A quick thought here…in regard to the fire bombing of Dresden and other German cities, the policy was originated by the UK not the US. Talking about the occupation, France treated the Germans like shit. They managed to take damn near everything that wasn’t nailed down as “war reparations”.
And on a side note, I would like to have six years of blowjobs.
All that aside, comparing the war in Iraq to WWII is imbecilic at best. The reasons behind the two wars were totally different. Airman Doors is correct that if we were to go into Iraq and prosecute total war, WITH THE POPULACE OF THE USA BEHIND US, we could pacify the country in no time.
If we wanted to turn a third world shit-hole like Iraq into and even shittier third world shit-hole, all we’d have to do is roll over them like we rolled over a lot of occupied Europe during WWII and fuck the population and infrastructure.
Good thing that isn’t what we’re trying to do over there.
Bush may be an idiot, and I suspect that he is, but we COULD be doing a LOT more damage over there than what is happening now.
I very much doubt we have the conventional forces to do unto Iraq what we did unto Germany. We certainly don’t have the conventional forces to occupy them properly after we do. (And the chances of the American population being behind conscription and tax hikes to do it properly are apparently judged by the administration to be roughly zero.) And unless we do the same brutalizing to all of Iraq’s neighbors its unlikely that there we can seal the borders.
I just don’t buy the theory that the only problem we are having is that we are too damn nice. Incredible brutality during conquest didn’t mean the Germans didn’t require vast forces to occupy the territories they previously terrorized. Same thing with the Soviets. Are Russia’s current difficulties in Chechnya a matter of insufficient violence being used on either side?
At the end of the second world war in Europe the allies had worn down German resistance through bombing and a long, bloody ground campaign. The occupation levels were such that there was never any doubt that bullshit against the occupiers would be dealt with immediately and with little hope of success.
Right now (I am assured) most Iraqis are with us. If we start pulling an Aachen (or Fallujah), leveling every block that a shot comes out of , that most definitely will change. Without front lines there can be no civilian relief that “at least it’s over” when the Americans/Allies pass through.
In world war two we were fighting, and the world recognized that we were fighting, a total war against a monstrous foe, whose civilians were cogs in its war machine. It is extremely hard to make the same claim in Iraq - unless we are claiming that most Iraqi’s are behind the insurgents (in which case we should just get out).
If we start doing Iraq without the restraint we have so far showed world opinion could shift against us such that we take severe economic hits.
I should note that I am assuming that the threat is not remote-control genocide/nuclear blackmail but rather a desire to more authoritatively deal with the insurgency.
Agreed which I thought was sort of what I said. WE needed close to 100 Divisions to overrun Europe and detroy Germany militarily and there is NO way that could ever be done again without conscription AND having the populace beihnd us in the endeavour. My apologies for not being more clear.
Again, agreed. Then again I was always suspicious of the way we had to practice for a war with the Soviets when I was stationed in Germany. To think that the Russians were going to come through the Fulda Gap with their entire army was stupid. To practice a defense of that was stupid. Then again, we won the cold war so who the hell knows?
Yet again, agreed. I do think that the French went overboard quite a bit though. It wasn’t as though they didn’t have a good portion of both their population and government cooperating with the Nazis.
Agreed except that the levelling of Aachen was directly traceable back to Hitler. He ORDERED the government, or whatever stood for it to stand to “the last man” Therefore the city was levelled. As to civilian relief, as you said before (I think), without a very much larger military involvement, there will always be the insurgents.
And yet again, agreed. We CAN’T make that claim about Iraq because it would be a blatant untruth. I have relatives in the Army there and from what they tell me, the press distorts quite a bit of what happens. Wow, what else is new. In any case, If we started to roll over Iraq like we rolled over everything in Europe during WWII, world opinion WOULD shift. Quite a bit farther than it already has in fact.
I should note that I was also assuming the same thing about the threat.
I’ll say it again… I WAS NOT comparing the two wars in that sense. I was comparing the duration of US action. Dont you find it interesting that we accomplished victory in Aug 1945 after taking a devasting hit olny 3 1/2 years earlier in Dec 1941?
Think how recent March 2003 seems… But it’s actually been almost 2.5 years. We are going nowhere in Iraq. Its time to change course…either win it, or get the hell out.
This thread has totally gone sideways with all the debate over carpet bombing, ect.
You’re completely missing the point. US involvement in WWII was not the sole factor that defeated the Axis powers. The vast resource drains of the Eastern Front in Europe and the Chinese Front in the Pacific contributed a great deal. Russia was far more instrumental to the defeat of Germany than the US was. Asking why it only took the US 3 1/2 years to win WWII is kind of like asking why it only took the last guy on the assembly line 60 seconds to build the car. You might as well ask why it only took the US 1 year to win WWI. The answer is the same - a lot of heavy lifting was done by other countries before the US even signed up.
Now, add that to the fact that the occupation of Iraq is a completely different scenario than WWII, and you have a truly ridiculous comparison going on in the OP. Here’s something for you to ponder: why did Napoleon never manage to suppress Spanish partisans from fighting their “little war” (or guerilla) when during the same time period he soundly defeated the entire Prussian army in the field multiple times? I’ll give you a hint. The two objectives are completely different, and require completely different approaches to achieve success.
I dont need any lessons in how WWII was “won”. I’m now enternally sorry I implied that the US “won” WWII. For the last time my point was: US involvement in WWII - 3 1/2 years. US involvement in Iraq - 2 1/2 years. If I’m the only guy who finds that at all interesting, so be it. I quit.
I do think that the French went overboard quite a bit though. It wasn’t as though they didn’t have a good portion of both their population and government cooperating with the Nazis.
