Off the top of my head but I was thinking that Hitler stopped the advance on the beach because he wanted the Luftwaffe to finish them off for the practice. But it got dark before the airplanes arrived and they escaped across the channel during the night.
Actually, the reasons Hitler ordered the stop and wait order are somewhat debatable, in that Von Rundstedt convinced him he didn’t have adequate force for the hundreds of thousands of retreating forces. Hitler recognized that some fortification was needed, but what and where? (this is the debatable part). More infantry for a conventional assault? More armor for a blitzkrieg assault? More aircraft for slaughter from above? And how long to wait?
But hitler did not halt the assault because he wanted to “spare” the lives of English soldiers which NonP contended. This is not debatable; and his most agregious post so far…IMHO.
Atoms are EEEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL… there’s nothing worse than a nuclear bomb…
Atoms are EEEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL… there’s nothing worse than a nuclear bomb…
Atoms are EEEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL… there’s nothing worse than a nuclear bomb…
Atoms are EEEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL… there’s nothing worse than a nuclear bomb…
I was refering to a knee-jerk response I’ve seen in a lot of people, that nukes are somehow the very ultimate evil and there is nothing worse.
There are two main differences between Hiroshima and Dresden:
- There was more radioactivity at Hiroshima
- There were more people killed at Dresden
At the time the decision was made to drop the bomb, it wasn’t clear what the aftereffects would be. I’ve often visited Hiroshima (I was there just yesterday, in fact) and everything’s fine now, but given the information available at the time no one could be certain that life could return to the areas anytime in the near future. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in some ways treated as an experiment to see what would happen to a city that was hit with a A-bomb.
In Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities subjected to more traditional bombings, the military had a much better idea of what the effects would be. But with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the choice was made even though it seemed possible at the time that the aftereffects could be much worse than they actually turned out to be. That seems rather reckless to me.
No doubt whatsoever. Not by me anyway, nor 99.9% of everybody else on the planet. Some exaggeration may apply. But the point is that attempting to present Hitler as a humanitarian at the SDMB is going to be met with opposition for sure. See the PIT thread.
Sorry about the hijack
Broomstick, for better or for worse (for you) I salute your family that fought along with mine in both theaters. Though my connection is grandfathers and great-uncles. Instead of one-generation disconnect.
FWIW, My paternal grandfather was a surgeon in N. Africa and met Patton at his field hospital.
[\caddyshack]
So I got that going for me
[caddyshack/]
Part of the reason why Japan has amnesia about its horrific record of WWII atrocities, is the work of Gen. McArthur. As military governor of Japan, he made the decision that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal…this was to allow the US to rule Japan. Instead, and ersatz history was floated, that he (Hirohito) was an innocent dupe of the Japanese generals. In reality, behind his rimless glasses. Hirohito was a vicious a murderer as Hitler, Himmler, or Stalin! There is a classic book (JAPAN’S IMPERIAL CONSPIRACY", by Richard Bergamini) which details how Hirohito constantly urged the army of to commit horrible atrocities in China…the “rape” of Nanking was no mistake!
In addition, the decision to murder allied POWs was made by Hirohito, as was the attack on Pearl Harbor (which the Japanese Navy, under Admiral Hirohito, opposed).
Because Hirohito was seen by McArthur as vital in controlling Japan, he became a kind of national symbol of forgetting the evil that was WWII Japan!
Sorry, that was ADMIRAL Yamamoto, NOT Hirohito! :smack:
Not only that, but didn’t I read somewhere that many of the fascists who instigated the war were eventually reinstated to power by the US in the fight against communism? Don’t have a cite for that one, sorry.
Of course the Nazis started by fighting the German Communist Party. Then of course the Christian Democrats (a Communist front of course) and the Social Democrats (more Reds) and of course the Jews (who invented Communism as we all know).
Oh yeah, Nonpolar. Hitler was looking out for us all.
As opposed to the careful testing done before the various armies in WWI used gas weapons in attacks? Or even the way that the long term environmental effects of pulverized DU rounds still isn’t completely understood - and they’ve been in use for 30+ years.
Oh. My posts were neither directed at you nor trying to convince you. I am quite confident your knowledge therein is more than competent. **NonP ** on the other hand…
Hence my rails against NonP.
Done and done.
Me too.
Whole evacuation of UK/French armies(340.000 men) from Dunkerque took 6 days,not one night.Luftwaffe could easilly smash them to pieces.
I didn’t say the A-bomb was the only time the US military has shown what might be considered a reckless disregard for the potential consequences of their actions, did I? I just said that compared to the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, they had much less of an idea of what the long term effects of the attack would be.
Good point, well taken.
The US Army had soldiers stand up in their trenches during atom bomb tests.
nonP, just get it through your head: Hitler Was NOT a Nice Guy. If he didn’t kill you it was because he either couldn’t be bothered, or he had something else planned for you. Extend to the rest of the Nazis. Being “nice” or “humane” had zero to do with their actions.
PLEASE don’t put words in my mouth which I did not say OK!!!
WHO said about Hitler being HUMANE!!! reread posts and come later and tell me if I used word humane applying to Hitler OK!!
Or take broomstick and clean your drawers up there.
And yet they completely failed to do so, despite Goering’s assurances that they would do just as you insist could have been done. A little organization known as the Royal Air Force kept them from carrying out their orders. Any decent history book will make this clear. May I suggest Duel of Eagles by Peter Townsend?
Your arguments sound exactly like the various memos and telegrams Herman Goering sent to Hitler regarding Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain…except the translations I’ve read usually have better syntax. The Luftwaffe found it increasingly difficult to “smash” anything “to pieces” once the Spitfire and Hurricane were deployed in decent numbers - at Dunkirk, the RAF was ensuring that nothing the Luftwaffe did was being done “easily”. Goering’s incompetence ensured that the days where the Luftwaffe “smashed to peices” anything they so wished were severely numbered.
You were correct, however, that Hitler originally wanted to ally himself with the British - on his terms, because he knew they could keep him from putting his ambitions into action. Many Germans didn’t like fighting the British because they figured Saxons should fight alongside Saxons, not against them. Trouble is, the British weren’t too keen on the frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic and his henchmen that were controlling Germany at the time…
Pardon me? Churchill ally himself with absolute tyrant Stalin instead.
World would be much better place if only UK and Germany together destroyed Stalin and communism.One foot note;when Germans entered Ukraine, people there were thankfull for liberation from years of opression by communists (million of Ukrainians died in biggest famine in Europe orchestrated by Stalin and his henchmens years before WW2).
If I may digress, you seem like the guy to ask:
Did Goering give a speech in which he said that if the RAF bombed “You can call me Meyer”, and during that speech could you hear an RAF Mosquito attacking the building?