WWII

[Merkin]

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the battle of the bulge, the largest single battle the United State's army has ever fought.

A hero of the Battle of the Bulge: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in- ... =AG0003409

[SGIT]

Did anyone else read about the Japanese protesting the upcoming release of the movie "Unbreakable"? Evidently they are upset about how the Japanese are being portrayed in the movie. I had the pleasure of meeting two of my Father's uncles along with a barber that worked in the shop where I had my haircuts when I was a child. All of them fought against the Japanese during WWII and the barber survived the Bataan Death March and lived out the rest of the war as a POW. None of them had anything nice to say about the Japanese people that they encountered during the war.

[Merkin]

Read the book Unbroken about an American POW of the Japanese.

Amazing story. Japanese were extremely cruel to allied prisoners.

[Salty]

Read the book Unbroken about an American POW of the Japanese.

Amazing story. Japanese were extremely cruel to allied prisoners.

It was an extraordinary book.

[Merkin]

Read the book Unbroken about an American POW of the Japanese.

Amazing story. Japanese were extremely cruel to allied prisoners.

It was an extraordinary book.

Movie coming out Christmas day!

[Daryl Zero]

Reading it with my son. About half way in. Just got to Omuri and the Bird.

[Daryl Zero]

Did anyone else read about the Japanese protesting the upcoming release of the movie "Unbreakable"? Evidently they are upset about how the Japanese are being portrayed in the movie. I had the pleasure of meeting two of my Father's uncles along with a barber that worked in the shop where I had my haircuts when I was a child. All of them fought against the Japanese during WWII and the barber survived the Bataan Death March and lived out the rest of the war as a POW. None of them had anything nice to say about the Japanese people that they encountered during the war.

The more you read and learn about the Japanese practices during WWII, the worse it gets. For example, read "The Rape of Nanking"

Or just wiki it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The Nanking Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, was an episode of mass murder and mass rape committed by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanking (current official spelling: Nanjing) during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The massacre occurred during a six-week period starting from December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanking, which was then the Chinese capital (see Republic of China). During this period, between 40,000 to over 300,000 (estimates vary) Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.[7][8] Widespread rape and looting also occurred.[9][10] Several of the key perpetrators of the atrocities, at the time labelled as war crimes, were later tried and found guilty at the International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, and were executed. Another key perpetrator, Prince Asaka, a member of the Imperial Family, escaped prosecution by having earlier been granted immunity by the Allies.

[ASUHATER!]

Did anyone else read about the Japanese protesting the upcoming release of the movie "Unbreakable"? Evidently they are upset about how the Japanese are being portrayed in the movie. I had the pleasure of meeting two of my Father's uncles along with a barber that worked in the shop where I had my haircuts when I was a child. All of them fought against the Japanese during WWII and the barber survived the Bataan Death March and lived out the rest of the war as a POW. None of them had anything nice to say about the Japanese people that they encountered during the war.

Ridiculous. The Japanese were worse than they were portrayed during the war

[Chicat]

War brings out the worst in mankind...

[catgrad97]

I've never understood protests about portrayals of true historical events.

But then again, that's probably why John Hersey's "Hiroshima" has never been made into a studio movie either. Or "Beyond Manzanar," for that matter.

Interesting tidbit, while we're on the subject, about a Japanese-American co-production of "Hiroshima" made almost 20 years ago outside the U.S.:

While directing, Roger Spottiswoode tried to be even-handed in the portrayal of the Japanese military leaders, and it was the Japanese co-director who would keep coming back and saying "You don't really understand; they were much more intransigent than that." Some of the top military men over there had a pretty good idea of the resources required for the bomb, and didn't believe anyone could sustain the attacks.

Spottiswoode commented to the pilot about what a shame it was that of the thousands of the magnificent machines built, that only the B-29 one was still flying. The pilot (a World War Two veteran) was not so nostalgic, and replied "This thing was designed and built for just one purpose; to kill thousands of people at a time. One is more than enough."

[Merkin]

Did anyone protest the movies about the atrocities US soldiers committed on Native Americans?

I don't remember any.

[scumdevils86]

pretty good photo essay from Time here

http://time.com/3628396/battle-of-the-b ... st-gamble/

[Daryl Zero]

War brings out the worst in mankind...

There is bad nasty stuff from all sides in war. The Japanese, during WWII, had mandates from the top to ignore the Geneva Convention (which they signed but did not ratify) and to kill prisoners rather than have them recaptured. They raped and murdered civilians as well as put them into sexual slavery. A lot of this came from their almost feudal samurai sensibility and isolationism (at that time) that made them feel superior to other people and that other people had the same sensibilities as they had (for example that being taken prisoner was dishonorable and death was preferable). The change in attitudes from the Japanese people once they surrendered was amazing as well as how they accepted post-war life.

Of course America has a long history of vilifying a race or belittling it including the Japanese Americans during WWII with the relocation camps and in another of its notorious decisions, upheld by SCOTUS.

[the real dill]

Been on a WWII kick lately. Reading "No Less Than Victory" and watching "The Pacific".

Just finished Unbroken and started D-Day - Ambrose. I've read most of the popular ones.

I think I want to read something on The Battle of Midway next. Open to suggestions.

[scumdevils86]

Been on a WWII kick lately. Reading "No Less Than Victory" and watching "The Pacific".

Just finished Unbroken and started D-Day - Ambrose. I've read most of the popular ones.

I think I want to read something on The Battle of Midway next. Open to suggestions.

both pretty good memoirs by guys who were at the Battle of MIdway

http://www.amazon.com/Radioman-Eyewitne ... 1418840319

http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Line-Blu ... bluejacket

[scumdevils86]

More battle of the bulge facts
http://www.history.com/news/8-things-yo ... d=11205451

[azcat49]

I once again want to thank the 2 brothers about there respect for the history of WWII. It is certainly one of there most endearing traits as posters. Great job men

[scumdevils86]

hey nothing to thank me for. I just have been addicted to learning everything there is to know about the men and women who fought such a devastating war since I could read. I read the Ambrose D-Day book referenced above when i was 9 years old I think.

[Merkin]

First WW2 book I ever read was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Not sure I was 9 maybe a little older.

That was during Nam, so it was quite compelling to note the differences between a "good" war, and a "bad" war growing up, although a "good war" is an oxymoron.

Hitler is one of the most fascinating people to ever grace this earth.

One of my sons used to call The History Channel the Hitler Channel. Back when that channel was actually good.

[Daryl Zero]

First WW2 book I ever read was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Not sure I was 9 maybe a little older.

That was during Nam, so it was quite compelling to note the differences between a "good" war, and a "bad" war growing up, although a "good war" is an oxymoron.

Hitler is one of the most fascinating people to ever grace this earth.

That was the first book I read about WWII as well and I was also 9 or 10 or so.

[Puerco]

That's a serious read for a nine year old! Great book.

Regarding atrocities: to the victors go the history books. Certainly the Japanese and Germans committed atrocities during the war. What about the Soviets? You don't hear nearly as much about that. The Americans? Well, I consider this an atrocity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II

[Chicat]

That's a serious read for a nine year old! Great book.

Regarding atrocities: to the victors go the history books. Certainly the Japanese and Germans committed atrocities during the war. What about the Soviets? You don't hear nearly as much about that. The Americans? Well, I consider this an atrocity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of ... rld_War_II

The Brits were far more responsIble for the firebombing of Dresden than the American leadership structure (Arthur "Bomber" Harris in particular), and in fact Ike and quite a few of the American ground commanders such as Bradley were vehemently against the targeting of civilians in such a matter but had to keep up coalition appearances and thus could not state openly what they felt.

At the time it was explained away as there being some military significance to the bombing (there was a rail yard or two that was hit), and that the Germans with their bombing of London and continued V2 attacks were also targeting civilians and that in total war shit happens. It was only about a decade later that people started wrestling with the morality of that particular bombing campaign. In fact, criticism of his tactics became so pronounced that Harris ended up moving to South Africa. So it's not as if they just whitewashed history.

[Puerco]

Thanks, Chi. You are right about the Brits being at least equally responsible for Dreden. I had meant to change that in my post but got sidetracked by sticking the link in.

Regarding the timeline for the debate over its morality: that happened during the war years. Witness this quote from a Churchill memo:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.[103][104]

It's from the Wikipedia article.

[Chicat]

Meanwhile, Churchill championed Harris' return from exile in South Africa and bestowed upon him a Baronetcy in order to entice him to come back to England. I feel like morality ebbs and flows during and after wars. What might seem appalling to some at the time will mellow with age, while what might get ignored in the heat of battle becomes a flashpoint of argument decades later.

I think what we have to keep in mind is that a lot of these guys were bureaucrats at heart, and in the waning days of the war they wanted to ensure that their little fiefdom got it's just desserts in the post-war era. Air Corp Brits like Harris and Tedder had a couple of agendas. First and foremost was to salvage any kind of British pride. In reality the Brits just couldn't put that many ground troops in the field because after two world wars they were literally missing generations of men. So they wanted to win with massive bombing because by that point Allied supremacy of the air was keeping bomber crew losses down. Their second agenda was to show that air power did actually win the war, and could win all future wars without the need to have people stuck in the mud, killing each other savagely over a fence line. An air war victory was seen as almost civilized in comparison. Very British. Of course they didn't have to be on the ground to see the devastating effects.

So in many ways Dresden was about pride and the future budgets and prestige of the various armed forces. It was a horrific crime against humanity perpetrated for very mundane, human, silly reasons.

[Puerco]

Spot on. Good take. No. Excellent take, really.

[waysouthcat]

There isn't much of an excuse for B-29s firebombing all those Japanese cities though, ordered by our own Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay.

[ASUHATER!]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

[waysouthcat]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Oh well that's an excellent excuse for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

[Merkin]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Oh well that's an excellent excuse for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Japan could have just surrendered to stop the firebombing. When you run out of military targets and the enemy will still not surrender, what do you do?

I know it's awful, but what was the alternative? Do you know what the invasion estimate deaths was predicted for Americans soldiers was? Estimate for Japanese civilian deaths?

They are still issuing Purple Heart medals today that were made for the invasion of Japan.

[Chicat]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Oh well that's an excellent excuse for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

There was actually an argument that it might save civilian lives, especially after we invaded Okinawa and the Japanese civilians were throwing themselves off of cliffs into the seas en masse.

War is hell. I don't envy anyone who had to make the decision to do anything that might endanger the lives of innocent men, women, and children, but the Japanese did have to be stopped.

[Merkin]

Japanese school children preparing for the American invasion:





Women:

[Daryl Zero]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Oh well that's an excellent excuse for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The fighting on the islands was fierce and the Japanese were fighting to the last man or committing suicide. There was a promise to fight to the last person on the mainland though I believe I remember that Japan offered a conditional surrender prior to the A-bombs. The Allies would not accept anything but an unconditional surrender.

Here is an interesting article discussing Japan's surrender which is argued was based upon Russia's entry into the war and not the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... surrender/

What ended World War II?

For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.

But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.

On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.

In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.

[Merkin]

Good stuff Daryl.

Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed.

Just a side note, the Enola Gay didn't even have any fighter escort when they dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima.

No need for it. The Japanese had no air force left to defend the homeland.

[waysouthcat]

Good stuff Daryl.

Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed.

Just a side note, the Enola Gay didn't even have any fighter escort when they dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima.

No need for it. The Japanese had no air force left to defend the homeland.

This is the point. We didn't have to do anything but wait. Nobody will ever convince me that the right thing to do is slaughter women and children because it might save some of our soldiers. If it was any other country that did this we'd be trying LeMay and the higher ups for war crimes.

[ASUHATER!]

Before the atom bombs were ready, the firebombing was the only way we thought we could swiftly make the Japanese come to the negotiating table for peace. Without the atom bombs or the firebombing, we would've had to invade Japan and had probably hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

Oh well that's an excellent excuse for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

actually it is. it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives. PPlease explain what else could have been done? Do you think American should've surrendered to the Japanese or just stopped fighting?

[Daryl Zero]

Good stuff Daryl.

Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed.

Just a side note, the Enola Gay didn't even have any fighter escort when they dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima.

No need for it. The Japanese had no air force left to defend the homeland.

This is the point. We didn't have to do anything but wait. Nobody will ever convince me that the right thing to do is slaughter women and children because it might save some of our soldiers. If it was any other country that did this we'd be trying LeMay and the higher ups for war crimes.

This is the decision I am mixed on. I think it was a judgment call. The article also says "A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender." As to the argument that war shouldn't involve civilians, Japan had been raping and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians. Invasion would have meant the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians as well.

I can see both sides and I do not condemn Truman and the like for deciding this was the way to go.

[waysouthcat]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this - was invasion absolutely necessary? The B-29s were going in unopposed by this time, Japan was virtually defenseless. Couldn't we have blockaded, kept attacking whatever military targets were left, etc? Eventually they wold have crumbled. But to purposely plan an incendiary attack on such a scale, knowing perfectly well what it would mean to a largely wooden city, with high winds forecast - I don't envy LeMay for what he probably wrestled with the rest of his life.

By the way, I don't a crap what Japan did to others, that is not a good justification.

[scumdevils86]

It really is a hard question. And looking at it from a perspective 69 years removed from the slaughter and endless killing of that war gives you a view of the decisions made that most people would not have even considered then.

We couldn't let Japan keep any shred of their militaristic power or desire for empire for the safety of the entire Eastern hemisphere. We had them on their knees no doubt but more and more would have still died. On one hand if we had just blockaded Japan and not bombed them further...well millions of Japanese still would have died from disease and starvation. A quick end to the war let our occupying forces enter the country and help them start to rebuild fairly quickly. Also don't forget...we did not want to let Russia into the country before us. If we had just sat their and starved out Japan Russia would have just invaded anyway...and who knows...the war could've started up hot again with the Russians right then and there.

I believe that the bombings were the only choice. Slaughtering innocent civilians is never a positive outcome of war but I truly think it saved millions more lives than it took. American and Japanese and maybe even Russian etc. It was terrible and awful but it had to be done to get the world on the path to recovery faster.

[Merkin]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this - was invasion absolutely necessary? The B-29s were going in unopposed by this time, Japan was virtually defenseless. Couldn't we have blockaded, kept attacking whatever military targets were left, etc? Eventually they wold have crumbled.

If you left them alone I imagine they would do quite well, even with a blockade. Grow their own rice and veggies to be self sufficient like they were for centuries.

There were no military targets left.


8 Things You May Not Know About Louis Zamperini

Unless you read the book.

http://www.history.com/news/8-things-yo ... d=11255759

[Daryl Zero]

You could also say, with hindsight, that the complete surrender of Japan was great for America and Japan. Japan became and economic superpower and mostly ditched its outdated feudal and egocentric view of the world.

[Daryl Zero]

By the way, I don't a crap what Japan did to others, that is not a good justification.

I think that is a factor along with the much bigger factor that Japan was fighting for every inch of territory to the death.
Part of the deal with civilizations is that the populace is to a degree responsible for what their leaders do.
They let their leaders into power and went along with what was going on and participated to the extent that they were soldiers and committed atrocities.
I've read that Israel had a successful tactic of stopping raids by holding the village from whence the raid came responsible for the raids.

[Chicat]

31 rolls of film from an unknown American soldier during WWII were just developed:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3041153/the- ... -developed

[scumdevils86]

31 rolls of film from an unknown American soldier during WWII were just developed:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3041153/the- ... -developed

awesome. thanks for posting that.

i'm currently reading the memoirs of Bill Ash. Truly a fascinating character and all around amazing guy. Born in Texas in 1917 he graduated from Texas in 1938 or 39 and ended up riding the rails for a while before ending up in Canada and enlisting in the Canadian Air Force (giving up his American citizenship) in 1940 and went to England to fly Spitfires against the Luftwaffe. He was shot down in 1942 over France and then spent the next 3 years attempting multiple escapes all over Europe. He is one of the main inspirations for Steve McQueen's character in "The Great Escape".

He wrote this book almost 70 years later in his 90s and he is still full of energy and excitement and the thrill of his life in his words. His attitude is inspiring and uplifting. Truly a fascinating read and great true story. Unfortunately he died last year at the age of 97.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Wire-Willia ... B00AF4I0K8

[Merkin]

Read a book about this when I was a kid in the late 1960s. I was very impressed back then, and even more so now.

SEATTLE — Lt. Col. Edward Saylor, one of four surviving Doolittle Raiders who attacked Japan during a daring 1942 mission credited with lifting American morale during World War II, has died. He was 94.

Rod Saylor said his father died of natural causes on Wednesday in Sumner, Washington.

He was a young flight engineer-gunner and among the 80 airmen who volunteered to fly the risky mission that sent B-25 bombers from a carrier at sea to attack Tokyo on April 28, 1942. The raid launched earlier than planned and risked running out of fuel before making it to safe airfields.

"It was what you do ... over time, we've been told what effect our raid had on the war and the morale of the people," Saylor told The Associated Press in a 2013 interview.

Tom Casey, a manager for the Doolittle Raiders, said in an interview that despite the risks, "they all volunteered to go anyway."

"He did something very famous," Casey said.

The 16 B-25 bombers, each carrying five men, dropped bombs on targets such as factory areas and military installations and headed to designated airfields in mainland China realizing that they would run out of fuel, according to the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force.

[scumdevils86]

Sucks. I think almost every day about how there are going to be fewer and fewer vets from WW2 to talk to every day that goes by. The war ended 70 years ago now so most everyone directly involved in the war is over 90 years old by now...and that isn't a great age to count on memory and longevity.

We need to record and save as many 1st hand memories as possible from that generation. We have done a great job but there are sooo many men and women who haven't had their stories saved for posterity and they will all be lost within 10-20 years tops.

[UAdevil]

Yeah. My grandfather was at Pearl Harbor during the attack. His cruiser was berthed right next to the Arizona. His ship, the Helena 'sank', but was in shallow water so settled on the bottom (only like 8 feet lower) and was back in action in the South Pacific a month later. He was below when a torpedo hit, luckily he closed a hatch in time and the blast followed the path of least resistance instead of taking him out. Fortunate for me. My father was conceived when my grandfather was on leave while the ship was being repaired. So my father, and by extension me, owe our existence to a door closed at the right moment.

My grandfather never much talked about that day. Too painful. And with him being of that generation where men were expected to hide their emotions and 'be a man'. It wasn't until he was in his 90s that he told me the details. He cried. I cried.

[Merkin]

Mentioned it at TOS, but my father in law was a crewman on B17s over Europe. Only talked about his experiences once, and fortunately I did record it. Have the tape somewhere.

[BMalo]

One grandfather flew Corsairs for the USMC during WWII then F-4's later on during Vietnam and a few others during Korea. He also was mum about his experiences but luckily for me he wrote an autobiography in the 90's and shared some of his experiences.

The other was a tail gunner is a few B-series aircraft.

[Merkin]

Before/after images of Dresden:

http://allday.com/post/2508-the-legacy- ... of-dresden

[wyo-cat]

Kurt Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. He and other POWs collected the remains of German citizens for burial, but there were too many to bury so they incinerated them with flame throwers.

That part of Slaughterhouse Five is about his own experience as a POW in Dredsen.