Actually, I have heard that the USA used reprisals quite effectively when occupying German after World War II.
But his actual quote, which you copied in the OP says “would be followed by”.
Oh, I see now on repeated reading. You’re right.
I haven’t. Cite?
Right and there is a difference. The USA used Nukes as a “deterrant” for decades. Using nukes is stupid, using them as a deterrant- not so much. I hope dues can see the difference.
I was “confused” John, I wanted to know the thinking behind the OP’s post, to see if there was more there than a simple kneejerk rant.
Evidently everyone but you is going for the “simple kneejerk rant”. Of course, this is the PIT, so that’s not so bad, but still I can ask for more, eh?
I know at least one poster who’d disagree with you on that.
Regardless, I’m not sure how many valuable comparisons can be made between a stand-off between two massive super-powers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in their own spheres of interest, and threats made against a holy site located within the territory of an allied state, which is venerated by over a billion people around the world, in an effort to control the behavior of a relatively small number of fanatics who want nothing more than the total upset of virtually all governments world wide, a goal that would only be furthered by bombing Mecca.
Now, personally, all of the above was rather staggeringly obvious, which probably explains why no one else bothered to explicitly state it, but if a member of the US Senate can’t grasp the subtle nuances, I suppose it’s not that surprising that someone on the internet needed a little help with it, too.
But the reason that nukes worked as a deterrent—for both sides—is that each side knew that a nuclear attack on the other side would result in a nuclear response. If they thought that the other side would be unwilling to use nukes in response, then simply possessing nukes may well have failed as a deterrent.
Similarly, in a case like this, for something to work as a deterrent, you actually have to be willing to pull the trigger on your threat. And anyone actually willing to bomb Mecca and Medina in response to terrorist attacks made by a few crazy fanatics is an idiot and a fanatic himself.
Also, if you’re not willing to actually make good on the threat, then threatening to bomb the holy cities would probably actually make things worse, not better.
First, for the terrorists themselves, it’s only going to further convince them that you are an enemy that must be destroyed, and thus harden their resolve.
Second, for the vast majority of non-terrorist Muslims, it’s going to confirm their growing suspicions that the US really doesn’t care about differentiating between terrorists and Muslims, and prefers to treat them all the same.
And third, when there is a terrorist attack and you don’t carry out your threat to bomb the holy cities, you end up looking not only stupid and arrogant, but weak and ineffectual. Thus further encouraging the terrorists.
At least Tancredo is carrying on the spirit of the Bush administration—adopting policies that he claims will help security, but which actually have no effect, while confirming the rest of the world’s opinion that he’s an idiot.
??
Certainly you can ask for more. However, I challenge your assertion that everyone else is going for the “kneejerk rant.” While I was certainly willing to display my disdain for Tancredo, my post was hardly kneejerk and it did, in fact, answer the question you posed.
Probably it’s in a history book somewhere.
You have heard that the U.S. military carried out mass murders against civilian populations in Germany after May 7, 1945 as a response to the actions of a limited number of German military or civilians?I really would like to see a citation for that claim.
I am aware of one brutal incident (prior to May 7) in which a company of U.S. troops murdered a group of German soldiers at a concentration camp under the mistaken assumption that the Germans they had captured had been the guards of the camp, while the actual guards had fled. I offer no justification for that act. However, that event was entirely different in nature than the sort of thing that the Nazis carried out at Lidice or other locations where large numbers of random civilians were murdered as retaliation for attacks on the German milirtary or political hierarchy.
Are you seriously claiming that the United States didn’t damage any civilian property at all while occupying Germany after World War II?
I would like to see a citation for that claim.
Bolding Added.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={DDAA94DE-D76A-46EB-AB39-2119276F533A}
Unless you’re throwing this out as just a lost footnote of history, the proper analogue here would be for Truman to threaten to drop an A-bomb on the Vatican unless the Catholics behaved themselves in Germany.
Truman wasn’t a smart man, but thank God he wasn’t that dumb.
I wasn’t answering her question. And my question still stands too.
And passage dishonestly snipped. The fragment that you included, “In the fall of 1945,” goes on to conclude
The reference to the artillery attack refers to the defense of Aschaffenburg by units of the Wehrmacht prior to the cessation of hostilities.
Interestingly, while Biddiscombe’s work, (on which your linked site is based), has been attacked for its overemphasis on the potential threat that the Werwolf groups posed, his actual thesis was that they were pretty much ineffective–often attacking “collaborator” Germans more than Allied troops. While your cherry-picked quotations indicate that actions against individuals may have occurred, nothing on that site provides evidence (or even a claim) for mass reprisal tactics. The tactics used, while brutal, appear to have been aimed at individuals caught in the act of murder or sabotage, not undertaken in reprisal mode against innocent civilians.
“His” question.
To clarify, nothing on that site supports (or even claims) reprisals by U.S. troops, only some threats with no dates mentioned.
The site does document reprisals by Russians, Poles, Czechoslovakians, and French.
The way the quote was written led me to believe that the cite claimed the shelling happened after the war. Misleading if not downright dishonest.
My father was on occupation duty, and ran a restaurant, I believe in a German restaurant. Captured German officers worked for him including some SS. Being Jewish, this caused him no end of amusement. I don’t think that counts for slave labor. The claim was made that civilian property was destroyed. I’m sure they broke a few glasses, so that one seems literally true.
I also know that US troops had pretty good freedom of movement, and he traveled to Vienna (he was in Bavaria) to see his brother in law. That’s not very likely with an active insurgency. Neither he nor my mother seemed the slightest bit concerned for his safety after VE day. Contrast to Iraq today.
No doubt the regs were written to take resistance into account, but I’ve read extensively about WWII, including all of Churchill, and I don’t recall ever seeing anything besides concern .
Yes, you’re right- my brush was overly broad. But you must admit it looked like a whole new class of interns had just been issued their little rubber mallets and were trying them out. 
For others:
Nor do I support this threat even as a “deterrant”, even though a deterrant is not quite as stupid as “retaliation”.