WW2 firebombings etc

ginscpy

Senior Member
Sep 10, 2010
7,950
228
48
wouldn ever pass PC muster today.

Actually -WW2 was was a relatively short war.

Not a stalemate mate like Korea ora quagmire like Nam

Or 10 years Afg war against nobodies..................
 
What happened in Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry, Tokyo would cause howls today.

And we don't know that much about what happened on the Russian German front. It would have been a great deal worse
 
At least we beat somebody in WW2

The N Koreans, Cong in Nam sucked.

Iraq in both wars BLOWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
wouldn ever pass PC muster today.

Actually -WW2 was was a relatively short war.

Not a stalemate mate like Korea ora quagmire like Nam

Or 10 years Afg war against nobodies..................

You made a couple of good points, gin but while WW2 lasted four years for the US it was going on a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. Korea was a victory in less than a year but Truman was too timid to keep the meglomaniac general in charge from invading North Korea and it lasted three years. FDR was a dying man when he ran for his 4th term. The generals were running the show and civilian life was cheap. LBJ set the rules so that we couldn't win in VietNam and by the time the NVA were finally worn out he quit and gave them a new lease on life. Today, thanks to timid republicans and treasonous democrats the rules are set so that American Troops are forced to play by the enemy's rules. If a civilian is killed a member of the US Armed Forces can face murder charges. Soldiers hesitate and are killed and the politicians pin a few medals in exchange for votes.
 
Look - Americans dont like casualties - that is a given.

Have little stomach for war.

Took the sinking ofthe Lusitania and attack on Pearl Harbor to get America militarily involved in the world wars.
 
Last edited:
wouldn ever pass PC muster today.

Actually -WW2 was was a relatively short war.

Not a stalemate mate like Korea ora quagmire like Nam

Or 10 years Afg war against nobodies..................

I think that's akin to looking through the wrong end of a telescope. The sheer magnitude of WWII, if it occurred today, would easily result in firebombings, or worse. That's why we didn't have a WWIII and opted for a Cold War consisting of small proxy wars. A direct conflict would too easily have gone nuclear or involved the use of chemical or biological agents among large population centers.

The reason the proxy wars appeared stalemated was precisely because neither side wanted to escalate to the next level. They became wars of attrition which Americans, who valued the lives of their soldiers over the cause they were fighting, soon grew tired.

An obvious difference between these conflicts is to count the casualties. They are dramatically different. United States military casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We, just the United States alone, suffered 405,399 dead in WWII. Almost half a million dead Americans. It's almost inconceivable the effect it had on our people. Of course we'd fired bomb, nuke, whatever it took to end the war. The effects on world, much less the USA, were so devastating, it could not be sustained. It had to end.

It's not that anyone wants the lesser wars to be sustained, but that we were not willing to cross the line of "winning at all costs" because of the unnecessary loss of life it would induce. There's no reason to firebomb Kandahar and kill every man, woman and child because there need isn't that critical. So we use a slower, but less deadly approach because we're Americans. Not blood-thirsty murderers like some people want to portray us.
 

Forum List

Back
Top