PBS Show To Argue Allies As Bad As Nazis

[red states rule]

Here we go again. Libs rewriting history to paint America as the bad guy

Your tax dollars paid for this shit folks


IT'S ALL ONE 'WAR'

MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.

Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.

The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.

His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.

It is an illuminating viewpoint, and Ferguson does an effective job tying all of the century's mass deportations, enslavements, ethnic cleansings and genocides together so that you can't help being won over to his view that the violence of the 20th century was virtually never-ending.

But it is Ferguson's revisionist view of the tactics applied by the Allies in World War II that is likely to raise the hackles of those who have always believed in the "necessity" of bombing German and Japanese civilians, culminating in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end a war we did not start.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm

[mundame]

questions whether it can even be called a victory.



As a person pretty interested in the recent and current efforts to propagandize people into believing that our obvious military losses are somehow victories..................................

Yes, of COURSE WWII was a victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darn, anytime you've got signed surrenders and people handing you their swords ------------- you did good. That's the way.

We should avoid fighting, but if we HAVE to fight because if we don't they will certainly come after us as soon as they sew up France or China ----- then we should win, hands down, no question, like we did in 1944-45.

Guys, there's no use in sending a lot of troops abroad a long way from home just to lose a war. There just isn't. Losing wars never really works out well: ask the Germans. I suggest if that's all we can do anymore, we should leave the troops at home. Probably in most cases, that would be best anyway.

[Hagbard Celine]

I know it hurts your brain to think outside the box, but there is a point here. While the US is in no way evil as Nazi Germany was in it's final solution agenda, we did have to get our hands quite dirty to beat Hitler and his minions. Many would argue that Stalin was actually more evil than Hitler in that more people actually died under his iron fist than did in Nazi Germany. Of course all that is semantics--nevertheless, exploring new viewpoints is never a bad thing--unless of course you'd prefer to have nothing but a steady stream of fluffy pro-America propaganda pumped into your head 24-hours a day. You have to admit that no side is perfect. Do Japanese internment camps ring a bell? Nuclear annihilation? Civilian bombings?

[red states rule]

As a person pretty interested in the recent and current efforts to propagandize people into believing that our obvious military losses are somehow victories..................................

Yes, of COURSE WWII was a victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darn, anytime you've got signed surrenders and people handing you their swords ------------- you did good. That's the way.

We should avoid fighting, but if we HAVE to fight because if we don't they will certainly come after us as soon as they sew up France or China ----- then we should win, hands down, no question, like we did in 1944-45.

Guys, there's no use in sending a lot of troops abroad a long way from home just to lose a war. There just isn't. Losing wars never really works out well: ask the Germans. I suggest if that's all we can do anymore, we should leave the troops at home. Probably in most case, that would be best anyway.

This show is another way the kook left can show how much they hate Amercia

and again, your tax dollars are paying for it

[Hagbard Celine]

This show is another way the kook left can show how much they hate Amercia

and again, your tax dollars are paying for it

You hate freedom of speech. It's as simple as that.

[mundame]

You have to admit that no side is perfect. Do Japanese internment camps ring a bell?


Japanese internment camps were wholly appropriate.

The Japanese were all settled on the West Coast where the Pacific Fleet was rebuilt and repaired and sent out from. They would of course have had spies hidden among them: that was the whole point of interning the Japanese.

The Yorktown was crucial to the Battle of Midway. The Japanese thought it had been sunk. It was repaired in three days and sent out to join the battle, and if those Japs hadn't been interned in a camp inland, the enemy would have known about the Yorktown.

[red states rule]

I know it hurts your brain to think outside the box, but there is a point here. While the US is in no way evil as Nazi Germany was in it's final solution agenda, we did have to get our hands quite dirty to beat Hitler and his minions. Many would argue that Stalin was actually more evil than Hitler in that more people actually died under his iron fist than did in Nazi Germany. Of course all that is semantics--nevertheless, exploring new viewpoints is never a bad thing--unless of course you'd prefer to have nothing but a steady stream of fluffy pro-America propaganda pumped into your head 24-hours a day. You have to admit that no side is perfect. Do Japanese internment camps ring a bell?

Yes Hag, keep showing your distain for America like a good little libbie.

While Hitler was firing rockets into downtown London, and killing millions in death camps - the US shuld have never dropped a bomb on Berlin. We should have talked to him, and tried to reason with him

BTW hotshot, are you ever going to answer my question from another thread on what 2 quarters the US economy has negative growth and entered a recession?

[red states rule]

Japanese internment camps were wholly appropriate.

The Japanese were all settled on the West Coast where the Pacific Fleet was rebuilt and repaired and sent out from. They would of course have had spies hidden among them: that was the whole point of interning the Japanese.

The Yorktown was crucial to the Battle of Midway. The Japanese thought it had been sunk. It was repaired in three days and sent out to join the battle, and if those Japs hadn't been interned in a camp inland, the enemy would have known about the Yorktown.

We did the same to Germans as well

And it was the libs idol FDR that did it

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. I'm "un-American" because I can consider a different viewpoint. :rolleyes:
You guys are getting to the point where I can't tell the difference between you and a political cartoon.
The fact of the matter remains that the US government rounded-up and interned legal US citizens based on their ethnicity. It also nuked two cities out of existence and bombed the hell out of countless German and Italian civilians. The US isn't perfect. Of course good won out over evil--nobody disputes that. The point is that our side did some pretty vile things too.

[red states rule]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. I'm "un-American" because I can consider a different viewpoint. :rolleyes:
You guys are getting to the point where I can't tell the difference between you and a political cartoon.
The fact of the matter remains that the US government rounded-up and interned legal US citizens based on their ethnicity. It also nuked two cities out of existence and bombed the hell out of countless German and Italian civilians. The US isn't perfect. Of course good won out over evil--nobody disputes that. The point is that our side did some pretty vile things too.

You go out of your wasy to always talk about how rotten America is. We did not start the war, but we sure as hell ended it - and won

FDR did the right thing when he interned them. Unlike our enemies that killed outright

BTW,. thanks for answering my direct question. Oh, you didn't. Sorry

[Hagbard Celine]

You go out of your wasy to always talk about how rotten America is. We did not start the war, but we sure as hell ended it - and won

FDR did the right thing when he interned them. Unlike our enemies that killed outright

BTW,. thanks for answering my direct question. Oh, you didn't. Sorry

I go out of my way to tell the truth rsr. You should deign to do the same every once in a while rather than always sticking to your whitewashed, "official" version of everything. Going through life going along with everything you're taught and everything you're told earns people the nickname "sheep" if you weren't already aware of that.
And I never said he didn't do the "right thing" by interning them, but that doesn't change the fact that it was rotten. There may have been one or two "spies" in that lot. Anybody can speculate. Everybody else was innocent and was loyal to the US--their country of CITIZENSHIP. But you're so xenophobic that you can't fathom this fact.

[Gaffer]

Since I haven't seen the show I can't say much about it other than, yes we got our hands dirty. It's necessary in war time to do things that are not nice and to restrict yourself is dangerous and deadly. It is surprising to see a leftist calling stalin evil since their hero's chevez, castro, che and others all modeled themselves after him.

when you fight a war you have to fight a total war, not a piece meal action. It has to be fought against the entire country and not just the government. Break the will of the people to fight and you can defeat their government.

[Hagbard Celine]

Since I haven't seen the show I can't say much about it other than, yes we got our hands dirty. It's necessary in war time to do things that are not nice and to restrict yourself is dangerous and deadly. It is surprising to see a leftist calling stalin evil since their hero's chevez, castro, che and others all modeled themselves after him.

when you fight a war you have to fight a total war, not a piece meal action. It has to be fought against the entire country and not just the government. Break the will of the people to fight and you can defeat their government.

Goddamnit. I'm not a Communist. OF COURSE STALIN WAS EVIL. HE KILLED THOUSANDS. I'M NOT AN ALIEN WITH GREEN SKIN WHO EATS BABIES. Get it through your thick skulls. I'm the same as you. I love America and all the freedoms we all have--same as you. The only difference is that apparently I can think abstractly and you absolutely cannot.

[red states rule]

I go out of my way to tell the truth rsr. You should deign to do the same every once in a while rather than always sticking to your whitewashed, "official" version of everything. Going through life going along with everything you're taught and everything you're told earns people the nickname "sheep" if you weren't already aware of that.
And I never said he didn't do the "right thing" by interning them, but that doesn't change the fact that it was rotten. There may have been one or two "spies" in that lot. Anybody can speculate. Everybody else was innocent and was loyal to the US--their country of CITIZENSHIP. But you're so xenophobic that you can't fathom this fact.

You go out of your way sprewing the liberal talking points. When busted you run away like others like BP

You have the ruight to express you opinion, but not your own facts

And like most libs, when someone nails you, you go to the insults and dismiss the truth as propaganda

[Hagbard Celine]

You go out of your way sprewing the liberal talking points. When busted you run away like others like BP

You have the ruight to express you opinion, but not your own facts

And like most libs, when someone nails you, you go to the insults and dismiss the truth as propaganda

You're a hopeless moron (shrug) You've completely twisted and/or ignored everything I said just to hear yourself talk. And by "talk" I mean chant the same moronic bs you always chant. It's not my fault that you're completely incapable of considering a new point of view or of acknowledging simple truths.

[red states rule]

You're a hopeless moron (shrug)

Boy, you really know how to debate the facts there Hag. Typical of liberal moomnbats. When the facts go against you (which happens often) you attack

Still waiting for you to answer my question. Or are you redeploying your forces from that issue?

[Hagbard Celine]

Boy, you really know how to debate the facts there Hag. Typical of liberal moomnbats. When the facts go against you (which happens often) you attack

Still waiting for you to answer my question. Or are you redeploying your forces from that issue?

There is no debate with you. (shrug) When I try to debate I get called a "leftist," "un-American," a "moonbat," etc. So you get called a moron. It's what you are anyway. I don't even know why I ever try to begin with.

[red states rule]

There is no debate with you. (shrug)

Libs have that reaction when they lose all the time

BTW, when did the US enter a recession Hag :laugh2:

[mundame]

The fact of the matter remains that the US government rounded-up and interned legal US citizens based on their ethnicity.

That's right, because we were at war with their damned "ethnicity." And the sooner we round up and deport entirely the Mohammedan ethnics who certainly intend to take over this country, the better off we'll be. The Jap "ethnics" attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and killed about the same number of Americans as when the Moslem "ethnics" attacked New York lately.

You go too far defending "ethnics" who would like nothing better than to kill all other ethnics than themselves, and they say so frequently. "Death to America" they shout, in demonstrations of thousands of men. Why you think these "ethnics" are people we should protect, I do not know.



It also nuked two cities out of existence and bombed the hell out of countless German and Italian civilians. The US isn't perfect. Of course good won out over evil--nobody disputes that. The point is that our side did some pretty vile things too.


They declared war on us, and they meant it.

So that we bombed them is a problem ..................why? They intended to conquer us, both lots. I see no problem with winning a war if we are attacked or seriously threatened.

I simply see a problem with LOSING wars when we aren't especially threatened, as we keep doing lately.

You know, Hagbard, this is likely to come up again: China is getting strong enough to take us on.

Or, if we split up as a country, which we are overdue on, smaller powers may well attack the various new American nations. Wars of self-defense are pretty obvious: you win if you can, however you can. This TV show -- and you -- are apparently saying that we should win, but we should be NICE about it.

That's what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan: we are trying to win while being NICE. Hello, if it's war, that plainly doesn't work.

[Hagbard Celine]

Libs have that reaction when they lose all the time

BTW, when did the US enter a recession Hag :laugh2:

The groundwork was laid when Bush's tax cuts were made law and the middle class was essentially crippled. And it has steadily gotten worse continually up until now. We haven't seen the worst yet.

[red states rule]

It began at the end of 2007 and has since continued up until now.

You know the libs are losing when they have to tell outright lies

[Hagbard Celine]

That's right, because we were at war with their damned "ethnicity." And the sooner we round up and deport entirely the Mohammedan ethnics who certainly intend to take over this country, the better off we'll be. The Jap "ethnics" attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and killed about the same number of Americans as when the Moslem "ethnics" attacked New York lately.

You go too far defending "ethnics" who would like nothing better than to kill all other ethnics than themselves, and they say so frequently. "Death to America" they shout, in demonstrations of thousands of men. Why you think these "ethnics" are people we should protect, I do not know.





They declared war on us, and they meant it.

So that we bombed them is a problem ..................why? They intended to conquer us, both lots. I see no problem with winning a war if we are attacked or seriously threatened.

I simply see a problem with LOSING wars when we aren't especially threatened, as we keep doing lately.

You know, Hagbard, this is likely to come up again: China is getting strong enough to take us on.

Or, if we split up as a country, which we are overdue on, smaller powers may well attack the various new American nations. Wars of self-defense are pretty obvious: you win if you can, however you can. This TV show -- and you -- are apparently saying that we should win, but we should be NICE about it.

That's what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan: we are trying to win while being NICE. Hello, if it's war, that plainly doesn't work.

I defend American citizens regardless of their ethnicity. (shrug)

[mundame]

It began at the end of 2007 and has since continued up until now.


No..............I follow the financial papers closely and that's wrong.

We apparently aren't in a recession YET, even, though by now all the prominent financial figures are predicting it for soon.

Still, it hasn't happened till it's happened.

[red states rule]

No..............I follow the financial papers closely and that's wrong.

We apparently aren't in a recession YET, even, though by now all the prominent financial figures are predicting it for soon.

Still, it hasn't happened till it's happened.

Those experts have been wrong for the last 4 years :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

No..............I follow the financial papers closely and that's wrong.

We apparently aren't in a recession YET, even, though by now all the prominent financial figures are predicting it for soon.

Still, it hasn't happened till it's happened.

We've been teetering on the edge for almost six months now. Calling it anything else is dishonest. We're beginning to see the result of crippling the middle class in an economy historically driven by them. Record unemployment. Housing crisis. Record energy prices. Inflation. The weakening of the dollar. Corporate scandal run amok. We haven't seen the worst yet.

[mundame]

Those experts have been wrong for the last 4 years :laugh2:


As Will Rogers said, an economist's opinion isn't much worse than anyone else's.


The saying is, they've predicted nine of the last five recessions.

[red states rule]

We've been teetering on the edge for almost six months now. We're beginning to see the result of crippling the middle class in an economy historically driven by them.

First you say we are IN a recession, now you say we are teetering :laugh2:

[retiredman]

You go out of your wasy to always talk about how rotten America is. We did not start the war, but we sure as hell ended it - and won

FDR did the right thing when he interned them. Unlike our enemies that killed outright

BTW,. thanks for answering my direct question. Oh, you didn't. Sorry

are youy suggesting that PBS's point that our ally, Stalin, was even more brutal to his people than Hitler is incorrect?

YOu should tell that to the White Russians...oh wait, you can't...Stalin killed them all.

[Hagbard Celine]

First you say we are IN a recession, now you say we are teetering :laugh2:

It's the same thing man. But I guess it has to meet the definition to a "T" for you to acknowledge it. The sh*t's actually got to hit the fan for the slowest among us to recognize it I guess (shrug)
Ever heard of the canary in the mine? I guess you'd be the one to ignore him when he's upside down on the floor of his cage and instead opt to "stay the course." :rolleyes:

[Hobbit]

Up until the talk of recession (where we are in major disagreement), I'm gonna have to partially side with HC. Y'all overreacted to his original statement, in which he seemed to simply be pointing out that the premise isn't 100% fraudulent. The U.S. did illegally imprison United States citizens of Japanese descent (but not the Germans). Stalin was a horribly nasty dictator who Patton wanted to take out while they were weak and we had the momentum (not a bad plan). Patton was also pissed that the U.S. didn't speed up the offensive fast enough to deny Berlin to the reds. I've even heard the argument made that most of the Western war could have been avoided if France and England had been willing to just let Poland twist in the wind (I'm not convinced. Hitler probably would have seen weakness in the West and attacked eventually, anyway, but they did present a very convincing argument).

However, let's look at the facts. On the Japanese front, spies weren't even our only problem. Those of Japanese descent who were totally loyal to our country were being used as unwitting spies when 'relatives' or 'friends' they hadn't seen in a while brought up what they'd seen at the air or naval base in a 'normal' conversation. Yeah, it hurt those civilians, but it probably saved soldiers' lives, and winning the war was our only major concern at the time. Same goes for the bombing of German and Japanese cities. The industrial capacities of those cities were being used to manufacture tanks and planes, not to mention the garrisons, artillery emplacements, radar, and other military targets. Unlike now, we couldn't drop one bomb on one building and expect it to be the building we were aiming for. Even after the invention of the bombing sights used in the B-17, most of a block had to be leveled to make sure we got the building we were going after. In the case of Japan, where architecture was mostly flammable, a few bombs here and there could take out what we needed, but those were firebombs that typically caused wildfires to burn down square miles at a time.

The final one of our 'crimes' I'm sure that will be covered is the atom bomb. Before that thing was dropped, the Japanese were digging in, as in their culture, it was better to die in battle than face the shame of surrender. It would have cost us over 1 million lives to take those islands, and the pre-order of purple heart medals (about half what we estimated we'd need) are still being given out today. While those two bombs killed thousands of Japanese civilians, they saved 1 million American lives and millions more American injuries. Some argue that the second bomb or even the first was unnecessary, and that the Japanese would have surrendered regardless. They say the purpose of dropping it was to show the Russians that we had it, which I find hard to believe, considering a test detonation off the coast of Alaska would have sufficed.

However, knowing PBS, I must agree with the original assertion that this is an attempt by anti-war filmmakers to portray all war in a negative light, leaving no American a reference to a 'just war' when confronted with the fallacy that war can never solve anything.

[mundame]

We've been teetering on the edge for almost six months now. Calling it anything else is dishonest.


How can you say it is dishonest to call it not a recession yet if YOU are not calling it a recession either?? "Teetering on the edge" is not a recession, though I agree that's a good description of the situation.

It's either a recession or not a recession. I think we should be honest, and it's not honest to call it a recession if it's not yet. It's like calling a long, slow defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan "winning"!! I hate these propagandistic mis-definitions. I think we should say what is actually going on and not constantly try to propagandize.




We're beginning to see the result of crippling the middle class in an economy historically driven by them. Record unemployment. Housing crisis. Record energy prices. Inflation. The weakening of the dollar. Corporate scandal run amok. We haven't seen the worst yet.


Crippling the middle class????? I don't see how you get there from here. The middle class is certainly not crippled! Yet. If we are, we'll know it. This is hyperbole. It's possible for the middle class to be crippled and sometimes that happens --- like in the Great Depression. Or in Weimar, Germany, 1922-1923. Maybe we should save strong words like that for when it actually happens, God forbid. We're a little worried, a little concerned about the gas going up and the heating oil and food, but that's all so far. Worried, not crippled.

Record unemployment????? It's only 5.5%!!!!! That's GOOD or excellent by the standard of most countries, and it's fine by this country's employment history, too: I can remember 7.5%. Also 3.5%, which was awful ------ you couldn't hire anyone who could read. I'm not kidding: I was hiring then, and overheated employment isn't good either. Pulls all the Mexicans in, too, and illegal aliens from all over, definitely not good.

However, I'll give you the other complaints --- oil broke $140 per barrel today. And the market is down to 2006 levels as of today.

There may indeed be real trouble, but we don't have it yet. And I'd rather we not. No point surely in this hungry anticipation of it.

[mundame]

Stalin was a horribly nasty dictator who Patton wanted to take out while they were weak and we had the momentum (not a bad plan). Patton was also pissed that the U.S. didn't speed up the offensive fast enough to deny Berlin to the reds.

Good general, Patton........he was right, really.

Reminds me of Odierno. Obnoxious, awful people, these generals who are actually willing to fight.

But the nice generals don't win wars. There are lots of nice generals. That's the problem, and every country has it. Papa Joffre fired dozens of overaged, nice French generals at the beginning of WWI.




I've even heard the argument made that most of the Western war could have been avoided if France and England had been willing to just let Poland twist in the wind (I'm not convinced. Hitler probably would have seen weakness in the West and attacked eventually, anyway, but they did present a very convincing argument).


I'm not at all convinced because Hitler explicitly did intend to conquer all of Europe (ESPECIALLY France, just like the Kaiser wanted to, for the same reasons). And after that, the world: that means us.

And the big thing about appeasement is simply this: with every country a conqueror gobbles up, he gets stronger. Stronger in resources, and stronger in drafted soldiers, cannon fodder. And then they all come after us. Britain understood that very well in WWI, and we eventually realized it in both wars: the Atlantic would not stop raging Germans forever.



However, let's look at the facts. On the Japanese front, spies weren't even our only problem. Those of Japanese descent who were totally loyal to our country were being used as unwitting spies when 'relatives' or 'friends' they hadn't seen in a while brought up what they'd seen at the air or naval base in a 'normal' conversation. Yeah, it hurt those civilians, but it probably saved soldiers' lives, and winning the war was our only major concern at the time.

Bravo. A military historian! They are too rare.


Same goes for the bombing of German and Japanese cities. The industrial capacities of those cities were being used to manufacture tanks and planes, not to mention the garrisons, artillery emplacements, radar, and other military targets. Unlike now, we couldn't drop one bomb on one building and expect it to be the building we were aiming for. Even after the invention of the bombing sights used in the B-17, most of a block had to be leveled to make sure we got the building we were going after. In the case of Japan, where architecture was mostly flammable, a few bombs here and there could take out what we needed, but those were firebombs that typically caused wildfires to burn down square miles at a time.

Now we can drop Cruise missiles right down an elevator shaft.

But do we? No. We get bogged down in guerrilla wars for years, to no point.




The final one of our 'crimes' I'm sure that will be covered is the atom bomb. Before that thing was dropped, the Japanese were digging in, as in their culture, it was better to die in battle than face the shame of surrender. It would have cost us over 1 million lives to take those islands, and the pre-order of purple heart medals (about half what we estimated we'd need) are still being given out today. While those two bombs killed thousands of Japanese civilians, they saved 1 million American lives and millions more American injuries. Some argue that the second bomb or even the first was unnecessary, and that the Japanese would have surrendered regardless. They say the purpose of dropping it was to show the Russians that we had it, which I find hard to believe, considering a test detonation off the coast of Alaska would have sufficed.


I have read that the Japanese were not nearly as impressed with the two atom bombs as they were with the huge firebombing of Tokyo that General Lemay ordered directly after that. They surrendered after that firebombing -------- but Americans were so impressed with our atom bomb and those photos, that we don't even remember there was such a bombing of Tokyo. In either case, it had become plain that we could bomb them to Kingdom Come and they gave up.



However, knowing PBS, I must agree with the original assertion that this is an attempt by anti-war filmmakers to portray all war in a negative light, leaving no American a reference to a 'just war' when confronted with the fallacy that war can never solve anything.

Sure. We're all One World, no war no more, everybody's really nice, except us, nobody really intends us any harm, we're just being mean.

War solved Hitler, though. War solved those damn GERMANS, who just kept going on and on and on like the Terminator! There was no stopping them; they were a serious problem. They slaughtered the most fabulous number of Poles and Russians and everybody, really; they'd have done the same in Iowa and Kansas and New York and Vermont. Best to put the kibosh on all that.


And on the damn Muslims, if they keep on keeping on. Dreams of world conquest: that's no good, because that means us.

[gabosaurus]

I agree that it is an extremely stupid premise, but what does this have to do with "liberals"?

It's a freaking TV show. RSR, you need to allow more oxygen to reach what is left of your brain before you post some of this weird shit.

[namvet]

As a person pretty interested in the recent and current efforts to propagandize people into believing that our obvious military losses are somehow victories..................................

Yes, of COURSE WWII was a victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darn, anytime you've got signed surrenders and people handing you their swords ------------- you did good. That's the way.

We should avoid fighting, but if we HAVE to fight because if we don't they will certainly come after us as soon as they sew up France or China ----- then we should win, hands down, no question, like we did in 1944-45.

Guys, there's no use in sending a lot of troops abroad a long way from home just to lose a war. There just isn't. Losing wars never really works out well: ask the Germans. I suggest if that's all we can do anymore, we should leave the troops at home. Probably in most cases, that would be best anyway.


Guys, there's no use in sending a lot of troops abroad a long way from home just to lose a war. There just isn't. Losing wars never really works out well: ask the Germans. I suggest if that's all we can do anymore, we should leave the troops at home. Probably in most cases, that would be best anyway.

I agree. the next 9-11 attack we keep em home and fight em in your back yard.:lame2:

[namvet]

I know it hurts your brain to think outside the box, but there is a point here. While the US is in no way evil as Nazi Germany was in it's final solution agenda, we did have to get our hands quite dirty to beat Hitler and his minions. Many would argue that Stalin was actually more evil than Hitler in that more people actually died under his iron fist than did in Nazi Germany. Of course all that is semantics--nevertheless, exploring new viewpoints is never a bad thing--unless of course you'd prefer to have nothing but a steady stream of fluffy pro-America propaganda pumped into your head 24-hours a day. You have to admit that no side is perfect. Do Japanese internment camps ring a bell? Nuclear annihilation? Civilian bombings?


Do Japanese internment camps ring a bell? Nuclear annihilation? Civilian bombings?

does unit 731 ring a bell with you????


bAp8bSdE5MQ

[namvet]

Japanese internment camps were wholly appropriate.

The Japanese were all settled on the West Coast where the Pacific Fleet was rebuilt and repaired and sent out from. They would of course have had spies hidden among them: that was the whole point of interning the Japanese.

The Yorktown was crucial to the Battle of Midway. The Japanese thought it had been sunk. It was repaired in three days and sent out to join the battle, and if those Japs hadn't been interned in a camp inland, the enemy would have known about the Yorktown.

the Yorktown was patched up and repaired in 3 days at Pearl Harbor.

[namvet]

Here we go again. Libs rewriting history to paint America as the bad guy

Your tax dollars paid for this shit folks


IT'S ALL ONE 'WAR'

MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.

Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.

The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.

His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.

It is an illuminating viewpoint, and Ferguson does an effective job tying all of the century's mass deportations, enslavements, ethnic cleansings and genocides together so that you can't help being won over to his view that the violence of the 20th century was virtually never-ending.

But it is Ferguson's revisionist view of the tactics applied by the Allies in World War II that is likely to raise the hackles of those who have always believed in the "necessity" of bombing German and Japanese civilians, culminating in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end a war we did not start.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm

actually we did have an unholy alliance with Stalin. who at one time had an unholy alliance with Hitler to divide and conquer poland. we used Stalin because he was simply fighting the Nazi's. anyway PBS as usual is off its rocker here.

[namvet]

Good general, Patton........he was right, really.

Reminds me of Odierno. Obnoxious, awful people, these generals who are actually willing to fight.

But the nice generals don't win wars. There are lots of nice generals. That's the problem, and every country has it. Papa Joffre fired dozens of overaged, nice French generals at the beginning of WWI.




I'm not at all convinced because Hitler explicitly did intend to conquer all of Europe (ESPECIALLY France, just like the Kaiser wanted to, for the same reasons). And after that, the world: that means us.

And the big thing about appeasement is simply this: with every country a conqueror gobbles up, he gets stronger. Stronger in resources, and stronger in drafted soldiers, cannon fodder. And then they all come after us. Britain understood that very well in WWI, and we eventually realized it in both wars: the Atlantic would not stop raging Germans forever.




Bravo. A military historian! They are too rare.



Now we can drop Cruise missiles right down an elevator shaft.

But do we? No. We get bogged down in guerrilla wars for years, to no point.




I have read that the Japanese were not nearly as impressed with the two atom bombs as they were with the huge firebombing of Tokyo that General Lemay ordered directly after that. They surrendered after that firebombing -------- but Americans were so impressed with our atom bomb and those photos, that we don't even remember there was such a bombing of Tokyo. In either case, it had become plain that we could bomb them to Kingdom Come and they gave up.




Sure. We're all One World, no war no more, everybody's really nice, except us, nobody really intends us any harm, we're just being mean.

War solved Hitler, though. War solved those damn GERMANS, who just kept going on and on and on like the Terminator! There was no stopping them; they were a serious problem. They slaughtered the most fabulous number of Poles and Russians and everybody, really; they'd have done the same in Iowa and Kansas and New York and Vermont. Best to put the kibosh on all that.


And on the damn Muslims, if they keep on keeping on. Dreams of world conquest: that's no good, because that means us.


I have read that the Japanese were not nearly as impressed with the two atom bombs as they were with the huge firebombing of Tokyo that General Lemay ordered directly after that. They surrendered after that firebombing -------- but Americans were so impressed with our atom bomb and those photos, that we don't even remember there was such a bombing of Tokyo. In either case, it had become plain that we could bomb them to Kingdom Come and they gave up.



would you be impressed with either??? the fire bombings were stopped prior the A bombs. listen or read the emporer's broadcast to the nation.

[red states rule]

I agree that it is an extremely stupid premise, but what does this have to do with "liberals"?

It's a freaking TV show. RSR, you need to allow more oxygen to reach what is left of your brain before you post some of this weird shit.

Once again I am pointing out how badly the left hates America

and your tax dollars paid for it

I suspect that is really pisses you off Gabby - exposing the left to the light of day