PDA

View Full Version : [Merged] Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

The Dark Lord
3rd April 2012, 07:12 PM
How do you know you have all the relevant evidence? How do you know the government isn't withholding key evidence?

You don't, therefore you are guessing.

How do you know that your mother isn't withholding key evidence regarding me seeing her naked?

You don't, therefore you are guessing.

SpringHallConvert
3rd April 2012, 07:25 PM
One of the more laughable parts of the SCH's whole 'the ships were obsolete, LOL!' argument is that he seems to forget that even if the ships were obsolete (they weren't) the Pearl certainly was not. Even if it was the material stored at Pearl certainly wasn't (unless stores of oil are can be considered 'obsolete'. It was very lucky that the Japanese didn't destroy these as that would have made the attack much more devastating as the so-called 'non-obsolete' fleet would have been unable to move.

One thing you can never do in war is plan on the enemy making a specific mistake, so in SHC's world when FDR hears that there will be an attack on Pearl Harbor he just thinks "that's fine, let them attack - I'll just expect them to not attack the Harbor's resources."

Yeah, that makes sense.

Argument rejected. Everything at Pearl Harbor - men, resources, materiel, facilities, airfields, ships - was either repairable or replaceable and therefore expendable. The U.S. government was in no hurry to defeat Japan and could take its time in the Pacific.

Germany was the focus.

Humanzee
3rd April 2012, 07:53 PM
Argument rejected. Everything at Pearl Harbor - men, resources, materiel, facilities, airfields, ships - was either repairable or replaceable and therefore expendable. The U.S. government was in no hurry to defeat Japan and could take its time in the Pacific.

Germany was the focus.

Wut? Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Redtail
3rd April 2012, 08:00 PM
Wut? Do you have any evidence for this claim?

He can't even produce evidence of something he claims to have said in this thread.

Redtail
3rd April 2012, 08:01 PM
Since "Tora, Tora, Tora" has been mentioned, I'd just like to repeat that Yamamoto's quote at the end of that movie has less evidence than anything SHC has said so far. (Is he still posting in this thread?)

Yeah that never sounded right to me... I like the movie though.

kookbreaker
3rd April 2012, 08:01 PM
Argument rejected.


Too bad for you. Pretty much every military historian disagrees with your assessment. The contemporaries of the time, including Yamamoto, disagreed as well.


Everything at Pearl Harbor - men, resources, materiel, facilities, airfields, ships - was either repairable or replaceable and therefore expendable.


Which would have taken ages. You simply don't replace hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil overnight, let alone repair a ship facility.


The U.S. government was in no hurry to defeat Japan and could take its time in the Pacific.


Actually, no the US could not. There were multiple interests in the Pacific that needed defending and the destruction of those resources would mean that not only they could not be defended, but Hawaii and much of the West Coast of the US would have been troublesome to defend as well. We know now with hindsight (and post-war examination of the Japanese plans) that Japan did not initially intend for this kind of action, but in 1941 we had no way of knowing that.

Without those resources Japan would have been unchecked for months if not more - that means no battle of the Coral Sea, no defense of Midway beyond its own garrison.


Germany was the focus.

No. Japan was also the focus. For all the 'Germany First' talk, the Pacific needed defending and an offensive strategy as well. It demanded and received resources as well. To lose such a huge percentage of placed resources in the first few hours of the war would have been crippling.

You really don't know much about history, do you?

Mudcat
3rd April 2012, 08:11 PM
No, not really. It's only open and shut for those who wish to subscribe to the official conspiracy theory.
I have no wish to buy into any kind of story, I follow established information to a reasonable conclusion. And the conclusion is that it was a surprise attack.

For those who don't, the debate rages on.
This is in debate? Since when?


Why is it reasonable to conclude that the attack was a surprise? Because the government said so?
No declaration of intent from the Japanese government and no intel leading a revevaltion of am imminent attack, plus insufficent deterents to said attack sounds like a sneak attack to me.

Unlike you, I don't assume the government told us the truth.
No, the only one making any assumptions here is you. Of this I assure you.

Therefore, from my point of view, in absence of any contrary evidence the only reasonable conclusion was that it wasn't a surprise to our government.
SHC, accusing the government or the president of having advanced knowledge (weither from a proclamation of intent from Japan or from gathered intel) and doing nothing to stop it despite all evidence to the contrary is a baseless assertion.

Saying that you haven't made your case is an undeniable fact.



Right back at you.
What is this, elementary school? "I'm rubber and you're glue" is hardly a good argument.

Mudcat
3rd April 2012, 08:20 PM
Nonsense. We have records, we have diaries, and we have the information that was available to FDR. Unless FDR was able to astrally project to see the IJN fleet in motion there is no indication that he knew the attack was coming. This was all provided to you, but you declined to look at it, preferring to play games instead.

If FDR knew, then he had to get that information from someone. More than just 'someone', probably dozens if not hundreds of 'someones'. Naval and diplomatic intelligence information doesn't show up magically on the President's desk. It has to be gathered, filtered, analyzed, and summarized. That involves lots of people, and the idea that all of these people kept quiet for decades about their comrades being slaughtered and the Pacific fleet crippled defies logic in just about every way possible. Only in the minds of CT fools can this kind of human behavior take place, a reflection of their own mindsets rather than those of real human beings.

In the meantime all that you can do is claim is that some mysterious,, unnamed, unverified, and exist only in your imagination classified documents might vindicate your claims. Never mind that these documents didn't write themselves. So you are reduced to twisted 'logic' games that are an insult to the word logic.

We aren't guessing. Every piece of data we have points towards the attack on Pearl Harbor being a surprise. You fantasies and games don't change that one bit.

Add on to that, if Japan had made this declaration of intent to attack on Pearl Harbor we'd have evidence for that, too.

dudalb
3rd April 2012, 08:27 PM
Taking bets as to how long until SHC buys into the Holocaust Denial Crap....seems to be right up his alley.

Laton
3rd April 2012, 08:30 PM
Taking bets as to how long until SHC buys into the Holocaust Denial Crap....seems to be right up his alley.

I think he's already there:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8169510&postcount=17

but given his posting style its kind of hard to tell.

The Dark Lord
3rd April 2012, 08:32 PM
Taking bets as to how long until SHC buys into the Holocaust Denial Crap....seems to be right up his alley.

Too late:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8122086#post8122086

Corsair 115
3rd April 2012, 09:37 PM
They were given warnings that the Japanese were ready to move, "in any direction" and to be prepared. That means getting ready for war. Short, however, only focused on sabotage of his own forces, despite the fact that the only reason his troops were on Oahu was to protect the fleet when it was in port. Kimmel increased anti-submarine protection, but kept the Fleet in port. Even worse for Kimmel was the fact that the Japanese only tried the attack because Kimmel had the fleet on "banker's hours" and thus became predictable enough from the IJN to risk the venture.


The Japanese sailing a major striking force 3,000 miles across the Pacific to hit the U.S. in its own backyard is an incredibly audacious and very risky move. I find it hard to fault Kimmel for not taking that possibility seriously. It would have seemed almost beyond belief that any nation would attempt so outlandish an action.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 01:10 AM
Yeah that never sounded right to me... I like the movie though.

The movie was generally faithful to the facts without any serious mistakes other than that quote, which was stuck in to give a slightly upbeat ending to the movie.

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 01:52 AM
Why would there have to be a surprise attack on Pearl to give an excuse for war?

Wouldn't intercepting the enemy forces and defending Pearl have been a big enough reason to go to war? Why didn't the conspiracists allow the US forces to discover the Japanese as they were preparing to launch the airstrike? That way you get your Japanese aggression and you get to damage their ships and aircraft instead of looking like complete idiots.

Jack by the hedge
4th April 2012, 02:09 AM
Wouldn't intercepting the enemy forces and defending Pearl have been a big enough reason to go to war?

Yes. So SHC's conjecture is illogical as well as contrary to all available evidence from any source.

His tactic of handwaving away all evidence as tainted and claiming his fantasy therefore has equal weight is just needling people to get a reaction, and it's got boring really fast.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 03:20 AM
Why would there have to be a surprise attack on Pearl to give an excuse for war?

Wouldn't intercepting the enemy forces and defending Pearl have been a big enough reason to go to war? Why didn't the conspiracists allow the US forces to discover the Japanese as they were preparing to launch the airstrike? That way you get your Japanese aggression and you get to damage their ships and aircraft instead of looking like complete idiots.

Allow the aircraft to come in, with every man and gun of the Army AND Navy manned, loaded and ready. 8 BBs, 2 CAs, 6 CLs, 30 DDs, etc (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm)., all waiting for the Japanese. It would have been a slaughter. Meanwhile, Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga (rushed out from the West Coast for the party), ambushes the Kido Butai, which only has 30 fighters covering the entire formation.

Just Let It Happen? Very stupid idea.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 04:12 AM
Allow the aircraft to come in, with every man and gun of the Army AND Navy manned, loaded and ready. 8 BBs, 2 CAs, 6 CLs, 30 DDs, etc (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-2.htm)., all waiting for the Japanese. It would have been a slaughter. Meanwhile, Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga (rushed out from the West Coast for the party), ambushes the Kido Butai, which only has 30 fighters covering the entire formation.

Just Let It Happen? Very stupid idea.

Not really, since it put the American people squarely behind two foreign interventions. An ambush of the Japanese fleet and destruction of the IJN would have changed the entire dynamic of the Pacific front/strategic picture, along with Roosevelt's designs on a European intervention.

So, your little ambush scenario, while interesting in a "what if?" sort of way, is duly rejected.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:16 AM
The idea that the US was isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor is another sad sack meme of the CT whack jobs. And ignorance of logistics leads them to think a two-ocean war was a trivial thing.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 04:17 AM
Why would there have to be a surprise attack on Pearl to give an excuse for war?

Wouldn't intercepting the enemy forces and defending Pearl have been a big enough reason to go to war? Why didn't the conspiracists allow the US forces to discover the Japanese as they were preparing to launch the airstrike? That way you get your Japanese aggression and you get to damage their ships and aircraft instead of looking like complete idiots.

Intercepting the Japanese fleet prior to a Pearl Harbor attack would have meant that the United States was the aggressor, since it would have put U.S. forces in the position of firing the "first shot". This clearly runs counter to the Roosevelt plan (McCollum memo/Stimson's diary) for selling the war to the American people as a matter of national defense.

The Pearl Harbor "surprise" was instrumental to the Roosevelt plan, so that was the path followed, and, in historical hindsight, it worked. The American people were totally bamboozled (at least the ones not locked up in concentration camps, that is).

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:19 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 04:21 AM
The idea that the US was isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor is another sad sack meme of the CT whack jobs. And ignorance of logistics leads them to think a two-ocean war was a trivial thing.

If that's true, why did Roosevelt campaign for president in 1940 on a platform geared toward keeping the United States out of the war?

Answer: Because he knew he had to. The American people weren't as big a warmongers in 1941 as they are now.

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 04:24 AM
Intercepting the Japanese fleet prior to a Pearl Harbor attack would have meant that the United States was the aggressor, since it would have put U.S. forces in the position of firing the "first shot". This clearly runs counter to the Roosevelt plan (McCollum memo/Stimson's diary) for selling the war to the American people as a matter of national defense.

The Pearl Harbor "surprise" was instrumental to the Roosevelt plan, so that was the path followed, and, in historical hindsight, it worked. The American people were totally bamboozled (at least the ones not locked up in concentration camps, that is).

So having the AA guns ready and firing at the Japanese aircraft as they approached your base would have been the act of aggression, and not the Japanese invasion of your airspace and flying hundreds of bombers over your Navy Base? riiight.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 04:26 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

I see no solid evidence in that thread. Just a lot of babbling.

Is there anything in particular you'd like to hang your hat on?

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 04:32 AM
So having the AA guns ready and firing at the Japanese aircraft as they approached your base would have been the act of aggression, and not the Japanese invasion of your airspace and flying hundreds of bombers over your Navy Base? riiight.

Do your realize the absurdity of this question? If the commanders at Pearl were warned in advance to have their AA gunners ready for the Japanese attack that morning, then it would have been clear to everyone that the Roosevelt administration knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen without air or naval interdiction.

The attack had to happen the way it happened. It had to appear to be a total "surprise". Roosevelt couldn't warn Pearl and he certainly couldn't order an ambush, as that would have made the U.S. the aggressors.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:41 AM
So having the AA guns ready and firing at the Japanese aircraft as they approached your base would have been the act of aggression, and not the Japanese invasion of your airspace and flying hundreds of bombers over your Navy Base? riiight.

The act of war would have occurred when the IJN aircraft crossed into the territorial waters of the US. The P-40s would have had "weapons free" signals at that point and the fun would begin. I imagine the orders would have been "Get the bombers!"

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 04:51 AM
Do your realize the absurdity of this question? If the commanders at Pearl were warned in advance to have their AA gunners ready for the Japanese attack that morning, then it would have been clear to everyone that the Roosevelt administration knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen without air or naval interdiction.

The attack had to happen the way it happened. It had to appear to be a total "surprise". Roosevelt couldn't warn Pearl and he certainly couldn't order an ambush, as that would have made the U.S. the aggressors.

So defending yourself against an attack is being the aggressor? How are you the aggressor when someone else has just flown a huge force of bombers into your airspace?

ArmillarySphere
4th April 2012, 05:39 AM
I'm reminded of when the US used to route Blackbird flights over Swedish airspace, ignoring protests. Finally, command had enough and sent a Viggen fighter high enough on afterburners to achieve weapons lock before running low on fuel.

US response was to route the flights elsewhere. The fighter would have been well within its rights to fire.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 05:42 AM
I'm reminded of when the US used to route Blackbird flights over Swedish airspace, ignoring protests. Finally, command had enough and sent a Viggen fighter high enough on afterburners to achieve weapons lock before running low on fuel.

US response was to route the flights elsewhere. The fighter would have been well within its rights to fire.

Tell that to Francis Gary Powers. ;)

Spindrift
4th April 2012, 05:56 AM
Do your realize the absurdity of this question? If the commanders at Pearl were warned in advance to have their AA gunners ready for the Japanese attack that morning, then it would have been clear to everyone that the Roosevelt administration knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen without air or naval interdiction.

The attack had to happen the way it happened. It had to appear to be a total "surprise". Roosevelt couldn't warn Pearl and he certainly couldn't order an ambush, as that would have made the U.S. the aggressors.

Of course the attack had to happen the way it happened. It's what happens when one side is surprised.

If Roosevelt knew about the attack why didn't he take full advantage of it? He could have had the carriers and submarines out on a training mission which would have put them in a position to counter attack the Japanese fleet and sink an awful lot of Japanese ships since their planes were at Pearl. He could have had orders issued for anti-aircraft training exercises to coincide with the attack. FDR could have done dozens of things to take advantage of fore-knowledge of the attack and still have the Japanese be the out and out agressor, yet he did NONE of them.

000063
4th April 2012, 05:59 AM
So having the AA guns ready and firing at the Japanese aircraft as they approached your base would have been the act of aggression, and not the Japanese invasion of your airspace and flying hundreds of bombers over your Navy Base? riiight.Indeed. Even a repulsed attack would've probably been enough to bring the US into the war.

000063
4th April 2012, 06:05 AM
So defending yourself against an attack is being the aggressor? How are you the aggressor when someone else has just flown a huge force of bombers into your airspace?I always love it when discussions reach the "personal dictionary" point, when it becomes clear the CT is not operating in consensus reality.

It's also noted that, for all his bluster, SHC doesn't actually answer the question.

I also like how warning your people that an attack was coming is apparently the same as letting an attack happen.

If that's true, why did Roosevelt campaign for president in 1940 on a platform geared toward keeping the United States out of the war?

Answer: Because he knew he had to. The American people weren't as big a warmongers in 1941 as they are now.For someone who thinks the government is this omnipotent entity capable of fooling all of the people all of the time, you sure seem to think they are vulnerable to the desires of the people.

Garrison
4th April 2012, 06:18 AM
Indeed. Even a repulsed attack would've probably been enough to bring the US into the war.

And given the report of the Ward and the radar sighting of the incoming attack it would hardly be difficult to justify an alert. Get up a decent CAP and get the AA gunners on action stations at the very least. I think SHC and co fail to realize that yes you might invite the enemy to strike first but you don't set up a humiliating defeat, in a fact a series of such defeats over the next several months.

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 06:20 AM
Again, from the top, self-defense is not an act of agression even if the attacker hasn't launched the first shot or if the first shot hadn't landed.

Now, SHC what is it with this? Why are you so gung-ho about "He was looking for any reason to get into the war at any cost"? It would prepare from my perspective that the oppostite was true.

aggle-rithm
4th April 2012, 06:22 AM
Do your realize the absurdity of this question?

Do you realize the absurdity of your position? Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany. GERMANY. Not Japan.

Only a conspiracy theorist would think it's perfectly logical to deliberately spark a war with a powerful military state just to have an excuse to go to war with someone else on the other side of the world.

Border Reiver
4th April 2012, 06:23 AM
Add to the attack on PH you also had the nearly simultaneous attacks (about a 10 hour time difference) on the Phillipines (a US protectorate), and you have a causus belli - whether the attacks were a surprise or not.

Garrison
4th April 2012, 06:39 AM
Do you realize the absurdity of your position? Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany. GERMANY. Not Japan.

Only a conspiracy theorist would think it's perfectly logical to deliberately spark a war with a powerful military state just to have an excuse to go to war with someone else on the other side of the world.

It does flag up his basic ignorance, all the 'provocation' was going in the Atlantic. And I'm quite sure he won't be able to provide the date or name for the first US Navy ship sunk during WWII, taking the invasion of Poland as the start.

aggle-rithm
4th April 2012, 06:42 AM
Add to the attack on PH you also had the nearly simultaneous attacks (about a 10 hour time difference) on the Phillipines (a US protectorate), and you have a causus belli - whether the attacks were a surprise or not.

Any "evidence" that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP could be applied even more effectively to the Phillipines. They saw that attack coming from miles away, and completely bungled their defense...even with their best general in charge.

So, according to CT logic, it HAD to be on purpose. Only problem is...why?

000063
4th April 2012, 06:47 AM
And given the report of the Ward and the radar sighting of the incoming attack it would hardly be difficult to justify an alert. Get up a decent CAP and get the AA gunners on action stations at the very least. I think SHC and co fail to realize that yes you might invite the enemy to strike first but you don't set up a humiliating defeat, in a fact a series of such defeats over the next several months.And it would be much better for morale if the attack by the "craven coolies" was beaten off by the brave boys in the Navy.

Do you realize the absurdity of your position? Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany. GERMANY. Not Japan.

Only a conspiracy theorist would think it's perfectly logical to deliberately spark a war with a powerful military state just to have an excuse to go to war with someone else on the other side of the world.And considering that Hitler declared war on the US anyway four days later, there was a-gonna be a dustup. It's not like the US wasn't supporting the allies already (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2).

Garrison
4th April 2012, 06:51 AM
Any "evidence" that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP could be applied even more effectively to the Phillipines. They saw that attack coming from miles away, and completely bungled their defense...even with their best general in charge.


I'm sorry but I thought MacArthur was in charge of the Phillipines? Mind you putting him in charge could be seen as an attempt to sabotage the defence...

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 06:54 AM
It does flag up his basic ignorance, all the 'provocation' was going in the Atlantic. And I'm quite sure he won't be able to provide the date or name for the first US Navy ship sunk during WWII, taking the invasion of Poland as the start.

Oo! oo! oo! Waves hand in the air.. Please sir me sir!! I know that one!!

Garrison
4th April 2012, 06:55 AM
Oo! oo! oo! Waves hand in the air.. Please sir me sir!! I know that one!!

Sorry, no help from the audience. :)

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 07:02 AM
Add to the attack on PH you also had the nearly simultaneous attacks (about a 10 hour time difference) on the Phillipines (a US protectorate), and you have a causus belli - whether the attacks were a surprise or not.

Actually, the landings at Khota Baru happened about four hours earlier than Pearl. The commander had a bit of buck fever, I think.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 07:03 AM
It does flag up his basic ignorance, all the 'provocation' was going in the Atlantic. And I'm quite sure he won't be able to provide the date or name for the first US Navy ship sunk during WWII, taking the invasion of Poland as the start.

OR that two American battleships were sunk by the Germans prior to Pearl Harbor. :)

SpitfireIX
4th April 2012, 07:34 AM
OR that two American battleships were sunk by the Germans prior to Pearl Harbor. :)


"Ooh, ooh, ooh! Mr. Kotter! Ooh, ooh, ooh!"

Hans
4th April 2012, 07:38 AM
The Italians thought they had sunk an American Battleship or two during the war. There was a conspiracy in Italy after the war when the Battleships thought to have been sunk were seen to be doing quite well....conspiracy solution, claim that the Americans had rebuilt them!

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 07:45 AM
"Ooh, ooh, ooh! Mr. Kotter! Ooh, ooh, ooh!"
*points at Spitfire*

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 07:46 AM
The Italians thought they had sunk an American Battleship or two during the war. There was a conspiracy in Italy after the war when the Battleships thought to have been sunk were seen to be doing quite well....conspiracy solution, claim that the Americans had rebuilt them!

They got at least on British BB, IIRC.

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 07:49 AM
Which one?

I know the Italians damaged a couple but they never sank.

Barham went down but that was a U Boat

SpitfireIX
4th April 2012, 07:50 AM
Kilkis (ex-USS Mississippi) and Lemnos (ex-USS Idaho).

Hans
4th April 2012, 07:51 AM
They got at least on British BB, IIRC.

Ah two actually - for awhile at least

HMS Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941 with loss of 9 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

HMS Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 08:05 AM
Kilkis (ex-USS Mississippi) and Lemnos (ex-USS Idaho).

http://rationalia.com/z/Ratz%20Smilies%20Mk%203/index1_files/icon_this_yay.gif

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 08:06 AM
Ah two actually - for awhile at least

HMS Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941 with loss of 9 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

HMS Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

Yep, and thus the claim that the USN repaired and refloated their lost BBs. :D

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 08:18 AM
Queen Elizabeth was repaired in the USA, maybe that's where the story about a US battleship comes from?

SpitfireIX
4th April 2012, 08:36 AM
They got at least on British BB, IIRC.


Well, their frogmen "sank" Queen Elizabeth the same way that the Japanese "sank" West Virginia and California, but she was returned to action 18 months later. That may be why they thought the Brits were faking it.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by several people.

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 09:09 AM
Again, from the top, self-defense is not an act of agression even if the attacker hasn't launched the first shot or if the first shot hadn't landed.

Now, SHC what is it with this? Why are you so gung-ho about "He was looking for any reason to get into the war at any cost"? It would prepare appear from my perspective that the oppostite was true.
Corrected my post. Also one of the very first rules of engagement state very clearly "You have the right to defend yourself against attacks or threats of attack" which would cover launching a preemptive strike against a fleet in your territorial waters when you have actionable intel that they are going to attack your fleet and resources.

Kind of pokes holes in your "they had to let it happen" theory baseless assertion SHC.

Hans
4th April 2012, 09:09 AM
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19421006&id=JDhPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w00DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5848,3650125

Italian claim of a US battleship sunk

http://books.google.com/books?id=-TxsHldokeMC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=italian+submarine+claimed+to+sink+a+battleship&source=bl&ots=N8pUqIAwiD&sig=w7vrWK9brKhf5R4v4qJZhOZoBw0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s3F8T7PMD5TKiQKWlum8DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=italian%20submarine%20claimed%20to%20sink%20a%20 battleship&f=false

The commander Grossi thought to have sunk a battleship "Maryland" class, in the first case, and in the second a battleship "Mississipi" class.
For these events the commander Grossi was decorate with Gold Medal and had two promotions, the Fascist propaganda had the occasion to take advantage the situation with much clamour.
In realty, off to Brasil, Grossi attacked the cruiser USS Milwaukee, and near Freetown the predestined victim was the simple corvette HMS Petunia without to hit the targets.
In the Post War, however, when these facts had knowed, numerous polemics began that don't end not even when the committee of inquiry ascertained officially the realty on the 1962.
In realty the commitee of inquiry considered the commander Grossi in perfect good faith and the valutation errors was warranted for the occasions of the night attacks.
On the 1943 the Barbarigo was changed in submarine to shipping precious materials to and from the East.
The Barbarigo was sunk, by air attack, during the first misson of this type.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 09:17 AM
Any "evidence" that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP could be applied even more effectively to the Phillipines. They saw that attack coming from miles away, and completely bungled their defense...even with their best general in charge.

So, according to CT logic, it HAD to be on purpose. Only problem is...why?

I LIKE that acronym. :)

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 09:24 AM
LIHOP, borrowed from 911 'truther' threads it goes with MIHOP Make It Happen

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 09:28 AM
LIHOP, borrowed from 911 'truther' threads it goes with MIHOP Make It Happen

I used to be an MMC in MP onboard an LHA in the USN. I'm kinda used to acronyms, FYI.

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 09:32 AM
It really wouldn't matter. We could have a diary entry from FDR saying:



and it would just be dismissed as FDR just covering up his knowledge of the attack.

:D

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 09:34 AM
Maybe. Maybe some others were destroyed and/or sabotaged. You don't know.

You only assume you've been given all the real details of what our government truly knew prior to December 7, 1941.

So now you read minds?

When did I say that at all?

Ooooh, just you and your rhetoric, as you have no argument.

Captain_Swoop
4th April 2012, 09:39 AM
US Forces seem to like a lot of Acronyms. Don't know what the RN is like these days but when I was in we didn't have many.

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 09:40 AM
Intercepting the Japanese fleet prior to a Pearl Harbor attack would have meant that the United States was the aggressor, since it would have put U.S. forces in the position of firing the "first shot". This clearly runs counter to the Roosevelt plan (McCollum memo/Stimson's diary) for selling the war to the American people as a matter of national defense.

The Pearl Harbor "surprise" was instrumental to the Roosevelt plan, so that was the path followed, and, in historical hindsight, it worked. The American people were totally bamboozled (at least the ones not locked up in concentration camps, that is).

If you actually read something, you would know that they were expecting the surprise in the Philippines.

Surprise!

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 09:43 AM
So defending yourself against an attack is being the aggressor? How are you the aggressor when someone else has just flown a huge force of bombers into your airspace?

I am sure the Allies started WWII because the Axis lost as well.

:D

Cl1mh4224rd
4th April 2012, 09:46 AM
As I have said before, the only way that SHC could be convinced is if he could go back in time and read FDR's mind.


I doubt it. He'd simply claim that Roosevelt was masterfully concealing his thoughts, just like a true villain. "No one can know anything for sure" is SpringHallConvert's chosen trolling weapon. The only thing that would convince him is if he were Roosevelt.

How do you know you have all the relevant evidence?


If it's possible that no one has all the relevant information, how does anything get done? How does anyone know anything? How does the world progress? How are decisions made?

You're trolling with philosophy; others are arguing with evidence.

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 09:46 AM
Queen Elizabeth was repaired in the USA, maybe that's where the story about a US battleship comes from?

She wasn't Queen yet, her father George was still King.

;)

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 09:46 AM
US Forces seem to like a lot of Acronyms. Don't know what the RN is like these days but when I was in we didn't have many.

Have you seen the NavDicAbs?

Biscuit
4th April 2012, 09:47 AM
False.

I'm claiming we have no way of knowing whether evidence has been concealed or not. You believe it hasn't been while I believe it has been.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And the only reason you believe that is because you have no reason to believe. You have no evidence and that, to you, means the evidence was concealed.

It illogical and irrational.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 09:48 AM
She wasn't Queen yet, her father George was still King.

;)

Queen Elizabeth launched the Titanic, didn't she? Or was it Dreadnought?

aggle-rithm
4th April 2012, 09:54 AM
The Italians thought they had sunk an American Battleship or two during the war. There was a conspiracy in Italy after the war when the Battleships thought to have been sunk were seen to be doing quite well....conspiracy solution, claim that the Americans had rebuilt them!

The book "Dirty Secrets of WWII" has a whole list of ships that were declared sunk multiple times by navies on both sides.

aggle-rithm
4th April 2012, 09:55 AM
Queen Elizabeth launched the Titanic, didn't she? Or was it Dreadnought?

No, you're all confused. Lord Nelson launched Queen Elizabeth.

LSSBB
4th April 2012, 10:00 AM
Have you seen the NavDicAbs?

My favorite was CINCUSNAVEUR.

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 10:03 AM
She wasn't Queen yet, her father George was still King.


Queen Elizabeth launched the Titanic, didn't she? Or was it Dreadnought?

I think they are referring to the ship Queen Elizabeth.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 10:19 AM
My favorite was CINCUSNAVEUR.

Kimmel's official title at Pearl Harbor was CinCUS. Nimitz decided on a different title.:D

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 10:20 AM
my favorite was cincusnaveur.

aswtrcenpacfltsd.

Hans
4th April 2012, 10:24 AM
My favorite was CINCUSNAVEUR.

mine was PENIS

Practical exercise not involving soldiers, a staff exercise

Biscuit
4th April 2012, 10:51 AM
US Forces seem to like a lot of Acronyms. Don't know what the RN is like these days but when I was in we didn't have many.

ASP - Acronyms Solve Problems

Border Reiver
4th April 2012, 10:52 AM
I used to be an MMC in MP onboard an LHA in the USN. I'm kinda used to acronyms, FYI.


Presently a WO (soon to be MWO when the paperwork is signed), acting as the BSM of a BTY in the RCA - Acronyms are the lifeblood of the military.

That and access to beer.

Border Reiver
4th April 2012, 10:55 AM
mine was PENIS

Practical exercise not involving soldiers, a staff exercise

+1

BazBear
4th April 2012, 11:31 AM
Long ago when I was in the Army, USAEUR (US Army Europe) actually, we often went on FTX(Field Training Exercise) and CPX(Command Post exercise), and once on REFORGER(Return of Forces to Germany). We always had a PCI(Pre-Combat Inspection) of our TA50(Field gear/kit) including our LBE(load bearing equipment, ammo belt with suspenders), ALICE(back pack and frame), MOPP(mission oriented protective posture, chemical suit and mask) etc. by our dickhead starched BDU(battle dress uniform, camo fatigues basically) LT(Lieutenant), who I also had to drive in a CUCV(basically a Chevy Blazer) (with the RAWLS[rotating amber warning light system, a yellowspinning light) turned on on post or in a bivouac area) after doing a PMCS(preventive maintenence checks and services) of course. My MOS(military occupational specialty) was 31V(communications mechanic) so I had to deal with VRC, GRC, PRC(vehicle ground and personal radio systems), RATT(radio teletype), VIC(armored vehicle crew intercom), and COMSEC(communication security ie. encryption) gear. Later on I was the TOC(tactical operations center) commo guy, so I had to carry a CEOI(communication-electronics operating instruction-contained all the radio freqs and call signs for that day). And at least one MRE(meal ready to eat, AKA meal rejected by Ethiopians) a day in the field! And I'm sure I've missed quite a few of our acronyms :D

Hans
4th April 2012, 12:19 PM
Long ago when I was in the Army, USAEUR actually, we often went on FTX and CPX, and once on REFORGER. We always had a PCI of our TA50 including our LBE, ALICE, MOPP etc. by our dickhead starched BDU LT, who I also had to drive in a CUCV (with the RAWLS turned on on post or in a bivouac area) after doing a PMCS of course. My MOS was 31V so I had to deal with VRC, GRC, PRC, RATT, VIC, and COMSEC gear. Later on I was the TOC commo guy, so I had to carry a CEOI. And at least one MRE a day in the field! And I'm sure I've missed quite a few of our acronyms :D

Well damn I actually know many of those still. When I use to teach at FAS I use to write the meanings of the acronyms on the teaching boards in pencil - impossible to see from the students point of view but that allowed me to point to the item in question and read out what it meant to them - in the days before powerpoints

Hans
4th April 2012, 12:24 PM
+1

I should explain that the exercise, in English was called something like

Corps staff level exercise without troop units

That got translated into German who then past it onto some French speaking Belgians who translated it into Flemish - where it then went to Denmark and then by magic to the French who would just be involved supernumerary like in the exercise....

It was their French translation of the Danish translation, etc that came out PENIS

Garrison
4th April 2012, 12:48 PM
CTs all seems to suck at maths. If we are 99.99% that the mainstream view is the correct one but there is a 0.01% chance the conspiracy theory is true(being generous because I didn't want to type to many decimal places) that does not make the explanations equal.

carlitos
4th April 2012, 12:51 PM
CTs all seems to suck at maths. If we are 99.99% that the mainstream view is the correct one but there is a 0.01% chance the conspiracy theory is true(being generous because I didn't want to type to many decimal places) that does not make the explanations equal.

yCFB2akLh4s

LSSBB
4th April 2012, 01:00 PM
aswtrcenpacfltsd.

Hah, I've been there, tiny base tucked in along the North end of the Bay, across from where the Boot Camp was.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 01:16 PM
Hah, I've been there, tiny base tucked in along the North end of the Bay, across from where the Boot Camp was.

Ever try to tell a cabbie you want to get after getting well and truly hammered? :D

LSSBB
4th April 2012, 01:26 PM
Ever try to tell a cabbie you want to get after getting well and truly hammered? :D

I took a cab there just once, from Coronado, 0 dark thirty and stone cold sober.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 01:33 PM
I took a cab there just once, from Coronado, 0 dark thirty and stone cold sober.

I was sober there once. Once.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 02:04 PM
If you actually read something, you would know that they were expecting the surprise in the Philippines.

Surprise!

At least, that's what you've been told.

Surprise!

Biscuit
4th April 2012, 02:08 PM
At least, that's what you've been told.

Surprise!


Do you really live life thinking that any information from any source is untrustworthy and thus the scenarios you have fabricated with your imagination alone are just as likely as reality?

DGM
4th April 2012, 02:17 PM
Do you really live life thinking that any information from any source is untrustworthy and thus the scenarios you have fabricated with your imagination alone are just as likely as reality?
I don't believe this is the case. He reserves the right to dismiss any evidence on the basis of if he likes it. The source doesn't matter.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 02:17 PM
Do you really live life thinking that any information from any source is untrustworthy and thus the scenarios you have fabricated with your imagination alone are just as likely as reality?

Why, should I trust what the government says instead and be a government truther?

DGM
4th April 2012, 02:21 PM
Why, should I trust what the government says instead and be a government truther?
Where did he state a source of the information? You really do have poor reading skills.

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 02:35 PM
Why, should I trust what the government says instead and be a government truther?

This might come as a surprise to you but information that history derives from isn't all from government sources. But if you were paying attention and not living in your delusions you would have become aware of this fact in any one of the dozens of times it's been explained to you.

Redtail
4th April 2012, 02:37 PM
Posts since SHC was asked to back up his claim: 23

Posts in which SHC backed up his claim: 0

Biscuit
4th April 2012, 02:39 PM
Why, should I trust what the government says instead and be a government truther?

Where did he state a source of the information? You really do have poor reading skills.

Seriously poor reading skills. Your whole evil government routine is wearing pretty thin.

There are many sources for the facts pertaining to the attack on PH but your imagination is not one of them.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 02:57 PM
There are many sources for the facts pertaining to the attack on PH but your imagination is not one of them.

Only one source knows the full and complete truth, though, and that's the U.S. government. All your other "sources" are working with an incomplete collection of evidence, and are therefore merely speculating about what really happened.

Nothing you have to say will change that.

DGM
4th April 2012, 03:00 PM
Only one source knows the full and complete truth, though, and that's the U.S. government. All your other "sources" are working with an incomplete collection of evidence, and are therefore merely speculating about what really happened.

Nothing you have to say will change that.
Except for the fact everyone there was not the US Government.

:rolleyes:

Biscuit
4th April 2012, 03:10 PM
Only one source knows the full and complete truth, though, and that's the U.S. government. All your other "sources" are working with an incomplete collection of evidence, and are therefore merely speculating about what really happened.

Nothing you have to say will change that.

The "truth" that you want to believe only exists in your imagination.

JerryGarcia
4th April 2012, 03:22 PM
So only the government knows the complete truth?

And we can't trust anything they tell us?

How convenient.

Dancing David
4th April 2012, 03:24 PM
Only one source knows the full and complete truth, though, and that's the U.S. government. All your other "sources" are working with an incomplete collection of evidence, and are therefore merely speculating about what really happened.

Nothing you have to say will change that.

You do realize that the 'government' is a heterogeneous group of individuals. Therefore there are many sources within that self same government and many sources from the people who were in that government.

One of my HS teachers was at Los Alamos during the time of experimenting to build the bomb, he told a story of how the military officers would classify the books on the shelves as secret. Even though they were commonly available.

dudalb
4th April 2012, 03:27 PM
Long ago when I was in the Army, USAEUR (US Army Europe) actually, we often went on FTX(Field Training Exercise) and CPX(Command Post exercise), and once on REFORGER(Return of Forces to Germany). We always had a PCI(Pre-Combat Inspection) of our TA50(Field gear/kit) including our LBE(load bearing equipment, ammo belt with suspenders), ALICE(back pack and frame), MOPP(mission oriented protective posture, chemical suit and mask) etc. by our dickhead starched BDU(battle dress uniform, camo fatigues basically) LT(Lieutenant), who I also had to drive in a CUCV(basically a Chevy Blazer) (with the RAWLS[rotating amber warning light system, a yellowspinning light) turned on on post or in a bivouac area) after doing a PMCS(preventive maintenence checks and services) of course. My MOS(military occupational specialty) was 31V(communications mechanic) so I had to deal with VRC, GRC, PRC(vehicle ground and personal radio systems), RATT(radio teletype), VIC(armored vehicle crew intercom), and COMSEC(communication security ie. encryption) gear. Later on I was the TOC(tactical operations center) commo guy, so I had to carry a CEOI(communication-electronics operating instruction-contained all the radio freqs and call signs for that day). And at least one MRE(meal ready to eat, AKA meal rejected by Ethiopians) a day in the field! And I'm sure I've missed quite a few of our acronyms :D


Ah, brings back memories of my own U.S. Army days.
Since then the use of Acronymns has spread, and the U.S. Military is no worse then most large businesses nowdays....

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 03:49 PM
You do realize that the 'government' is a heterogeneous group of individuals. Therefore there are many sources within that self same government and many sources from the people who were in that government.

That doesn't necessarily mean they are going to break ranks and come forward to incriminate themselves or others, especially if it entails sharing Top Secret, classified information.

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 03:51 PM
Except for the fact everyone there was not the US Government.

:rolleyes:

Where's "there", exactly? Who else was in on Roosevelt's meetings with his intelligence officers and closest advisors?

SpringHallConvert
4th April 2012, 03:54 PM
So only the government knows the complete truth?

And we can't trust anything they tell us?

How convenient.

Precisely.

The government has all the insider knowledge, documentation, and secrets.

The same government has also proven to be untrustworthy, scandalous, and duplicitous.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

JerryGarcia
4th April 2012, 03:56 PM
Mmmmm hmmmm. Good luck with that.

DGM
4th April 2012, 04:01 PM
Where's "there", exactly? Who else was in on Roosevelt's meetings with his intelligence officers and closest advisors?
What makes you think that was the only place this information was discussed? Is this some sort of rule?

What is your evidence for this would be the only place? I'll wait.

Jack by the hedge
4th April 2012, 04:04 PM
Precisely.

The government has all the insider knowledge, documentation, and secrets.

The same government has also proven to be untrustworthy, scandalous, and duplicitous.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

1941 was quite some time ago. Surely the conundrum is how "the government" is still alive?

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 04:15 PM
The same government has also proven to be untrustworthy, scandalous, and duplicitous.


Q: And when and how has this proven?
A: From when the government failed to even try to cover up scandals and crimes committed within it's ranks. Not only that but confirmed it themselves instead of erasing the evidence and saying that it never happened like you suggest what happened with the non-existant intel that supposedly alerted Roosevelt to an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor.

Don't you think this makes your version of events even slightly unlikely?

And where do you think confirmation for said non-existant intel would come from if it actually existed?

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:23 PM
You do realize that the 'government' is a heterogeneous group of individuals. Therefore there are many sources within that self same government and many sources from the people who were in that government.

One of my HS teachers was at Los Alamos during the time of experimenting to build the bomb, he told a story of how the military officers would classify the books on the shelves as secret. Even though they were commonly available.

That, to an old spook, makes sense.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:25 PM
What makes you think that was the only place this information was discussed? Is this some sort of rule?

What is your evidence for this would be the only place? I'll wait.

He hasn't even read these. (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/pt_14/x14-033.html)

Mudcat
4th April 2012, 04:31 PM
That, to an old spook, makes sense.

Too bad there isn't an old spook we can ask what they think of a complete and total cover-up like the one SHC and CTist in general suggest.

Gawdzilla
4th April 2012, 04:38 PM
Give me two pieces of apparently innocuous information and I tell you how fast a warship can go, tops. By the same logic, if you collect information, knowing what books the boffins are reading is more part of the puzzle. If they show a trend toward one school of thought over another you have a clue as how their research is going.

Border Reiver
5th April 2012, 03:33 AM
1941 was quite some time ago. Surely the conundrum is how "the government" is still alive?

That, and "Top Secret" files are de-classified after 50 years.

Captain_Swoop
5th April 2012, 04:44 AM
That, and "Top Secret" files are de-classified after 50 years.
Well, the CTer will say how do you know they declassified everything? What about he real secrets that they erm... keep secret?

Dancing David
5th April 2012, 04:47 AM
That doesn't necessarily mean they are going to break ranks and come forward to incriminate themselves or others, especially if it entails sharing Top Secret, classified information.

Sure, but it also provides a large amount of material about what many of the players thought at different times, you ignore that.

So the expectations of an attack and the number of expectations that thought the attack would come at Pearl harbor is something that can be judged. The number of expectations that anticipated the attack some place else can be judged.

Meanwhile you continue to have zero evidence. What is your actual belief, how would FDR convince the japanese fleet to attack Pearl?

Dancing David
5th April 2012, 04:49 AM
He hasn't even read these. (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/pt_14/x14-033.html)

But those aren't the Super Secret Smurf Cabal memos.

Gawdzilla
5th April 2012, 04:54 AM
That, and "Top Secret" files are de-classified after 50 years.

If I remember correctly the files can be reviewed for declassification after 50 years. The 14th Naval District's files (this include Hawaii) are at San Bruno, California, (I'll spare you the finding numbers) and I've volunteered to help sort the ones that can be immediately declassed. It's a fun job for a fanatic like me. :D

Gawdzilla
5th April 2012, 04:56 AM
But those aren't the Super Secret Smurf Cabal memos.

Yeah, those are all on pay sites. :mad:

Captain_Swoop
5th April 2012, 05:22 AM
I am surprised SpringHallConvert hasn't voted in the Apollo Hoax Poll.
Surely he doesn't think it is real as the evidence comes from a Govt organisation.

aggle-rithm
5th April 2012, 06:44 AM
Precisely.

The government has all the insider knowledge, documentation, and secrets.

The same government has also proven to be untrustworthy, scandalous, and duplicitous.


...according to...?

Gawdzilla
5th April 2012, 07:21 AM
...according to...?

Paranoid whack jobs all over the planet.

Biscuit
5th April 2012, 07:35 AM
Well, the CTer will say how do you know they declassified everything? What about he real secrets that they erm... keep secret?

He will go even further and extrapolate that because there are no top secret documents proving his wild baseless speculation its proof that they are still being hidden!

Its really a fun game!

My imagination: The U.S. government has a covert dinosaur breeding program.

My proof: There is no documentation of such a project and no one has come forward to say they were involved in such a program. This means that the conspirators are all in league with each other and continue to hide the documents.

My Defense: Government no dinosaur truthers must provide documents that claim there is no dinosaur breeding program! (should you provide such documents it is merely further proof that such a program does exist or why would they lie about not having such a program!!!)

kookbreaker
5th April 2012, 08:07 AM
I'd like to know who is hiding these documents. The initial classifier is probably dead, and Government employees could have gone through as many as 3-4 generations of document caretakers in that time. Did one of them, a chosen apprentice to a clerk from the War approach a young new employee in the early 90's and say "You are now my apprentice, I will show you the SEEEKRIT documents - they are marked like all the other WW2 documents, but you must make certain that these are NEVER declassified with all the millions of documents that can be declassified in a few years - and no I am not going to tell you why they need to remain secret -and make sure nobody else in the department declassifies them - and make sure you pick someone to replace you in a few years -Oh, and don't even mention these files to anyone"

Either that or these files are classified in a higher category that would make them stick out like a sore thumb.

...yeah..

Hans
5th April 2012, 08:16 AM
Either that or these files are classified in a higher category that would make them stick out like a sore thumb.

...yeah..

....you kinda wonder if these documents were so super secret why you wouldn't just destroy them...why keep them? lol

I do love the mindset that holds the government to be:

Monolithic, of one mind, millions of people all with the same philosphy and outlook

Never changing, people never dying or being replaced

Unceasing loyalty to past governments and a willingness to 'protect' them

carlitos
5th April 2012, 10:07 AM
....you kinda wonder if these documents were so super secret why you wouldn't just destroy them...why keep them? lol

Because the only effective way to destroy documents is to knock down a couple of high rises near them, followed up by 7 hour long fires, and an eventual ninjaneered building collapse with therm*te. There just aren't that many situations where this is possible.

Corsair 115
5th April 2012, 09:23 PM
Because the only effective way to destroy documents is to knock down a couple of high rises near them, followed up by 7 hour long fires, and an eventual ninjaneered building collapse with therm*te. There just aren't that many situations where this is possible.


I'd call it Rube Goldberg syndrome. Why use an easy solution like a paper shredder when a far more complicated method such as you describe can be used?

000063
6th April 2012, 07:59 AM
I always love it when CTs have it pointed out to them that their version of the plan is orders of magnitude more complicated than a much simpler one.

Biscuit
6th April 2012, 08:07 AM
I always love it when CTs have it pointed out to them that their version of the plan is orders of magnitude more complicated than a much simpler one.

Kind of like the moon bats who claim that the thousands of people involved in constructing the apollo space craft weren't in on the hoax... so that means they actually would have designed and built space worthy craft that could go to the moon so why not just go to the moon?

Without evidence one is forced to play mental twister to try and keep the fantasy alive. Right food - Ridiculous. Left hand - implausible.

Mudcat
6th April 2012, 08:22 AM
I'd call it Rube Goldberg syndrome. Why use an easy solution like a paper shredder when a far more complicated method such as you describe can be used?

I happen to find Rube Goldberg devices a fascinating look into the oxymoronic. Specifically: The impractical practicalness.

But yeah, Conspiracy Theories are devoid of any practicality at all.

carlitos
6th April 2012, 08:23 AM
I always love it when CTs have it pointed out to them that their version of the plan is orders of magnitude more complicated than a much simpler one.

Dr. Evil: Scott, I want you to meet daddy's nemesis, Austin Powers

Scott Evil: What? Are you feeding him? Why don't you just kill him?

Dr. Evil: I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.
:)

Mudcat
6th April 2012, 08:33 AM
:)
Lucius: So now I'm in deep trouble. I mean, one more jolt of this death ray and I'm an epitaph. Somehow I manage to find cover and what does Baron von Ruthless do?
Bob: [laughing] He starts monologuing.
Lucius: He starts monologuing! He starts like, this prepared speech about how feeble I am compared to him, how inevitable my defeat is, how the world will soon be his, yadda yadda yadda.
Bob: Yammering.
Lucius: Yammering! I mean, the guy has me on a platter and he won't shut up!

And it leads to this:

Mr. Incredible: I was wrong to treat you that way. I'm sorry . . .
Syndrome: See? Now you respect me, because I'm a threat. That's the way it works. Turns out there are lots of people, whole countries, that want respect, and will pay through the nose to get it. How do you think I got rich? I invented weapons, and now I have a weapon that only I can defeat, and when I unleash it . . .
[Mr. Incredible throws a log at Syndrome, who dodges it and traps Mr. Incredible with his zero-point energy ray]
Syndrome: Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You got me monologuing! I can't believe it . . .

:cool:

catsmate1
6th April 2012, 11:44 AM
I'd call it Rube Goldberg syndrome. Why use an easy solution like a paper shredder when a far more complicated method such as you describe can be used?
[slightly offtopic] This reminds me of a classic quote (is there any other kind?) from Yes Minister. In honour of it's revival:
Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.
That's how real governments handle embarrassing paperwork. Though they left out 'damaged by rodent infestation and rendered unreadable' which was one of my dad's favourites.

tsig
6th April 2012, 12:59 PM
I'd like to know who is hiding these documents. The initial classifier is probably dead, and Government employees could have gone through as many as 3-4 generations of document caretakers in that time. Did one of them, a chosen apprentice to a clerk from the War approach a young new employee in the early 90's and say "You are now my apprentice, I will show you the SEEEKRIT documents - they are marked like all the other WW2 documents, but you must make certain that these are NEVER declassified with all the millions of documents that can be declassified in a few years - and no I am not going to tell you why they need to remain secret -and make sure nobody else in the department declassifies them - and make sure you pick someone to replace you in a few years -Oh, and don't even mention these files to anyone"

Either that or these files are classified in a higher category that would make them stick out like a sore thumb.

...yeah..

They're so secret that no one even knows they exist.

MaGZ
6th April 2012, 07:26 PM
The idea that the US was isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor is another sad sack meme of the CT whack jobs. And ignorance of logistics leads them to think a two-ocean war was a trivial thing.

So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing

Garrison
6th April 2012, 07:48 PM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing


Yes the US was so 'isolationist' it guarded convoys crossing the Atlantic, attacked German targets, and took casualties from U-boat attacks including the loss of a destroyer. All this while supplying military materiel to the UK and USSR to assist their fight with Germany all before Pearl Harbor. US policy may officially have been neutrality but reality was something else, something you don't appear to have researched beyond a few glib sound bites like 'isolationist'.

Border Reiver
6th April 2012, 07:57 PM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing

In 1939. By 1941 the US People were realizing that they could not remain neutral and were strongly leaning towards the Allies. The US had entered into a defence relationship with Canada, and was selling war materiel to both the Dominion and to the UK on credit.

The US started as isolationist but was growing up to realize that they were not able to say that what goes on outside our borders doesn't concern us.

SpringHallConvert
6th April 2012, 08:39 PM
It's humorous watching these government truther revisionists try to spin the American people's notorious, pre-WW2 isolationism into some sort of pro-interventionist fairytale. How utterly deceptive.

carlitos
6th April 2012, 08:42 PM
Seriously, if posters here think that they add value by responding to SHC's posts, they should surf the 9/11 subforum and see.

beachnut
6th April 2012, 09:05 PM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Are you aware the United States made steps away from isolationist policy, which dominated United States foreign relations since World War I, before 7 Dec? How is that Missiles at Ground Zero delusion going?

Guess what would fill history books?

SpringHallConvert
6th April 2012, 09:07 PM
Seriously, if posters here think that they add value by responding to SHC's posts, they should surf the 9/11 subforum and see.

Look who's talking. You just responded to my post and added absolutely no value while urging others not to do the same.

You guys are trolling your own board!

Corsair 115
6th April 2012, 09:28 PM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing


Heh heh, now you've done it. Gawdzilla will now hit you over the head with Gallup polls from the time showing that the U.S. was not really in the isolationist camp at the time.

*cue six hundred foot fire-breathing prehistoric lizard that has a fondness for eating Tokyo*

SpringHallConvert
6th April 2012, 10:34 PM
Oh goody. Here comes another round of blind, wild goose chase links.

Mudcat
6th April 2012, 11:06 PM
In 1939. By 1941 the US People were realizing that they could not remain neutral and were strongly leaning towards the Allies. The US had entered into a defence relationship with Canada, and was selling war materiel to both the Dominion and to the UK on credit.

The US started as isolationist but was growing up to realize that they were not able to say that what goes on outside our borders doesn't concern us.

Interesting tidbit, I thought it would be something like that. If the USA was really as isolationist as CTists like to suggest during the time that Pearl Harbor attacks had happened it probably would have cause them to withdraw even more into their own shell.

Captain_Swoop
7th April 2012, 01:26 AM
Lend-Lease [1] was the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, Free France, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 but nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 03:21 AM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 03:23 AM
Interesting tidbit, I thought it would be something like that. If the USA was really as isolationist as CTists like to suggest during the time that Pearl Harbor attacks had happened it probably would have cause them to withdraw even more into their own shell.

If the US was really isolationist the Japanese wouldn't have had to attack us at all.

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 03:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Lend-Lease Shipments to all countries during WWII (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html)

From

500,000,000+ buttons.

down to

8 sets of salt and pepper shakers.

000063
7th April 2012, 06:24 AM
Kind of like the moon bats who claim that the thousands of people involved in constructing the apollo space craft weren't in on the hoax... so that means they actually would have designed and built space worthy craft that could go to the moon so why not just go to the moon?

Without evidence one is forced to play mental twister to try and keep the fantasy alive. Right food - Ridiculous. Left hand - implausible.I spent a lot of time arguing with such hoaxers in one particular thread on ATS. Whenever I pointed out how many people would have to be involved, one poster called FoosM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7334253#post7334253) would spam C&P'd text and images that were only tangentially related in order to bury my points. Several times, people pointed out that with all the effort to perpetuate the conspiracy, they might as well have just gone to the moon.

dafydd
7th April 2012, 07:05 AM
I spent a lot of time arguing with such hoaxers in one particular thread on ATS. Whenever I pointed out how many people would have to be involved, one poster called FoosM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7334253#post7334253) would spam C&P'd text and images that were only tangentially related in order to bury my points. Several times, people pointed out that with all the effort to perpetuate the conspiracy, they might as well have just gone to the moon.

Mitchell and Webb nailed the Moon hoax nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Biscuit
7th April 2012, 07:20 AM
It's humorous watching these government truther revisionists try to spin the American people's notorious, pre-WW2 isolationism into some sort of pro-interventionist fairytale. How utterly deceptive.

Google the "lend Lease act"


ETA: Beaten to it by several others.

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 07:38 AM
Google the "lend Lease act"


ETA: Beaten to it by several others.

For good information, add "Hyperwar" to any search for regarding WWII. It will save you a bunch of nonsense hits.

Dancing David
7th April 2012, 07:40 AM
It's humorous watching these government truther revisionists try to spin the American people's notorious, pre-WW2 isolationism into some sort of pro-interventionist fairytale. How utterly deceptive.

It is even funnier how you just assert things without any statistics. What proportion, where, were isolationist?

Mondial
7th April 2012, 03:14 PM
Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
Major Jordan's Diaries - link to a book by a US air force officer who had firsthand experience of FDR's support of communism. It details the billions and billions in aid given to the soviets including materiel to build the atomic bomb. www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html)

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 03:18 PM
Major Jordan's Diaries - link to a book by a US air force officer who had firsthand experience of FDR's support of communism. It details the billions and billions in aid given to the soviets including materiel to build the atomic bomb. www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html)

So, you have a problem with nuking Nazis?

Oh, sorry...

Garrison
7th April 2012, 04:01 PM
Major Jordan's Diaries - link to a book by a US air force officer who had firsthand experience of FDR's support of communism. It details the billions and billions in aid given to the soviets including materiel to build the atomic bomb. www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html)

You mean the Lend Lease program that was a matter of public record and was approved by congress? Those billions of dollars in aid? The thing that everyone apart apparently from you already knew about?

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 04:10 PM
Major Jordan's Diaries - link to a book by a US air force officer who had firsthand experience of FDR's support of communism. It details the billions and billions in aid given to the soviets including materiel to build the atomic bomb. www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html)

Mondial, have you actually read that "book", because the good Major comes off as a fruit cake.

Captain_Swoop
7th April 2012, 04:13 PM
In fact there is a thread in this very Forum discussing the US Lend-Lease aid to the USSR in WW2. Hardly needs exposing in someones Diaries.

Lend-Lease to the Allies was one of the great achievements of the US in WW2

Gawdzilla
7th April 2012, 04:20 PM
In fact there is a thread in this very Forum discussing the US Lend-Lease aid to the USSR in WW2. Hardly needs exposing in someones Diaries.

Lend-Lease to the Allies was one of the great achievements of the US in WW2

I did a file on Lend-Lease, a set of tables with 72,000+ cells. Took me weeks to get right. I've posted a link to it before.

SpringHallConvert
7th April 2012, 10:59 PM
Google the "lend Lease act"


ETA: Beaten to it by several others.

This is a mindless straw man argument.

Nobody is arguing Roosevelt's policies. The argument is whether or not the American people wanted to be directly involved in WW2.

SpringHallConvert
7th April 2012, 11:01 PM
Mondial, have you actually read that "book", because the good Major comes off as a fruit cake.

Why? Because he said something that shatters your fantasies about what really took place during WW2?

SpringHallConvert
7th April 2012, 11:02 PM
You mean the Lend Lease program that was a matter of public record and was approved by congress? Those billions of dollars in aid? The thing that everyone apart apparently from you already knew about?

Ignorant post is ignorant.

Mudcat
7th April 2012, 11:04 PM
Never mind

Jack by the hedge
8th April 2012, 04:08 PM
The argument is whether or not the American people wanted to be directly involved in WW2.

It's not really an argument, it's just you trying to move the goalposts in the forlorn hope of avoiding being wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=184152

Gawdzilla
8th April 2012, 04:24 PM
No sane person WANTS to get into a war. But people go to dentists despite the sure pain involved, because it needs to be done. Even the America Firsters weren't, by and large, afraid to fight, they just thought their country should be defended and everybody else should do the same. They missed the point that the country could best be defended if we didn't have to fight in Mississippi and Seattle.

Border Reiver
8th April 2012, 06:11 PM
Although we DID have your back....

SpringHallConvert
8th April 2012, 07:15 PM
It's not really an argument, it's just you trying to move the goalposts in the forlorn hope of avoiding being wrong.

False. This is where the goalposts were all along, so there would be no need to move them. You're just grasping at anything you can because your conspiracy theory is under fire.

SpringHallConvert
8th April 2012, 07:23 PM
They missed the point that the country could best be defended if we didn't have to fight in Mississippi and Seattle.

Right, like that was going to happen. Germany, a country of barely 80 million people, was going to successfully tie down and garrison all of Europe, North Africa, half of the Middle East, all of European Russia, and then mount an invasion of North America through Mississippi. All this with a token blue-water navy. Meanwhile, Japan was going to invade the West Coast through Seattle.

What other fantasies do you have rolling around in that noggin of yours?

JerryGarcia
8th April 2012, 07:31 PM
Can you prove that they weren't going to, SHC?

Gawdzilla
8th April 2012, 07:31 PM
Although we DID have your back....

Someone once asked me "Who did the most to win WWII?" I replied, "Which organ in your body keeps you alive?"

Gawdzilla
8th April 2012, 07:34 PM
The fallacy with the "80,000,000 Germans" besides blatant ignorance, is that the Wehrmacht was recruiting from conquered countries, and if left undisturbed they could have had 250,000,000 people under the swastika by the end of the '40s.

Add to this the impression an isolationist US would have made on other countries:

"The gringos don't care about us, why should we care about them?"

SpringHallConvert
8th April 2012, 07:39 PM
The fallacy with the "80,000,000 Germans" besides blatant ignorance, is that the Wehrmacht was recruiting from conquered countries, and if left undisturbed they could have had 250,000,000 people under the swastika by the end of the '40s.

Add to this the impression an isolationist US would have made on other countries:

"The gringos don't care about us, why should we care about them?"

That's another nice fantasy.

Tell me something, were the Germans going to get that fantasy slave army of a quarter-billion men to build them a navy to get them across the Atlantic too?

carlitos
8th April 2012, 07:42 PM
V8lT1o0sDwI

Gawdzilla
8th April 2012, 08:16 PM
Z-plan.

Border Reiver
8th April 2012, 09:05 PM
That's another nice fantasy.

Tell me something, were the Germans going to get that fantasy slave army of a quarter-billion men to build them a navy to get them across the Atlantic too?

French navy, Italian navy, etc.

Plus with the US not getting involved how would you have stopped the incorporation of the other European nations into the Wehrmacht and the German navy? A strongly worded letter?

The US would have been relying on the remanents of the RN and RCN to deal with the satire in the Atlantic.

Hans
8th April 2012, 09:33 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA20&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

What the US thinks, Summer 1940

BravesFan
8th April 2012, 10:56 PM
Someone once asked me "Who did the most to win WWII?" I replied, "Which organ in your body keeps you alive?"

I can't speak for the rest of you but in my case it's definitely my liver and penis!!


:D:D:D:D

Corsair 115
8th April 2012, 11:51 PM
Right, like that was going to happen. Germany, a country of barely 80 million people, was going to successfully tie down and garrison all of Europe, North Africa, half of the Middle East, all of European Russia, and then mount an invasion of North America through Mississippi. All this with a token blue-water navy.


Wait, so you're suggesting you have no issues or reservations with letting the Nazi regime swallow all of Europe and Russia and letting the militarists of Japan swallow all of the remainder of Asia?

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 03:36 AM
I can't speak for the rest of you but in my case it's definitely my liver and penis!!


:D:D:D:D

Something to filter toxins and something to think with. You have a winning combination there. ;)

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 03:39 AM
Wait, so you're suggesting you have no issues or reservations with letting the Nazi regime swallow all of Europe and Russia and letting the militarists of Japan swallow all of the remainder of Asia?

He's trying to shoehorn the resources of the entire planet into the 1940 Kriegsmarine's tally sheet. This like of gymnastics is needed when one refuses to accept reality.

catsmate1
9th April 2012, 03:44 AM
So you are unaware the US was in the isolationist camp prior to Pearl Harbor?

Amazing
As you've been shown before this simply isn't true. Yet you repeat the lie.:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Are you aware the United States made steps away from isolationist policy, which dominated United States foreign relations since World War I, before 7 Dec? How is that Missiles at Ground Zero delusion going?

Guess what would fill history books?
Given that MaGZ has popped up in the lend-lease thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=233266) he should be aware of it. Of course in that thread he's saying supporting the Soviet Union was immoral.......

Captain_Swoop
9th April 2012, 04:20 AM
As for the Germans capturing foreign ships. That was the very reason for the RN shelling the French Fleet after their surrender. Germany would have had no problem building a fleet with all the resources of Europe and Russia under its control, to think anything else is stupid.

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 04:39 AM
As for the Germans capturing foreign ships. That was the very reason for the RN shelling the French Fleet after their surrender. Germany would have had no problem building a fleet with all the resources of Europe and Russia under its control, to think anything else is stupid.

And large chunks of the world would see the writing on the wall. "The US doesn't care about us, so we return the favor. The Germans are giving us a choice of joining them voluntarily or being consumed. If our neighbors with the poor sense of boundaries join them first we will have even further problems."

The America Firsters knew this, and they could never find a counter, so in the end they were never able to get the majority of Americans to buy their program.

catsmate1
9th April 2012, 05:57 AM
That's another nice fantasy.

Tell me something, were the Germans going to get that fantasy slave army of a quarter-billion men to build them a navy to get them across the Atlantic too?
So Operation Catapult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir) wasn't necessary?

dafydd
9th April 2012, 06:28 AM
So Operation Catapult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir) wasn't necessary?

You are expecting SHC to take any notice of history?

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 06:39 AM
Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historiography)
1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods

b : the principles, theory, and history of historical writing <a course in historiography>

2: the product of historical writing : a body of historical literature

Definition of Conspiracy Theory historiography:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf68b53ef010536ef3e64970b-800wi

Corsair 115
9th April 2012, 08:30 AM
He's trying to shoehorn the resources of the entire planet into the 1940 Kriegsmarine's tally sheet. This like of gymnastics is needed when one refuses to accept reality.


No, I get that. What I found interesting is the implication from his line of thought, which I read as follows:

The U.S. didn't need to worry if Germany took all of Europe and most or all of Russia because even then it still would have been a practical impossibility for it to have invaded the United States. But such a view means he has no qualms at all about the vile Nazi regime conquering Europe and Russia and imposing its harsh and brutal rule on those conquered peoples. (Millions of which in western Russia would have been starved to death to make way for German settlers.)

Quite apart from any direct concerns over the potential of an invasion of the U.S. by any greater German Reich was the fact that the Nazi regime in itself was cruel and reprehensible and worth fighting on that reason alone.

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 08:33 AM
No, I get that. What I found interesting is the implication from his line of thought, which I read as follows:

The U.S. didn't need to worry if Germany took all of Europe and most or all of Russia because even then it still would have been a practical impossibility for it to have invaded the United States. But such a view means he has no qualms at all about the vile Nazi regime conquering Europe and Russia and imposing its harsh and brutal rule on those conquered peoples. (Millions of which in western Russia would have been starved to death to make way for German settlers.)
Yeah, and the isolationists had to deal with the same issues. They never got a platform together that would deal with that problem.

Quite apart from any direct concerns over the potential of an invasion of the U.S. by any greater German Reich was the fact that the Nazi regime in itself was cruel and reprehensible and worth fighting on that reason alone.
One of my profs at Purdue was an Eighth Army veteran, '39-'45. He once said "Killing Nazis then was a good idea. And it's STILL a good idea." :D

Hans
9th April 2012, 08:36 AM
I suspect that in a world where the Axis won the following would happen

A 'cold war' between them and the United States

The Axis would try to take over the European colonies in the Americas, particularly the Dutch and French - and against French, British, Belgian and Portuguese colonies in Africa and Asia

Economic blockade.

Then build up for a generation, after that invasion would have been possible also this world would have nuclear weapons, probably on both sides

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 08:41 AM
I think South America would take the pragmatic route and become "neutral but biased" toward Germany. The colonies would be facing a two government situation, one government representing the government in exile from the home country, and the other representing the de facto, and de jure, government at home. Vichy France would pressure it's colonies to accept German "advisors" (maybe only 50,000 or so) and the influence would have spread to adjoining countries via fifth column activities. The "Aryan Revolution" would spread as more and more peoples were made "honorary Aryans". The end result would be Europe, Africa and South America under the Nazis, with Russia as far as the Urals either under German control or being pressed hard.

Hans
9th April 2012, 10:56 AM
I think South America would take the pragmatic route and become "neutral but biased" toward Germany. The colonies would be facing a two government situation, one government representing the government in exile from the home country, and the other representing the de facto, and de jure, government at home. Vichy France would pressure it's colonies to accept German "advisors" (maybe only 50,000 or so) and the influence would have spread to adjoining countries via fifth column activities. The "Aryan Revolution" would spread as more and more peoples were made "honorary Aryans". The end result would be Europe, Africa and South America under the Nazis, with Russia as far as the Urals either under German control or being pressed hard.

Not to forget that SA already had large colonies of Japanese, Italians, Germans, etc. Not to mention that a Europe under Hitler would have empowered Franco to take over Portugal too and probably a mandate to re-establish Spanish authority over there lost colonies in SA

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 11:12 AM
Quite apart from any direct concerns over the potential of an invasion of the U.S. by any greater German Reich was the fact that the Nazi regime in itself was cruel and reprehensible and worth fighting on that reason alone.

The Nazi regime in Berlin:

Concentration camps
Biological testing on civilians
Carpet bombing women and children
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical governments

The fascist Roosevelt regime in Washington:

Concentration camps in America
Biological testing on civilians (Tuskegee syphilis experiments)
Carpet bombing women and children (Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, etc...)
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical government (Uncle Joe and the USSR)

Our own government was cruel and reprehensible too. Our armies should have moved on Washington just as soon as they came back from Europe.

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 11:17 AM
Not to forget that SA already had large colonies of Japanese, Italians, Germans, etc. Not to mention that a Europe under Hitler would have empowered Franco to take over Portugal too and probably a mandate to re-establish Spanish authority over there lost colonies in SA

The prefect core for fifth column activities. We know the Japanese were trying to set up covert operations there from the Magic intercepts. I sometimes wonder how much information the US passed along to those governments, and how the "agents of a foreign power" were treated when Japan commenced hostilities. There's a book in there somewhere.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:18 AM
The Nazi regime in Berlin:

Started the war and killed lots of Jews and 'undesirables'
Concentration camps
Biological testing on civilians
Carpet bombing women and children
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical governments

The fascist Roosevelt regime in Washington:

Helped my father's generation out of a jam
Concentration camps in America
Biological testing on civilians (Tuskegee syphilis experiments)
Carpet bombing women and children (Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, etc...)
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical government (Uncle Joe and the USSR)

Our own government was cruel and reprehensible too. Our armies should have moved on Washington just as soon as they came back from Europe.

ftfy. It was British Bomber Command who took the decision to bomb Dresden, in retaliation for Coventry. You really ought to read some history books, then you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 11:29 AM
The Nazi regime in Berlin:

Concentration camps
Biological testing on civilians
Carpet bombing women and children
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical governments

The fascist Roosevelt regime in Washington:

Concentration Internment camps in America
Biological testing on civilians (which was done without his knowledge or consent and was exposed by the government after which they put into place a system to prevent that from happening ever again)
Carpet bombing women and children (which is why the military uses more advanced weapons now in order to cut down on collateral damage)
Supportive of dictators and tyrannical government (which they then latter took out of power)

Your post was inaccurate and severely biased. I fixed it for you.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:35 AM
Your post was inaccurate and severely biased. I fixed it for you.

Inaccurate and severely biased is the truther's modus operandi.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 11:37 AM
ftfy. It was British Bomber Command who took the decision to bomb Dresden, in retaliation for Coventry. You really ought to read some history books, then you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

Are you arguing that the U.S. Army Air Force didn't take part in the bombing of Dresden? That U.S. aircraft and U.S. pilots didn't carpet bomb women and children in Dresden?

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 11:38 AM
The USAF didn't drop carpets.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:41 AM
Are you arguing that the U.S. Army Air Force didn't take part in the bombing of Dresden? That U.S. aircraft and U.S. pilots didn't carpet bomb women and children in Dresden?

No, but Sir Arthur Harris and Churchill took the final decision. Who took the decision to bomb Coventry and Liverpool? Who bombed who first? Hint- you can find the answers in a history book.

Spindrift
9th April 2012, 11:43 AM
the usaf didn't drop carpets.

usaaf

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:45 AM
The USAF didn't drop carpets.

SHC is just miffed that my dad's generation wiped the floor with his heroes. My dad was just 17 when he volunteered for the Air Force. I'm proud of what he did to defeat Hitler. He was braver than any Hitler hugger and truther like SHC. Armchair internet warriors. I wonder what SHC would have done if he had been a teenager back then?

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 11:46 AM
Your post was inaccurate and severely biased. I fixed it for you.

Our internment camps were concentration camps, just as the British termed them during the Second Boer War forty years earlier. We used our concentration camps the same way the British used theirs - to prevent the civilian population from aiding the enemy effort.

You also have no evidence that the Tuskegee experiments were conducted without the Roosevelt administration's knowledge. Either way, our government was conducting incredibly cruel, immoral biological experiments on civilians, just the like Nazi government we were fighting in Europe.

I'm not sure why you'd want to try and defend that. Actually, I am.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:47 AM
Our internment camps were concentration camps, just as the British termed them during the Second Boer War forty years earlier. We used our concentration camps the same way the British used theirs - to prevent the civilian population from aiding the enemy effort.

You also have no evidence that the Tuskegee experiments were conducted without the Roosevelt administration's knowledge. Either way, our government was conducting incredibly cruel, immoral biological experiments on civilians, just the like Nazi government we were fighting in Europe.

I'm not sure why you'd want to try and defend that. Actually, I am.

Heil Hinkel!

Spindrift
9th April 2012, 11:48 AM
Our internment camps were concentration camps, just as the British termed them during the Second Boer War forty years earlier. We used our concentration camps the same way the British used theirs - to prevent the civilian population from aiding the enemy effort.

You also have no evidence that the Tuskegee experiments were conducted without the Roosevelt administration's knowledge. Either way, our government was conducting incredibly cruel, immoral biological experiments on civilians, just the like Nazi government we were fighting in Europe.

I'm not sure why you'd want to try and defend that. Actually, I am.

Because like most normal human beings we hate Nazis!

dafydd
9th April 2012, 11:53 AM
Looking at some of the other threads that SHC is involved in perhaps it would be quicker if he gives us a list of the conspiracy theories that he doesn't believe in. I'm sure it would be a short list.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 11:57 AM
No, but Sir Arthur Harris and Churchill took the final decision.

Really? Harris and Churchill had the ultimate, final decision over whether or not our military assets would be used to murder women and children in Germany? You mean it wasn't the Roosevelt administration's decision to send our bombers over there and subordinate them to the British command structure?

Who took the decision to bomb Coventry and Liverpool? Who bombed who first? Hint- you can find the answers in a history book.

In other words, for you, murdering women and children isn't immoral in and of itself, it's only immoral if the enemy doesn't do it first?

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 11:57 AM
usaaf

Them neither.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 11:59 AM
Because like most normal human beings we hate Nazis!

Sure, when they wear the uniform of a country other than your own.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:00 PM
Really? Harris and Churchill had the ultimate, final decision over whether or not our military assets would be used to murder women and children in Germany? You mean it wasn't the Roosevelt administration's decision to send our bombers over there and subordinate them to the British command structure?



In other words, for you, murdering women and children isn't immoral in and of itself, it's only immoral if the enemy doesn't do it first?

Hitler started it. He was responsible for it all. They were terrible times. Whose side would you have been on if you had been alive back then? I would have fought against Hitler. What would you have done? It's easy to sit there and pontificate in your parent's basement.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:01 PM
Sure, when they wear the uniform of a country other than your own.

Yes, WWII German uniforms. Well spotted kid.

Corsair 115
9th April 2012, 12:06 PM
Carpet bombing women and children (Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, etc...)


Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the nighttime raids by Bomber Command had on Germany's war efforts—effects which I have posted details on numerous times before.

Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the daylight raids by the USAAF had on the German war economy (with the attacks on transportation and oil being particularly important).

Conveniently ignoring that in an industrial nation-state engaged in total war the distinction between civilian and military is blurry at best. The military could not exist nor operate without the efforts of the civilian workforce and economy. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.

And lastly, conveniently ignoring how the Germans were the first to let loose with area bombing in WWII, e.g. Coventry, Rotterdam, etc.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:09 PM
Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the nighttime raids by Bomber Command had on Germany's war efforts—effects which I have posted details on numerous times before.

Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the daylight raids by the USAAF had on the German war economy (with the attacks on transportation and oil being particularly important).

Conveniently ignoring that in an industrial nation-state engaged in total war the distinction between civilian and military is blurry at best. The military could not exist nor operate without the efforts of the civilian workforce and economy. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.

And lastly, conveniently ignoring how the Germans were the first to let loose with area bombing in WWII, e.g. Coventry, Rotterdam, etc.

SHC will forgive Hitler anything, while at the same time ignoring history and reality. Still, we are boosting his ego by responding to him. It's an act of charity. He needs it, poor chap.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:12 PM
Hitler started it. He was responsible for it all.

No, not really. England and France declared war on Germany. I say they are partially responsible, especially considering the fact that Hitler and the rise of the Nazis was a direct result of the unfair terms of the Treaty of Versailles. They reaped what they sowed.

They were terrible times. Whose side would you have been on if you had been alive back then?

I wouldn't have chosen a side, as I don't support tyrannical governments.

I would have fought against Hitler.

How, by bombing innocent women and children who have no control over their oppressive government?

What would you have done? It's easy to sit there and pontificate in your parent's basement.

I would have fled the country, went to jail, or eaten a bullet before I would have donned the uniform of a country led by a scumbag tyrant like Roosevelt.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:16 PM
No, not really. England and France declared war on Germany. I say they are partially responsible, especially considering the fact that Hitler and the rise of the Nazis was a direct result of the unfair terms of the Treaty of Versailles. They reaped what they sowed.

Does the phrase 'invasion of Poland' mean anything to you? Have you never read Mein Kampf?

I would have fled the country, went to jail, or eaten a bullet before I would have donned the uniform of a country led by a scumbag tyrant like Roosevelt.

Ah, so you are a conscientious objector. Luckily most of my dad's generation were not. He was worth a hundred of you. Would you have fought for Hitler if you had been a German back then?

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:20 PM
Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the nighttime raids by Bomber Command had on Germany's war efforts—effects which I have posted details on numerous times before.

Conveniently ignoring the very real economic effects the daylight raids by the USAAF had on the German war economy (with the attacks on transportation and oil being particularly important).

Conveniently ignoring that in an industrial nation-state engaged in total war the distinction between civilian and military is blurry at best. The military could not exist nor operate without the efforts of the civilian workforce and economy. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.

So, what you're saying is, murder of civilians is OK/justified/acceptable as long as it provides economic advantages during wartime?

I imagine Hitler might have said the same thing.

And lastly, conveniently ignoring how the Germans were the first to let loose with area bombing in WWII, e.g. Coventry, Rotterdam, etc.

This makes it OK, right? The Germans were so awful and terrible, we just had to copy them and employ their tactics (concentration camps, terror bombing, etc...) to win?

Corsair 115
9th April 2012, 12:21 PM
ftfy. It was British Bomber Command who took the decision to bomb Dresden, in retaliation for Coventry.


No, it wasn't in retaliation for Coventry. Nothing of the sort. The Dresden raid was just another attack on a German city, of the kind the RAF had been conducting for years.

Contrary to certain myths about the event, there was nothing special in the planning and execution of the Dresden mission. The aircraft carried the mix of high explosive and incendiary bombs typical of raids of the period, and crews followed the same standard procedures used in such attacks. Also contrary to myth is the idea that Dresden was some peaceful, idyllic city devoid of military targets. There were in fact a number of factories within the city devoted to the war effort. That it was a fresh water port and transportation hub also made it militarily significant.

Lastly, the only reason Dresden stands out was because of the freak occurrence of a firestorm, which produced casualties much higher than would have otherwise been the case. But firestorms were rare and unpredictable events which could not be generated on command. Indeed, during the entire war there were perhaps only a dozen firestorms arising from the hundreds upon hundreds of bombing raids undertaken. Had there been no firestorm in Dresden the raid itself would be little more than a footnote in the bombing campaign anals. Example: how many people are aware that the very next night after Dresden the Allies conducted a major raid against Chemnitz?

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:22 PM
This makes it OK, right? The Germans were so awful and terrible, we just had to copy them and employ their tactics (concentration camps, terror bombing, etc...) to win?

What would you have done in retaliation? Invited Hitler over for tea and a chat? We were involved in a life or death struggle with a maniacal dictator. You seem to think that it was all a game.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:24 PM
No, it wasn't in retaliation for Coventry. Nothing of the sort. The Dresden raid was just another attack on a German city, of the kind the RAF had been conducting for years.

Contrary to certain myths about the event, there was nothing special in the planning and execution of the Dresden mission. The aircraft carried the mix of high explosive and incendiary bombs typical of raids of the period, and crews followed the same standard procedures used in such attacks. Also contrary to myth is the idea that Dresden was some peaceful, idyllic city devoid of military targets. There were in fact a number of factories within the city devoted to the war effort. That it was a fresh water port and transportation hub also made it militarily significant.

Lastly, the only reason Dresden stands out was because of the freak occurrence of a firestorm, which produced casualties much higher than would have otherwise been the case. But firestorms were rare and unpredictable events which could not be generated on command. Indeed, during the entire war there were perhaps only a dozen firestorms arising from the hundreds upon hundreds of bombing raids undertaken. Had there been no firestorm in Dresden the raid itself would be little more than a footnote in the bombing campaign anals. Example: how many people are aware that the very next night after Dresden the Allies conducted a major raid against Chemnitz?

I stand corrected. I am willing to learn, unlike SHC

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:28 PM
Does the phrase 'invasion of Poland' mean anything to you? Have you never read Mein Kampf?

Not, not really, since the Soviets invaded Poland the same month the Germans did. So why didn't England and France declare war on the Soviet Union? Was it possibly because protecting Polish sovereignty wasn't the real motivating factor behind their declaration of war?

I think so.

Ah, so you are a conscientious objector. Luckily most of my dad's generation were not. He was worth a hundred of you.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your dad was military livestock (AKA, "cannon fodder"). He fought one evil empire to protect another evil empire, all for the enrichment of industrialists and bankers.

Would you have fought for Hitler if you had been a German back then?

Of course not. I would have fled Germany in the early years, because if I didn't, I would have ended up in a concentration camp or worse.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:33 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your dad was military livestock (AKA, "cannon fodder"). He fought one evil empire to protect another evil empire, all for the enrichment of industrialists and bankers.

Bollocks. He fought for freedom. Should he have sat on his backside and let Hitler invade Britain? I am very glad that that his generation fought. You haven't got a clue, I feel sorry for you. Do you get all your replies from the Anarchist's Cookbook? They are so stereotyped and predictable.

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 12:36 PM
Bollocks. He fought for freedom. Should he have sat on his backside and let Hitler invade Britain? I am very glad that that his generation fought. You haven't got a clue, I feel sorry for you. Do you get all your replies from the Anarchist's Cookbook? They are so stereotyped and predictable.

And completely insincere. This is what makes this so tedious. Honest debate is lacking.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:38 PM
What would you have done in retaliation? Invited Hitler over for tea and a chat? We were involved in a life or death struggle with a maniacal dictator. You seem to think that it was all a game.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't bomb defenseless women and children if you think it's wrong that your enemy bombed your defenseless women and children. You don't really beat your enemy by becoming your enemy.

I would have retaliated by taking the battle to the enemy's armed forces in the field.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:39 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't bomb defenseless women and children if you think it's wrong that your enemy bombed your defenseless women and children. You don't really beat your enemy by becoming your enemy.

I would have retaliated by taking the battle to the enemy's armed forces in the field.

Er...... they did that too. Just as the Nazis did. Any more fatuous points to make?

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:40 PM
And completely insincere. This is what makes this so tedious. Honest debate is lacking.

True. I'm out. Talking to brick walls is very tedious.

Corsair 115
9th April 2012, 12:49 PM
How, by bombing innocent women and children who have no control over their oppressive government?


Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.


So, what you're saying is, murder of civilians is OK/justified/acceptable as long as it provides economic advantages during wartime?


I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:50 PM
Bollocks. He fought for freedom.

Right. Freedom. Of course.

And these famous words come to mind, "none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Should he have sat on his backside and let Hitler invade Britain?

I don't know, it might have been an improvement. Then again, he was probably royally f'ed either way, as being occupied by the British Empire would probably have sucked just as much as being occupied by the Nazi Empire.

I am very glad that that his generation fought.

Why? Do you believe you are now "free"?

You haven't got a clue, I feel sorry for you. Do you get all your replies from the Anarchist's Cookbook? They are so stereotyped and predictable.

Why, is that a good book? Should I read it?

Gawdzilla
9th April 2012, 12:52 PM
Can you read? So far that's not been evident.


Hello, AAH.

Dancing David
9th April 2012, 12:52 PM
No, I get that. What I found interesting is the implication from his line of thought, which I read as follows:

The U.S. didn't need to worry if Germany took all of Europe and most or all of Russia because even then it still would have been a practical impossibility for it to have invaded the United States. But such a view means he has no qualms at all about the vile Nazi regime conquering Europe and Russia and imposing its harsh and brutal rule on those conquered peoples. (Millions of which in western Russia would have been starved to death to make way for German settlers.)

Quite apart from any direct concerns over the potential of an invasion of the U.S. by any greater German Reich was the fact that the Nazi regime in itself was cruel and reprehensible and worth fighting on that reason alone.

Well this is sort of down the path of "What is the CSA had dinosaurs to fight on its side", the Germans themselves certainly thought it was feasible, now they has not planend on attacking Poland quite as soon a Hitler ordered, although they were okay with that.

They had planned to have a much larger, much more mechanical army and a very large air force. They were glad to have the Skoda works in Checkosloavakia and as I recall they though if they held back until 1945 they could roll over France and then turn around and roll over the CCCP.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 12:52 PM
Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.





I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

You are wasting your time. That is far too complicated for SHC's simplistic view of WWII.

DGM
9th April 2012, 12:55 PM
Why? Do you believe you are now "free"?



One things for sure. I'm more free than you.

:)

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:56 PM
Er...... they did that too. Just as the Nazis did. Any more fatuous points to make?

They did what? Bomb women and children over and over again? How many civilians did the British/Americans kill with bombing raids compared to the Germans? How much tonnage did the British/Americans drop on Germany compared to the German tonnage on England? What were both ratios? Probably 20:1 or more?

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 12:57 PM
True. I'm out. Talking to brick walls is very tedious.

Especially when that brick wall is flogging you senseless.

Redtail
9th April 2012, 01:01 PM
I don't know, it might have been an improvement. Then again, he was probably royally f'ed either way, as being occupied by the British Empire would probably have sucked just as much as being occupied by the Nazi Empire.



How so?

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:01 PM
They did what? [reading comprehension]They took the fights to the field as well.[/reading comprehension]

Bomb women and children over and over again? How many civilians did the British/Americans kill with bombing raids compared to the Germans? How much tonnage did the British/Americans drop on Germany compared to the German tonnage on England? What were both ratios? Probably 20:1 or more?

Does this honestly matter? It's this (indefensible) fact that there was so much collateral damage that more advanced weapons (like the sort used by today's military) were developed since then that allow them to minimize civilian casualties. I would also like to point out the bad guys aren't so concerned about such things.

Jack by the hedge
9th April 2012, 01:02 PM
Do you believe you are now "free"?

Is this the bit where SHC reveals to us the awful truth about the Illuminati/NWO/Lizard Overlords/International Jewish Conspiracy who are really running the planet?

Place your bets.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 01:07 PM
Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

Well-defended? Is that some sort of joke or something? If those bombing raids were so well defended, why were thousands upon thousands of German civilians being killed in single raids over one city? Why were millions of other civilians made homeless by the raids? Berlin was bombed to ashes.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.

If bombing war material production facilities was the only goal, why were we also bombing civilian housing? Why were we dropping mixtures of high-explosive and incendiaries, which we knew could create uncontrolled firestorms?

Why are you being dishonest in your arguments?

I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

Straw man fallacy.

Nobody is saying civilian populations could have been completely spared from the effects of war, but they certainly could have been spared from having their houses bomb.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

None of this is an excuse for deliberately bombing women and children. Soldiers should never be directed to fight civilians. They should only be directed to fight other soldiers.

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:08 PM
Is this the bit where SHC reveals to us the awful truth about the Illuminati/NWO/Lizard Overlords/International Jewish Conspiracy who are really running the planet?

Place your bets.

Think you'll get any takers?

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:12 PM
None of this is an excuse for deliberately bombing women and children.
They were never deliberately targeted, at least not by the Allied powers. That's why it's called 'collateral damage' and why most military forces from more civilized nations work so damned hard to minimize it.

Soldiers should never be directed to fight civilians. They should only be directed to fight other soldiers.
No ****, Sherlock! That's why it's expressly forbidden by the Laws of War, which is an international law that's been around since the 1850's!

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 01:13 PM
Does this honestly matter?

Of course it matters, because if it's simply a matter of retaliation, then it's an eye for an eye, not 20 eyes for an eye.

It's this (indefensible) fact that there was so much collateral damage that more advanced weapons (like the sort used by today's military) were developed since then that allow them to minimize civilian casualties. I would also like to point out the bad guys aren't so concerned about such things.

We're not talking about the state of weaponry in 2012, we're talking about the state of weaponry in 1944. We dropped high-explosive and incendiary bombs indiscriminately on civilian populations during WW2. There was a deliberate intent to terrorize, if not outright murder, defenseless women and children.

carlitos
9th April 2012, 01:15 PM
Sure, when they wear the uniform of a country other than your own.

Our internment camps were

SpringHallConvert has been quite coy about his citizenship since joining the JREFF. I wouldn't expect much truthful elaboration on this issue.

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 01:19 PM
They were never deliberately targeted, at least not by the Allied powers. That's why it's called 'collateral damage' and why most military forces from more civilized nations work so damned hard to minimize it.

Of course they were deliberately targeted. Entire German cities were effectively carpet bombed. Schools, churches, hospitals, community centers, neighborhoods - gone. We knew what was down there. We simply didn't care.

No ****, Sherlock! That's why it's expressly forbidden by the Laws of War, which is an international law that's been around since the 1850's!

A lot of good that law did for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

DGM
9th April 2012, 01:22 PM
Of course they were deliberately targeted. Entire German cities were effectively carpet bombed. Schools, churches, hospitals, community centers, neighborhoods - gone. We knew what was down there. We simply didn't care.

.

What is your proof that they "simply didn't care"?


What is your source for this?

dafydd
9th April 2012, 01:24 PM
What is your proof that they "simply didn't care"?


What is your source for this?

Imagination.

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:24 PM
We're not talking about the state of weaponry in 2012, we're talking about the state of weaponry in 1944.
Indeed, that's why we call it the law of progression. Without a clumsy weapons of yesteryore we wouldn't have the more precise weapons of now.

We dropped high-explosive and incendiary bombs indiscriminately on civilian populations during WW2.

And this is out right false, as been explained to you already.

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:28 PM
Of course they were deliberately targeted. Entire German cities were effectively carpet bombed. Schools, churches, hospitals, community centers, neighborhoods - gone. We knew what was down there. We simply didn't care.
First you claim the weapons were so clumsy as it invariably lands in the lap of some child now you're claiming that we put it there intentionally... which are you going with already?



A lot of good that law did for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Five minutes with Google would save you from looking stupid. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. You fail at failing, go back and try to learn again, do not pass go do not collect $200.

Jack by the hedge
9th April 2012, 01:30 PM
Of course the justification then given for dropping HE and incendiaries on cities was to destroy the industrial infrastructure. Morally dubious at the time and frankly embarrassing after the war. Hence the lack of official expressions of gratitude to Bomber Command unlike other arms of the services.

On the other hand, it would clearly have been a war crime if civilians had been expressly targetted, for example with gas. The allies didn't employ poison gas to exterminate civilians. Can't help but recall that somebody else did, though.

dafydd
9th April 2012, 01:32 PM
First you claim the weapons were so clumsy as it invariably lands in the lap of some child now you're claiming that we put it there intentionally... which are you going with already?




Five minutes with Google would save you from looking stupid. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. You fail at failing, go back and try to learn again, do not pass go do not collect $200.

I wonder what it is like to live in such a simplistic world as SHC's? It would save all that tedious thinking.

Mudcat
9th April 2012, 01:33 PM
Can't help but recall that somebody else did, though.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess... was it the Axis?

Jack by the hedge
9th April 2012, 01:35 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess... was it the Axis?

Place your bets. :D

SpringHallConvert
9th April 2012, 01:35 PM
And this is out right false, as been explained to you already.

You're simply lying. All those nighttime raids over darkened German cities were not precision bombing raids. They were terror raids. 500 bombers or more would fly over a portion of a German city and simply unload their ordinance over a wide area, without any regard for what they were hitting.