Nazi's & Western Allies Combine Forces Against Russia

Yes, I have read much and watched even more on History/Discovery type tv programs regarding the use of US soldiers as guinea pigs for early nuclear experiments. Nice that our soldiers did not fully understand what they were being used for. Those poor souls were the ones that were innocently naive. An excellent example of what big centralized government thinks of the average citizen. Myself, I would have emptied the prisons of the common criminals to use as nuke fodder and also WITHOUT ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR.

I also went through the drills of DUCK AND COVER while in grade schools in the late 50s and even at that tender age realized what b***s*** the exercise actually was. In my mind, there was never any possibility of surviving any nuclear attack. DUCK AND COVER was nothing more than a pychological feel-good exercise.

As for the West losing its spine, the last time I checked, the Soviet Union was still gone.............kaput, into the dustpan of history. Simply amazing................ that was accomplished without a single nuke fired off. Pmp40fire:

 

It's even worse, the West had already lost its spine before the end of WWII

For example, Eisenhower says :

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. [...] During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

Japan already defeated ? It was an island full of samuraïs, you cut their arms off, they bite you !

Shocking world opinion ? Who cares ! Only the judgement of God matters !

No longer mandatory to save American lives + Japan seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face' ?
If you don't allow them to surrender with a minimum loss of face, you have to invade them and loose soldiers, and then you have to nuke them to avoid such a loss, point proven !

Anyway, what this Eisenhower guy known on the subject ?

We all know that, once Hitler was dead, the Commies faced only wimp leaders in the west.

Ah ! I miss the good ol' days of Sparta

 

T.A. I must say that I am quite surprised at such a comment from you. The West lost its spine??

We are speaking of Europe are we not? The same continent which fought the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, Napoleon and not to forget 2 world wars in less then 30 years???

Frankly I dont blame the Europeans for just wanting to relax for a little bit, not to mention that another such conflict would once again be fought on the European continent.

I wonder how the U.S. might feel about going to war again in its backyard if 2 world wars were fought on the North American continent in less then 30 years?

 

For some, nonstop war is an aphrodisiac. :skull: Hail to the chief!!!

 

Good to hear from someone who is well informed

And for some pony tails and far too much weed

 

chocapic I was confused by your post... which parts were sarcastic and what where you realy trying to say?

If Western (Europe and America) views on war are that any losses are to many, does that mean that there is nothing worth dying for now? I am not trying to say that there should be wars over everything, but somethings are worth that sacrifice. Freedom for example. If we think that talking will change every situation to a positive solution, practice ought to be given to the phrase, "I surrender".

 

And from someone who has an outstanding excellent signature

Careful, you'll shoot your eye out kid

 

I meant I agreed with TA, I think the USA would have used nuclear weapons against a big game as USSR, given the fact they used it against a healthy and threatening Japan.

I also agree there was a slight change of balance between spine and brain in the West some decades ago, Eisenhower's doubts and critics about nuking Japan are good examples of this. Let's get spinal, Gents !

About fighting for freedom, I totally agree with tikilal, freedom is worth fighting for, and I think that's easily proven by the fact all countries going at war claim they do it for freedom and I have yet to see a country going at war to protect the valors of oppression and tyrany.

 

Not very hard to find some excellent examples of countries going to war to protect oppression and tyranny: Nazi Germany and Communist Russia quickly come to mind. Would be quite a stretch to believe that Hitler and Stalin thought they were protecting freedom of some sort.

 

Thus we enter the beautiful world of words and their meanings. Freedom. To illustrate my point lets take the history of the war in post-Columbian North America. After Spain, the Netherlands, the British set up colonies, various wars war fought with the local population. Was anyone fighting for freedom? Was it for land to be free on? Or was it for protection/defense? From the native perspective the French-Indian war was fought over British/American aggressiveness.

Once that was over and the colonies decided that England had to go were the rebels fighting for freedom or for the perceived right of self governance? If it was for freedom, then why not freedom for all? Who would decide who would be free and who wouldn’t? If it was about freedom then why was Canada invaded?

The next set of wars were fought against England and Spain. England because the British were supposedly not respecting the States, and Spain for territory in Florida. Neither of these can be construed as freedom oriented other than for the poor pressed American sailors. We also will not mention the small wars with the natives for land.

The Mexican American war was fought again over land. Maybe the Mexicans like the freedoms that they had. If it was about freedom then why did the United States pay Mexico for the land that it took?

Now the Civil War. Was this fought for the freedom of the slaves? Was this fought over the freedom to leave the Union?

Then there was the Spanish American war that was again fought of supposed offenses but was really about land. Was anyone freed from the Spanish rule, or were more people brought under American oppression?

What about the occupation of Veracruz? The port was occupied because American didn’t like what the Mexicans were doing. Was that done because the freedom of shipping was in danger?

The Great War (WWI) was not fought by the Americans for freedom, but because some chump German killed 120 (or so) Americans on a boat.

World War II was not fought by the Americans to liberate peoples of the world from Japanese cruelty, perhaps from the Germans. If this is why the war was fought by America then why was it not waged against every oppressive regime in the world? Was it truly about freedom?

Korea… Freedom? Freedom of who?
Vietnam?
Gulf War?
Iraq?

I know that I have left out other “police actions” and conflicts but they also fall under this category. If we say that war should only be fought for freedom then the US has a lot of talking to do, every country does. Oh and again what is freedom? What is the good of the people and their rights and how do these interact with freedom?

Each person needs to think about what their life is worth, then evaluate the way they live and do things, “Does what I am doing reflect the what my life is worth?” Each nation has the same responsibility. This also has to do with national identity. Because at some point in time boarders change. I don’t know that there is one valid answer but this is great because it allows for intelligent debate.

I think I have said enough for now.

 

Good point, I agree with you at 99 %.

That what I implied when I said all wars are claimed to be fought for freedom, whatever is the real aim.

For example, consider the case of fighter in Irak nowadays, attacking US soldiers, and this guy is aiming at creating an Iraki state, where Irakis who don't belong to his own ethnical/religious group won't be represented and won't have any access to power.

the guy aims at freedom for the group he belongs to, but oppression to other groups. Does he deserves to be labelled a freedom fighter ? I don't think so.

Now for the 1% I don't agree :

You say : "World War II was not fought by the Americans to liberate peoples of the world from Japanese cruelty, perhaps from the Germans. If this is why the war was fought by America then why was it not waged against every oppressive regime in the world? Was it truly about freedom?"

I'm not naive to the point I think there were no secondary goals or afterthoughts, and I'm perhaps a little biaised as USA kicked the Nazis out of my country, but I think this was really about freedom.

 

It's like trying to nail down water.

"Treason never prospers what's the reason?
For if it prosper none dare call it treason."

Cheers,
Adam.

 

In your perspective it was about freedom after 1940, and I am glad that you feel free now. But what about those that ended up as prisoners, dead or regulated because of where they ended up.

As to the nail and the water.... creating a world fair and free to everyone.

 

William Shakespeare, "Coriolanus", act III

 

I totally agree!! The question is though, in who's perspective?

 

I always like the freedom to kick ass

 

lol

That freedom may be the one most at risk. Its just not Politically Correct anymore to do that.

 

It's a wonderful freedom to enjoy. Some as the freedom not to appreciate it when you are on the receiving end and then pay the compliment back.