Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


War Criminals - Other History - The Lounge - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2013 12:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  As always, it is the victors who decide who the: "War criminals" were.

General Tomoyuki Yamashita   Posting the article does not imply that I agree with all the conclusions made by the author or those in the Comments section.

  General MacArthur was one of my greatest childhood heroes. I hated Mr. Truman for firing him. But as I continued to study history, I realized that MacArthur had been wrong in Korea (About the willingness of the Chinese to enter the war, and worse in attempting to make foreign policy,which is not the function of a general). He was also wrong in the case of General Yamashita.

Last edited on Sat Feb 16th, 2013 12:27 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2013 09:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Can't much say it would shock me, my opnion of MacArthur isn't exactly the best after reading an article on Historynet on MacArthur and Ike several years back. Not really a huge Ike fan, I mean I know who he is and I respect him to a certain degree. But then as a kid I respected Custer and MacArthur as well and then as a teen and young adult I learned some things to make me loose respect for them. Ike had his flaws that may make me loose respect for him if I ever read them. http://www.historynet.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-douglas-macarthurs-aide-in-the-1930s.htm



 Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2013 09:26 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat-

  MacArthur said that Eisenhower was the best clerk he ever had. Eisenhower said that he studied dramatics under MacArthur.

  I learned long ago that strong personalities tend to clash, and that there is only room for one prima donna on the stage.

Last edited on Tue Feb 19th, 2013 09:41 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2013 11:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Personally I get the feeling that to MacArthur everyone who wasn't named Douglas MacArthur was a clerk.



 Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2013 03:39 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

MacArthur was an interesting guy. Great WW2 leader. But he couldn't adapt to the new way of fighting wars in the post WW2 world. Patton would have been the same way if he had lived. They believed in complete victory and nothing less. Why go to war without total victory your goal? Unfortunately for MacArthur, Truman didn't see it that way and we got what we got.

General LeMay of the bomber forces in Europe supposedly remarked he was glad he was on the winning side otherwise he would have been up on war criminal charges.



 Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2013 03:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62-

  General Curtis LeMay is best known for his role in the campaign of firebombing dozens of Japanese cities. High level bombing by the B-29s had had limited success due to high winds over the Japanese Islands.

  General LeMay was brought in and he decided that it was necessary to make lower level attacks on Japanese targets, and that the bombers would be relatively safe due to a lack of night fighter opposition. He turned out to be right, and Japanese cities were highly flammable.

  The great firebombing raid on Tokyo on 09 March 1945 killed more people than either of the atomic bombs that were dropped in August of that year, which caused the Japanese to finally surrender. It has always been difficult for me to understand the indignation of the Japanese over being subjected to the atomic bombs, when the conventional bombings caused so many more casualties.

  At any rate, General LeMay would have been high up on a list of: "War criminals" that the Japanese might have assembled if the war had turned out differently.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curtis LeMay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited on Wed Feb 20th, 2013 04:02 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2013 05:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Peshtigo Paradigm. Dresden and Tokyo were prime examples of a fire that cost more lives, property damage, and area but was largely ignored at the time it occured only to be studied by the military decades later in order to make fire bombing more devastating.



 Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2013 05:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat-

  You're absolutely right about the U.S. military studying the 1871 Peshtigo fire during WW II in order to learn how to maximize conditions to create firestorms. When you are fighting a war for national survival, you use whatever means that you have at your disposal. You don't try to fight using the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.



 Posted: Thu May 2nd, 2013 12:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

  On this date in 1945, Berlin finally fell to the Russians. There was little that the defenders of the city could do to keep from being overwhelmed by the hordes of attackers.

BBC - History - World Wars: The Battle for Berlin in World War Two

  Large numbers of Russian soldiers committed acts of violence against German civilians, particularly women. As many saw it, they were simply repaying the Germans for similar acts committed by German soldiers when the Germans were going from west to east.

  The difference was that our ertswhile allies, the Russians, were on the winning side in the war. German soldiers (And others on the losing side) who were guilty of similar crimes were prosecuted as war criminals after the war, but those on the Allied side were not pursued.

'They raped every German female from eight to 80' | Books | The Guardian

  In 1945, the Russians built a war memorial to their dead soldiers in Berlin, where it still stands today. Some German women refer to it as the: "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist."



 Posted: Fri May 3rd, 2013 12:06 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Gee, I'm shocked. After all according to some only the US soldiers raped anyone in the war.

And yeah, that was sarcasm. But there is a bit of a point in there to consider. Neither side was innocent of the crime of rape and no one particular nation on either side was the only one whose soldiers were guilty of it.



 Posted: Fri May 3rd, 2013 12:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat-

  We're in agreement that both sides committed criminal acts (up to and including mass murder). But the point that I was trying to illustrate was that the term: "War criminal" was only applied to those on the losing side. The victors got to pass judgement on the losers.

Last edited on Fri May 3rd, 2013 12:31 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Fri May 3rd, 2013 01:19 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

At that time, TD. Since then look at some of what has happened. You have folks declaring who all the war criminals were. And the irony I find is that they only want the members of the Axis and Americans to be the only war criminals of the war while overlooking any crimes committed by soldiers from other Allied nations. Looting for example, look at all the souvenirs American soldiers brought home during and after the war. Not just battlefield souvenirs but things taken from folks houses. We know members of the Axis nations did this and they have been accused of this crime. And we know Americans were doing it and folks today accuse Americans of it (and if caught be the right individual soldiers could get accused of it during the war though they wouldn't have beencalled war criminals for it). Americans also get accused for rape, murder, and just about anything else Axis war crimnals were accused of at that time. Yet those saying this want to ignore that soldiers from other Allied nations were just as guilty.

It disturbes me that there seem to be so many today who want to say that only the Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Americans committed any and all crimes during WWII while other nation's soldiers were saints.

I understand your point was to illustrate that the victor declres who is a war criminal and who isn'. But it felt to me like you were saying that only the Soviets were guilty of rape on the Allied side. I'm fairly certain I've read somewhere that the Soviet soldiers may have committed the highest rate of rape on the Allied side. But I was trying to say that they weren't the only ones guilty of it.



 Posted: Fri May 3rd, 2013 03:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat-

  I have a hard time understanding your apparent contention that of all the Allied nations, it is only the Americans who are being condemned for criminal actions committed during WW II.

  Obviously, it was well known at the end of the war that the Russians had committed many atrocities during the drive into German territory. It was also known that they executed many of their own citizens who were returned to them by forced repatriation. Since then, it has been proven that the infamous massacre of thousands of Polish officers was done by the Russians and not the Germans.

  In the Pacific Theater, the conflict degenerated into a war of extermination. On the Allied side, questionable actions were covered up, often for decades, until people started talking. For example, there were instances when Allied (Not just American) pilots machinegunned shipwrecked Japanese survivors, which was against the Hague Convention of 1907. The rationale was that surviving Japanese soldiers and sailors might be rescued or reach land where they might then be able to fight against Allied soldiers.

  There were also instances when U.S. submarines surfaced after sinking Japanese ships and machinegunned survivors. One documented case involved the famous submarine USS WAHOO, commanded by Dudley "Mush" Morton.

Dudley W. Morton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  During the war, there was only one known case when a German U-boat crew murdered survivors of a sunken ship. The U-boat commander, Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, was declared a war criminal and executed by firing squad after the war.

Heinz-Wilhelm Eck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  After the war, the last Kriegsmarine Commander-in-Chief and head of state, Grand Admiral Karl Donitz, was arrested for war crimes. Donitz was tried mainly for conducting unrestricted submarine warfare against the Allies. In the end, Admiral Donitz was convicted of: "Waging aggressive war" and given a ten year sentence. It would certainly have been worse for him had not U.S. Admiral Chester Nimitz testified that the Americans had conducted unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese.

.uboat.net - The Men - The Nuremberg Trials
  See: 3. Trial By Fire.


  My point was that those on the losing side were judged very differently from those on the winning side, who weren't judged at all. I certainly never said or implied that our Allies in WW II were innocent of committing war crimes. If you look deeply enough into the history of the war, you will be able to find actions committed by combatants of all the major Allied nations that would have been judged to have been war crimes if they had been done by those serving the Axis nations.

Last edited on Fri May 3rd, 2013 04:30 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Fri May 3rd, 2013 03:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TD, it's not exactly contention. It's listening to people who want to trash Americans, which includes some Americans, and ignore the fact that American soldiers weren't the only ones guilty of such crimes. And all the while I try to hold my tounge as they go on and on about how Americans were such vile people that they should have been tried for war crimes after the war. I've seen someone point out about the Soviets raping Germans and get told "Oh no, you're confusing Soviet soldiers with Americans." It's like my senior year in high school and having one of my classmates saying we now have the bomb so we should go and nuke everyone who was ever an enemy of the US off the face of the Earth. And the sad part was that he was serious about that.

I know Americans committed crimes during the war and I know soldiers from other Allied nations did so. So the US isn't the only guilty nation when it comes to having it's soldiers commit crimes. But those who simply want to trash or put down the US don't want to acknowledge that. They only want to attribute such things on the Allied side to Americans alone.



 Current time is 12:25 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4011 seconds (8% database + 92% PHP). 25 queries executed.