Why Patton was right; arm the Germans and go after the Ruskies - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #1 07-02-2012, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Read about Manchuria and Nanking and you will see that the japanese decapitated the women in front of their children. Then they decapitated the children.

The Japanese were "eliminators" but the Russians, just brutes.

Where they occupied wasn't a picnic either. Decapitation and rapes were common. I'd say Russians and Japanese are a tie when it comes to letting the inner beast out.

flainn · #2 07-03-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

I think when invading a country, the Japanese might be more benevolent than the Ruskies......

what kind of soldier rapes grandmothers and mothers in front of their own sons? sickos........

I wouldn't be so sure. Read up on the Rape of Nanking.

MTI · #3 06-29-2012, 06:41 PM

HuskyMan and aklim . . . always a classic mashup . . . stay tuned.

cmac2012 · #4 06-30-2012, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

Saw a recent tv show about a writer for Forbes magazine who made it his mission to open a Forbes office in Russia. He wanted to write and expose the corruption within the new Russian economy. For his efforts, he was gunned down.....and the murderers have never been caught.

'They raped every German female from eight to 80' | Books | The Guardian

The probability that soldiers will rape your women is one good reason not to mount wars of aggression. If things don't go as you'd like, oopsie, here comes a bunch of soldiers to exact revenge. Not saying it's right but then again neither was the Siege of Leningrad right. Stalingrad's near destruction probably didn't sit well either. To say nothing of untold numbers of smaller, more personal atrocities.

Ironic that you would advocate arming Germans to go after the Russians and then bring up rapes in Germany after armed Germans went somewhat out of their way to antagonize and slaughter Russians.

And Patton, in this instance, was an idiot.

t walgamuth · #5 06-30-2012, 09:40 AM

Patton could be pretty dense.

The history between Russia and Germany goes way beyond ww2 doesn't it?

Raping women is more the rule than any exception in war, historically speaking. Kill the men inmprgnate as many of the wormen as possible to promote your gene pool.

Its only in the last century or so that there have been any rules about war.

aklim · #6 06-30-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Its only in the last century or so that there have been any rules about war.

A pretty dumb set of ideas, IMO. After all, what are you going to do? Impose a 10 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike behavior? Your tribunal is only good IF you win. There is no referee to halt play and impose penalty.

Botnst · #7 07-01-2012, 02:55 PM

Emphasizing precision in warfare has made us intolerant of civilian casualties.

Uncensored news reporters in frontline troops has made us intolerant of atrocities, real, imagined, and accidental.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I suggest it depends on whether one believes the ends justify the means. Further, I think we all believe that and it's merely a matter of perspective.

HuskyMan · #8 07-01-2012, 11:13 PM

here is an article that may help to explain the age old conflict between the Germans and the Ruskies.

Lenin

Air&Road · #9 07-02-2012, 09:56 AM

I agree, but in War, the BEST is sometimes brought out in people as well.

aklim · #10 07-02-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I agree, but in War, the BEST is sometimes brought out in people as well.

Perhaps so. However, in buying the lottery, there are winners just as there are winners in Las Vegas. I wouldn't count on either if it were me but you can bet any way you want.

strelnik · #11 07-02-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I agree, but in War, the BEST is sometimes brought out in people as well.

Larry, I believe that you are right, on an individual basis. But unfortunately, individuals usually work for an army and they are forced to follow their orders.

Now..if you had a situation where the winning army was absolutely soooo superior to the losers..kind of like the Romans, and say, the Vulkans..then the superior technology would so overwhelm the others that they would blindly obey and the benevolent despot victors could do what you are saying and institutionalize the changes by stayoing in power until everyone who remembered the "old ways" was dead, and there would only be the "new ways."

It only happens in sci-fi, thus far anyway.

Ever see the movie "" Zardoz "" with Sean Connery? I recommend it.

Air&Road · #12 07-02-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Larry, I believe that you are right, on an individual basis. But unfortunately, individuals usually work for an army and they are forced to follow their orders.

Now..if you had a situation where the winning army was absolutely soooo superior to the losers..kind of like the Romans, and say, the Vulkans..then the superior technology would so overwhelm the others that they would blindly obey and the benevolent despot victors could do what you are saying and institutionalize the changes by stayoing in power until everyone who remembered the "old ways" was dead, and there would only be the "new ways."

It only happens in sci-fi, thus far anyway.

Ever see the movie "" Zardoz "" with Sean Connery? I recommend it.

Yes Strelnik. I did mean on an individual basis. Contrary to what many believe, once in serious combat, American soldiers are not fighting for the flag, Mom and Applie Pie. They are fighting for each other. They sometimes rise to the occasion of doing unbelievable, unselfish things for each other.

aklim · #13 07-02-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Yes Strelnik. I did mean on an individual basis. Contrary to what many believe, once in serious combat, American soldiers are not fighting for the flag, Mom and Applie Pie. They are fighting for each other. They sometimes rise to the occasion of doing unbelievable, unselfish things for each other.

Nope. Just because a man does things for my wife don't mean he is doing it out of altruism. He could be doing something for her because he is hoping for a BJ or ******* or a little backdoor action.

Can it not be that A is doing something to preserve B simply because B is important to him? What if B did nothing for him and he got nothing out of it? Would he still do the action? Just because you are paid in a different coin doesn't mean you are NOT getting paid and thus doing an altruistic action.

cmac2012 · #14 07-02-2012, 03:51 PM

It's said that humanity has never invented a weapon and not used it. The full horror of nukes was not as appreciated than as much as now, and it did appear that the Japanese were tough nuts to crack. Given their conduct, unconditional surrender did seem to be the proper goal to hold out for.

I suspect if they hadn't dropped the bombs, I'd not be here banging on a keyboard as my father was stationed in the Philippines in '44,'45. Invading the main islands would have been a serious donnybrook.

Txjake · #15 07-02-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's said that humanity has never invented a weapon and not used it. The full horror of nukes was not as appreciated than as much as now, and it did appear that the Japanese were tough nuts to crack. Given their conduct, unconditional surrender did seem to be the proper goal to hold out for.

I suspect if they hadn't dropped the bombs, I'd not be here banging on a keyboard as my father was stationed in the Philippines in '44,'45. Invading the main islands would have been a serious donnybrook.

the Pacific war would have lasted a few more years and we would have lost scores of men.