Is those that allow media to be distributed. Things you were not told about. ------------------------------- The allies. the good guys. Killed 100 thousand german children in bombing germany in ww2. Some say it was a loss 'we' had to bare. Total effect of Allied bombing of germany. 20% loss of war production . [for a month or so] If i was a soldier in US army i would gladly allow a ZERO loss in german war production and have to fight a 20% harder battle to save those children. What actually happened is that the UK an US wanted to test effects of their new toys.. The lancaster and b17. Children be damned.. And we are the good guys. -------------------------------- Hundreds of Nuclear weapons have been detonated On earth. Many were megaton tests by Us and USSR . All above ground. So when your told nukes will cause fatal radiation or pollute atmosphere.. . your already breathing it. --------------------------------- For australians Galipoli was a sideshow for British military. A diversion.. so less UK soldiers would die in Palestine. --------------------------------- 7 million tons of bombs were dropped on north Vietnam. More firepower than all the wars in human history before that. As most weapons were imported.. The only effect was millions of women and children died. But because they were commie gooks.. it is overlooked. --------------------------------- The USSR was never any serious adversary to the US And the USSR knew it. False? Then why is it dead Vaya con dios Prill
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it, I'm afraid. It's not just the lost war production that matters, is it? It's all the fighter planes that had to be kept in Germany to defend the Reich. What would have happened it they had been available for supporting Germany's front-line fighting troops instead. And all teh anti-aircraft artillery which defended the German cities. What would have happened if there had been twice as many 88s available to defend Kursk against the Soviet armoured onslaught? If Russia had collapsed, there could have been no successful Operation Overlord; and probably no Operation Torch. So your American GI wouldn't have had the option of fighting a 20% tougher battle. There would have been no battle. Yes, we WERE the good guys ... but we were fighting a total war, and the first imperative was to WIN. And that meant taking the fight to the enemy in whatever way we could. It's all very well to sit back 70 years later and say "Ah ... but if it had been up to me ... I could have done it SO much better". You'll never get the chance to prove it though ... or to find that you're wrong in makign that assumption. For the guys on the ground at the time, back in the dark days of 1941 when German was triumphant everywhere and when Britain stood alone against the evils of Nazism, Bomber Command was the only weapon we had to strike back and take the fight to the Germans. It had nothign to do with "wanting to try out new toys".
Aliied bombing raids were restricted. Factories owned by US corporations could not be bombed..Yes business as usual even in war. So ball bearings from these factories went in to Messerschmidt bf109's and Focker Wulf 190's. To shoot down the bombers that were sent to bomb The nation hey were in. ps.. Kursk .. the AT 88's are PAK 88 not FLAK 88 a different gun ,. And KURSK was A GERMAN offensive. A german Onslaught. They ATTACKED On the north face of Kursk bulge the Germans lost 50,000 men at ponri in one day. In the south At prokharovka. The largest tank battle in history. The BIG 3 . 1st SS pz. 2nd ssPZ Das reich, and totenkoppf '3rd' Plus other units Met the soviet 5th guards tank army. A unit tailored to fight this battle.. The soviets were not stupid. 3000 tanks basically blew eathother up till the germans withdrew. In the end.. we all eat MacDonalds and worship freedom and liberty, two words that mean the same thing. LOOOOLLLLLLL
Very funny indeed...? You're weird, is it so hilarious to find this out. Or are you laughing at the masses to share this not so unique outlook. Of course being on the 'good' side in a war doesn't mean they're not partaking in any atrocities nor does it mean there can't be other motives. I think even if you hate the western consumerism America brought here (we wanted it btw) and even if you have an objective view on the second WW you still should be grateful of the allied invasion. I doubt it would have been better if you were living in the third reich. I agree history is far from absolute science though. And good and bad depends on who's side your on mostly.
You in the post before me. Otherwise I'd have quoted the specific post. It kinda makes you come across as the hysterical historian with the LOL and the smilies next to these rather serious statements.
Asmodean.. All of my information is valid. The kursk reference material is accurate. afaik I make no comment on your post other to say. What i say is totally valid except for US bombing patterns regarding US companies in germany. Im still working on this but it seems strange US interests were not bombed. There is no law that says war invalidated ownership. What is owned in germany by chrysler .. Is not German when war starts. its Chrysler. No-one took over the US factories in germany..[in the name of germany] All the best prill
Same gun, actually. The 88mm FlAK was first used in the AT role in France in 1940 against the British Matilda IIs because nothign else could penetrate their frontal armour. A captured British tanker said "I say! It's jolly unsporting of you chaps to use anti-aircraft guns to knock out tanks" To which his captors replied "Ja! And its' jolly unsporting of you British to use tanks that can't be knocked out by anything except an anti-aircraft gun" The exchange is well documented, and does rather demonstrate that the gun was the same weapon, even if the mount was different.
Beachball Very true. But Flieger Abwehr Kannon had limited sights for ground warfare and Panzer AK had no sights for AA. Same barrel [except pak had gas venter at end.] Same gun . different weapons system. If we start glossing over the details.. It all falls to shit. How was a greek Hoplite unit organised? Vague historical references forgotten and ignored do nothing but wash out human history. WW2 is ancient history to most of the young now. Only they who have interest and desire to now.. Keep its history alive outside dusty books. What many call the obsessed. I obsess over many periods. One being ww2. another Korea. another geopolitical structure of world from 1950 to 1990. Also Greece and Rome to a lesser degree. Be well
History is the study and analyzing of the past and is often not an absolute science. It generally already differs per country and sometimes it's altered afterwards. There's lots of accurate data in historical sources, we just have to validate it all. Lots of people are trying to do this with the right intentions. Some of them also have shady intentions of course. I would not declare it all a load of shit though.
As academic exercise, history is the study of the past. In fact no "past" is extant and our study then is how things come to be the way they are. In this guise our most accurate portrayals are buried in archetype and myth. These are the underlying patterns of current emergence from which comes the observation that history repeats itself. In addition we may observe that history is always told in the present. That is historical perspective is informed as much by the present as from records of the past.
Indeed, it's funny to see history itself keeps changing if you see how we looked at certain era's (and also complete cultures) in for example the 70's compared to now. I think our perspective on the islam is a good example. Historical perspective can be both clouding and clarifying so it's good to keep in mind how subjective the teachings you get may be. Anyway, we only get more insights (and facts) with time To me history is among the most intriguing subjects in the world.
But it's not glossing over the details, is it? It's the same tube. If we weren't bombing them to buggery, then they wouldn't have had to mount those tubes on a FlAK mount, and would have been able to put them onto a PAK mount instead and sent them where more anti-tank capability was required. There's a difference between not glossing over the details, and getting so fixated with the details of the trees that you never stand back and take a good look at the woods. More to the point, even if they were different tubes, the effor tthat went into makking them could have been diverted into makign something else if they didn't have a pressing need for more and more FlAK to defend the Reich against the bombing effort ... so it still comes back to the same thing. The bomber offensive diverted resources from the front line to the defence of the Reich, and the front line was weaker as a consequence.
Beachball So the destruction by firebombing of 50,000 mostly women and children in dresden feb '45. A most hideous way to die. Would effect what.. as the armed forces would never receive anything from dresden [city of cathedrals] but prayer. I use the dresden example not to change minds , but to show that allied morality and reason. Was not wholely JUST and GOOD. That WW2 was not a good war. The motivations and acts of the German power system were evil in many respects. But many acts by the Allies..were horrific. And the alliance to the USSR a dictatorship more evil than Germany. Sort of makes us look like idiots. We allied with a greater evil to destroy a lesser one. ---------------------- Ps you comments on the 36 [to generalise] 88mm gun are true.. The use in PZ V1 tiger.. the l56 is more pertinent as most of the gamer/ historians crawl in dirt at name of 'tiger', what a joke. I concede on issue. It is fundamentally irrelevant , i got lost in trees. Be well
I do not have to defend the Dresden raid to make good my point ... and I do not dissent from your basic premise that both sides did some pretty terrible, and arguably indefensible, things (starting with the second A-bomb and working on back from there). However, I do nto accept that this forces us to conclude that we (or rather, our grandparents' and great grandparents' generation) in the Western alliance were not the "good guys" on this occasion. If your premise is that there is no such thing as a "good guy" in war then I'll accept that this premise leads to the conclusion that we were not "good guys"; but I do not accept that premise and I am not sure that it is your premise in any event. :daisy:
