Paul Tibbets died.

[lerxstcat]

Also, since I am not an American and can not understand how you think, can you answer why the US is

A) The only country to actually gain from taking part in WW2 (financially, politically and militarily/territorially)

and at the same time

B) The only country who still spends a lot of time trying to unconditionally justify and glorify its actions to the rest of the world.

Do you feel guilty? Or does the rest of the world force you to do it? I just said that I personally do not want you to justify anything, but maybe others are different. Or is there another reason?

A) The Us was the only principal combatant who did not have warfare occurring on its main territory, so its industrial complex was intact, and in fact had to grow immensely to produce military hardware and supplies for both its own uses and that of its allies. Plus we basically fronted the money to rebuild Europe (Marshall Plan) as well as Japan, so don't begrudge us the financial gain. Since our infrastructure was not largely destroyed like those of the major European and Asian countries, it was natural that our intact system would grow.

B) Since WWII the world, or at least the UN and NATO, has looked to the US to solve problems when it came to money and muscle around the world.
But we're not alone; every country that has the money and power to project its influence outside its own borders does the same to the extent that it can.

As we've discussed before, Monk, since your country is not a major power, it is somewhat natural that you might harbor some ill will towards one that is. Remember that your own country's role in WWI is not exactly noble - helping the Nazis conquer Norway by granting free passage to their troops.

But, you've also explained before that Sweden aided the Nazis in order to avoid being crushed by them too. So, because you felt you had to do it to survive, you sold out your neighbors in Norway. You did what you had to do so you are not ashamed.

So why would you expect us to be ashamed of doing what we think we have to do? What's the difference, in your mind?

[shreddermon]

Monk, the bottom line is this: because of our actions in the middle east, it's become more popular than ever throughout the world to dislike America and its policies. And you're taking that dislike of current American policies, and applying it to wartime actions more than 60 years ago. That's bullshit revisionist history.

America did not "profit" from WWII. As someone else said, we just happened to be lucky enought to end up the nation least-ravaged by the war. And, because of that, we were in large part responsible for the allied victory, either directly or indirectly. Otherwise, we'd all be speaking German & Japanese right now. If speaking at all. And we then shared that good fortune with the rest of the world, thorugh the Marshall plan, etc.

Guilty for the result of WWII? OMG, you have no idea how absurd that sounds. It's pride, dude. ...Don't misconstrue my words, though: unlike Muslim terrorists, we take no pride in killing thousands of innocents. It's pride in our contribution to the allied victory and ending the war. You're entitled to your opinions of whether Hiroshima/Nagasaki were justified. But your opinions of America as a self-interested, war-profiting aggressor throughout WWII are just absurd and offensive. Not just to us, but the rest of the free world. And especially to anyone who lived, fought, or died during those times.

[thetroy]

America was (and is) self-interested. That Atlantic Charter stuff was a bunch of BS. Hitler would have been defeated just like every other power mad dictator who has tried to take over the world. We wanted to be involved so the rebuilding could be on our terms. The Marshall Plan money had strings attached and, besides, we needed countries to buy our goods since we were producing way more than we were consuming (unlike now).

[VinceV]

I may not be all smart and shit, but am I missing something?

We were not involved in the war until Japan attacked us. America really had no interest in being involved till that day. Yes we were giving aid to other countries (England/China) but we as as Country were not interested in putting our foot Soldiers in the War.

The only reason Germany lost was because of our involvement in the War. Our industrial complex was unstoppable, that is why we won. The fact that we could produce tanks, planes, ships at a rate that far exceded our enemies is why the Allies won. If Hitler did not have to worry about the Western Front and could have used all his resources fighting the Russians, things would have been very different.

Germany would have lost the war no matter what once the US became involved. The 1st atomic bombs were actually going to be used on Germany in the Summer of 45. Luckily Germany surrendered before they were ready to be used. On a side note, yes Germany came up with the idea of the bomb, but they were in no condition to develope one. They had destroyed all their resources, and by resources I of course mean Jewish scientist, that would have enabled them to go ahead with the building of it. That is how we ended up with it, from all the scientist that fled Europe because of the war.

Japan was bombed because the invasion of Japan would have been a huge loss of life for both the Allies and for the Japanese. Many estimated that it would have cost at least 1 million US lives and around 6+ million Japanese lives, and would have lasted till 1948-1950 . Remember the whole country of Japan was in the Army at this time, woman/children/the old. And as everyone knew, they would have fought to the very last person. If Japan had not surrendered after the 2 bombs were dropped, and they almost didn't(the 1st bomb didn't make them). The invasion would have still had to have happened, as the US had no more atomic weapons, and would not be able to produce any for some time.

If given the choice of War for 3+ more years plus possibly 6 million + more dead. Or with this 1 bomb we can end the war. The 1 bomb though horrible, does seem like the proper choice.

[livebiz]

America was (and is) self-interested. That Atlantic Charter stuff was a bunch of BS. Hitler would have been defeated just like every other power mad dictator who has tried to take over the world. We wanted to be involved so the rebuilding could be on our terms. The Marshall Plan money had strings attached and, besides, we needed countries to buy our goods since we were producing way more than we were consuming (unlike now).

Hitler would have been defeated and after how much more loss? Yes power mad dictators eventually fail, but Hitler was just starting. Stalin desperately needed the western front to split the German forces. Maybe Stalin could have done without us, but more than a few lives were crushed under that regime as well. Look at German technological advances, what if the had more time to develop without the pressure of defending against the US forces? Of course the Marshall plan had strings, would the US just assist any totalitarian regime to rebuild its infrastructure? War and foreign policy are inherently about protecting a nations interests, all nations protect their self interests. To imply that doing so is somehow wrong or should detract from the US contribution to the liberation of Europe and the defeat of Japan is just wrong.

[monk]

For Lerxstcat, and probably anyone else I have managed to piss of in this thread

A) The Us was the only principal combatant who did not have warfare occurring on its main territory, so its industrial complex was intact, and in fact had to grow immensely to produce military hardware and supplies for both its own uses and that of its allies. Plus we basically fronted the money to rebuild Europe (Marshall Plan) as well as Japan, so don't begrudge us the financial gain. Since our infrastructure was not largely destroyed like those of the major European and Asian countries, it was natural that our intact system would grow.

B) Since WWII the world, or at least the UN and NATO, has looked to the US to solve problems when it came to money and muscle around the world.
But we're not alone; every country that has the money and power to project its influence outside its own borders does the same to the extent that it can.

As we've discussed before, Monk, since your country is not a major power, it is somewhat natural that you might harbor some ill will towards one that is. Remember that your own country's role in WWI is not exactly noble - helping the Nazis conquer Norway by granting free passage to their troops.

But, you've also explained before that Sweden aided the Nazis in order to avoid being crushed by them too. So, because you felt you had to do it to survive, you sold out your neighbors in Norway. You did what you had to do so you are not ashamed.

So why would you expect us to be ashamed of doing what we think we have to do? What's the difference, in your mind?

I do not expect you do be ashamed of anything, and you deserve whatever you got out of WW2, financially or other!!! That is the whole point!

What I question is just the need for for justification.

To simplify things, there are two categories:

1) Things you do to help yourself
2) Things you do to help others

or maybe three if we add 3) Things you do that do not help anyone.

Every action can be categorized into one or two of these categories.

You bombing Japan to avoid an invasion and save a large amount of American lives is clearly 1). Sweden allowing the Germans to use our railways etc is also 1).

All I say is that doing 1) is perfectly fine if you are a person or a country. As long as you are ready to face the consequences of your actions. Sometimes 2) will be a side-result of 1), or maybe even sometimes 2) is all you do (not very often though since every action is often based on 1) also).

You do what you think is best for yourself or your country, but you should be ready to take the consequences. The morality/ethics of other people, and how they react to your actions will decide the consequences. Germany (or maybe I should say the Nazi administration) thought it was good for Germany trying to conquer the rest of Europe and to commit atrocity while doing so. Most of the world thought this was morally, ethically wrong and it also directly conflicted the interests of those countries, so Germany had to deal with the consequences (being bombed into oblivion by the Allies).

The way I see it is that you, the US, are obsessed by motivating why all your actions belong also to 2). I even think that most of you are offended if I claim that something you do or did only sorts under 1). I can not understand why. I claim that the bombings of Japan were unethical since they targeted civilians, and that is the only consequences you got, people were upset and your moral high ground was somewhat damaged in the eyes of other people. I could live with that in the same way I can live with that Sweden benefited from not fighting the Germans, but that some Norwegians think less of us now that they would have if things were different. The same goes for the bombings. You do not need to justify anything, and you do not need to apologize for anything either as long as you just accept the consequences. When you try to really diminish 1) and include 2) into the picture it feels like you are trying to get away from the "dealing with the consequences"-part, and that is what makes me annoyed. I am not arguing on behalf of the Japanese or anything, I just question the reason for why you always try to go further than just saying that "hey, this was best for US and that is why we did it". I do not demand anything else.

In the case with Japan you trying to justify the bombings is for me just obscure, since you end up trying to justify why X has to die so that Y could live, and why Z should have the power to decide between X or Y in the first place. Such a debate will always be full of emotions, ethics and morality and we all know how they end. There are good arguments for both sides I think (link) but I do not see the reason to even try putting the bombings into 2) also, and I certainly not require you to.

Of course, I understand that most people do not think they way I do. Most people would probably REQUIRE you to do 2) if you wanted to do 1), and then, of course, you have no way other than to try to justify/glorify things.

Maybe that is the answer, as you say, that the US is held to a much higher standard than anyone else today. Maybe your (do not take it as an insult) "the US can never do something wrong or egoistical"-attitude is a result from this, or it is the other way around. I have no idea. If you argue based on my reasoning the whole "2) must always be included" just seem weird and if you look at all my other posts on this forum I hope you find that "the extension from 1) to 1) + 2)" is what I often oppose. I do not mean to insult anyone.

Monk, the bottom line is this: because of our actions in the middle east, it's become more popular than ever throughout the world to dislike America and its policies. And you're taking that dislike of current American policies, and applying it to wartime actions more than 60 years ago. That's bullshit revisionist history.

America did not "profit" from WWII. As someone else said, we just happened to be lucky enought to end up the nation least-ravaged by the war. And, because of that, we were in large part responsible for the allied victory, either directly or indirectly. Otherwise, we'd all be speaking German & Japanese right now. If speaking at all. And we then shared that good fortune with the rest of the world, thorugh the Marshall plan, etc.

Guilty for the result of WWII? OMG, you have no idea how absurd that sounds. It's pride, dude. ...Don't misconstrue my words, though: unlike Muslim terrorists, we take no pride in killing thousands of innocents. It's pride in our contribution to the allied victory and ending the war. You're entitled to your opinions of whether Hiroshima/Nagasaki were justified. But your opinions of America as a self-interested, war-profiting aggressor throughout WWII are just absurd and offensive. Not just to us, but the rest of the free world. And especially to anyone who lived, fought, or died during those times.

It is then just as much of revisionism to bring up the "you would all be speaking German today if it was not for the US" as soon as someone opposes your war in Iraq, don´t you think?

I do not dislike America, I just do not understand the whole "pride"-thing and why you always need to motivate why everything you do is more than just "what is best for America". But, like I said above, you are held to a higher standard than the rest of us and maybe that is why you are forced to go to what I find obscure lengths to defend yourself against criticism. Maybe that is what comes with being the only superpower, I do not know.

If you did "profit" or not depends on how you define the word. It could be "least damage", "financial gain per lost life" or you just compare the "power or wealth" of a country before and after WW2 or whatever. You do not have to mention the Marshall plan to justify anything. I do not want you to.

The "guilt"-comment was not good, I acknowledge that. I just meant that I can not understand why you take things to such extremes when it comes to being proud. Like you need to convince yourself all the time that what you did was good and not bad. Maybe it is just a cultural thing. Be proud if you want, honor your fallen and convince yourself that what you are doing is good for everyone if being good for the country itself is not reason enough. Just do not expect me to understand everything of it.

For now, maybe the best thing is for me to just accept that "we do not understand each other" since we come from different historical backgrounds. Sweden has not been in a full scale war for the last couple of 100 years, so I can not understand why being proud of your military actions etc is such a big deal. Perhaps I would have thought different if I lived through the wars we fought back then. Probably.
I do not mean to insult you, I just do not understand everything in the same way you do. That is all, I hope.

Do you have any factual support at all or are you just a wanker?

Frankly, what we know is that our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, fought and sacrificed in a war they did not seek. Did the US come out of WWII as a true super power? Yes and no one I know would apologize for that.

Way to miss the point. I never asked you to apologize, you made that up yourself. No one who fought in WW2 did "seek the war". Wars are started by politicians and as far as I am concerned they never fight the wars themselves. Else, would you claim that the soldiers now fighting in Iraq is not to be held as high as the WW2-veterans, since you were obviously the one who started the war/invasion this time? I do not think so.

[monk]

The only reason Germany lost was because of our involvement in the War.

I just said that I can not understand how you think, but for Christ sake, learn how to put some limit on things. Russia lost 10 million soldiers and just as many civilians fighting Hitler on the Eastern front. I am sure they agree they played no part in the defeating of Germany. It is comments like this that pisses me off, try to at least keep some perspective on things.

Also, read the link I posted above (link). There are a whole bunch of "famous people" giving arguments to why there were other options.

[fett]

You guys are making this way too complicated. We dropped the "Bombs" to 1; Defeat Japan." Right Now " and 2; to show the Russians a thing or two. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

[VinceV]

I just said that I can not understand how you think, but for Christ sake, learn how to put some limit on things. Russia lost 10 million soldiers and just as many civilians fighting Hitler on the Eastern front. I am sure they agree they played no part in the defeating of Germany. It is comments like this that pisses me off, try to at least keep some perspective on things.

Also, read the link I posted above (link). There are a whole bunch of "famous people" giving arguments to why there were other options.

It's because it's true. If we did not get involved and cause Germany to have to fight on 2 fronts at the same time, there is a very good chance that Germany would have won. The losses to Russia were staggering and in truth they would not have been able to tolerate much more. At some point there would have been a cease fire between Germany and Russia, freeing Germany to do as it pleased.

I will also say this, if Germany hadn't of attacked Russia and instead only had to fight the Western front, things would have been very different for us, as well. Until the summer of 45 when the bomb would have been used.

Also be aware the prior to America getting into the War, England was very bad off and if Germany hadn't of changed their policy over the Battle of Britain and changed to a civilian terror bombing campaign, but would have stuck to strategic targets. England would not have lasted much longer.

It's funny but when I was in Flight School I had a few Scandinavian roommates, and this subject came up a few times, and they always seem to have the same attitude as you. I think it has to do with the way your Country behaved during the war in all honesty. Somehow you feel more comfortable being mad at us.

[livebiz]

Way to miss the point. I never asked you to apologize, you made that up yourself. No one who fought in WW2 did "seek the war". Wars are started by politicians and as far as I am concerned they never fight the wars themselves. Else, would you claim that the soldiers now fighting in Iraq is not to be held as high as the WW2-veterans, since you were obviously the one who started the war/invasion this time? I do not think so.

Apologize, i.e. we have nothing to feel guilty over in response to your question "Do you feel guilty?". Really most your points are really your own perceptions of who knows what source of information. Frankly, I'm more used to Americans being accused of not giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks as opposed to being obsessed with what the world thinks.

[fett]

Monk. What is your point in 25 words or less? Neither you or I can trully understand the geopolitics of the Post WWI world that led up to WWII. To try and explain; justify; excuse or otherwise figure it out based on today's sense of morals or whatever is "Revisionist History" by definition. The study of history has to be done within the context of the times in mind. Getting back to the real point. The people who fought WWII did things that they had to based on the situation at the time. Tibbets did what he was expected to do. He was a bomber pilot just like thousands of others. Let the man rest in peace.

[monk]

It's because it's true. If we did not get involved and cause Germany to have to fight on 2 fronts at the same time, there is a very good chance that Germany would have won. The losses to Russia were staggering and in truth they would not have been able to tolerate much more. At some point there would have been a cease fire between Germany and Russia, freeing Germany to do as it pleased.

I will also say this, if Germany hadn't of attacked Russia and instead only had to fight the Western front, things would have been very different for us, as well. Until the summer of 45 when the bomb would have been used.

Also be aware the prior to America getting into the War, England was very bad off and if Germany hadn't of changed their policy over the Battle of Britain and changed to a civilian terror bombing campaign, but would have stuck to strategic targets. England would not have lasted much longer.

It's funny but when I was in Flight School I had a few Scandinavian roommates, and this subject came up a few times, and they always seem to have the same attitude as you. I think it has to do with the way your Country behaved during the war in all honesty. Somehow you feel more comfortable being mad at us.

Why does it have anything to do with our behavior if the Norwegians and the Danish thinks the same? Or do you equal Sweden to Scandinavia? I am not mad at you for what you did during WW2. How many times do I need to tell you that? I am mad at all the post-war attempts to glorify everything you did during WW2. There is a difference. It is just the obvious refutation of anything that might even indicate that you actually did something "only because it was the best for the US", and nothing else, that upsets me.

I won´t even try to argue your statement that Russia had no part in the defeating of Germany. I do not have to. Find yourself a Russian guy instead and try to make him understand how you feel. I am sure he will be all happy. If you do not have the time I can tell you what they feel. I have discussed the issue with several Russian men (and women) and you already know what they think. I nowhere claim that your efforts in WW2 was not of utmost importance. I never have and I never will. I just say that maybe you should try asking yourself what other people think that also suffered (even magnitudes more than yourself) before trying to marginalize them. You can only speculate (as can I) what would have happened if anyone who took place in WW2 would have done differently. Instead, you should look at what happened and what the results were. Russia MADE a difference, the do not get the credit they deserve and you were NOT the only reason to why things ended like they did. If you fail to see this I can not help you.

Apologize, i.e. we have nothing to feel guilty over in response to your question "Do you feel guilty?". Really most your points are really your own perceptions of who knows what source of information. Frankly, I'm more used to Americans being accused of not giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks as opposed to being obsessed with what the world thinks.

Did you even read the link I posted (from Wikipedia). This whole debate started by you (or not you, but you obviously share the same views) by someone claiming that bombing Japan was necessary. If you read the article you see that TWO of your most notorious generals, including the actual head of all the pacific operations, say something different. There you have my source of information regarding the bombings.

The rest is taken from here, which is a perfect source of information since you and your friends supporting the same views directly went on with the "you are not respecting blablalba"-argument as soon as someone tried to oppose you trying to justify the bombings any further. Why you would even try to justify them any further directly tells us all that you obviously care A LOT of what the rest of the world thinks. Else, it makes absolutely no sense in anyway other than that you need to tell YOURSELF that it matters. Then it has everything with guilt and the struggle to convince yourself otherwise to do. That may have be why I asked if you feel/felt guilty. Not guilty to me, as I clearly stated that I do not care, but to yourself or someone else whoever that might be.

[monk]

Monk. What is your point in 25 words or less? Neither you or I can trully understand the geopolitics of the Post WWI world that led up to WWII. To try and explain; justify; excuse or otherwise figure it out based on today's sense of morals or whatever is "Revisionist History" by definition. The study of history has to be done within the context of the times in mind. Getting back to the real point. The people who fought WWII did things that they had to based on the situation at the time. Tibbets did what he was expected to do. He was a bomber pilot just like thousands of others. Let the man rest in peace.

Of course they did, but that is not what I am saying. Tibbets is an American hero because he took a very hard decision, probably sacrificed his future mental health (no matter what he says to the media) to save American lives that would been the cost of an invasion. I have NEVER claimed anything else, and I never will. This is the point where everything should stop.

Instead people go on, in fact, trying to make him a Japanese hero also since they say he saved Japanese lives too. This is where I say things get out of hand. Be happy for what he did to America (what I say categorizes in 1) if you read my earlier response. That should be enough. I could not care less if you did, you have all the right in the world to be.

When you go further you start insulting everyone else who does not agree that it also helped Japanese lives, or that your actions was justified in ANY OTHER WAY than from a "what was best for the US" point of view.

That was more than 25 words, but it is still my point.

[fett]

Man. Do you have a bee in your bonnet.:ROTF: Let's just say for kicks that the US did not enter WW1. There were a lot of people here that said it was a "Europe's" war. I shudder to think what would have been the end result. The years 1932 to 1941 had millions of Americans saying; "It's Europe's problem. Not ours." Well, in retrospect, it's a damn good thing we got into both of those wars. Whether you like it or not, Europe is what is is today because we, the US on our righteous high horse, saved the day. Both times. And after WWII we, the victors mainly the US, rebuilt Germany and Japan. And we didn't forget Russia either. They got a little testy later on.

[monk]

Maybe.

I will stop now, before getting banned