lack of support was certainly not because of much love for Saddam.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I dont think that its that Western countriesd dont want to intervene, its just that they are unsure whether they have the right to or not.

At the very least, brutal regimes and dictators usually get crippling economic sanctions for all they are worth. Plus the world press is constantly on their backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read up on Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Persia, Batisda and countless others.
There is a saying: "this guy may be a *******, but at least he is "our" *******. Pretty much the basis of US/western politics throughout the cold war.


Kay, disrupted this thread for long enough. If you want to reply, Xio, a new thread is a go me thinks.

Ernst_Rohr
10-22-2007, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I've found your posts regarding the Asian 'war culture' both informative and thought provoking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maybe one of you should start another thread regarding this topic as I feel that it has no place here?

@ Low-Flyer. Yes, I read Dahl's book several years ago and agree with you regarding his accounts of aerial combat. He was part Norweigan IIRC? Not quite Commonwealth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro (English with a Commonwealth girlfriend!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Avro, sorry for the unintended hijack!

In topic, one of the more interesting things about the Commonwealth service was how well they performed, particularly in light of the ratio of the involved countries.

When you look at the number vs. the impact they had, there were some very remarkable contributions, particularly from Canada and New Zealand, as already mentioned.

Kurfurst__
10-22-2007, 12:36 PM
Rgr, let`s save this thread before it`s too late. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Is there any figures of British and CW armed forces that were mobilized through WW2 (I`ve seen similiar figures for WW1), and composition of these forces?

I understand especially in the Desert campaign and in the MTO saw a lot of use of CW troops.

Xiolablu3
10-22-2007, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The thing is, its a big step to walk into a country and claim you know whats best for them, as we have seen in Iraq.

So they are slaughtering each other - may not stability come from this fighting?

Do we have a right to intervene? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq was not about human rights. If it was just that, the US would have to invade and fight a lot of countries. If that claim by the US was to be trusted, the whole western world would have been with the US. Frankly, the liberation and democracy aspect came way too late in the debate and only after no WMDs were found, something the rest of the world didnt expect anyways. So no, nobody believed the US in its rightous intentions there. It was about oil, square and simple. And I use the US in this reply as symbol for the western world in general, including Europe. We all are to blame here.

The only incident I can remember, where the western world really did act upon barbarism and atrocities was in Yugoslavia, and there only when it was almost too late and in the middle or Europe. The pretenses over the Yugoslavian war may have been proven wrong in the aftermath, but, at least the intentions were good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I agree with what you are saying, but its a very big decision whther or not to intervene in a countries internal affairs. There has to be one BIG problem in there for the world to agree that outside powers should intervene.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, by that argument France and the UK would have never declared war on Germany. Denazification would never have taken place. To be honest, and from my perspective, that is a frightening thought. I am very happy, and very thankful, that those countries back then went to war in the first place. And even if it does not always show here when I post, I am indeed very grateful for this, as are by far most of my countrymen. I have no whatsoever doubts, in the long run this applies to populations in authocratic countries as well. Only that nowadays no country, neither the US, nor Britain, nor any other country has the patience to stay in such environments until the job is done anymore. In Iraq, the US waged an extremly ill prepared war, with too few troops, expecting Iraqis to shower the troops with flowers. Why didnt that happen? Because the opposition against Saddam was acting in the aftermath of the first gulf war, expecting aid and help from the US, which didnt happen. It was all about politics, not human rights, democracy or freedom. His adversaries came into the open and Saddam dealt with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Even in Iraq, most of the world was against US/US/Commonwealth involvement for the most recent Iraq war, even after Saddams crimes in the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check above. the reason for this lack of support was certainly not because of much love for Saddam.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I dont think that its that Western countriesd dont want to intervene, its just that they are unsure whether they have the right to or not.

At the very least, brutal regimes and dictators usually get crippling economic sanctions for all they are worth. Plus the world press is constantly on their backs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read up on Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Persia, Batisda and countless others.
There is a saying: "this guy may be a *******, but at least he is "our" *******. Pretty much the basis of US/western politics throughout the cold war.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I will try and read up on those people.

MB_Avro_UK
10-22-2007, 01:06 PM
Hi all,

Thanks guys for getting back on-topic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
But I've read your contributions with interest and I like my perhaps pre-conceived notions to be challenged.

Anyway, this link states that 10,000 Canadian members of RAF Bomber Command were killed during WW2. The total loss to the Command was almost 60,000.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/commandlosses.html


The Canadians therefore, were perhaps over-represented with regard to fatalities when comparing the population of Canada with the UK population?

Was there 'conscription' in the Commonwealth or were they all volunteers?

An interesting aside that I found in the link:
If you joined Bomber Command in September 1939 at the outbreak of WW2 there was a 90% certainty that you would be dead by 1945... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-22-2007, 01:17 PM
Bomber Command crew were all volunteers. As for conscription, let's hope a passing Aussie or Canuck can help out.

I'm partway through 'Bomber Boys' by Patrick Bishop at the moment. Nice follow up to - you've guessed it - 'Fighter Boys'. He's very good at humanising statistics.

rauparaha
10-22-2007, 01:32 PM
I like the 486 Squadron motto,( one of NZ's RAF squads which was mainly Tempests and Typhoons,)" Hiwa hau maka," which is moari for "beware the wild wind."
Just like to remember James Ward, a Kiwi bomber who received a VC for his bravery.

BfHeFwMe
10-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Ouch, the French being non racist with black troops in WWI? You realize they executed 1300 black men by firing squads.

luftluuver
10-22-2007, 05:58 PM
Canadian conscription during WW2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

Conscription Crisis of 1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917

smokincrater
10-22-2007, 10:27 PM
During WWI Australia I believe(and people will correct me if I`m wrong) was the only Army on the battlefeild that was holey and soley volenteer(also incuring the heaviest losess of the conflict in casuatly per man in the Army). Because a very powerful poliction by the name John Curtin lobbied hard long for it to be opposed(also abloishing the death penlty for misconduct in the Army). Some twenty years later when the Big Fight Part Two come along, the then Prime Minister of Australia a certain John Curtin introduced consciption. Whether they served in the RAAF under Bomber Command I don`t know but chances are they might well have been.

HotelBushranger
10-23-2007, 02:27 AM
In late 1915, Australian PM Billy Hughes toured the Western Front, came back and proposed a referendum on conscription, it was beaten first in 1916 then 1917. So all of WW1's Diggers were volunteers. Come WW2, with the perceived very real threat for Australian soil, conscription was introduced in 1943. Australian was also part of the EATS, which provided Australia's top ace Clive Caldwell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (He originally joined the RAAF but quit and went to EATS after he learnt his course would become instructors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) Re the middle east, the RAAF and Australian's in RAF Squadrons (Caldwell included) contributed a lot to the war effort; 3 Sqn RAAF became the first Commonwealth country to reach 100 kills in the desert. Another notable unit was 450 Squadron.

That's about all I can reel off the top of my head http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PS - smokincrater, do you have an opinion of John Curtin? I personally think hes one of Australia's best ever politicians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WOLFMondo
10-23-2007, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

How can I possibly equate intentionally slaughtering a Hospital patients and staff with bayonets with intentionally slaughtering a city`s civillian population with aircraft bombing... well, because quite simply it`s the same thing happening with different means and on a different scale, with the same intent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to take things out of context when they really do need to be thought about in context. Bombing of cities by the RAF and USAAF to stop an nation hell bent on gassing and shooting anyone that didn't fit in with there ideology.

The UK and US's goal was not the ultimiate destruction of Germany but to bring conclusion to a war initiated by Germany. Nazi Germany's main goal and what started the war was territory and the removal and killing of anyone that wasn't of the right ethnic or political back ground.

Gumtree
10-23-2007, 03:07 AM
Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) troops were all volunteers in both wars. The politicians attempted to make conscription a reality in both wars but were defeated by referendums.
Only during the 2ww did we have a form of conscription for the forces and that was specifically to defend the nation directly.

Some off the Australian Militia Force (AMF) were conscripted to serve only within Australia to defend our shores, of course a desperate government modified the terms to 'within Australia and her territories', thus we have the AMF fighting in New Guinea on the Kokoda track etc.

This resulted basically in 2 armed forces fighting side by side during the war, the AMF were considered second rate by the 2nd AIF troops and much scorn was heaped upon the Choco's (chocolate soldiers, who would melt as the action hotted up).

This all changed when the mighty 39th battalion (Victorians) fought the veteran Japanese south seas force in the New Guinea highlands and effectively stopped them from capturing Port Moresby, holding them just long enough for the veteran 21 brigade (7th Division) AIF to fight the Japanese to a standstill.

The attitude of the AIF changed as they fought alongside the "chocco's" and they witnessed bravery and skill equal to their own.

Australia has a deep seated aversion to conscription and any attempt by a government to impose such has lead to a rather quick fall from power as was witnessed during the Vietnam war and National service.

P.S. 239 wing made up of 112 RAF, nos 3 & 450 RAAF, this was the top scoring desert air force wing in the Mediterranean, and the pioneers of the fighter bomber with the mighty workhorse namely the P-40.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

The UK and US's goal was not the ultimiate destruction of Germany but to bring conclusion to a war initiated by Germany. Nazi Germany's main goal and what started the war was territory and the removal and killing of anyone that wasn't of the right ethnic or political back ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree to the first part, agreed to the second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan

JG53Frankyboy
10-23-2007, 03:23 AM
About other aviators, outside the CW fighting the Axis:

Mexican pilots
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_18.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p47_18.html)

brazilian pilots
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_16.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p47_16.html)
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/301-400/Fea3..._Fabricio/Fea371.htm (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/301-400/Fea371_P-47_Fabricio/Fea371.htm)


And for the oposite side:
Here is a nice book about the non german aviators who fought beside the germans in europe
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1861267991/ref=sib_dp_p...-8670508#reader-link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1861267991/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-6552683-8670508#reader-link)

Fabs2007
10-23-2007, 03:55 AM
Hope this helps
http://homepages.force9.net/rothwell/SouthAfrica.htm


South African Formations of the Second World War

by Steve Rothwell

In September 1939, the South African Army numbered 3,353 regulars. These were supplemented by 14,631 men of the Active Citizen Force (ACF) which gave peace time training to volunteers and in time of war would form the main body of the army. Pre-war plans did not anticipate that the army would fight outside southern Africa and it was trained and equipped for bush warfare. Changes were initiated after the Italian conquest of Abyssinia in 1936 and the 27 battalions of the ACF were organised into nine brigade groups. The brigade group was the basic South African field formation capable of independent operations. Mirroring contemporary British practice, each brigade of three infantry battalions was allocated its own artillery, engineers and other ancillary arms.

However South Africa's military aspired to greater things and in late September 1939, the Chief of Staff, Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, proposed the formation of a Mobile Field Force, made up of two infantry divisions (each of three infantry brigades), a mounted brigade and an armoured regiment. Together with supporting artillery and coastal defence forces, the requirement was for 140,000 men. Although not formally accepted, the proposal set the pattern for subsequent mobilisation and force structure.



Manpower

The proposal also highlighted a failing which was to plague South African planning throughout the war. There were simply not enough men to fill out the planned formations. Out of a total population of 2,400,000 whites, the available pool of men aged between 20 and 40 was around 320,000. The declaration of war on Germany had the support of only a narrow majority in the South African parliament and was far from universally popular. Indeed, there was a significant minority actively opposed to the war and under these conditions conscription was never an option. The expansion of the army and its deployment overseas depended entirely on volunteers.

Given the country's attitudes to race, it is not surprising that the enlistment of fighting troops from the much larger black population was hardly considered. Instead, in an attempt to free up as many whites as possible for the fighting and technical arms, a number of corps were formed to provided drivers and pioneers, drawn from the more acceptable Cape Coloured and Indian populations. These were eventually amalgamated into the Cape Corps. A Native Military Corps, manned by blacks, was also formed for pioneer and labouring tasks. For some of their tasks, individuals were armed, mainly for self-protection and guard duties, but they were never allowed to participate in actual combat against Europeans.



Mobilisation and Early Deployments

Up until the spring of 1940 (South African Army 1939-40 by David A Ryan), the army trained with little prospect of action. In March, following a British request, General Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minister, promised an infantry brigade to reinforce Kenya against the Italians in East Africa. This impending foreign deployment, to be completed by July, was outside the scope of the existing oath taken by the Army's volunteers and on 29 March, officers and men were invited to take a new oath for service anywhere in Africa.

On 11 May 1940, 1 Infantry Brigade was mobilised, followed by eight brigades during the summer. South Africa declared war on Italy on 11 June and 1 Brigade deployed to Kenya in July. 1 Infantry Division formed on 13 August and, with 2 and 5 Brigades, joined 1 Brigade during October and November. The South Africans distinguished themselves during the highly successful East African campaign which followed. The country also provided the majority of engineers and other technical troops and by April 1941 had 31,560 troops in East Africa. One disappointment was that 1 Division did not fight with all three South African brigades under command, 1 Brigade serving with both 11 and 12 African Divisions, its place taken by 25 East African Brigade.






1 SA Infantry Div 2 SA Infantry Div 3 SA Infantry Div 6 SA Armoured Div

In May 1941, 1 Division was sent to Egypt and was soon joined by 2 Division. 2 and 3 Divisions had formed in South Africa in October and November 1940, but 3 Division remained at home as a drafting formation, supplying replacements to the two divisions ˜up North'.



The North African Cauldron

South African formations, organised and equipped along British lines, met with mixed fortunes in the North African campaign. In its first operation, during Operation Crusader, 5 Brigade was destroyed on 23 November 1941, at Sidi Rezegh. The commander of 1 Brigade, Brig Dan Pienaar, operated cautiously for the remainder of the operation, reluctant to incur additional high losses. 2 Brigade was detached to 8 Army throughout, forming the garrison of the Matruh fortress, while 2 Division, lacking motor transport, was in reserve. The South Africans were understandably concerned that their divisions should fight as whole formations and for the Gazala battles the brigades fought under command of their respective divisions. But further disaster awaited the luckless South Africans. On 21 June 1942, 2 Division, with 4 and 6 Brigades under command, surrendered at the fall of Tobruk.

1 Division, with 1, 2 and 3 Brigades under command, was able to get away relatively intact and fought well in the defensive battles following 8 Army's retreat into Egypt. The cautious Pienaar, now commander of 1 Division and increasingly reluctant to risk his troops, lost the confidence of his British commanders. It was felt, a little unfairly, that his division now lacked the necessary aggressiveness and drive for offensive operations. However the division played an important part in the victory at El Alamein.



Manpower Problems and Service in Italy

From the time of their arrival in North Africa, it had been the Army's ambition to convert the two divisions to armoured formations, but the necessary equipment had been lacking. Victory in North Africa gave an opportunity to resurrect these plans but there were two problems to overcome. The first, as ever, was manpower. Although 3 Division had despatched 7 Motorised Brigade to garrison Madagascar between June and December 1942, the division could not be sustained, let alone converted to armour in place of the lost 2 Division. It was decided to withdraw 1 Division to South Africa at the end of 1942 and to replace it with an armoured division. But what of the second problem, with the closure of the campaign in North Africa, where was the new division to fight?

During this time, a number of formations were organised, but most disappeared quickly for lack of men. Eventually 6 Armoured Division began forming in South Africa in February 1943, and moved to Egypt in April, where it equipped and trained for nearly a year. A further armoured division, 1 Armoured, was planned but was reduced to a brigade and remained in South Africa, acting as a feeder for 6 Division. Manpower problems continued to beset 6 Division, the shortages compounded by the reluctance of some to serve outside Africa and of some veterans to serve again, but during the summer of 1943, infantry shortfalls were overcome by merging regiments. Like some marriages, the mergers retained the names of both parties, resulting in titles such as the First City/Cape Town Highlanders Regiment and the Imperial Light Horse/Kimberley Regiment. By late 1943, there were 40,00 South Africans in the Middle East.

Early in 1943, a new oath was instigated for service outside Africa and 6 Division and a number of engineer units were offered to the British for service in Italy. The British willingly accepted the engineers but were at first reluctant to accept the division as the real need was for more infantry. The potential of the division could not be overlooked for ever and it finally disembarked at Taranto in April 1944. British experience in Italy showed that armoured divisions, with one armoured and one infantry brigade, were too light in infantry. Independent infantry brigades were attached to their divisions and to 6 SA Armoured, the British 24 Guards Infantry Brigade joining the division's 11 Armoured and 12 Motorised Brigades in May. The brigade group remained key to the British and South African concept of fighting and by now divisional integrity was respected. So too was the need for all arms to operate together and it was common for the infantry battalions to operate with the division's tanks under command, after the fashion of the German Kampfgruppe or the American task force.

Initially attached to 8 Army, 6 Division fought with 5 US Army from August 1944 until the war's end. The division faced a constant struggle for replacements, alleviated by the loan of additional British troops and, ironically for the race-conscious South Africans, an Indian infantry battalion, 4/13 Frontier Force Rifles. In February, general infantry shortages forced the removal of the Guards brigade to reconstitute the British 56 Infantry Division but the South Africans improvised 13 Motorised Brigade in its place. Despite the shortages, 6 Division acquitted itself well throughout the campaign but it is questionable whether enough men could have been found to keep it in being if the war had lasted longer.

South Africa made a significant contribution to the British Commonwealth war effort, especially in the early years as the British struggled to mobilise. As for the Army, of the 132,194 men who volunteered for full time service by the war's end, nearly 3400 were killed, 7,236 wounded and 12,271 missing and POW.

HotelBushranger
10-23-2007, 04:00 AM
Thanks mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

N dunno if I've said it before, but welcome to the forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fabs2007
10-23-2007, 04:11 AM
Thank you Bushranger.

Here is a bit more info. Also give an indecation of the commitment of forces (not only commenwealth) b.t.w stop me if you guys kno this stuff

Appendix A: Battle Deaths in Major WW2 Campaigns
(Includes missing, but not POWs. According to John Ellis, World War II : a statistical survey (Facts on File, 1993) unless otherwise noted.)

Poland, 1939

Poles: 66,300
Germans: 13,110
[Soviets]: 900 ("Russians")
[TOTAL: ca. 80,000]

Denmark/Norway, 1940

Ellis
Germans: 3,692
Norwegians: 2,000
Danes: -
[TOTAL: ca. 5,700]

NWHA [http://www.nwha.org/news_1Q2004/news_page9.html]
Norwegians: 850
British: 4,000
French and Poles: 530
Germans: 1,300
[TOTAL: 6,680]

France 1940

French: 120,000
Germans: 43,110
British: 11,010
Belgians: 7,500
Dutch: 2,890
Italians: 1,250
[TOTAL: ca. 185,000]

Balkans, 1941

Yugoslavs: ?
Italians: 38,830
Greeks: 19,000
Germans: 3,674 (K+W) [A total of 34,040 Germans were killed in the Balkans to 31 Dec. 1944]
[TOTAL: ca. 160,000]

Greece, 1940-41 (according to Gilbert, A History of the 20th Century)

Italians: 13,755
Greeks: 15,700
Germans: 2,232
British: 3,712
[TOTAL: ca. 35,400]

Eastern Front, 1941-45

Ellis
[Soviets]: 11,000,000 ("Russians")
Germans: 2,415,690 (K+M+POWs, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 1,001,680K + 1,287,140M = 2,288,820 in Field Army only, 22-June 1941-10 March 1945.)
Romanians: 381,000 (as Axis). 170,000 (as Allies)
Hungarians: 136,000
Poles: &gt;40,000
Bulgarians: 32,000
[TOTAL: ca. 14,000,000]
Clodfelter
[Soviets]: 7.5M to 12.0M ("Russians")
Germans: 1,001,000 kia
Romanians: 300,000 d.
Hungarians: 200,000 d.
[TOTAL: ca. 11,251,000 ± 2,250,000]

North African Desert, 1941-43

Ellis
Italians: 20,720
British: c. 7,000 in W. Desert + 6,230 in Tunisia
Germans: 12,810
Americans: 3,620
Australians: 3,150
French: 12,920 (all casualty types)
New Zealanders: 6,340 (incl. k. in Italy)
S. Africans: 2,100
Indians: 1,720
[TOTAL: 57,350, excl. French & New Z.]
Clodfelter
British Commonwealth: 35,476 KIA
Germans: 18,594
Italians: 13,748
[TOTAL: 67,818]

Italy, 1943-45

British: 89,440 (K+W)
Germans: 59,940 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 46,800K + 208,240M = 255,040 in Field Army only, June 1941-10 April 1945.)
Americans: 29,560
French: 8,660
Canadians: 5,400
Indians: 4,720
Poles: 2,460
S. Africans: 710
Brazilians: 510
[TOTAL: ca. 125,000]

China

Chinese: 3,211,420 (all casualty types)
Japanese: 388,600
[TOTAL: ca. 1,200,000]
Pacific, 1941-45
Japanese: 685,230 Army & Marines + 414,880 Navy [=1,100,110]
Americans: 55,060 Army & Marines + 36,950 Navy [=92,010]
[TOTAL: ca. 1,192,120]

NW Europe, 1944-45

Ellis
Germans: 128,030 (KIA only, incl. SS troops, to Dec. 1944. Another est. is 80,820K + 490,260M = 571,080 in Field Army only, to April 1945.)
Americans: 109,820
British: 30,280
French: 12,590
Canadians: 10,740
Poles: 1,160
[TOTAL: 292,620]
Clodfelter
Allies: 186,900 KIA, incl. 135,576 USA
Germans: 263,000 combat d. + 56,000 died as POWs [incl. died of wounds]
[TOTAL: 505,900]

SE Asia

Japanese: 210,830
Indians: 6,860
British: 5,670 (incl. POWs)
Americans: 3,650
Australians: 1,820
Africans: 860
[TOTAL: ca. 225,000]

smokincrater
10-23-2007, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
PS - smokincrater, do you have an opinion of John Curtin? I personally think hes one of Australia's best ever politicians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s bit like comparing sports stars of differnet eras. No one was before or since had the pressures that Curtin did. Certainly the decision, not so much to break ties with Britain but `Look to America` did not go down well with the establisment both here and in the UK. His disagreements with both Churchill and Roosvelt(I am sorry if did not spell it right) about the welfare of Australian troops and that matter Australia`s place in the war and the world, does give a credit that sadly later PM`s lack.
But one must remember it was only the independents abandoning the Menzies government that allowed Labor to form government.
He was the first to declare war(the first time a PM declared war, normally and properly thats the Governor Generals job) on Japan(strangley America was one of the last).
John Curtin though a gravely sick man charted the coruse for the Australia of today.
Whether Menzies had the same inner steel (I suspect he did) one can only spectulate.
The current PM would not buckle I don`t think from fighting a defensive war(But sadly we have been the ones being argessive, but that is another topic).

But to answer your question he certainly is in my top three. Menzies, Curtin and Howard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

luftluuver
10-23-2007, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

How can I possibly equate intentionally slaughtering a Hospital patients and staff with bayonets with intentionally slaughtering a city`s civillian population with aircraft bombing... well, because quite simply it`s the same thing happening with different means and on a different scale, with the same intent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to take things out of context when they really do need to be thought about in context. Bombing of cities by the RAF and USAAF to stop an nation hell bent on gassing and shooting anyone that didn't fit in with there ideology.

The UK and US's goal was not the ultimiate destruction of Germany but to bring conclusion to a war initiated by Germany. Nazi Germany's main goal and what started the war was territory and the removal and killing of anyone that wasn't of the right ethnic or political back ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is just another attempt by Kapt K to paint the western Allies as bad as his beloved Horde of Satan who started the fight.

smokincrater
10-23-2007, 05:23 AM
QUOTE]
It is just another attempt by Kapt K to paint the western Allies as bad as his beloved Horde of Satan who started the fight.[/QUOTE]

I think you will find it was the British Empire and France that declared war on Germany. Even though a credit must be given to Hitler and Starlin for invading Poland(stangley Poland was quietly forgotten behind the iron curtin when the fighting stopped).

HotelBushranger
10-23-2007, 05:32 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._18_%28Netherlands_East...ies%29_Squadron_RAAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._18_%28Netherlands_East_Indies%29_Squadron_RAAF )

Interesting! There were 3 joint NEI/RAAF squadrons in Pacific service. I had no idea we had much contact with the Dutch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

R_Target
10-23-2007, 05:48 AM
Can anyone direct me to a book detailing RNZAF in the Solomons?

luftluuver
10-23-2007, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
I think you will find it was the British Empire and France that declared war on Germany. Even though a credit must be given to Hitler and Starlin for invading Poland(stangley Poland was quietly forgotten behind the iron curtin when the fighting stopped). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you will find the the UK and France had a treaty with Poland. If Nazi Germany had not invaded Poland, then the UK and France would not have been obligated to comply with the terms of the treaty.

Nazi Germany threw the first stone, starting the fight.

HotelBushranger
10-23-2007, 06:18 AM
Sigh, so much buck passing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But yes, nevertheless Germany got the war ball rolling I think that can be accepted.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-23-2007, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Can anyone direct me to a book detailing RNZAF in the Solomons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go - whole book online:-

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LF2/WH2AirFFCo.jpg

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2AirF.html

Chapter on operations in the Solomons, from the above:
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2AirF-c13.html#n175

With large maps

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/LF2/WH2AirFP020a.jpg

Hope it helps.

MEGILE
10-23-2007, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:


Hope it helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happened to MkV? Siberia?

ploughman
10-23-2007, 06:45 AM
Upgrades, somebody got a new motor?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-23-2007, 06:51 AM
With a high postcount, I was running the risk of being taken for someone who might know what they're on about. I feel liberated of such a responsibility now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyhow, that RNZAF link is part of a site with NZ's entire WWII involvement documented. Just the sort of thing to get this thread back on track, eh?

ploughman
10-23-2007, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With a high postcount, I was running the risk of being taken for someone who might know what they're on about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something I shall never have to worry about.


Smashing map and book.

WOLFMondo
10-23-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

The UK and US's goal was not the ultimiate destruction of Germany but to bring conclusion to a war initiated by Germany. Nazi Germany's main goal and what started the war was territory and the removal and killing of anyone that wasn't of the right ethnic or political back ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree to the first part, agreed to the second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the first part is subjective but that plan wasn't to destroy Germany, just stop it kicking off for a third time.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

The UK and US's goal was not the ultimiate destruction of Germany but to bring conclusion to a war initiated by Germany. Nazi Germany's main goal and what started the war was territory and the removal and killing of anyone that wasn't of the right ethnic or political back ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree to the first part, agreed to the second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the first part is subjective but that plan wasn't to destroy Germany, just stop it kicking off for a third time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Subjective indeed, but me thinks splitting the country in several parts, destroying its economy and letting millions starve to death is a bit more then "stop it kicking off for a third time". Germany, as a country, a society, a culture and a people, would have been pretty much destroyed in such a scenario. Not in a concentration camp way, but pretty much effective nontheless.

But I once again have to aplogize for reacting and letting the thread stroll of again. I'll be quite for good now.

Gumtree
10-23-2007, 07:35 AM
Just a few thoughts on Curtin,

Firstly i agree the man was a very good leader for Australia, who stood up to Churchill and got the country on a war footing on the home front, but, in my opinion he failed with MacArthur, to properly represent the interest of the Australian forces.

I believe both he an Blamey were disgraceful in the way they allowed MacArthur to step all over them.

The total lack of recognition for anything that the ANZAC forces did was a Propaganda high jack by MacArthur, it left many of the veterans seething and caused a great deal of angst amongst the Australian soldiers.

Unfortunately in a great crises the self serving efforts of Blamey, meant that the command at the front were used as scape goats by both Blamey and MacArthur, I feel that Curtin's failure to defend and support the Australian command was a great injustice and a blemish on an otherwise stellar career.

ploughman
10-23-2007, 07:59 AM
Interesting that Morgenthau Plan, very hard to view even US occupation policy as singularly coherent after reading that Wiki-article, let alone that of the Western Allies. That the chief architect of the plan was unmasked as a Soviet agent is an added curiosity. We think of Western Allied policy to the defeated Germany to be one of altruism and mercy, but during the immediate aftermath it was not necessarily so.

I was unaware of the direct link between the Morgenthau Plan and the European Union via International Authority for the Ruhr and the ECSC, before now.

HotelBushranger
10-23-2007, 08:05 AM
Re Gumtree,

Definitely agree with your thoughts on the Oz-US alliance, but I think that Curtin being weak-spined could be attributed to the fact the relationship with the American's was new and untried, also things were looking very grim for Australia at the time so Curtin wouldn't be looking to jeapordise that alliance.

Yes I agree, MacArthur was the biggest ******* possible to both himself and Australian troops, firstly in the New Guinean campaigns by either not attributing the appropriate credit to AIF/AMF forces or taking it for himself, and then later in the war by refusing to let any non-US countries from effectively participating in the Pacific theatre. Blamey I have similar thoughts on definitely, but this should be countered by the fact that him and IIRC Rowell basically contsructed the Army out of nothing at the beginning of the war, and he stood up and secured Australian military independence in North Africa.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-23-2007, 08:07 AM
@ Ploughman - Search out a book by Michael Beschloss called 'The Victors' - details all this sort of stuff, a lot of it from minutes of meetings. Roosevelt would have been a lot harder than Truman, and Churchill was very magnanamous in his plans for a conquered Germany.

Simon & Schuster 2002.

ISBN 0-684-81027-1
0-7432-4454-0 (pbk)

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 08:46 AM
the victors was a great book.

but one thing to remember, the Morgenthau Plan never became us or allied policy.

so i hardly see how the mere fact that it existed can be used to somehow show the allies meant to destroy the german people. imo the plan never had a snowballs chance in hell of ever being implemented, given the politics of the immediate postwar period.

some obviously did want revenge on germany, its hard to blame them, but the point is it didnt happen that way. Morgenthau was jewish btw, so i can understand his feelings.

luftluuver
10-23-2007, 08:50 AM
This Morgenthau Plan vs the Marshall Plan.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the victors was a great book.

but one thing to remember, the Morgenthau Plan never became us or allied policy.

so i hardly see how the mere fact that it existed can be used to somehow show the allies meant to destroy the german people.

some obviously did want revenge on germany, its hard to blame them, but the point is it didnt happen that way. Morgenthau was jewish btw, so i can understand his feelings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not quite correct. The Morgenthau plan "was" official policy up until around 1947, its goals followed. Only when it was realized that Germany was in danger of falling to communism and that the rest of Europe was in need of german industrial production did that change.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the victors was a great book.

but one thing to remember, the Morgenthau Plan never became us or allied policy.

so i hardly see how the mere fact that it existed can be used to somehow show the allies meant to destroy the german people.

some obviously did want revenge on germany, its hard to blame them, but the point is it didnt happen that way. Morgenthau was jewish btw, so i can understand his feelings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not quite correct. The Morgenthau plan "was" official policy up until around 1947, its goals followed. Only when it was realized that Germany was in danger of falling to communism and that the rest of Europe was in need of german industrial production did that change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you better read the victors, because The Morgenthau plan was NEVER implemented.

the book goes into great detail about why it wasnt.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 09:00 AM
Maybe not by name, but by goals, yes it was too a large part.

from wiki. not the greatest ever sourc, but pretty much in line with whatever I read about the topic before:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Some of the Morgenthau Plan was implemented, and some came very close to being implemented. The Morgenthau Plan spawned the JCS-1067[6], which contained the ideas of making Germany a "Pastoral State". This concept's name was later changed to become "level of industry", where Germany's production was to be severely limited but not completely eliminated. No new locomotives were to be built until 1949, most industries were to have their production halved. Automobile production was to be set at 10% of its [pre-war] 1936 level, etc.[7]

On February 2, 1946, a dispatch from Berlin reported:

Some progress has been made in converting Germany to an agricultural and light industry economy, said Brigadier General William H. Draper, Jr., chief of the American Economics Division, who emphasized that there was general agreement on that plan.

He explained that Germany's future industrial and economic pattern was being drawn for a population of 66,500,000. On that basis, he said, the nation will need large imports of food and raw materials to maintain a minimum standard of living.

General agreement, he continued, had been reached on the types of German exports "” coal, coke, electrical equipment, leather goods, beer, wines, spirits, toys, musical instruments, textiles and apparel "” to take the place of the heavy industrial products which formed most of Germany's pre-war exports. [54]

Morgenthau had written a book outlining the full Morgenthau Plan, Germany is Our Problem. In November 1945 General Eisenhower, Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone, approved the distribution of one thousand free copies of the book to American military officials in Germany.[55]

By February 28, 1947 it was estimated that 4,160,000 German former prisoners of war, by General Eisenhower relabeled as Disarmed Enemy Forces in order to negate the Geneva Convention, were used as forced labor in work camps outside Germany: 3,000,000 in Russia, 750,000 in France, 400,000 in Britain and 10,000 in Belgium. [8] (see also Eisenhower and German POWs#American forced labor policy in Germany shortly after the war) Meanwhile in Germany large parts of the population were starving at a time when according to a study done by former US President Herbert Hoover the nutritional condition in Germany's neighboring countries was nearly pre-war normal". [9] (See also Eisenhower and German POWs#American food policy in Germany shortly after the war)

All armaments plants, including some that could have been converted to civilian operation, were dismantled or destroyed. A large proportion of operational civilian plants were dismantled and transported to the victorious nations, mainly France and Russia.

In addition to the above courses of action, there have been general policies of destruction or limitation of possible peaceful productivity under the headings of "pastoral state" and "war potential." The original of these policies apparently expressed on September 15, 1944, at Quebec, aimed at:

"converting Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral,"

and included,

"the industries of the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be put out of action, closed down...." [56]

As late as March 1947 there were still active plans to let France annex the Ruhr just as eastern Prussia and Silesia had been annexed by Russia and Poland, or at a minimum remove it from Germany.

"The Ruhr "” The Times' article and editorial on the breach in the US ranks on the subject of the Ruhr were accurate, and the latter excellent. I have been disturbed over the arena in which the debate has been carried out. Clay and Draper claim that Germany will go communist shortly after any proposal to infringe on its sovereignty over the Ruhr is carried out;". [57]

The Saar, another important source of coal and industry for Germany, was likewise to be lost by the Germans. It was cut out from Germany and its resources put under French control. In 1955, the French, under pressure from West Germany and her newfound allies, held a plebiscite in the Saar Protectorate on the question of reunification or independence. Reunification won overwhelmingly, and on January 1, 1957, Saarland rejoined West Germany.

As Germany was allowed neither airplane production nor any shipbuilding capacity to supply a merchant navy, all facilities of this type were destroyed over a period of several years. A typical example of this activity by the allies was the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, where explosive demolition was still taking place as late as 1949. Everything that could not be dismantled was blown up or otherwise destroyed. A small-scale attempt to revive the company in 1948 ended with the owners and a number of employees being thrown in jail by the British. It was not until 1953 that the situation gradually started to improve for the Blohm & Voss, thanks in part to repeated pleas by German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to the Allied High Commissioners.[58]

Timber exports from the U.S. occupation zone were particularly heavy. Sources in the U.S. government stated that the purpose of this was the "ultimate destruction of the war potential of German forests." As a consequence of the practiced clear-felling extensive deforestation resulted which could "be replaced only by long forestry development over perhaps a century.".[59]

Over a period of years American policy slowly changed away from this policy of "industrial disarmament". The first and main turning point was the speech "Restatement of Policy on Germany" held in Stuttgart by the United States Secretary of State James F. Byrnes on September 6, 1946.

Reports such as this by former U.S. President Herbert Hoover, dated March 1947, also argued for a change of policy, among other things through speaking frankly of the expected consequences.

There are several illusions in all this "war potential" attitude.

a. There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France. [60]

In July 1947, President Harry S. Truman rescinded on "national security grounds"[61] JCS 1067, which had directed the U.S. forces of occupation in Germany to "take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany." [62]

In addition to the physical barriers that had to be overcome for the German economic recovery there were also intellectual challenges. The Allies confiscated intellectual property of great value, all German patents, both in Germany and abroad, and used them to strengthen their own industrial competitiveness by licensing them to Allied companies.[63] Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the U.S. pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion, in his book "Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany", that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion.[64][65][66] During the more than two years that this policy was in place, no industrial research in Germany could take place, as any results would have been automatically available to overseas competitors who were encouraged by the occupation authorities to access all records and facilities. Meanwhile thousands of the best German researchers were being put to work in the Soviet Union and in the U.S. (see Operation Paperclip)

Contrary to popular belief, the Marshall Plan, which was extended to also include Western Germany after it was realized that the suppression of the Western German economy was holding back the recovery of the rest of Europe,[67] was not the main force behind the Wirtschaftswunder.[68][69] Had that been the case, other countries such as Great Britain and France (which both received higher economic assistance from the Marshal plan than Germany) should have experienced the same phenomenon. In fact, the amount of monetary aid (which was in the form of loans) received by Germany through the Marshall Plan (about $1.4 billion in total) was far overshadowed by the amount the Germans had to pay back as war reparations and by the charges the Allies made on the Germans for the ongoing cost of occupation (about $2.4 billion per year)[70]. In 1953 it was decided that Germany was to repay $1.1 billion of the aid it had received. The last repayment was made in June 1971.[71]

In 1949 West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer wrote to the Allies requesting that the policy of industrial dismantling end, citing the inherent contradiction between encouraging industrial growth and removing factories and also the unpopularity of the policy.[72] (See also Adenauers original letter to Schuman, Ernest Bevins letter to Robert Schuman.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 09:06 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bewolf:
Maybe not by name, but by goals, yes it was too a large part.

__________________________________________________ __________


according to you its goals were to destroy the german people, thats why you brought it up.

The Morgenthau plan if it was implemented problay would have killed millions of germans. but it didnt happen did it.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bewolf:
Maybe not by name, but by goals, yes it was too a large part.

__________________________________________________ __________


according to you its goals were to destroy the german people, thats why you brought it up.

The Morgenthau plan if it was implemented problay would have killed millions of germans. but it didnt happen did it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to correct you, but it was not about the destructiion of its people, but Germany itself. You may read up on that again. That said, no, millions did not die. But the death toll due to starvation was into the thousands.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bewolf:
Maybe not by name, but by goals, yes it was too a large part.

__________________________________________________ __________


according to you its goals were to destroy the german people, thats why you brought it up.

The Morgenthau plan if it was implemented problay would have killed millions of germans. but it didnt happen did it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to correct you, but it was not about the destructiion of its people, but Germany itself. You may read up on that again. That said, no, millions did not die. But the death toll due to starvation was into the thousands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

now your aguing semantics. is there a differance beteewn destroying the german people and destroying germany? if there is a differance it doesnt matter, because the PLAN would of done both.

neither happened.

as for the thousands that did die from starvation. i believe that was more by force of circumstance, rather than deliberate policy.

blindpugh
10-23-2007, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

The British Commonwealth nations such as Canada,Australia,New Zealand and South Africa amongst others committed themselves greatly to the success of the R.A.F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel that the contribution of Commonwealth aircrews has been forgoton http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgotten by who though? It seems to me that most people are aware that the RAF was not exclusively English. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good Fishing Avro -caught quite a few that time!hehe!

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 09:30 AM
Don't put words in my mouth just to have the last word. As of yet I always took you serious, so please do not start this.

Killing millions of germans would have been desastrous, but it would not have destroyed Germany as an entity. It just lost 4 million ppl in the war and still stood there. Russia lost 20 million and was not destroyed either. The mere killing of people was "not" my major point.

As to the thousands that died to "force of circumstances", it certainly was. And the circumstances were an allied rationing of food.
If I recall corectly, even the russians provided more in their occupation zone.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Don't put words in my mouth just to have the last word. As of yet I always took you serious, so please do not start this.

Killing millions of germans would have been desastrous, but it would not have destroyed Germany as an entity. It just lost 4 million ppl in the war and still stood there. Russia lost 20 million and was not destroyed either. The mere killing of people was "not" my major point.

As to the thousands that died to "force of circumstances", it certainly was. And the circumstances were an allied rationing of food.
If I recall corectly, even the russians provided more in their occupation zone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


germany was not destroyed as a entity and millions did not starve.

the PLAN if implemented would of done both, neither happened. ergo the plan was not implemented.

im willing to bet more germans died in the russian zone than the us zone, even if the russians did provide more rations. alot of germans voted with their feet when possiable.

im not saying the us were saints in postwar germany, but they sure werent the devils the plan would of made of them.

you should read the victors, it goes into exhaustive detail of the PLAN and the reasons it wasnt implemented. it also goes into detail about the policys that were implemented and why they were later changed.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

germany was not destroyed as a entity and millions did not starve.

the PLAN if implemented would of done both, neither happened. ergo the plan was not implemented.

im willing to bet more germans died in the russian zone than the us zone, even if the russians did provide more rations. alot of germans voted with their feet when possiable.

im not saying the us were saints in postwar germany, but they sure werent the devils the plan would of made of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now who is about semantics now. How about a more fitting "the plan was implemented to a large degree, but abandoned after the effects became obvious and huge protests by the american people". Way closer to the truth then ordinary and beloved pure black and white views.

Nobody ever said the americans were devils. Getting into this shoe is solely on your part. And before you continue along these lines and come up with the typical overreaction to critique towards the US, no, I do not hate Americas way of life and no, I do not want to see it destroyed either because I am jealous or something. So, may we direct this discussion to a more mature level again? I am perfectly willing to listen to your arguments without such polemics.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

germany was not destroyed as a entity and millions did not starve.

the PLAN if implemented would of done both, neither happened. ergo the plan was not implemented.

im willing to bet more germans died in the russian zone than the us zone, even if the russians did provide more rations. alot of germans voted with their feet when possiable.

im not saying the us were saints in postwar germany, but they sure werent the devils the plan would of made of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now who is about semantics now. How about a more fitting "the plan was implemented to a large degree, but abandoned after the effects became obvious and huge protests by the american people". Way closer to the truth then ordinary and beloved pure black and white views.

Nobody ever said the americans were devils. Getting into this shoe is solely on your part. And before you continue along these lines and come up with the typical overreaction to critique towards the US, no, I do not hate Americas way of life and no, I do not want to see it destroyed either because I am jealous or something. So, may we direct this discussion to a more mature level again? I am perfectly willing to listen to your arguments without such polemics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how about you just calm down. we are having a nice discussion, but for some reason you take every argument i make, and turn it into some kind of attack.

i didnt say anybody said the us were devils. how about you reread that part.

as for the PLAN, just because some policys that were implemented were harsh, they were no way near as harsh as morganthaus plan.

the PLAN was not implemented in name or in its purpose. its purpose was to basically destroy germany as a power, along with killing millions by stravation.

some harsh policys were implemented, but these policys, though harsh, did not have the same purpose or intent as moganthaus plan. they were later changed when it was realized they were counter productive.


morganthaus plan would of been horriable for germany, it would of destroyed its industry and killed millions.

you just cant go saying that it was implemented, just because the policys that were implemented had some things in common with his plan.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 10:29 AM
Good, now you had the last word, I don't think I can add anything to that. Just please don't speculate over my state of stress or calmness. As you said, one could misinteprete it on a personal level.

I draw other results out of history and what was written then you do obviously. Fine by me. We just have to agree to disagree.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 10:37 AM
well im basing my opinions on a well researched historical book, not wikki.

the book the victors details why his plan was rejected and why the us implemented the policys it later changed.

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 10:43 AM
Neither am I. I had the topic in detail back in school days, and later in many articles and publications. Wiki was just a readily available source to post from without making unprovable claims unless one actually has the money and time available to get said one book.

Von_Rat
10-23-2007, 10:51 AM
i think then that we can agree that the us did orginally have harsh counter productive policys in post war germany. these were later changed for the reasons you stated.

i just have a thing that irks me when people label these policys the morganthau plan. they were not, his plan was much much worse.

ploughman
10-23-2007, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
@ Ploughman - Search out a book by Michael Beschloss called 'The Victors' - details all this sort of stuff, a lot of it from minutes of meetings. Roosevelt would have been a lot harder than Truman, and Churchill was very magnanamous in his plans for a conquered Germany.

Simon & Schuster 2002.

ISBN 0-684-81027-1
0-7432-4454-0 (pbk) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ta' very much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bewolf
10-23-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i think then that we can agree that the us did orginally have harsh counter productive policys in post war germany. these were later changed for the reasons you stated.

i just have a thing that irks me when people label these policys the morganthau plan. they were not, his plan was much much worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from. I still stand to my interpretation of a policy change taking effect before it got worse, though. I suppose we have to leave it as that.

MB_Avro_UK
10-23-2007, 01:56 PM
Hi all,

India had an interesting role in WW2.India was then part of the British Empire.

Their borders with Burma were threatened by the Japanese. But 10% of the Indian Army defected to the Japanese and fought aginst the rest of the Indian Army and the British/Commonwealth.

This 10% viewed the Japanese as being useful for removing their British Colonial masters.

Obviously, this strategy did not work.

But today, those 10% of Indian soldiers who fought on the side of the Japanese are regarded in India as heroes/freedom fighters.

Their war pensions are higher than the 90% who fought on the Allied side. They also have annual celebratory parades in India.

An interesting historical twist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

But Ghandi supported the war against Japan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
10-23-2007, 02:21 PM
They also get free rail travel.

Kurfurst__
10-23-2007, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
They also get free rail travel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top or inside..?

What did IndiaKorps vets get?

ploughman
10-23-2007, 03:07 PM
You can't ride up top any more. Electrification.

R_Target
10-23-2007, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Hope it helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gumtree
10-23-2007, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Re Gumtree,

Blamey I have similar thoughts on definitely, but this should be countered by the fact that him and IIRC Rowell basically contsructed the Army out of nothing at the beginning of the war, and he stood up and secured Australian military independence in North Africa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you here especially in regards to Rowell, an unsung hero of the Australian army in my opinion.

When Blamey ran away from the troops in Greece Rowell organised the retreat, Rowell was responsible for organising the defence of New Guinea to which Blamey and MacArthur took credit for and then promptly sacked Rowell as the going got good. Actually come to think of it both Blamey and MacArthur had much in common, with the fact that they both abandoned their troops during a battle.

The same action by General Gordon left him vilified and out of favour with the Australians as a whole.

leitmotiv
10-23-2007, 06:13 PM
To be absolutely fair, "Dugout Doug" was ordered to leave the Philippines by a Presidential order. The nastiness was after General Wainwright was liberated from the Japanese. MacA insinuated the army under W should have fought to the death rather than have surrendered. This crushed the cadaverous camp survivor who had been through four years of Hell on earth. He was never given any such order from above, and he had assumed the army's mission was to resist until further action was impossible.

hop2002
10-24-2007, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But 10% of the Indian Army defected to the Japanese and fought aginst the rest of the Indian Army and the British/Commonwealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Indian Army was an all volunteer force of over 2.5 million men. The Indian National Army, which fought with the Japanese, had about 40,000 men.

Kurfurst__
10-24-2007, 04:44 AM
The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. sort of a British version of the Foreign Legion. Now, you can`t expect much patriotism from people who choose to serve their occupiers for money. Still, a telling figure, for both time and percentage is that the bulk of the Indians joined the Japanese after the initial Japanese successes. From a total of about 40,000 Indians taken prisoner in Malaya and Singapore in February 1942, about 30,000 joined the INA. (Wiki quoting the website of the Australian War Memorial).

Nor they were a 2,5 million force until in 1945, the number was different through the war. In 1939, the Army had 189,000 menn, in 1942, about 700 000 Indians were fighting in SE Asia. By 1945, they reached a peak strenght of 2,644,323. I guess most of them would be non-combatants.

Whirlin_merlin
10-24-2007, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a rather sweeping statment.

Kurfurst__
10-24-2007, 04:57 AM
Why, for what do foreign mercenaries fight for...?

Brain32
10-24-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Why, for what do foreign mercenaries fight for...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Free, fresh Kebab daily?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-24-2007, 05:16 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm

Whirlin_merlin
10-24-2007, 05:26 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/24/a2075924.shtml

I found the above just now. I found it rather interesting it seems nothing in life is as simple as it first seems.

hop2002
10-24-2007, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. sort of a British version of the Foreign Legion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They actually fought for their country, of course. India.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still, a telling figure, for both time and percentage is that the bulk of the Indians joined the Japanese after the initial Japanese successes. From a total of about 40,000 Indians taken prisoner in Malaya and Singapore in February 1942, about 30,000 joined the INA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of whom returned to POW status rather than than fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nor they were a 2,5 million force until in 1945, the number was different through the war. In 1939, the Army had 189,000 menn, in 1942, about 700 000 Indians were fighting in SE Asia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Plus a great many serving in India, in North Africa, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By 1945, they reached a peak strenght of 2,644,323. I guess most of them would be non-combatants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like every army, of course.

Blutarski2004
10-24-2007, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. sort of a British version of the Foreign Legion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You may be mistaking the British relationship with the Ghurkas, who have traditionally served with the British army in a mercenary capacity for many years. They are considered elite troops by the British.

luftluuver
10-24-2007, 09:30 AM
So the Hungarian goose steppers were true mercenaries then to for they fought for Nazi Germany when Nazi Germany invaded the USSR.

Unlike India which was threatened by the Japanese, Hungary was not threatened by invasion from the USSR.

luftluuver
10-24-2007, 09:37 AM
At the outbreak of World War II, the Indian army numbered 205,000 men. Later during World War II the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers won 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War

stathem
10-24-2007, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. sort of a British version of the Foreign Legion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You may be mistaking the British relationship with the Ghurkas, who have traditionally served with the British army in a mercenary capacity for many years. They are considered elite troops by the British. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Well I've bolo'd pown milao
Upar dekho! Niche Jao!
And yelled Sat Sri Akal like the rest

But of all the troops we've had,
although none of 'em were bad
Chota Johnny Gurkha was the best"

MB_Avro_UK
10-24-2007, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The (British) Indian Army was a mercanary force, not a volunteer force. They fought for money, not for the Brits.. sort of a British version of the Foreign Legion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You may be mistaking the British relationship with the Ghurkas, who have traditionally served with the British army in a mercenary capacity for many years. They are considered elite troops by the British. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Well I've bolo'd pown milao
Upar dekho! Niche Jao!
And yelled Sat Sri Akal like the rest

But of all the troops we've had,
although none of 'em were bad
Chota Johnny Gurkha was the best" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And the Gurkhas have British pensions (at last).

And let us not forget..the Gurkhas fought in the Falklands War.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
10-24-2007, 07:58 PM
Right, MBA.

There are always people who insist on a perfect paradigm for life on earth, i.e., the British should have had the altruism to have disestablished their empire after creating it, or that all soldiers should fight for ideals, not for paychecks, or that people should not be prey to desires for bloody retribution in the middle of a total war. This supposes there was a golden age when humanity was not in a fallen state. Heh heh, well---no dice, mate. The species has been suspect from the word "go" and to argue from an absolutist stance about human conduct is as reasonable as lamenting the cat's unfortunate desire to prey on pretty birds. Such a stance is a mere rhetorical device for simplifying complex matters, and reducing them relentlessly to black and white.

Blutarski2004
10-25-2007, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Right, MBA.

There are always people who insist on a perfect paradigm for life on earth, i.e., the British should have had the altruism to have disestablished their empire after creating it, or that all soldiers should fight for ideals, not for paychecks, or that people should not be prey to desires for bloody retribution in the middle of a total war. This supposes there was a golden age when humanity was not in a fallen state. Heh heh, well---no dice, mate. The species has been suspect from the word "go" and to argue from an absolutist stance about human conduct is as reasonable as lamenting the cat's unfortunate desire to prey on pretty birds. Such a stance is a mere rhetorical device for simplifying complex matters, and reducing them relentlessly to black and white. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


,,,,, Moral utopians - one of my pet peeves. It's impossible to rationally debate anything with a person whose standard of comparison is perfection.

Feathered_IV
10-25-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

And then to stand alone against 3 major powers, Germany, Japan and Italy, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Commonwealth stand alone against Japan? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Singapore? Burma? Hongkong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear. Eight pages, easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
10-25-2007, 05:30 AM
FDR loathed the British empire and saw his duty was to undermine it. This made his relationship with Churchill awkward, to say the least, and, by 1943, FDR found more to like in Stalin than Churchill, much to Winston's horror. WWII was a classic at the strategic level. Britain was grotesquely overstretched---pre-war the Govt knew they could fight either Germany, or Italy, or Japan, but, God forbid, not all at once. In the fall of 1940, the British Govt was bankrupt from paying for US goods.

FDR was a brilliant player up to a point. He took as much as he could from Britain until there wasn't more to take. For 50 lousy WWI relic destroyers, Britain leased bases in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean which gave the US thousands times the value of the ships. FDR created the American Empire as the British stood gormstruck. Where Roosevelt horribly erred was in thinking Stalin was better than the British (!), and that the USSR was something other than a gigantic slave state bent on criminality.

Thus, you had the paradoxical situation of Britain in harness with two states which were not at all in sympathy with its strategy, but forced to go along because she needed both to survive. FDR wanted the British Empire disestablished (he saw it based on tyranny), but he wanted to make the US the number one world power. He handed Eastern Europe over to Stalin without blinking an eye, and, by so doing, he had made a mockery of why Britain and France went to war in 1939---to defend Poland. The war destroyed the ability of the British Govt to pay for empire, showed the British Empire up as weak (fall of Singapore), and left Britain as the junior partner of the American colossus. Canada felt she didn't need Britain or the empire, the war had savagely demonstrated to the Australians their future was bound with the US, not Britain.

WWI and WWII were disasters for the British Empire, as they were for the whole world because they created the hideous Soviet Empire. Britain's breakaway colony, the US, became the new defender of liberal democracy and capitalism.

Blutarski2004
10-25-2007, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
FDR loathed the British empire and saw his duty was to undermine it. This made his relationship with Churchill awkward, to say the least, and, by 1943, FDR found more to like in Stalin than Churchill, much to Winston's horror. WWII was a classic at the strategic level. Britain was grotesquely overstretched---pre-war the Govt knew they could fight either Germany, or Italy, or Japan, but, God forbid, not all at once. In the fall of 1940, the British Govt was bankrupt from paying for US goods.

FDR was a brilliant player up to a point. He took as much as he could from Britain until there wasn't more to take. For 50 lousy WWI relic destroyers, Britain leased bases in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean which gave the US thousands times the value of the ships. FDR created the American Empire as the British stood gormstruck. Where Roosevelt horribly erred was in thinking Stalin was better than the British (!), and that the USSR was something other than a gigantic slave state bent on criminality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not that I'm a terribly great fan of Roosevelt, but (IIRC) he was operating under the restriction of a federal law stipulating "cash and carry" terms for such aid. The Brits urgently needed the DD's for Atlantic escort and A/S duties and the base-leasing deal was devised as an alternative means of payment to circumvent the cash payment requirement.

leitmotiv
10-25-2007, 05:57 AM
Roosevelt's strategy was to weaken the British empire---his antipathy to it is well-documented, and the bases, leased for 100 years were worth thousands times the value of the destroyers which were barely adequate for their needs. The best deal he gave the British, prior to 7 December, was to, by decree, extend US territorial waters all the way out to Iceland, base US troops there, and escort convoys for Britain nearly to Liverpool, but this wasn't from love of the British. He was provoking Hitler, but Hitler, didn't take the bait. The isolationists in the US saw clearly what FDR was doing, and were outraged. FDR wanted to settle with Hitler, and he needed Britain to survive to do the job.

Like his WWI predecessor, Wilson, FDR wanted the US to become a major player in world affairs, and to help spread democracy and free trade. To him the British were still the redcoats enforcing tyranny worldwide.

Wepps
10-25-2007, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
FDR loathed the British empire and saw his duty was to undermine it. This made his relationship with Churchill awkward, to say the least, and, by 1943, FDR found more to like in Stalin than Churchill, much to Winston's horror. WWII was a classic at the strategic level. Britain was grotesquely overstretched---pre-war the Govt knew they could fight either Germany, or Italy, or Japan, but, God forbid, not all at once. In the fall of 1940, the British Govt was bankrupt from paying for US goods.

FDR was a brilliant player up to a point. He took as much as he could from Britain until there wasn't more to take. For 50 lousy WWI relic destroyers, Britain leased bases in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean which gave the US thousands times the value of the ships. FDR created the American Empire as the British stood gormstruck. Where Roosevelt horribly erred was in thinking Stalin was better than the British (!), and that the USSR was something other than a gigantic slave state bent on criminality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not that I'm a terribly great fan of Roosevelt, but (IIRC) he was operating under the restriction of a federal law stipulating "cash and carry" terms for such aid. The Brits urgently needed the DD's for Atlantic escort and A/S duties and the base-leasing deal was devised as an alternative means of payment to circumvent the cash payment requirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. It wasn't a matter of ideology, as much as it was a matter of law in America that often prevented intervention in foreign matters. This was all left over from the pre-WWI days, and FDR did a lot of work to change the opinions of America in this regard.

These are often lamented today by those that fear America and think they should go back into their shell and leave everyone else alone. The new being post-WWII thinking revolving around the 'never again' agreements with the Allies, America holds to that new ideology, especially in a world in which we won't have years to build a military force from scratch once that next big one is launched.

Because of the bomb and the relative smallness of the world today in comparison to 70 years ago, the standing army and preventionist interventions on the part of the resource-glut of America must remain as the foreign policy until danger has passed, or reality of world war once again teaches human beings why it's necessary to head off the petty dictators of the world ahead of time.

Iran is a very good example of this. Of the Umma, Iran is more progressive than backward, but the dictatorship of their leader presents a clear and present danger, due only to his insistence on acquiring nuclear technology for use against ourselves and our allies. Those who say that would never happen forget what he has said, and ignoring what is said is a bad thing - as Mein Kampf proves over and over again throughout history.

To Iran, diplomacy is only buying time for them to build a mass-destruction weapon, and efforts on the part of their leader to gain religious permission to use such a weapon says much about his mental state.

The problem here is that Iran is more progressive, with a solid middle class of thinkers built in the last century, than many other and smaller Islamic states. Their people don't want such a conflict. The hope is that the extremists will go away, but in Islam it is very easy for petty local warlords to gain power due to their faith. These little power struggles are seen clearly in Iraq, and this is nothing new. It has little enough to do with religion, and more to do with the greedy acquisition of power of small people, and the retention of power by those who have achieved it.

I digress in a way, but it's important to realize the danger here. Ignore it at your own peril. My guess is Chamberlain would agree.

Bah I just wish all these nut jobs would retire to a life of being tortured and cease to exist as threats, so we can go back to a nice peaceful policy dealing more with our economic and social issues.

MB_Avro_UK
10-25-2007, 02:21 PM
Hi all,

As the original poster I will give my opinion regarding the RAF British Commonwealth in WW2.

Without the Commonwealth things would have been dicey for Britain. ('Dicey' was RAF WW2 slang for a very, very dificult situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The Commonwealth contribution to the RAF was huge. Not only in numbers but also in fighting spirit, courage and determination.

Their contribution towards freedom was perhaps the best product that ever resulted from the Empire.

And I don't think that their contribution has been fully recognised.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Whirlin_merlin
10-25-2007, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

As the original poster I will give my opinion regarding the RAF British Commonwealth in WW2.

Without the Commonwealth things would have been dicey for Britain. ('Dicey' was RAF WW2 slang for a very, very dificult situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The Commonwealth contribution to the RAF was huge. Not only in numbers but also in fighting spirit, courage and determination.

Their contribution towards freedom was perhaps the best product that ever resulted from the Empire.

And I don't think that their contribution has been fully recognised.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....
I have noticed that should one try to 'big up any British' acievment you will instantly be reminded of Commonwealth involvment, this is good and as it should be. However some go quite far, sometime you could get the impression that virtually no British or God forbid English pilots actually flew in the Battle of Britian (for instance.)

For the record I repeat.
Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....

I'm just making an observation.

MB_Avro_UK
10-25-2007, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

As the original poster I will give my opinion regarding the RAF British Commonwealth in WW2.

Without the Commonwealth things would have been dicey for Britain. ('Dicey' was RAF WW2 slang for a very, very dificult situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The Commonwealth contribution to the RAF was huge. Not only in numbers but also in fighting spirit, courage and determination.

Their contribution towards freedom was perhaps the best product that ever resulted from the Empire.

And I don't think that their contribution has been fully recognised.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....
I have noticed that should one try to 'big up any British' acievment you will instantly be reminded of Commonwealth involvment, this is good and as it should be. However some go quite far, sometime you could get the impression that virtually no British or God forbid English pilots actually flew in the Battle of Britian (for instance.)

For the record I repeat.
Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....

I'm just making an observation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your point WM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

It maybe because the Commonwealth has not had its fair share of recognition that they are sensitive and IMHO quite rightly so.

Cinema has tended in general to relate WW2 from a British perspective but there are exceptions.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

GBrutus
10-25-2007, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

As the original poster I will give my opinion regarding the RAF British Commonwealth in WW2.

Without the Commonwealth things would have been dicey for Britain. ('Dicey' was RAF WW2 slang for a very, very dificult situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The Commonwealth contribution to the RAF was huge. Not only in numbers but also in fighting spirit, courage and determination.

Their contribution towards freedom was perhaps the best product that ever resulted from the Empire.

And I don't think that their contribution has been fully recognised.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....
I have noticed that should one try to 'big up any British' acievment you will instantly be reminded of Commonwealth involvment, this is good and as it should be. However some go quite far, sometime you could get the impression that virtually no British or God forbid English pilots actually flew in the Battle of Britian (for instance.)

For the record I repeat.
Just to play devil's advocardo and not to disrespect those of the Commonwealth who fought but.....

I'm just making an observation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I was thinking about that myself recently.

smokincrater
10-26-2007, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wepps:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
FDR loathed the British empire and saw his duty was to undermine it. This made his relationship with Churchill awkward, to say the least, and, by 1943, FDR found more to like in Stalin than Churchill, much to Winston's horror. WWII was a classic at the strategic level. Britain was grotesquely overstretched---pre-war the Govt knew they could fight either Germany, or Italy, or Japan, but, God forbid, not all at once. In the fall of 1940, the British Govt was bankrupt from paying for US goods.

FDR was a brilliant player up to a point. He took as much as he could from Britain until there wasn't more to take. For 50 lousy WWI relic destroyers, Britain leased bases in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean which gave the US thousands times the value of the ships. FDR created the American Empire as the British stood gormstruck. Where Roosevelt horribly erred was in thinking Stalin was better than the British (!), and that the USSR was something other than a gigantic slave state bent on criminality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not that I'm a terribly great fan of Roosevelt, but (IIRC) he was operating under the restriction of a federal law stipulating "cash and carry" terms for such aid. The Brits urgently needed the DD's for Atlantic escort and A/S duties and the base-leasing deal was devised as an alternative means of payment to circumvent the cash payment requirement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. It wasn't a matter of ideology, as much as it was a matter of law in America that often prevented intervention in foreign matters. This was all left over from the pre-WWI days, and FDR did a lot of work to change the opinions of America in this regard.

These are often lamented today by those that fear America and think they should go back into their shell and leave everyone else alone. The new being post-WWII thinking revolving around the 'never again' agreements with the Allies, America holds to that new ideology, especially in a world in which we won't have years to build a military force from scratch once that next big one is launched.

Because of the bomb and the relative smallness of the world today in comparison to 70 years ago, the standing army and preventionist interventions on the part of the resource-glut of America must remain as the foreign policy until danger has passed, or reality of world war once again teaches human beings why it's necessary to head off the petty dictators of the world ahead of time.

Iran is a very good example of this. Of the Umma, Iran is more progressive than backward, but the dictatorship of their leader presents a clear and present danger, due only to his insistence on acquiring nuclear technology for use against ourselves and our allies. Those who say that would never happen forget what he has said, and ignoring what is said is a bad thing - as Mein Kampf proves over and over again throughout history.

To Iran, diplomacy is only buying time for them to build a mass-destruction weapon, and efforts on the part of their leader to gain religious permission to use such a weapon says much about his mental state.

The problem here is that Iran is more progressive, with a solid middle class of thinkers built in the last century, than many other and smaller Islamic states. Their people don't want such a conflict. The hope is that the extremists will go away, but in Islam it is very easy for petty local warlords to gain power due to their faith. These little power struggles are seen clearly in Iraq, and this is nothing new. It has little enough to do with religion, and more to do with the greedy acquisition of power of small people, and the retention of power by those who have achieved it.

I digress in a way, but it's important to realize the danger here. Ignore it at your own peril. My guess is Chamberlain would agree.

Bah I just wish all these nut jobs would retire to a life of being tortured and cease to exist as threats, so we can go back to a nice peaceful policy dealing more with our economic and social issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a total load of ****. Straight from George W Bush`s private world from far off La La land.

Lets call a spade a spade. The United States of America does what does in foreign affairs to look after ITS NATIONAL INTERESTS nothing more nothing less. The USA used it`s position to misled the western world into thinking that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. NO CLEAR FACTUAL EDVIDENCE HAS EMERGED that Iraq had those weapons. The evidence was that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GAVE IRAQ SMALL AMOUNTS OF THOSE WEAPONS DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR(also the CIA selling weapons to Iran durng that conflict). GWB wants to provoke an incident with Iran so that HIS FAMILY BUSINESS , oil goes though the roof. IN 2000 the price of light sweet crude was $20 US per barrel as of the 26th of October 2007 it is $90 US per barrel. As to the question who has the right to using nuclear technology, WHO HAS THE RIGHT HANDS TO USE IT?
The United States of America rode rough shod over the British during WWII to break the bank.
And if you think America is a clean player in world politics. All I can suggest is get your head read. America uses all the tricks out of the book that the British wrote during their high water mark. America is simply the new British Empire.

rauparaha
10-26-2007, 05:00 AM
It was a Kiwi that split the Atom, don,t know if thats a good contribution or a bad one.

Blutarski2004
10-26-2007, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by smokincrater:
NO CLEAR FACTUAL EDVIDENCE HAS EMERGED that Iraq had those weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... no evidence at all, except Hussein's truly massive use of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war of 1979 to 1989. his remaining stocks of chemical munitions, and the fact that any chemical plant built to manufacture agricultural pesticides can be turned to produce chemical weapons with great ease.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The evidence was that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GAVE IRAQ SMALL AMOUNTS OF THOSE WEAPONS DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR(also the CIA selling weapons to Iran durng that conflict). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The US did not deliver chemical weapons of any sort to Iraq. Iraq was purchasing raw stock chemicals for those chemical plants mentioned above. The fact that those chemicals could be utilized to manufacture chemical weapons made them "dual-use" in nature. That was what all the furor has been about.

Many dual-use materials and products appear on the US Export Administration Munitions List and their export requires federal license. "Administration critics" [i.e. - the people NOT in power] gaily employ the "dual-use" argument in completely opposite and contradictory ways. One one hand, federally licensed commercial sale of dual-use chemicals from the US to Iraq is considered condemning proof that the US provided "chemical weapons" to Hussein.

OTOH, Iraqi purchases of vast numbers of high-speed centrifuges, also on the US Munitions List as they are essential in the refinement of weapons grade uranium, are dismissed as no proof of Iraqi interest in producing nuclear weapons on the grounds that the centrifuges had other legitimate scientific uses.

BTW, if you are interested to know who was selling arms to Hussein, read "The Longest War" by Dilip Hiro [no particular friend of the US]. It is a pretty objective look at the Iran/Iraq conflict. The biggest arms merchants were Western Europe, the USSR and the East Bloc, and the PRC. The US was at the bottom of the list, with perhaps a 2 pct share [IIRC] consisting of dual-use products.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> GWB wants to provoke an incident with Iran so that HIS FAMILY BUSINESS , oil goes though the roof. IN 2000 the price of light sweet crude was $20 US per barrel as of the 26th of October 2007 it is $90 US per barrel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... which, when adjusted for inflation, was a price previously reached back in 1979/1980. By 1985, adjusted crude oil prices had fallen to about US$55/bbl. By 1999, prices had fallen to US$15/bbl, an historic low not seen since pre-Oil Embargo days. But that hasn't stopped certain agenda-driven critics from using it for greater dramatic effect. Oil prices have been steadily rising from that low point, driven in no small part by a TREMENDOUS recent increase in world demand. Check the record of China's oil import volumes over the past five years alone. Suggestions that the Bush clan is manipulating the global crude oil market are not realistic. The market is simply too large and dynamic.

backseatgunner
10-26-2007, 11:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
How can you possibly compare bombing of cities, which EVERY Nation did during WW2, with slaughtering staff and patients in a a hospital with bayonets, or setting up death camps for the extermination of an entire race?

(snip)

Hi folks,

I think the commonwealth forces did amazingly well, especailly given the limitations in equipment numbers, and the huge variety of nations contributing forces into the mix.

As for the comments about the Japanese, I'd just like to make a couple of historical points. Please note these are not meant as excuses for beahviour, but merely something to perhaps provide a measure of context.

Japan had the unique postion of going directly from a feudal to a modern industrial nation, due to the Meiji restoration in the late 19th century. It had no Renaissance period, no Age of Reason, no buffer between feudal society virtually unchanged for centuries, and a sudden thrust into being on the world stage.

From an economy based on the rice harvest in 1868,through to building a fleet good enough to sink two russian fleets in 1905. Like Germany, Japan was poor in the resources needed for a modern economy, and wanted to build an empire, just like the countries she had emulated in her modernization. Unfortunately for Japan, it was simply out there too late, and efforts at building an empire were frowned on by nations who had done the same only scant decades before.

Mentally and socially, Japan was still however predominately feudal. A feudal mindset with modern weapons. A mindset long gone from Europe, and never really present in America.

No wonder these cultures clashed so badly when at war.

smokincrater
10-26-2007, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by smokincrater:
NO CLEAR FACTUAL EDVIDENCE HAS EMERGED that Iraq had those weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... no evidence at all, except Hussein's truly massive use of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war of 1979 to 1989. his remaining stocks of chemical munitions, and the fact that any chemical plant built to manufacture agricultural pesticides can be turned to produce chemical weapons with great ease.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The evidence was that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GAVE IRAQ SMALL AMOUNTS OF THOSE WEAPONS DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR(also the CIA selling weapons to Iran durng that conflict). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The US did not deliver chemical weapons of any sort to Iraq. Iraq was purchasing raw stock chemicals for those chemical plants mentioned above. The fact that those chemicals could be utilized to manufacture chemical weapons made them "dual-use" in nature. That was what all the furor has been about.

Many dual-use materials and products appear on the US Export Administration Munitions List and their export requires federal license. "Administration critics" [i.e. - the people NOT in power] gaily employ the "dual-use" argument in completely opposite and contradictory ways. One one hand, federally licensed commercial sale of dual-use chemicals from the US to Iraq is considered condemning proof that the US provided "chemical weapons" to Hussein.

OTOH, Iraqi purchases of vast numbers of high-speed centrifuges, also on the US Munitions List as they are essential in the refinement of weapons grade uranium, are dismissed as no proof of Iraqi interest in producing nuclear weapons on the grounds that the centrifuges had other legitimate scientific uses.

BTW, if you are interested to know who was selling arms to Hussein, read "The Longest War" by Dilip Hiro [no particular friend of the US]. It is a pretty objective look at the Iran/Iraq conflict. The biggest arms merchants were Western Europe, the USSR and the East Bloc, and the PRC. The US was at the bottom of the list, with perhaps a 2 pct share [IIRC] consisting of dual-use products.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> GWB wants to provoke an incident with Iran so that HIS FAMILY BUSINESS , oil goes though the roof. IN 2000 the price of light sweet crude was $20 US per barrel as of the 26th of October 2007 it is $90 US per barrel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... which, when adjusted for inflation, was a price previously reached back in 1979/1980. By 1985, adjusted crude oil prices had fallen to about US$55/bbl. By 1999, prices had fallen to US$15/bbl, an historic low not seen since pre-Oil Embargo days. But that hasn't stopped certain agenda-driven critics from using it for greater dramatic effect. Oil prices have been steadily rising from that low point, driven in no small part by a TREMENDOUS recent increase in world demand. Check the record of China's oil import volumes over the past five years alone. Suggestions that the Bush clan is manipulating the global crude oil market are not realistic. The market is simply too large and dynamic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it had to happen sometime. About time someone could debate factual points! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
But invading a country because it produces pesticides is a poor one. That same argument can be used to invade Australia. Particularly with its vast stocks of uranium. And we have all the centifuges that we would ever need.
In reguards to oil, point conceded but it is no small issue that China buys most of its oil from Iran. Join the dots there.
I think what is most distressing about all this is the Untied States of America is calling Iran all sorts of things example A Terriosts State etc . Which is an absoulte failure of diplomacy.

Kurfurst__
10-26-2007, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
I think what is most distressing about all this is the Untied States of America is calling Iran all sorts of things example A Terriosts State etc . Which is an absoulte failure of diplomacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most distressing about it is that actually how easily you can get under that definition of a terrorist state. And, as the example of Iraq showed, you can become a 'terrorist state' all the sudden from the buddy of the US. A guy in suit turns up at the UN, shows a couple of 2nd-rate 3D models of trucks from his laptop, labelled 'Mobile Biological Weapon Reasearch Station' and the next thing you know you`re being invaded.

Look at Iraq. Look at the political barrage France got for not singing in the therrorrisst Chorus. Not doing anything actually, it just didn`t sign up for this nonsense as neither did the rest of the World.

I kinda think nowadays that a joint European Defense Force might be a good idea in these violent days. Who knows who`d be branded Terrorist next.. It seems you can sell anything to the US public, and they`ll love it, well at least long enough until they figure out they`re already in the middle of something (someone else`s turf for example) and that the idea may have not been as good as it first seemed. That realisation is proportional to the amount of body bags 'returned to sender'. Probably that`s why Iran is thinking it`s good to have some Nukes. Just in case if somebody suddenly figures out there`s lots of oi... I mean, Terrorists in Iran, too.

Blutarski2004
10-26-2007, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
... invading a country because it produces pesticides is a poor one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Recalling events, President Bush's administration presented a number of reasons for attacking Iraq. WMD was only one of about 10 or so factors. I really don't think that any of the arguments really represented the main motivation for Desert Storm. I don't even think that Hussein was the true target, although dispensing with him in the process was by no means an unwelcome consequence.

On the other hand, all the high-minded protests from Germany and France, by far the most vocal and difficult opponents, were IMO totally insincere. France and Germany were both doing huge business in Iraq. Total Elf Fina, whose executives had political links to the French president Chiraq (purposely misspelled) had inked a gigantic oil development contract with Saddam. Chiraq himself was on close terms with Hussein - to the extent that it wouldn't shock me to one day discover than Chiraq was himself being paid off by Hussein. There is no question that Hussein was busily bribing any UN offical with a pulse to obstruct the US effort in the UN Security Council.

What do I think was the real objective behind Desert Storm? In a word - Iran, more specifically the present regime. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that both Iraq and Afghanistan share lengthy land borders with Iran as well as flank it on east and west. Others have their theories, some surely quite dark, about what is behind all this US activity. My assessment is that: [a] the US has identified Iran as the principal purveyor of global terrorism; [b] Iran is seen a a dangerous destabilizing influence in the very economically sensitive Mid-East; [c] that nuclear weapons under the control of the current regime of religious extremists is not politically tolerable; [d] that a possibility exists of regaining a post-theocratic Iran as a US ally in the Mideast.

BTW, check out how many members of the familiesof the influential mullahs have suddenly become multi-multi-billionaires through seizure of major Iranian industries and special sweetheart government-mandated trade monopolies.

As for failures of diplomacy, they were all pre-ordained by Iran's behavior. It takes two to forge an agreement. The diplomats have been negotiating with Iran over and over and round and round the very same issues for nearly a decade. Iran agrees to X, then later reneges and demands Y. Iran is IMO simply conducting a diplomatic holding action, talking just enough to avoid triggering an escalation of sanctions. The goal is to buy time to complete whatever they are feverishly working on (and I'm pretty sure I know what it is). Once in hand, its possesion would dramatically enhance Iran's position and change the diplomatic calculus. Nothing else satisfactorily exlains their behavior in my mind.

It's ugly everywhere...

All this is, of course, my opinion - I don't hold myself out as a great authority on geo-politics, but I've been in the field of international business for many years and follow the subject with some attentiveness.

MB_Avro_UK
10-26-2007, 05:58 PM
Hi all,

Please keep this thread On Topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Otherwise it will be locked.

You all know the rules http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-26-2007, 06:23 PM
Royal Australian Air Force official WWII history

Complete book online:
http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/chapter.asp?volume=26

Part of a much bigger set:
http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/volume.asp?conflict=2

Blutarski2004
10-26-2007, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Please keep this thread On Topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Otherwise it will be locked.

You all know the rules http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


... Noted. OK.

Ratsack
10-28-2007, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
During WWI Australia I believe(and people will correct me if I`m wrong) was the only Army on the battlefeild that was holey and soley volenteer(also incuring the heaviest losess of the conflict in casuatly per man in the Army). Because a very powerful poliction by the name John Curtin lobbied hard long for it to be opposed(also abloishing the death penlty for misconduct in the Army). Some twenty years later when the Big Fight Part Two come along, the then Prime Minister of Australia a certain John Curtin introduced consciption. Whether they served in the RAAF under Bomber Command I don`t know but chances are they might well have been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


John Curtin was definitely against conscription in WWI, but he was not a ˜powerful politician' in 1916-17. The main, and bitterest fight was with (Catholic) Archbishop Daniel Mannix. The fact that Mannix was Catholic did nothing to ease the existing sectarian tensions in Australia, and the bitterness hung around for decades afterwards.

When WWII came around, Robert Menzies was Prime Minister in a minority government where a couple of titular (but conservative) independents held the balance of power in the lower house. After he and his successor, Fadden, were toppled by schemers in their own parties, the independents gave the Labor party a go, and Curtin was its leader. This was in October 1941. Great timing, eh?

Conscription in Australia in WWII – the Citizen Military Forces (CMF) – was strictly for home defence. The idea was that conscripted militia could not be sent overseas to fight ˜imperialist' wars, but could most definitely be drafted to provide forces for home defence. John Curtin's part in WWII conscription was to extend the definition of ˜home defence' to include the South West Pacific Zone. This took in New Guinea and a fair bit of modern Indonesia and the Phillipines.

All Australian servicemen who served in Europe or the Middle East in WWII were volunteers.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
10-28-2007, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gumtree:
Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) troops were all volunteers in both wars. The politicians attempted to make conscription a reality in both wars but were defeated by referendums.
Only during the 2ww did we have a form of conscription for the forces and that was specifically to defend the nation directly.

Some off the Australian Militia Force (AMF) were conscripted to serve only within Australia to defend our shores, of course a desperate government modified the terms to 'within Australia and her territories', thus we have the AMF fighting in New Guinea on the Kokoda track etc.

This resulted basically in 2 armed forces fighting side by side during the war, the AMF were considered second rate by the 2nd AIF troops and much scorn was heaped upon the Choco's (chocolate soldiers, who would melt as the action hotted up).

This all changed when the mighty 39th battalion (Victorians) fought the veteran Japanese south seas force in the New Guinea highlands and effectively stopped them from capturing Port Moresby, holding them just long enough for the veteran 21 brigade (7th Division) AIF to fight the Japanese to a standstill.

The attitude of the AIF changed as they fought alongside the "chocco's" and they witnessed bravery and skill equal to their own.

Australia has a deep seated aversion to conscription and any attempt by a government to impose such has lead to a rather quick fall from power as was witnessed during the Vietnam war and National service.

P.S. 239 wing made up of 112 RAF, nos 3 & 450 RAAF, this was the top scoring desert air force wing in the Mediterranean, and the pioneers of the fighter bomber with the mighty workhorse namely the P-40. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post.

The pioneering of effective close support by the Dester Airforce is often forgotten. It formed the template for effective tactical and operational support from 1942 until VE day, and it's interesting to note that when the Allies deviated from the basic DAF formula, problems arose.


cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
10-28-2007, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
FDR loathed the British empire and saw his duty was to undermine it. This made his relationship with Churchill awkward, to say the least, and, by 1943, FDR found more to like in Stalin than Churchill, much to Winston's horror. WWII was a classic at the strategic level. Britain was grotesquely overstretched---pre-war the Govt knew they could fight either Germany, or Italy, or Japan, but, God forbid, not all at once. In the fall of 1940, the British Govt was bankrupt from paying for US goods.

FDR was a brilliant player up to a point. He took as much as he could from Britain until there wasn't more to take. For 50 lousy WWI relic destroyers, Britain leased bases in the Western Atlantic and Caribbean which gave the US thousands times the value of the ships. FDR created the American Empire as the British stood gormstruck. Where Roosevelt horribly erred was in thinking Stalin was better than the British (!), and that the USSR was something other than a gigantic slave state bent on criminality.

Thus, you had the paradoxical situation of Britain in harness with two states which were not at all in sympathy with its strategy, but forced to go along because she needed both to survive. FDR wanted the British Empire disestablished (he saw it based on tyranny), but he wanted to make the US the number one world power. He handed Eastern Europe over to Stalin without blinking an eye, and, by so doing, he had made a mockery of why Britain and France went to war in 1939---to defend Poland. The war destroyed the ability of the British Govt to pay for empire, showed the British Empire up as weak (fall of Singapore), and left Britain as the junior partner of the American colossus. Canada felt she didn't need Britain or the empire, the war had savagely demonstrated to the Australians their future was bound with the US, not Britain.

WWI and WWII were disasters for the British Empire, as they were for the whole world because they created the hideous Soviet Empire. Britain's breakaway colony, the US, became the new defender of liberal democracy and capitalism.

....

Roosevelt's strategy was to weaken the British empire---his antipathy to it is well-documented, and the bases, leased for 100 years were worth thousands times the value of the destroyers which were barely adequate for their needs. The best deal he gave the British, prior to 7 December, was to, by decree, extend US territorial waters all the way out to Iceland, base US troops there, and escort convoys for Britain nearly to Liverpool, but this wasn't from love of the British. He was provoking Hitler, but Hitler, didn't take the bait. The isolationists in the US saw clearly what FDR was doing, and were outraged. FDR wanted to settle with Hitler, and he needed Britain to survive to do the job.

Like his WWI predecessor, Wilson, FDR wanted the US to become a major player in world affairs, and to help spread democracy and free trade. To him the British were still the redcoats enforcing tyranny worldwide.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very good couple of posts, Leitmotiv. You laid out the position between Roosevelt and Churchill very lucidly. The only parts I disagree with are where you say:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

...the US, became the new defender of liberal democracy and capitalism....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...to help spread democracy and free trade...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


These speak to motivation, and I would suggest the USA simply acts in its own national self-interest. I don't say that as a pejorative, but rather as an observation that the USA is like most other countries in this respect. The particular genius of US foreign policy during the 20th century was to seek out interest-based policies that aligned with the interests of the other powerful international players. The Marshall Plan being one good example, and NATO being another. The beauty of both these examples is that they served the interests of Europe (rebuilding and defence against the USSR) at the same time that they served the interests of the US (markets for the booming US economy on one hand, and a permanent military doorway into Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean on the other). Win-win.

It's neat policy, and it works. But it is essentially self-interested.

Cheers,
Ratsack

backseatgunner
11-01-2007, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

And let us not forget..the Gurkhas fought in the Falklands War.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi folks,

just a minor point of order.

If I recall correctly, the Gurkhas didn't actually fight in the Falklands. They were kept as a reserve for the final assault on Port Stanley, but the Argentine forces surrendered before this occured.

I have heard said that the Gurkhas were the final "ace in the hole" that convinced the Argentinians to surrender.

There was an amazing photo of a group of british officers working out who was going to tell the excited Gurkha senior NCO that they weren't going to attack after all. Sorry I don't have a copy.

Apparently in Kosovo, the British forces there were able to completely relax on their first Christmas Day, unlike their American colleagues, due to the presence of Gurkhas in full battle gear guarding their positions.

In Feb this year I never felt so safe. I was standing at Changi airport (Singapore) when 2 Gurkhas on patrol came past, with a third man watching their backs 20 metres behind. Nice.

The Germans in the Western Desert experienced a number of demoralizing encounters with Gurkhas. Well worth looking up further.

cheers,
backseatgunner