Paul Tibbets died.

[shobet]

Are you on about this guy?

[monk]

Who? Me? I live here. This place is trully a great place to discuss and learn. As long as everything stays civil there is a whole world of ideas, thoughts and opinions that can be shared from the whole world. Including Sweden. Sorry for the cheap shot, but I could not resist.

Then you are here for the same reason as I am. Except for the "I live here" part

[fett]

You foreign people rock my world.

[lerxstcat]

You want to know if I am a Nazi? No, I do not think so. Nice try though

Did you read the Wikipedia link I gave you? Especially the part at the bottom? There were clearly other opinions back then on whether the bombings were really "military necessary" or not. There are even theories saying that the Russians was what really caused Japan to surrender, not the bombings. I have no clue what would have happened and neither do anyone else. All theories are post-war constructions created to fit the views of either side. All we know is what really happened.

You bombed the Japanese to save your own men. You did it, it was successful and some people believe it was a horrendous act of "war-terrorism" or whatever the term would be. Just live with it. I do not really give a crap about if it saved Japanese lives or not, and I have stated over and over again in this thread that you are allowed to do whatever you want to guard your own turf.

Why even bother speculating in something you can not prove since there are no time-machines. "Factual" and "likely" are two totally different things. Before stating that you, e.g., "saved anyone" you better stand inside the square marked "factual" and not "likely".

Or should I go on saying that us having to give in to the Germans was Britain's fault? They did not bother to secure the control of the Baltic sea, thus giving the Germans a great advantage and a passage to our doorstep. I can also claim that Narvik (probably one of the most important ports in all of WW2 since it, together with the port of Luleå, supplied most of the iron Germany needed to make their war machine work) falling into the hands of the Germans was Britain's fault since Churchill is said to have had the information needed, but he did not give it to Chamberlain so that he would most likely fail his attempt (which he obviously did). Making Chamberlain look like an idiot then secured Churchill the role as prime minister. Just speculating, of course, but it is "likely".

My problem is that I forget that this is an American forum, and that everything you say is not meant for anyone not being an American. I apologize for that. If you were to visit a Swedish forum you would probably be just as upset about what people say. You have the disadvantage of everyone, American or not, understanding what you say to each other.

So Wikipedia had theories from a couple of generals who would rather have fought the land invasion - so what? There will always be someone who would rather sacrifice the troops for personal glory.

Your statements about Britain failing to secure the Baltic Sea and Narvik are interesting, because they show that you don't even consider the idea that perhaps Sweden and Norway should have built their own defenses. No, it was Britain's job to defend you and they failed! Do you realize how pathetic that sounds? You had no will to defend yourselves, but you are all too willing to criticize those who actually spent lives defending you and the Norwegians. Very nice. Maybe you resent us because we remind you that you wouldn't stand up for yourselves.

You wonder why I wonder if you'd have preferred a Greater Germany encompassing Europe? Because your country did nothing to stop it, and in fact did things to abet it. And now, many years later, you have a snide opinion about it.

MY father fought in Europe in WWII and was wounded in battle helping to free your country - something your own people didn't bother to do.

If he were alive, he'd say "You're welcome".

[wes225225]

if we dont watch it we'll be having the next hiroshima or whatever the place is called.... referancing to iiran's nuke thing on the news

[VinceV]

Lerx,

Don't bother this guy lives in lala land. Blaming others, not paying attention to facts.

I will say this Japan only decided to surrender after the 2nd bomb was dropped. Remember no one knew that is all we had and did not have the ability to make anymore for quite some time. As far as they new we had 100's.

The fact that they were going to be invaded didn't thwart them at all. It was the bombs, which made them surrender. For all they knew a week after the 2nd bomb there would be 100's of B-29s coming to completely destroy everything. It obviously scared the hell out of them as it was designed to do.

More people actually died during the fire bombings, yet they did not surrender, but 1 plane 1 city destroyed, that is a whole different thought. That and the fact the Americans had control over air bases all over the Pacific and all of Japan was in bomber range.

[monk]

So Wikipedia had theories from a couple of generals who would rather have fought the land invasion - so what? There will always be someone who would rather sacrifice the troops for personal glory.

Your statements about Britain failing to secure the Baltic Sea and Narvik are interesting, because they show that you don't even consider the idea that perhaps Sweden and Norway should have built their own defenses. No, it was Britain's job to defend you and they failed! Do you realize how pathetic that sounds? You had no will to defend yourselves, but you are all too willing to criticize those who actually spent lives defending you and the Norwegians. Very nice. Maybe you resent us because we remind you that you wouldn't stand up for yourselves.

You wonder why I wonder if you'd have preferred a Greater Germany encompassing Europe? Because your country did nothing to stop it, and in fact did things to abet it. And now, many years later, you have a snide opinion about it.

MY father fought in Europe in WWII and was wounded in battle helping to free your country - something your own people didn't bother to do.

If he were alive, he'd say "You're welcome".

Wikipedia had everything you have failed to provide so far, actual sources. While you are there, try to look up interesting concepts such as "neutrality" (link) and how it managed to save the lives of huge amounts of Jews (link).

Our policy of being neutral was not a sudden idea that our politicians got. It had been a part of our policy since the wars against Napoleon. Our neutrality was our way to defend ourselves so do not come dragging with the "had no will to defend yourself" crap. There are other ways to defend yourself than through blood-spill, and you did not free us from anything.

It is a good thing that you finally made it clear that this is a personal issue for you (since your father was involved). That puts a full stop on this debate from my side. I can not argue anything since you are going to respond based on emotion more than on facts, which you proved so far since you have not provided a single source backing up your claims.

Remember your father as a hero, be proud and do whatever you like. You have all the right to do so. Just do not expect me to either understand, do the same or change my opinion. What I do should not matter to you. I could not be more honest than this. Over and out...

[lerxstcat]

Monk, my source is a college course on World War II that I took in 1983, before the Internet. Believe it or not, humans gained and shared knowledge before the Internet existed. I don't feel the need to go searching the Web for information I learned when you were barely out of diapers. The textbook was by a British historian, Sir Basil Liddel-Hart, by the way, and not an American historian.

As for Wikipedia, you know that anyone can log onto Wikipedia and edit any article, right? I could go to that link, log on and write in that it has been revealed that the Vulcans backed the Allies and the Klingons backed the Nazis and that info would sit there until someone notified them to change it.

Just saying, Wikipedia is no unimpeachable source.

And yes, my father fought in that war - something your ancestors did not. You adopted neutrality as your "defense", yet find fault with Britain for not defending you. You expect others to do for you what you won't do for yourselves; that's awesome!

If you want to avoid the fight, by all means do so. Don't find fault with the people who saved your asses though. And yes, you did need saving - from the Nazis, then from the Soviets. Unless you'd prefer to be part of the current Russian economy or the Soviet system that preceded it. You don't even realize what those heroes of WWII saved you from; that's sad, man.

You may be right though. Next time we should let you handle the Russians by yourselves and see how that goes. You wouldn't mind a Russian soldier coming in and taking your guitar gear, right? And your computer? Or anything of yours that he wants? It's just stuff, not worth fighting for. Or your mother, or sister, or girlfriend. If invading troops want them, well hey, let them have them, right? They'll get over it, you'll get over it. Not worth fighting for.

You go, guys!