Did Bush upset anyone else?

RE: Any other wrong “fact” Geforce?

I tend to think that the reason for the large USSR losses in WW2 was a combination of scorched earth policies and, mainly, the numerous and muderous purges of their officer and ritual execution of soldiers.

No doubts they did however fight with vigour and were instrumental in the end.

Any other wrong “fact” Geforce?

Geforce. Like a lot of your statements you are short on fact. You should get your money back from that school. Ever here of lend lease via Archangel and the mid-east etc. to Russia?

Russia did a great job in WWII. But to say something like ” the honor goes to the USSR…” (paraphrase) give me a break. Don’t bore me with your short knowledge on WWII.

elp
usa

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Hey, I hold my hand up chaps. The reason I didn’t reference my post was because I couldn’t recall the details.

But this was a reasonably big news story for about 2 or 3 days but it petered out quite quickly.

There was a debate on British TV about it (10 minutes on Newsnight I think). There were some good contributors – Nicholas Soames (former UK Defence Minister) was one of them, and I believe he actually used the word “atrocity”.

But in any case – the CIA is hardly whiter-than-white, is it? I don’t find it difficult to believe they could do something like this.

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Sauron,

have to agree with you. I also remember NO mention of US atrocities during the fort incident. I think the CIA agent, who was working as an interrogator, was named Mike Spann and I’m sure I’ve seen references to another CIA agent being rescued by British special forces. As far as I can recall, the Taliban prisoners were gathered in the fort but for some reason were not disarmed or they had a number of concealed weapons. They then turned on their Northern Alliance captors and re-took the fort. Ithink all this happened well before Royal Marines were deployed to Afghanistan.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Mongu

Can you provide a source for your claim that the US committed an ‘absolute atrocity’ or is this a reference to the fight in the old fort between the Taliban fighters who were captured by the Northern Alliance and who subsequently revolted and were then killed by the Northern Alliance troops? I seen to recall that US involvement on the ground at that time was limited to CIA teams and special forces and if so, it would seem more likely that if UK forces were involved they would have been SAS rather than the Royal Marines but I am not sure.

As I recall, a CIA member by the name of Span was killed by Taliban prisoners and a number of US and possibly British forces were injured by a US bomb which was delivered off-target during the battle and there may have indeed been a rescue of another American involving Btitish forces. In any event, I don’t recall any reliable reports of US and British forces committing atrocities. Perhaps you are referring to reports published by Taliban or pro-Taliban sources. At the time and latter there were daily reports floated by the Taliban and their supporters of massacres and atrocities commited by anti-Taliban forces and the US. Of course these stories make great fodder for the US haters.

Regards

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Well, to stray a little off point…

There was a reference to the CIA chap at the fort revolt being rescued by the Marines. Is this the same fort revolt where the US committed an absolute atrocity?

You remember – release the prisoners, return their weapons and then mow them all down for trying to “escape”? And then praise the “patriotism” of the perpetrators…

And the US wonders why half of the world hates them!

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

I’m not 100% sure about this one, but i’ve always thought that during GWII, the British insisted on using the Tornados for anti-airfield simply because that’s what it was designed for and that’s what the pilots been trained for. In fact the Tornado was the only one in the war equipped with the anti-airfield weapons, during the GWII it was obvious to use that asset. It’s just unfortunately that the result didn’t end up like the successes in training. I remember during the build up (desert shield) many news brocasts was showing off test films of Tornados dispersing anti-runway weapons to hail its effectiveness (don’t know if it was used, but certainly made a very awesome display of firepower). As to US military being viewed as “inconsiderate” of others, I personally think that’s not right. I think the problem is that US politicians always wanted to meddle in what the military is asked to do in the first place. Soldiers only know to win the war, but politicians always wanted a win in a certain way to maximize their “future”. Very sad. Let’s just hope US don’t go down the drain like the Roman Empire. Very sad indeed.

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Hi, Vortex.

“then isn’t it not that instead of being “incompetent” as portrayed here of the entire US military, the fact that bombing at medium altitude with a stealthy platform is the way to go? Just comparing the loses of Tornados, you’ll realize that at that point in time, the US stragists were completely right and that the Night Hawk was devastating, being courageous or not.”

A good point. With hindsight then, wouldn’t it have been better for the stealth aircraft to have taken on the airfields and the Tornados to have carried out medium altitude bombing?

“But that’s in hind sight. A huge amount of those pilots bombing Baghdad didn’t think so, most of them think it wouldn’t work and they’ll end up being shot down over Baghdad, because that’s where the highest concentration of AAA and SAMs are at. Courage is not measured by how many people died, but how many willing to face the dangers of unknown.”

I accept that and I like the part about courage, this is true. I don’t doubt the courage of US servicemen, they have left their graves strewn across the globe. It just seems that sometimes the US Government starts a task which puts the lives of others at risk. An example would be Mogadishu or the Balkans where they committed massive aerial resources but fewr ground elements.

“As to not attributing to the British in WWII, what are you guys talking about? That is why we all know such things as the Battle of Britain. That’s where RAF really gain it’s reputation without argument.”

I didn’t say that the US bid not attribute the British in WWII. As for the Battle of Britain, it was the success of the RAF which went a long way to ensuring Britain continued the war and was not invaded. People are also aware of the contribution of American pilots like Billy Fiske who fought of their own volition, some of whom paid the ultimate price.

“Very ironic, it seems like it’s the other way around where nobody in Europe knows about the important things of the Tuskegee
Airmans, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc…”

You may have a point. Although I know about the Tuskegee airmen (and not just from the recent flypast), I suppose much of our knowledge about the Pacific theatre such as Iwo Jima, Tarawa etc., comes from John Wayne films. I admit this is an area which sadly I know little of, and it is something I must in all conscience try to correct. I do know that US forces lost enormous numbers of men. I also know that without the dropping of the atomic bomb it is highly likely that my father and several uncles would not be here now.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Kev35, then isn’t it not that instead of being “incompetent” as portrayed here of the entire US military, the fact that bombing at medium altitude with a stealthy platform is the way to go? Just comparing the loses of Tornados, you’ll realize that at that point in time, the US stragists were completely right and that the Night Hawk was devastating, being courageous or not. But that’s in hind sight. A huge amount of those pilots bombing Baghdad didn’t think so, most of them think it wouldn’t work and they’ll end up being shot down over Baghdad, because that’s where the highest concentration of AAA and SAMs are at. Courage is not measured by how many people died, but how many willing to face the dangers of unknown. The British at the beginning thought that going low and fast is the safest thing, but they’ve learned for the rest that that’as not the way to go in certain situations. The American stealth fighter pilots thought they’re probably not going to make it, i’ve forgot the original estimates but it wasn’t too optimistic (except those people who designed and managed the planes who are 100% confident). As to not attributing to the British in WWII, what are you guys talking about? That is why we all know such things as the Battle of Britain. That’s where RAF really gain it’s reputation without argument. Very ironic, it seems like it’s the other way around where nobody in Europe knows about the important things of the Tuskegee Airmans, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc…

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

First of all we’re now a long,long way from where this thread started, and it’s all getting a bit confusing (sorry Gef).

World War II. No one in their right mind can diminish the role the US played in that conflict. Lend-lease was a lifeline that Britain desperately needed. American involvement in Europe and the Middle East was, of course, vital. But if Britain and her Commonwealth allies had buckled between 1939 and 1942, there would not have been a chance that the US alone could have defeated Germany and freed Europe. This American involvement in Europe is why I started the thread in the first place. I was disgusted that a current US President could openly be so disrespectful to his fellow countrymen.

Other people started to rip the US military to pieces (you know who), and I responded to a piece about Gulf War Tornados. It was said that the USAF and their allies took the same risks. I just pointed out that low and fast to a heavily defended target in daylight entails considerably more risk than bombing from altitude, at night in an aircraft that is virtually invisible to radar.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Skythe, Vortex, Jim

I am pleased to see that there are folks on this form who have an open mind and a fair view of the contributions of not only the USA but all the countries who contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers in WWII. Each country did what it could within the limitations of its capabilities and suffered the consequences of its own policies both good and bad, before, during and post war.

The few revisonists and hate mongers here who have the habit of blaming the USA for all past, present (and future) sins actually perform a useful service as they remind the majority of us how sad we would also sound if we were to sing that song.

Regards

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

I’ve got to agree we with Vortex. Trying to downplay American contribution during both World Wars is a rather ungrateful revision of history.

When the USA entred the first World War (late 1917, early 1918), the war on the western front was in such a stalemate that the front lines had hardly moved since the end of 1914! War was expected to last for years more, thousands of thousands of men were dying for nothing, and initiative was lost on both sides. Furthermore, the western allies were now also facing the prospect of stronger Germnan opposition due to the ceasefire reached on the eastern front between Germany and the Bolshoviks now in control of Russia. It was the injection of fresh American blood and initiative by Pershing and the American Task Force that played a huge role in allowing the allies to finally win.

During World War II the Chinese did practically anything but fight. The Koumitang government was more busy containing Communists in the North than actually resisting the Japanese. When Japan finally surrendered, Japanese positions in China were in fact completely intact. What Chinese land they had retreated from was not won due to Chinese fighting but due to the need to conserve resources (due to the American bombing offensive against industry and shipping lanes) and the need to send troops to protect the home islands. The most prominet piece of land actually liberated by Chinese troops was in fact northern Burma, and there they were led by US General Joseph Stillwel.

While it true that the Russians played the most prominent role in Europe and would have probably beaten Germany even without the opening of the western front, who knows how they would have fared without American assistance in form of Lend-Lease and the Bomber Offensive. The war would have doubtless gone on for a few more years, millions more would have died, not to mention Communism taking over entire Europe as far as the Atlantic. Yes, many people, of many nations payed with theit lives, but Europe should be eternally grateful for American assitance in the war, thousands of miles from its shores. The thousands of graves on the Normandy beaches are a testament to that.

As for the Gulf War, please: Tornado crew were indeed very valiant but that is a detail out of a much bigger picture. American forces constituted the vast majority of allied force, and it was American air power that made the difference. Save for Britain, European contribution was mainly token, and even those forces would not have been there if it was not for the American presence. Does anyone thing that Britain, France and Italy would have fought for the liberation of Kuwait had the effort not been led by the US? Of course not. They couln’t even take care of thing in their own back yard (Yugoslavia) without American assistance.

Finally I’ve got to say that seeing the claim that “The past 50 years, Europe has been raped by two superpowers who both wanted to make profit out of the continent.” is one of the funniest things said here in quite a while. It is in complete ignorance of the fact that European peace and prosperity is in much part due to American assitance and the American protective umbrella. Europeans seem to take for granted much of their freedom and prosperity. For heaven’s sake, it is the Marshall plan that allowed a rebuilt Germany after the war, how can you talk about ‘rape’? Bsides, for the past millenia ‘benevolent’ Europe has been the harbringer of death to every corner of the world. What dignity Europe has ever lost, is entirely it’s own fault.

—————————————-
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil –
Dr. Evil: It’s Dr. Evil, I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called “mister,” thank you very much.

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Hi Geforce, I don’t think you can single one nation out as having the “honour” of defeating Germany, it was a combined effort. The amazing thing is that no one nation, no matter how industrial or populous, was capable of defeating Germany!

However, one nation that deserves special mention, but usually neglected in favour of its bigger allies, is Great Britain. They remained at war with Germany even when standing alone, with one of its later allies appearing to have sided with Germany.

Cheers,
James

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-06-02 AT 09:18 AM (GMT)]Country Military / Killed Military / Wounded Civilian
Australia 23.365 39.803 –
Belgium 12.000 ? 76.000
Brazil 943 4.222 –
Bulgaria 10.000 ? 10.000
Canada 37.476 53.174 –
China 1.310.224 1.752.951 ?
Czechoslovakia 10.000 ? 215.000
Denmark 1.800 ? 2.000
Finland 82.000 50.000 2.000
France 213.324 400.000 350.000
Germany 3.500.000 5.000.000 780.000
Greece 88.300 ? 325.000
Hungary 200.000 ? 290.000
India 24.338 64.354 –
Italy 242.232 66.000 152.941
Japan 1.300.000 4.000.000 672.000
Netherlands 7.900 2.860 208.000
New Zealand 10.033 19.314 –
Norway 3.000 ? 7.000
Philippines 27.000 ? 91.000
Poland 123.178 236.606 5.675.000
Romania 300.000 ? 200.000
South Africa 6.840 14.363 –
Soviet Union 11.000.000 ? 7.000.000
United Kingdom 264.443 277.077 92.673
United Kingdom (other colonies) 6.877 6.972 –
USA 292.131 671.801 6.000
Yugoslavia 305.000 425.000 1.200.000

http://www.skalman.nu/worldwar2/stupade.htm

USSR has lost 50 times as much men as the USA.

Yeah Belgians didn’t suffer. It was not like the Ukrain here, Hitler didn’t want to gas the people living in Belgium. But the thousands of bombs that fell on our country, V-2’s on Antwerp …

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-06-02 AT 07:07 AM (GMT)]Hey, you European lefties, if you want to redicule Bush, fine, equal redicule of the backboneless Europeans happens here. But, please don’t try to rewrite history to fit present day emotions. Back to WWI, go and ask most European historians and they’ll tell you that before the US entering, it was a huge stalemate in trench warfare. Infact that stalemate lasted for a huge part of the WWI, and with fresh American GIs, a break through in that stalemate finally happened. Sure, it wasn’t anything of military might from the US, because the US clearly wasn’t too powerful back then, but it was enough to break that stalemate instead of sending even more young men from both sides to death which will quickly leave Europe with no future.
As to WWII, first of all, Chinese didn’t do too much. Many Chinese died, but their efforts were pretty much useless due to the desire of CKS to keep his core. Do you know how many US airman died in WWII trying to bomb the German industrial base? Do you know what’s the average mission expectancies for a US bomber crew? But, it is true that the US and Russians didn’t save all Europe as not all Europeans suffered, ie, Spain, Portugal, half of the French who sold themselves out, Netherland, Denmark,and Belgium (really, besides humiliating lightning loses and JEWS suffering, didn’t hear too much resistance there. Nobody likes occupying forces, but besides that people like the Dutch really don’t have too much “loses” there). As to Tornados doing low level bombing runs, without the buddy lasing Bucs, the Tornados of GWII really can’t do much besides going in low and fast. that’s the fact. If used at higher altitudes, the Tornados would’ve reduce it’s already low sorte rates.
As to Indochina, the US did secretly supported in getting the French out of that mess…but unfortunately, the US politicians in those days thought the US could’ve done better, then the rest is history.

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-06-02 AT 06:20 AM (GMT)]In the pacific the US had a big role, but in Europe, that honour goes to the Russians. Sure, invading whole Europe would have cost the Soviets lots of lives, but I don’t think Stalin would care about that. The battle of Stalingrad was for the Germans the point of no return. The Russian tactics were also cruel, so I can imagine your case of bio-warfare. Their scorched-earth policy was also bad for the German moral. But history is not simple, and the Russians and Allies shacked hands in Torgau.

OK, America did do efforts to win this war, but some like us to believe that it was America who won this war, while it is so clear that Russia, Chinese resistance, played also a big role.

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

“In fact the US also played a small role in WWII. In school; I’ve always learned to be very grateful towards the US for saving our democratic asses. It was the Russians who defeated the Germans at the east front (Stalingrad).”

Hi Geforce, do you really believe that? US logistical support alone was a big factor in the eventual victory of the combined allied forces. I seriously doubt the the Soviets alone, without the diversion of German effort and the huge western allies supplies to the Russians, could have beaten the Axis. Picture a Germany that didn’t have to expend massive efforts in defending against the Strategic Bomber Offensive, building “Fortess Europe”, carrying out the naval offensive in the North-Atlantic (and Med. to a lesser extent), to name a few.

As for Stalingrad, not to take anything away from the great victory, but more Axis troops were lost in the fall of Tunis. Also, it seems that the Soviets used Biological weapons (in this case Tuleremia)against the (planned) relieving Axis forces.

Cheers,
James

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Geforce

Your right we shouldn,t pay much attention to your views and we don’t.

Regards

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-05-02 AT 07:33 PM (GMT)]In fact the US also played a small role in WWII. In school; I’ve always learned to be very grateful towards the US for saving our democratic asses. It was the Russians who defeated the Germans at the east front (Stalingrad). Normandy was just playtime compared to the east-front for most Germans. The Allies only interfered after it was decided Germany would lose the war. But when did a western president ever think of visiting graves from Russian soldiers? 60 years after WWII !!!

But on the other hand, after WWII, it was the US who saved us from being overrun by the Russians (who would have definitally conquered Europe from the Germans). US played a much bigger role after WWII than in WWII.

Ohh, as a Euro-liberal (who shouldn’t be paid too much attention to) I want to say : disband NATO. US military get the hell out of Europe and stop using Europe as your hub-base for your own military-political-diplomatic (which is about the same in the US) goals. The past 50 years, Europe has been raped by two superpowers who both wanted to make profit out of the continent. It’s about time we give back what belongs to its rightful owner: dignity!

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Flanker

On behalf of everyone here, thanks for clearing that US contribution during WWII up.

Regards