'They're bastards too' doesn't get you moral high ground, though it IS understandable if you want revenge. Just, that may be rewarding emotionally, but morally, it's no better than what someone might have done (or, in that case, mostly planned to) do to you.

But I never said the Allies (excluding Russia) were as bad as the Nazis, all in all (especially in the rape department). Just, you weren't exatly only doing the right thing either.

There was also the logistical issue that the British couldn't hit anything less than city size. I've been told that, early in the war, the last bomb in a british bomber was a giant photoflash bomb, which allowed them to take a picture of what the bomber was actually blowing up. If the actual target was in the picture the bomber crew got a week of leave. The RAF didn't give out many week-long leaves to bomber crews...

The US was more accurate in daylight bombing, but the target selection wasn't the greatest and the level of overconfidence by the zoomies was astonishing. And more accurate means things like 'the majority of bombs hit within a mile of the target'.

In Japan the issue was that industry was very spread out, into people's homes. Curtis Lemay remarked, " We were going after military targets. No point in slaughtering innocent civilians... All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we'd roasted it, and see the ruins of a multitude of tiny houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage of every home. The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war...men, women, children. We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and kids when we burned [a] town. Had to be done."

Britain moved a lot of its arms production into smaller facilities as well. Facilities nestled in the middle of cities. Small metalworks that would normally make gates and bottle openers and mugs made PIAT grenades. We designed wooden gliders with various sized parts to take advantage of our carpenters.

The idea that a country on all-out-war footing has any target that is not contributing to the war effort is insane.

It still doesn't make wiping cities off the map any better. Please stop trying to excoriate the blame your country gets for things done during WW2, there were no big damn heroes.

I don't think that Allies were angels but their crimes were not meant from the beginning (unlike what Japan and Nazi did), nor they based their actions on the filosophy that they were superior and so entitled to do whatever they wanted to the prisoniers and people of occupied regions.
By the way I'm italian, I have no dubt that our soldiers had their share of crimes committed, but mainly (as far as I know) we were sent around, by someone who choose to declare war to France despite opposition of the generals ("Cosa gli tiriamo, limoni?") because he needed some Kilo of casualities sustained to be able to be among those who won the war, to have our asses handed us by people who were actualy prepared for war. When our side (thanks to god) started losing ground Italy has been invaded (by the way, our guys stationed in Africa tryied to return home, a smal tract of sea but the british navy sank almost all their boats and left them there drowning, very few made it back home; also prisoniers in france hands had a particulary unpleasant experience and those captured by russians had their problems too), most of our country was in uproar as our war was becoming a civil war, so with (considerable) part of our population at their side allies hadn't too many problems in winning on that front (in many places local population had already done the fighting for them), the things turned ugly with the armistice, the king had fled from Roma to Allies occupied south living the northern and central Italy to the nazi. As Allies advanced more and more Italy was liberated but their plans way passed trough Normandy so their troops advanced until they reached the Appennini montains betwen Toscana and Emilia Romagna and sat there with their havy ordenance spamming the Axis (and us) with bombs (we are still finding unexplosed bombs more than 50 years after), from there they sent supplies to our partisans letting us do all the work until their high comand got nervous about the strong comunist component among the partisans and comunicated us that no more supplies were to be sent us (obviously they did using normal radio so Nazis, that were considering imminent the final offensive, knew that we were alone); in the meanwhile we were subject to some of the wrost the SS could do. Our war ended when Nazis running to north (either just wanting to go home or because they hoped to stop the Allies from overrunning Germany) and we (against opposition of the americans) rose up to kick their butt hard enough to make sure they wouldn't come back.
Speaking of unpleasanties those italians who lived in America had some problems ever since Italy entered in war at Germanys side (if I remember well, there have been a few aggressions and some property damage), with Pearl Harbor things got worse, we were rounded up and sent to prison camps (as far as I know they have been kept inside some fenced communities, no violence but being deprived of freedom was psychologicaly taxing), and as Nazis Extermination camps were discovered they were branded as war criminals (we were the ones who were allied with the responsibles of those crimes, quite callous to think nothing of what was going on) and it lasted until Allies discovered that we were not exempted by being sent in those hell hole.
I could add many disturbing particulars but I'll spare you, the last thing that (for those who care) I want to tell is that I'm not getting on the japaneses because what they have done, I am just VERY displeased by what I perceive as a total lack of repentment from them, Germans (at least most of them) have admitted their responsabilities and have committed to not repite the same mistakes, japaneses just lost the war (at leat, that is my perception).

The big difference is that the British and americans frowned on it at the time. it happened and they new it but it was officially frown on and punished if caught. by comparrison it was Japanese national policy. Today even the Germans admitt to the sins of their fathers but not all the Japanese still do.

The recent head of the Japanese Air self Defense Force was sacked for writing an essay claiming Japan was the defender in WW2 and wrongly attacked. The Japanese government still doesn't admitt that the 'comfort women' institutional rape, was the fault of the government but of over enthusiastic contractors.

Faced with this sort of action when details like the rape of nanking are well known makes people more harsh on the Japanese sins since they seem unrepentant.

How was the US wrong in WWII? We tried to mind our own business, and got dragged into the damn thing. (Pet peeve: the world complains regards of what we do.) Some really horrible things happened during the war. It's WAR folks. A country shouldn't build military targets in the middle of civilians unless the civilians are volunteers. It's a horrible choice to have to make if your on the defense, but for an offensive country to do it? Unforgivable. (Pet peeve: damnit Israel and Palestine, KNOCK IT OFF.)

Yes, rape happened during the war. (See: War.) Sometimes things happen not because a country condones it, but because people are often just plain bastards. Rape happens in peace time, thus rape will happen in war. It's a situation of human idiots, not a country condoning or promoting such an activity.

Overall America did a pretty damn good job with Japan. The reason the Japanese were willing to fight to the death and commit suicide (which they were prepared to do, if we invaded mainland Japan) was because they had been told what demons the Americans were. We were going to kill their fathers and brothers, rape their mothers, and make slaves of their daughters. They were shocked how well McArthur treated them. We didn't destroy their culture, we didn't thow down the Emporer, we did not do snazzy dances on their flag and put it in the newpaper. There were standing orders that rape was unacceptable, and to be polite and show respect to the population. I could go on, but I'm going to snip it here. -end rant-

Heath, I'm going to try and be polite here. Your wrong. There were all sorts of Big Damn Heros everywhere, on all sides.

- Edit - When I say rape, I'm not talking about "comfort women." (Double checked Snow's post.) That is very screwed up subject, which I'm not attempting to touch on here.

Your criticism of Japan locating industry in cities would be valid if the Japanese military actually had a choice about where the industry was. Industry springs up wherever is most convenient and at a time where automobiles were nowhere near as common as today this was going to be predominantly determined by access to workers and the rail networks. That means cities.

As I understand it, most of the targets for Allied aviators were located on Japanese soil anyway.


You seem to be of the opinion that the US was innocent of escalating tensions between itself and Japan. Pearl harbour was not the original stationing of the US Pacific fleet, it was moved there as an act of passive aggression. The US prepared evolving plans for war with Japan and was attempting to choke the Japanese economy by progressively increasing co-ordinated trade embargoes. This was mostly because the west decided that Japan would not be treated as an equal even after Japan had fought alongside them in WW1. Japan eventually got fed up and started to obtain what the US and Europe had attempted to deny it.


It's very possible that the Japanese government at the time did not know where their contractors got the women. The Japanese military assumed that their contractors would procure them willing employees who were being appropriately compensated. They seriously did not have any time or effort to ensure that this was true. There was a war to fight, or resistance movements to track down. Even now, Militaries knows little about the internal practices of their contractors. Understanding an alien organisation takes a lot of effort, and it's less important than doing the job that the Military is mean to do.

Untrue.

There were big damn heroes in every army involved in the war -- they just weren't necessarily the guys at the top, pulling the strings and calling the shots. I'm firmly of the opinion that every eighteen year old conscript/draftee, ever, to don a uniform and serve his country and the guys in his unit is a pretty big damn hero. German, Russian, English, American, whatever.

I don't blame the schmucks in the trenches for the decisions made by the schmucks elsewhere.

Translation:
Shame on you America for looking out for your own best interests and those of your allies. You're evil/bad/wrong, shame shame shame shame shame on you for not being warm and fuzzy to the Nazi's main allies and for not turning the other cheek. Oh, and you shouldn't have moved your troops there. If you hadn't done it they couldn't have protected you from a potentially dangerous foe, or served as a focal point for attack while keeping Hawaii from becoming a staging point for an invasion of North America, thereby sparing some of your western coastal cities from a visit from those warm/fuzzy Japanese people.

Right dude. Whatever. War is Hell. Get over it. It's all a matter of calculation, I never hold it against someone when they do what they think is in their own best interests, doing so is illogical. Also, I carry absolutely no societal guilt for WW2, nor, in my opinion, should any Germans or Japanese who aren't part of those generations. And, as far as I'm concerned, the U.S. Does Not Need to Apologize for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yeah, a lot of people died in those cities, but, most experts agree (<I hate that phrase!) that the death toll would have been much higher if we'd actually had to invade Japan.
IMAO's (<a blogsite) Top Ten U.S. Military Slogans
3. We don't like collateral damage, but it helps if you stay the hell out of our way.
7. Trying to win hearts and minds, but willing to splatter them if necessary.

Also, some of you seem to be under the impression that there were types of bombing during WW2 other than 'carpet-bombing' and 'fire-bombing', there weren't, everyone did it because it was all we had. Except for 'atomic-bombing', we had a monopoly on that one, thank god, otherwise I'd probably be typing in German.

1940's guided weapons = Bat Bomb & Pigeon Guided Bomb, look it up.

this thread have crashed and died...

The germans had wire-guided bombs, but those were usually used against ships.

Died, probably not, but it has veered dramatically off topic. Quite interesting, but not really relevant to SR.

Of course, we could bring it back. Anyone got any ideas on the development of Total War in the 6th Age? By Total War I mean the style developed up to and through WW2, where the whole populace are expected to engage by whatever means are possible, including building weapons in homes.

Both arguements could be made; that as many states are smaller, and more prone to conflict with their neighbours, Total War is a necessary approach. Alternatively the all powerful corps might consider Total War bad for profit, and use their influence to prevent it.

Personally I side with the second argument. Tensions remain hgh between states, and the money not spent on waging war can find its way into Runners' pockets, as they are hired to fight a covert war by proxy!

I know, I was being facetious. The V1 and 2 were, uh, aim-able, and others had stuff like radio-guided, but nothing precise for real mass warfare.




Personally, I think Japanese culture is one of the main reasons they were able to recover from WW2 so quickly. When you read about it, it's kinda awe inspiring.

hmm, yes, a somewhat permanent state of cold war.

and i guess cold war to is something of a cyberpunk backdrop.

at the time, i dont think any writer was expecting the cold war to end any time soon, unless it went hot, and then you where writing a post-apocalyptic focused book.

hell, the cold war tech race basically fueled civilian tech development.

Yes. They hit the residental buildings they intended to.


Sorry, but untrue. It was 'shock and awe' tactics. Worked as little as it did in 2003, of course.


Please don't forget the Duce had to be bailed out by the Wehrmacht repeatedly.


Really? From what my grandfather told me, the French treated their POWs pretty decently, considering.

The russians weren't so nice, sure, but since when have they been known for civility?


Eh. And what about Italians?


Can't say for Japan, but for the most part, Germany didn't. Actually, West Germany owed much of it's quick economic recovery to the fact the Allies primarily bombed residental areas and left the industrial backbone mostly intact. As you said, it was WAR. Don't pretend Anmericans were always right back then.


Yes. Still, Japan started the war. Maybe the US would've attacked, maybe it wouldn't. Odds are it wouldn't, actually. Usually, US tactics focus more on economical and political pressure. It never had much colonial ambition.

Even if both countries were playing a power game back then, so what? Everybody did it. Saying the US was about to attack Japan is just plain wrong, though.


The only redeeming thing about the nukes is that the US honestly did't realise that they had poisoned these areas back then thoroughly. Also, the death toll that mainly would have been higher is the US's. Detonating the nuke in tokyo bay would have been a sufficiant display of power to make Japan surrender. Killing hundreds of thousands was just unnescessary.

Actually, considering the 6th World a 'cold war' type setting, makes Japan's antipathy towards other nationalities more realistic. With the collapse of the US, Japan would have to rapidly develop its military might to preserve its independence from the USSR, and North Korea, and even China (I'm considering the SR timeline now, not RL). This wouldn't even be possible without Japan's industrial strength, but a resurgence of nationalism would naturally accompany remilitarisation. Then consider the racial homogeneity of Japan and the circumstances surrounding goblinisation and you go a long way to explaining the internment of oni and trolls.

Hindsight being 20:20, the new Emperor has opened up the country a little, giving opportunities to metas and shadowrunners, making for an all around better game!

Will you people discussing WW2 please consider the Poles?

And I shouldn't be at all surprised if a mod came to shut this thread down following this digression.

Sorry my english is not that good, what bailed out means? You mean when he was arrested and Wehrmacht extracted him in order to have him put up that puppet state that the "Repubblica di Salò" was?




I was not there so I can tell just what was told to me (read my sign to know my hopinion about truth), but I was told that our troops in africa had the wrost "managment" by french colonial forces.
There have been russian farmers that hid italian soldiers until the end of war (some of our farmers did the same with german soldiers, hell there were many that weren't even 18 years old; may Hitler be damned for what has done to germans).




Our constitution states that Italy repudies war as meaning of international dichordy resolution and that our troops can only take part to military action unther mandate of international istitutions. Reconstruction of fascist party is forbidden by constitution, right now fascism is a fringe ideology used as excuse for plain and simple exercise of violence (along with soccer). Respect of human right is safeguarded by constitution (yet the second Berlusconi governmet had some unclear dealing on the matter during the G8 in Genova); when some of our soldiers were discovered committing abuses on local population in Somalia (they were there unther UN mandate) they have been processed (though I admit I don't know what the sentence have been).
Also Mussolini has proven to be interested only in personal gain (power, wealth, prestige, etc.) and was able to rais to power only due the prevalent feeling that our national identity wasn't respected at international level (it was due being left with scaps after the WW1, nevermind that it was mostly dued the inepts we sent as diplomats), by using our wounded national pride he was able to lull us into complacency (there were still cells of cultural resistance though) and we (idiotly) followed him in what anyone with a little of knowlegde of war knew would have been a suicide (we had problems with the aready defeated France, weren't for our allies we would have lost the war in a week; and it would have been better that way, instead we found ourselves paying harshly for our idiocy); culturaly speaking we Italians are avverse to the idea of war (we have seen too much in our history) and are defined by a mostly live and let live mindasset.




Nukes shouldn't be made, and if made they should be made to not be used.
Hiroshima was never bombed before, hitting there has been just a deliberate massacre; in war you can use subtle approach only to a limited extent but too much is too much, and nukes definitively are too much. On the top of that they were employed mostly as a warning to the soviets; I don't denie that an invasion of the Japan would have had a massive death toll and that the nukes accomplished to make the japanese untherstand that it was time for war to end (either by sorrounding or by being hanilated) but the message could be delivered with much less casualities. Do I hold americans moraly responsibles for it? No, only very few peoples knew what was all about and what consequences (minus radiation poisoning) would have had, everyone else was just doing its part in that hellish war.

Poles? Artica and Antartica were left alone, why?

Poland was stomped on by nazis and soviets, what violations of human rights could they have committed?

Also why would mods see it fitting for this thread to be shut down? It's not like we are insulting anyone (ok, some comment Hermit did on Russians were a bit politicaly scorrect), we are just expressing our opinions on historical matters.

I don't know, it seems to me that the conscript who obeyed the order "rape every woman you find" in China was not a big damn hero. It seems to me that the one who obeyed the order "turn on the gas chamber now and kill these Jews" was not a big damn hero. The big damn heroes would have been the ones who found ways to resist those orders. I don't say they're responsible for what happened because, as you say, it wasn't their decision.

But hero is taking it a little too far, when referring to people who willingly committed some horrendous atrocities. There's a difference between bombing a city which might have some strategic value (or at least, they thought it did) versus exterminating ethnic minorities, which was an act of pure malice (and the desire to steal their stuff) which helped the enemy by ensuring that the Allies would be seen as white knights forevermore. The ones who obeyed the orders "drop the bomb on Hiroshima" are more debatable, because that was a strategic decision, and not simply an act of cowardice.

I don't think the problem is that you're wrong, I think the problem is that your statement needs to be qualified. One doesn't automatically become a hero by serving his country, especially when he knows his country is wrong, when his country is committing atrocities out of pure spite, and not out of any strategic value to be gained.

Malice, yes. But the thing that stays with you is the amount of cold, rational calculation that went into turning mass killings into an industry onto itself. And not all of those thinkers were insane, bastards or evil to the core -- which is exactly what makes the Nazis so... something beyond terrifying.

In sum: Normal people fuck up shit more often than abnormal people do.

Which is probably why I said "...serve his country and the guys in his unit..." I'm not talking about the sociopath that pulled the levers at Dachau, I'm not talking about the guys who high-fived their way raping through Berlin at the war's end, or that gunned down prisoners of war (that were captured by front-line fighters).

I'm talking about your everyday fighting man, regardless of nationality. The guys actually in the trenches (or the tanks, or the fighters, or aboard a battleship) -- taking fire, tossing grenades, dogfighting, marching in the cold, wet, rain, or sandy desert. To me someone who fought and earned the Iron Cross is just as heroic as one who earned a Medal of Honor. To me, anyone who puts on a uniform, grabs a (figurative) rifle, and gets shot at by doing his part is to be equally respected, regardless of what side of a conflict they fight on.

To the guy out in the middle of a foreign land (or the guy manning a trench and resisting invaders), I don't think politics matters one tiny little bit. He's got a job to do (to take ground, or to keep the other guys from taking ground), and he's just doing it. That's noble, to me. It's an ugly job, but boots on the ground is the only way to get it done, and it takes a lot of guts to do it successfully.

In one word INFANTRY !!!

History has the advantage that those who were involved are rarely asked their opinion. Every war involves death and its exaltation. Every soldier is defending the people around them. Sometimes the danger is real. Sometimes it is perceived.

Who is the greater hero the one who accepts the killing of the enemies of the state or the one who refuses and is branded as a coward. It is easy for us in our comfortable lives with our warm rooms and food in our fridges to second guess people who feel that they are doing what they feel to be right.

Let us take a modern event instead of us talking about events safely secure in the past.

Tamil Tiger rebels have been fighting for a separate homeland for the island's ethnic Tamil minority for the past 25 years. At least 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan government says troops have reached the southern outskirts of the strategic Elephant Pass, which is the key link to the Jaffna peninsula. Troops have been pushing north since capturing the Tamil Tigers' de facto capital of Kilinochchi on Friday.

On the western side of town, the bodies of rebels who died fighting for independence for Sri Lanka's Tamil minority still lay in a huge cemetery, under long rows of identical grey cement tombstones. The ornate gates, which used to feature ironwork of upturned AK-47s, had been destroyed.

he Peace Secretariat, where the Tigers met visiting diplomats and journalists during the failed 2002 ceasefire, was a shell. The windows and furniture had gone, the paving stones in the car park had been torn up.

A commando armed with rocket-propelled grenades guarded the gate. Nobody is talking peace now.

Kilinochchi was a potent symbol of the Tigers' separatist aspirations.

There they had established the trappings of the state for the Tamil minority for which they have fought for a generation.

They had law courts there, administrative offices, a tax system, even their own bank.

All that has now been smashed and abandoned.

"It's the capital of the LTTE," said Maj Gen Jagath Dias, who led the 57th Division of the Sri Lankan army into the town. "We have captured their prestige. It's a very important milestone, it's a great achievement."

But the military has taken a town virtually devoid of people. Apart from soldiers the only signs of life on the streets were stray dogs.

The vast majority of the remaining population left with the Tigers towards the east, the jungles and Mullaitivu.

The government says they have been forced to go with the rebels as human shields.

The Tigers say they have gone of their own accord because they support their aims.

About 20 people who were in Kilinochchi had been gathered in a waiting room at the otherwise empty town hospital.

There, while a large number of soldiers and officers looked on, they told us they were happy to see the back of the Tigers.

One 14-year-old girl said the rebels had forced her to fight.

The Tigers' former headquarters town will now be used as a staging post for the next phase of the offensive against them.

Full article can be found here


The question is: what can you say about the populace that left with the Tamil Tigers? Where do their allegiances lie? Should they be considered willing participants or human shields?

I meant the violations the Poles endured. And they still got shafted after the war by the bloody Russians.

As for the mods, threads have been closed for completely leaving the topic of SR in the past, and WW2 has minimal bearing on SR.

My point was that the US is not innocent of the initiation of hostilities. That they could have avoided the war by stepping down the tension with Japan, but the US government decided that sacrificing people and resources in order to punish Japan for trying to attain equal treatment was desirable.

Do you actually think that Japan wanted to invade the US? They recognised that they did not have enough manpower or resources to do that. They wanted to be left alone to deal with their situation in Asia, but the forward placement of the Pacific fleet was perceived (and intended by the US, read Roosevelt's response to Admiral Richardson) as a threat.



War in Shadowrun would require complicity of the CC, but if you're attempting to claim some area of land that has been employed unprofitably (due to lack of governance, or controlled by a CC-hostile nation) for some time the odds of the CC objecting fall dramatically. Furthermore you need complicitly of your population, but getting Horizon on your side probably sorts that out.

Actually, Horizon is the biggest step towards the really scary parts of the CC hegemony. They're stated to be exceptionally capable of manipulating public opinion. The biggest impediment to the successful waging of war is your own population rebelling against you. With Horizon backing your war you probably would have WW2 levels of popular assent.

Can anyone think of anywhere that the CC dislikes enough to back an antagonist against?

I know it's a bit off topic, but I just want to further clarify (or maybe abbreviate) my argument. The simple fact is the comment was made that "there were no big damn heroes in WWII" (or something quite similar). There are documented cases of guys who jumped on grenades for their buddies, of medics who gave their lives by taking bullets while attempting medical care on downed soldiers in the middle of a firefight, of infantrymen purposefully taking fire to reveal a sniper's position, and a dozen similar sort of actions that are, to me, undeniably heroic, and such things happened by men (and some women) in every uniform of that war.

I know it's hip and cool to be all cynical and and critical of your government and belittle whatever your country has accomplished and spit on flags and stuff (especially of whatever nation you happen to be from) to show the world what an individualist you are, and blah blah blah -- but making a comment like "there were no heroes" is just a slap in the face of the folks who bled in any war. The winners write the history books and always try to whitewash everything, sure, and that deserves criticism and history deserves for people to take a second look and try to uncover what really happened, and the human race needs people to understand war's a horrible thing. But it's possible to do all that -- to be a realist about it -- without insulting the people who died in order for those history books to be written. Some of them were heroes, by any measure of the word.

No, I meant it figuratively, as in that he called for the Wehrmacht when his military ventures into Albania and Nothern Africa weren't quite successful. And, as you said, France. But yes, usually, it's getting someone released from prison by paying a more or less vast sum of money.


Funny. His time as a POW in France made my granddad learn French and be a France fanboy till today. He's fairly fond of that time actually considering (he was drafted at 16 into the Wehrmacht and was captured not very long after D-Day somewhere around Boredaux; was in one of the atlantic line bunkers where noone cared to land and froze a toe off there). So I guess your relatives really had bad luck, and conditions varied widely from camp to camp.


So? While that's certainly nice, what does that have to do with what your troops dich back in the day when you didn't have that constituion yet?


Well, it was reformed under a different name, though, so it's not quite gone.


Exchange names, and I could claim that as well for Germany. And mind you, Hitler wasn't even German to begin with! Still, how exactly does that excuse attacking other countries? You wanted that guy (and granted, he DID a good job in reining in the Mob). It's not like he kept his interest in conquest a secret. Also, you did not lose a third of your core territory after WW1, so please stop complaining, will you?


I disagree. Nukes are great. I really like them. Finally there IS a weapon to stop all greater wars. Unless some serious nut gets their hands on them, they're a guarantee against another world war, actually. What do you think prevented Stalin from attacking the West in the 70s, huh? Sure wasn't the conventional forces.


Nah, it was more of a 'kill two birds with one stone" affair. America shows off it's awesome MOAB and scares Stalin shitless and makes Japan surrender unconditionally. Onme of the few political gambkles in US foreign political history that actually worked. To be fair, they really thought it was mainly an awesomely large bang. They didn't expect residue radiation and radiation poisoning.

And the estimated death toll of 50.000? One night in Germany at that time. Any given night. Peoples' lives weren't worth much back then, really. The consequences, that part of them, were known. It just was normal at that time.


Yeah, and that propably wasn't good. Sorry if I pissed off anyone. Still, Russia's disciplinary problem and brutal tactics (against civilians, enemies and their own troops alike) does set them wide apart from the western Allies. And that should be possible to say without being accused of demeaning anyone.


You didn't really need to be a sociopath to end up with levers duty, you just needed to be one to remain at that post. Later in the war, the Waffen-SS forcibly recruited sports associations and whatnot. Happened to a relative of mine. Ended up in ... Birkenwald, I think. Word is he hanged himself there. Unsure though. At least, he was dead in 43 (I think). Maybe some inmates got him, of course. We'll propably never know. He sure wasn't a career psychopath, though, just a chap who was unlucky enough his riders' association was volunteered by the party to join the Waffen-SS.


The Nazis were, like the Khmer Rouge, an extreme incarnation of socialist ideology. Socialism always wanted to purify mankind in some way and create a better humanity for a splendid tomorrow. Those people majorily actually believed they were doing the right thing for all mankind. That, above everything else, makes them so terrifying, at least for me.

Those, in Germany, wouldn't be heroes, but dead. There were lots of soldiers who tried to get around orders such as the one that all soviet officers taken POW were to be killed with hand grenades, there were instances where a unit shot guys from another unit who obeyed that order because they were VERY aware that the soviets would make them pay in kind (and they did). There were several attempts at disposing of Hitler coming from army circles (No. Don't mentuion that movie. Seriously. Don't.).

But I'm with Critas there:



And war is hell. War makes people do bad things, it makes some people lose it completly. No army is immune against this. However, disciplinary measures work to keep that to a minimum, and there, the Allies weren't quite as bad as the Axis forces and Soviets. Not angels by any means, but not quite the devils some other armies turned out. I don't even really blame soldiers that lose it. Just, I don't like people whitewashing their side.

Critias,
I accept that individuals in the line of duty did some heroic (and awesome) things.

It is my observation that too many people are not aware of the entire situation in history and are likely to glorify countries that are associated with them. Whilst it may look like the US is a classic cinematic hero in WW2 that summary ignores the fact that the US and Japan had an ongoing antagonistic relationship that began long before the initiation of open hostilities. Britain and France, too, had essentially beaten Germany down unfairly with the outcomes of WW1 and Germany could be said to be extracting rightful vengance on them. Germany was also betrayed by America in the Paris treaties when they abandonned the 14 points that they had promised they would adhere to. Britain, too, betrayed their allies in the Middle East.

Okay, let's put it like this. To a member of each participating nation in a conflict their nation appears to be right. Everyone believes that the nation they are backing is the hero. At least one side in a conflict has to be wrong there, right? Whatever the reason you use to justify removing one side from the equation can almost certianly be turned around and justify negating the other sides' claims to heroism.

Calling any of the militaries a hero in WW2 would be like expecting people to call an alcoholic wife-beater a hero in an action flick. Whilst certainly you can argue that they were better than the alternatives, that doesn't make them a hero. A hero is something that can exist only in fiction.


tl;dr - Every nation and military in WW2 had skeletons in the closet that would exclude them from being the protagonist of a Hollywood action flick if it stuck to the facts.

That's why so many people dislike the portrayal of Horizon. They seem too perfect to be a megacorp. Apply that reasoning to portrayals of nations.

I'm not holding up any given military as heroic, here (and certainly not my own above or beyond any others). I'm not pointing to one country and saying "these guys were all heroes," or "these guys did all the work" or "these were the good guys."

Rather, I'm commenting that some of the individual men and women that made up those militaries were heroes. I've got a (fantastic) book called "Infantry Aces" that's all about awesome, truly heroic, stuff an assortment of soldiers did in WWII. Defying odds, never surrendering, taking on whole enemy units solo, charging against a tank, rescuing wounded comrades -- heroic stuff. The real life acts of courage and selflessness that inspire action movies. Heroes certainly do exist outside of fiction.

Thing is, it's all about German soldiers. A paratrooper, five everyday Wehrmacht fighting men, and two Waffen-SS. So I don't mention it to parade the American military -- a military I was once enlisted in -- as being better than everyone else, or to hold up these acts of bravery as a way to say "the country that had guys like this fighting for it must have been morally correct all along," and in so doing excuse what the Nazis did.

Yeah, I got that. I was the guy who threw out the phrase in question, so I was trying to clarify my intent.

Dulce et decorum est, por patria mori.

Hard to say. Are Kurd villagers hiding PKK commandos participants in their war or scared, hopeless people forced to do so at gunpoint? Are Afghan villagers hiding Taliban fighters? And what about Palestinians in Gaza?

The LTTN are a savage militia, to be honest, much like FARC. They make good use of child soldiers, tie young consctipts into cars that contain bombs, force them to drive somewhere and blow the car up (and claim it was a suicide bomber who did that out of free will - the Iraqi Quaida loved to do that too), extract much produce from the local population to sustain themselves (in additon to taking their children as cannon fodder) and then hide behind civilians when the government's (only slightly less savage) army comes to get them and shove them in the line of fire to catch bullets while they make their escape.

Thing is, many believe in their cause. So do government troops in Lankha. I'd suppose the civilians in that example are a mix - some loyalists, some only go when threatened, and all are scared of what the government troops are going to do to them when they get them. Sadly, they have every right to.

The cannon SR fact that the megas maintain real militaries is nuts. They are costs centers, and very large ones at that. Effective military forces are extremely expensive, cheaper military forces are not only still expensive, but they are also useless. It's hard to show much stockholder value in an armored brigade.

The innocents in war always take the short end of the deal.

P.S.
I wish my home were warm.

Not if you always rent part of it out to a state or some other entity with vast financial ressources, like a church. That's the one plausible explanation I can think of for megacorp armies.

I suspect his being dead had something to do with it too. But yes, making the world safe for conventional war isn't exactly a likely path to world peace.

Right, he died in 53. How utterly embarassing.

Well we were speaking of misdeeds committed, responsabilities and how the responsible dealt with them. Poles had one of the shortest ends of any deal, that much is undeniable.
Also this thread might have straied a bit from the intended course but it's relevant to SR as source of background informations; it also helps to understan the plot better and is a good discussion, I don't think it should be closed.

Admin, this has gone way off topic.

That phrase I cited in my previous post ("Cosa gli tiriamo, limoni") means "What are we going to trow to them, lemons?" and was what generals asked to the Duce after he informed them that we were going to war (if you want to have a clear idea of how our army was at the time follow this link) and the response was that he needed some 10k of dead soldiers to sit at the table of the victorious ones. I've arlready said it clearly that we were sent around to get our asses kicked. If you prefere I can say that we were more a comical relief than an army, happy?




I suppose there were differences betwen north africa and somewhere near Boredaux, just happy that your granfather got a good staying (and fraging sad that he had to be involved at all).




Dich back? sorry again what's dich? Anyway the answer was about the question "And what about the Italians?" that was posted in reply to my post in which I stated that what irked me about the japanese was that (as I perceive it) they they didn't change their mind asset and didn't repent for the crimes committed, thing that most of germans did. My answer was that as germans kame to terms with their past (and endured russian occupation) we did the same with our, that reference is about the outcome.




Silvio?




Indeed. Germany had it much worse than us after WW1, no arguing on that (somewhere I said "may Hitler be damned for what has done to germans"). Attacking other countries? Who you or us? Doesn't matter, we have been divided for centuries in which heads of state sent their people to kill/be-killed-by other countries people in order to expand their territory, capture resources, extend influence, etc.; at the beginning of the century there was a strong us-vs-them mentality that justified attacking other countries in order to improve the condition/status of the native country. This brought us to the WW1 and persisted after its end, it has been only after the devastation of WW2 that europe dismissed said ideology. How justify war? By todays moral/ethical compass it's not possible to justify it sadly at the time was different. And yes in both countries desire of conquest was quite apparent. What I don't get is: who is complaining? I'm just exposing what has been, nothing more.




Sadly it's true.




I must get more info about socialism.

CC would agreed only if it's in the interest of all the corps. Maybe with Tir na nOg (how do I write capital ò?).

The fleet was moved in response to continued Japanese agression in Manchuria and China and well after the Rape of nanking. The US would have loved to have stayed out of the fighting. The american s had been happy with a strong Russia and strong japan because they balanced each other out and let the US influences in the region develop while everyone was balanced. Just economic development. The collapse of russia in 1905 and then again in 1917 severely hampered the US because it had build up Japan to balance the Russians and now that was gone.

Japan was pushing it's influence south at the same time the US was pushing west. The american plan for war. Plan Orange, was that the US Army in the Philipines would be the main target of the Japanese agression being right on the scene. That force was expected to hold out for 6 months while the nation mobilized and sent the fleet out to fight back and relieve the Philipines army. along the way they'd chew up the Japanese fleet and both sides could negotiate a peace. Neither side had plans to invade the other's homeland.

The Japanese disrupted that plan by striking first at the US fleet before turning on the Philipines. the army was cut off and without supplies or hope of relief. the japanese plan was to destroy the American western fleet and consolidate their holdings before the Eastern fleet could arrive having sailed round the Horn. this is what they did to the russians and when the Pearl harbor strike wasl aunched, the flag ship flew the same signal that they had flown at the victory over the russians. Only the amazing quality of the US Navy at Midway, the remnants of the Pearl Harbor fleet winning a major victory, prevented the Japanese from doing to the US in 1942 what they did to Russia in 1905.

To try and veer this back on topic, I'll offer this: Japan's culture has always been fascination with the victor. They trashed Korea in WWII, and they hate the Koreans. The US bombed nine kinds of hell out of them, and they love us.

DLN, a few pages back I read about how your family lost a friend because you married a white guy. I didn't face anything like that when I got married, but I don't suppose our situations are identical, either. Being male, things are different. There are other nasty cultural things males get to deal with, if you're a minority or from an immigrant family.

My daughter inherited the minority look from me, so it's just a matter of time before she runs into the problems all minority women face. I don't know how I'm going to be able to apologize to her for that, but I figure giving her a happy childhood is the least I can do. Still, I know all about the stares and looks you get when you're a mixed couple, and I can only imagine what it must be like to be a mixed child.

Nah, he's just a crook. The MSI or whoever? I think a porn star ran for them once, but I may be mistaken. IIRC they were in one of Silvio's coalitions at one time, though.

As for dich: sorry, a typo. should be did. And I guess I misunderstood you anyway. I was refering to the behavior of the italian army during the war, not what Italy did afterwards.


Was referring to fascist Italy, and it's incursions into Albania, Libya (IIRC) and Ethiopia/Somalia. And in case of either country, yours or mine, OI'd say we had it coming; the same as Gaza had it coming with the current war there. You cannot attack other countries and expect not to eventually pay he price.


Then I misread and apologise.

Maybe I should mind my own buisness "and they love us" (implying that you are american) but than you say that you hadn't to face the same prejudice because you are male (implying you are japanese).
Anyway I hope your daughter won't have too many problems, maybe this new generation will make the situation bearable. By the way unter your avatar it's written that you are from the Tir wouldn't locate you in north america?

It was called colonization, not that it makes it any better but there have been some centuries in which it was done with impunity because it was bringing civilization.
It would have been better if we avoided trying to emulate the British Empire.

Really? I thought we were gaijin, and we were the ones that loved them

Also, I had the impression that the Japanese were kind of into the Germans too, and they got taken down a real big peg when they suffered a total military defeat, and the world saw that the fuhrer they fought for was a psychotic, murdering madman with no redeeming qualities. And then they got divided in half and dominated by two foreign super powers. If anything qualifies for a loss of face, that would be it -- if Germany was a samurai, it would have committed seppuku, for sure.

I'm not the expert here, but I'm pretty sure the Japanese and Koreans hate each other because of all the wars they've had over the centuries. It's hard to understand this kind of ancestral dislike in the U.S., but countries that have existed for thousands of years tend to have long memories.

Not that I think you're wrong, I'm sure Japan likes victors. But that's not the only thing they like.

No, suffer 30 years of incarceration and reemerge new and stronger than ever.

The Japanese liking for all things German has always mystified me. Maybe it's because, very roughly, they're different (and feel different) from their neighbours much like we do about similar things we do, I don't know. Could some of the resident part-japanese maybe post on this?