Slashdot Mirror
War Hero Thwarted Nazi Heavy Water Production
Freshly Exhumed writes "Its doubtful you know the name of Einar Skinnarland, but his sabotage over several years repeatedly thwarted Nazi plans to exploit Norway's heavy water production capabilities for their atomic bomb research plans. Skinnerland recently passed away in Canada and his daring exploits are recounted here. Details of some of the raids on the production facilities can be found on pafko and Stephen's Study Room. So many 'what if?'s and suspicions have swirled around the Nazi atomic bomb program that this man's efforts seem crystal clear for a change."
"Hemos mentioned Nazis in the subject line. Therefore, by the Godwin's Law rule, the discussion is over almost before it's started."
Think again. The Godwin's Law FAQ, section II.2, discusses this.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb shows clearly and ironically that Hitler drove many Jewish physicists out of Germany in the '30s including Einstein. If he would have let them keep there posts he almost certainly would have had the bomb before the US.
Free cell phone tracking
...Cuz all the debates end up the same...does slahdot have nothing better to do that post stories like this?
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
What matters is that eventually, the cursed thing was used. Go ahead and say it was to save x number of troops or y politcal plans, or anything else, but the bottom ine is that the first to discover the thing was going to use it, and this world has been quite the scary & dangerous place ever since.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Evidently in france the thought police come after you for even thinking about nazis. What a shame really, they don't realize certain things should never be forgotten or it will happen again.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The japanese decided it was a bad idea to persue the atomic bomb (heavily) because of the shortage of deuterium. The germans and the french had the nice little plant, Norsk Hydro in Norway, to make enough of the stuff to have a burgeoning atomic program, fortunately there was enough sabotage that Hitler didn't get the bomb. Especially since he already had an excellent delivery system.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intimate
intimate
To make known subtly and indirectly; hint. See Synonyms at suggest.
To announce; proclaim.
using System.Awesome;
Maybe it matters a slight amount that the thing was used by a democratic nation to end a dreadful war launched against them rather than by the Nazis to achieve world domination in a war of their own making?
Yeah, it's never been as quaint as Europe circa '39 - 45. Those were the good old days.
Ah, yes.. WW2.. nobody had the bomb, nobody had real technological advantages and the enemy was in fact a civilized western high tech country with lots of resources. Those were the times!
It's a pity todays so called "wars" are more like playing starcraft with unlimited resources against an AI set on "easy". I don't think I'll watch the Iraq thing on TV when it starts. A few old star trek episodes will provide better entertainment.
I don't remember this 'Skinnarland' guy, though.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Somebody think of a Microsoft angle to this story!
How does heavy water contribute to the creation of a fission weapon? I'm not saying it doesn't, I'd just appreciate it if someone would explain how.
Right. Somehow I don't think Germany would have been as conservative with its use of the bomb. Russia would probably not exist today, neither would Britain. Most of occupied Europe would have bene spared because of the German expansion.
All in all, the world is very lucky that the U.S. got the bomb first. If the U.S. had designs on ruling the world, they wouldn't have allowed any other nation to develop the bomb.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
> but the bottom ine is that the first to discover the thing was going to use it, and this world has been quite the scary & dangerous place ever since.
I agree, and it's unfortunate that that genie can't be put back in the bottle.
However, the curmudgeon in me can't help pointing out that the world was already a scary & dangerous place. Only the tiniest fraction of the ~50,000,000 people who died during WWII died as a result of atomic bombs.
And we've darn well kept our hand in at the killing since then, too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The japanese had pilots willing to pilot their planes into anything deemed a target. I don't think that the era 1945 to present holds a monopoly on the world being a scary and dangerous place.
ostiguy
People like that guy keep my cynicism at bay. Keeping people like him somewhere in the back of your mind will give you hope for humankind when otherwise you'd give in to pessimism, and a snide outlook.
Ernest Shackleton's another guy who, kept in the background of your mind, will serve that purpose.
Mr. Skinnarland was mentioned several times in Leo Marks book "Between Silk and Cyanide". One of the many heroes just recently getting their due.
He trained in England with the SOE, crossing paths with Mr Marks who trained operatives in the use of codes.
Marks died in the last year or two also.
that Ilan Ramon, the Israeli pilot destroyed madman Saddam's nuclear facilities in a surprise air attack.
Great job to save the humanity... South Koreans should have done that as well a long time ago...
Did you miss out on this post and all the replies?
An article here at /. about foreigners who *aren't* Australians? How did such an outrage slip through? Somebody go get Michael and Timothy so that this madness can end!
now _this_ is "stuff that matters"!
http://www.pafko.com/trips/norway/n10/ - about the sabotage
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm - about heavy water and it's use
http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/haukelid.htm - about Knut Haukelid; another of the heroes from Telemark
http://www.390th.org/warstories/Rjukan.htm - about how the USAF tried and failed to knock out the heavy water plant
I know, I gotta learn proper html
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Thank God somebody did the right thing. Too bad is wasn't my countrymen. After WWII, the United States made a Devil's pact with Reinhard Gehlen -- absorbing Gehlen's spy apparatus into the US spy apparatus. (Or ... was it the other way around?)
-kgj
You fool. It's obvious that the entire atomic bombing was a hoax--power of the atom, right!--perpetrated to cover-up post-war atrocities.
French. Or we'd all be speaking German now.
He was Norwegian. As were the rest of the gang of Norwegian resistance fighters who sabotaged the heavy water plant at Rjukan.
These days more than 90% of Norwegians are against an attack on Iraq without UN security council backing. (Just as pretty much all the rest of the world except the USA.)
War is not something one should enter into lightly. All other alternatives should be tried before one resorts to war.
I love how history gets re-written. The Nazi's were never building a bomb, they didn't even think it was possible (the captured German scientists were amazed when they heard the US had developed an atomic weapon). The Nazi's were actually trying to build an atomic reactor to power a large battleship or something of that ilk.
What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary.
So the US dropping that bomb was 100% a power trip. And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war. The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc. Yadi yada. Read up on some history...
Aside from an interesting quote from Werner Heisenberg, it gives a lot of information about the efforts at sabotaging the heavy water processing plant. If you can find a copy, it's well worth the price.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
...get it?
He didn't let the phyiscists who remained use what he termed "Jewish Physics." Which, as it happens, was the *correct* physics.
It turns out, according to documents that only came to light about 10 years ago, the Japanese were probably actually much closer to building a bomb than Germany because, even though they started late and worked slowly, they were heading down the proper path to pull it off.
KFG
Those explosions surely killed some people. It would have been better for them to hold a peace march in front of the plant.
The world was a scary and dangerous place long before the development of nuclear weapons.
Japan should have immediately surrended after the 1st bomb. They are solely responsible for the 2nd dromb being dropped. They were too busy trying to rally the citizenry to defend the homeland. Rather than protecting their people, they put them in jeopardy.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
90% of French and British citizens were against standing up to Hitler when he waltzed into the Sudetenland.
Look where that got us.
No one wants war, but the realists in the world realize that inaction is actually worse in some cases.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
A few months ago I saw an old movie based on this exact story. It wasn't a documentry, and it was actually very good. Full of action and suspense, but without all that Hollywood junk.
I can't remember what it was called, but it was on Canada's "History Television" cable channel.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
There WAS that little incident called "Pearl Harbor." America doesn't get mad, it gets even. Or it tries to finish what it's daddy couldn't.
so he made sure Stalin and Mao got one too?
One must follow one's logic to its, ummmmm, logical conclusion.
Oh, wait. We're talking about *religion.*
Nevermind.
KFG
and this world has been quite the scary & dangerous place ever since
You have to be kidding me right? The world is no more scarry than it was before the bomb was used. In fact one could argue that its less scarry. Look at the cold war. Heres a situation that very well should of been WW3. It had everything that WWI and WW2 had except for the war. Never underestimate the power of mutal destruction. Currently (and the last 40 years or so) we invade countries that we don't fear (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc), because they have no risk of hurting the homeland. However do you think the US would pick a fight with the Chinese or Russians (or even North Korea, when was the last time we invaded them, no matter how "evil" they are)? No. And why is this? Because they could nuke as as badly as we could nuke them. The atomic bomb as been used more a tool of peace (albiet a threatening peace) then it has as a tool of war.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
The direct responsibility of the destruction caused by a weapon lie with whoever uses it, no matter how much indirect responsibility other involved parties may have.
Nothing forced anyone to use the second bomb.
Most of the development occured on the Korean Peninsula, at Hungnam (known as Konan under Japanese occupation), in what is now North Korea.
Allegedly, the test weapon was exploded three days before the war ended.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Japan's refusal to surrender forced the use of the 2nd bomb. There really is no other way to look at it.
Sorry.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Japan had practically ceased existing at that point. Your comparison is analogous to blowing a bomb in a busy intersection, waiting 10 minutes, and then opening fire on the terrorists/civilians in the area that are still looking for severed pieces of their bodies around the place.
Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties.
No, it wasn't. Like I originally said, at the time of the incident, the war was pretty much over, and the world was in a state of stupor... no major battles were being fought.
The second bomb can best be described as an act of vingilantism on the part of the US. You should also read the recent article that was posted on slashdot about the captain of the Enola Gay, and how the order came to drop the second bomb.
It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
With their "Visual MyHeavywater.bomb.NET(tm)" product?
Hah. Fooled you. You thought I was going to invoke Godwin's law by making some comparison between MS and Nazis. Oh, wait. Shit. Screwed up again.
KFG
And on a side note, America didn't get even, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and basically razed two cities. Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency.
And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost, if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so...
Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less. It was definitely much less cruel then what the US has been doing in the middle east, and far east too for the past half century.
That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)...
Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels...
Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?
Oh wait, we already did that....
And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost, if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so...
And if nations want to surprise attack them while engaged in diplomatic talks, then those nations will have to bear the consequences of their actions.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I know. It's because this time we really can have peace in our time.
The bombs were dropped three days apart.
Japan had practically ceased existing at that point. Your comparison is analogous to blowing a bomb in a busy intersection, waiting 10 minutes, and then opening fire on the terrorists/civilians in the area that are still looking for severed pieces of their bodies around the place
Three days is plenty of time to say "I surrender". The Japanese military and impotent Emporer failed the Japanese people for failing to do so.
Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties.
No, it wasn't. Like I originally said, at the time of the incident, the war was pretty much over, and the world was in a state of stupor... no major battles were being fought.
Then Japan should have surrended. Their refusal to do so was an egregious mistake on their part.
It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
When I read the history books, I see that the U.S. gave Japan warnings to surrender prior to the droppings of both bombs.
Japan refused to heed those warnings.
The U.S. bombed them.
It seems logical to me that Japan forced the U.S.'s hand. History has borne that out as well.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
So you are acting a-la US acts when Russian hacker gets tried in US soil for un-crime commited in Russia?
You must be really naive if you think Diplomatic talks degenerate because of bad manners at the tea table.
The cards are always down, it's all about how much one is willing to bend over and grab their ankles.
And the US lately, has become the master pimp of the world... expecting anyone and everyone in their sight to bend over and grab em.
Well fuck you! It's about time you realized it doesn't work that way... You have a current world crisis going on just because of said behaviour. Just sit and watch how the US will go in like the First of the Ninth Air Cav even after the UN says "no". The world isn't your playground...
Like I said before, it's one thing to think you're right in an argument, and something else completely to try and justify glaring events of 50 years past.
"As soon as the germans capitulated, Russia was on Japan's ass, and they were scared of it."
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. If you knew your history, you'd know that, after being essentially blockaded and slowly starved by the US submarine force for the better part of a year, after being nuked twice, after the Soviets declared war on Japan and the sudden influx of bloodthirsty eastern-front veterans, Hideki Tojo's army was so "scared" that they staged a desparate coup to prevent the emperor from surrendering!
If the coup had been successful, it would have taken more than just two nuclear devices to convince them to surrender. Probably far more.
" What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary."
I disagree, for the reasons stated above.
If you can find it, there's a flick out there named Hiroshima that examines the final months of the war in the Pacific from both the US and Japanese sides. It feels a lot like Tora! Tora! Tora! You'll see just how "scared" and "willing to surrender" the Japanese military was. It airs on Showtime from time to time.
"And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war."
The Cold War was "starting" after WWII no matter what happened to Japan. It's roots come from well before 1945 (even before 1938). The only thing that the use of the atomic bombs on Japan did was make sure that the Soviets weren't able to carve up Japan like they did to Germany and (eventually) Korea.
"The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc"
What role? The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Japan until August 1945. They didn't declare war on Japan until two days after the Hiroshima bombing, the day before Nagasaki. Japan had nothing to do with the Great Patriotic War.
"Read up on some history..."
Hypocrite.
This was a very interesting story. The problem today is that people still don't realize that in the USA hate speech needs to be outlawed and guns need to be confiscated by the government. Gun owners are nazi freedom haters who need to be imprisoned or destroyed. Anyone who is opposed to outlawing hate speech and guns is a terrorist. Once I saw some normal citizen carrying an assault weapon and I almost threw up. It's sickening. This is a socialist country and those of us who value equality and vast social programs for the poor and disadvantaged find it sickening that hate speech and guns are still allowed.
A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson recounts the war from the aspect of the clandestine serivces in the US and UK. It shows how Churchill was consulting the Crown before he was technically back in power, but received permission to start working on means to defend England. It talks about Roosevelt's involvement in the defense of Britain from an early stage, before the public knew about it or would support such actions.
The book talks about the repeated raids on the heavy water factories, the code-breaking process, the creation of the OSS, the establishment of a backup British Government in NYC in case London fell, etc. There is also the appearance of such notables as Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming and Aldous Huxley, working in British Intelligence.
Some of the stories of radio operators dropped into Europe, captured, tortured and killed, could and should be made into movies or books in their own right.
Intrepid, by the way, was the code name of the man chosen by Churchill to be a liason with Roosevelt in the early stages (before lend-lease, before Pearl Harbor, etc)
Clearly you have some anti-U.S. issues which is clouding your judgement (and also causing you to write some rather incoherent muddled sentences), so I'll leave you to continue your crusade.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Because if they lost then the US would be a different country, here's a list of how things would be different...
Nazi germany was socialist... erm, nevermind, forget that.
The Nazis murdered people of different religions... erm, wait, I seem to remember 80 men, women, and children being burnt to death about a decade ago, so forget that one...
The nazis enacted gun control... oh wait, the US legislature just translated that into english... forget that one...
Nazi Germany had the notorious gestapo... oh wait, the US has FBI, ATF, and now the OHS goons on the prowl. Not to mention the behavior of regular police.
Forget it... can someone tell me the difference between the two? They both seem to be liberty haters.
Clausowitz said that war had to be horible, otherwise we would not fear to engage in it.
As horifying as The Bomb is, it is for exactly this reason that it is the greatest tool for peace.
The sheer terror of what would happen if a nuclear power were to launch is unthinkable, so is agression against them...
Note this only applies to democracies, or other goverments that are remotly concerned with the loss of their citizense lives.
It's a theory... I'll bet you $1,000,000 dollars it works?!
I would rather be ashes than dust!
And close to 98% of the US population were against getting involved with Hitler too... Or are we forgetting the whole America First movement?
Je ne parle pas francais.
PS. I hate you.
"Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties."
San Francisco? No. But the Japanese still held on to the Asian mainland and was massacring Chinese civillians (like they'd been doing since 1932) essentially right on up until Hirohito set foot aboard the USS Missouiri.
But people who are stuck with a Eurocentric viewpoint on history tend not to know that.
"no major battles were being fought."
Cheng Kai-Shek and Mao Tse-Dong would disagree.
You have tasted that sentence with the word "Nazis" replaced with "americans", right?
And believe it or not, I'm not a political kind of person... But like I said from post one, it's one thing to have beliefs in current arguments, it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact... Are you and that other wise crack telling me with straight faces that the world would have been a burning ball of fire, and that millions of lives would have been lost if those two bombs weren't dropped? - I call YOU hypocrites for saying that.
You go ahead and justify it all you want, and call me hypocrite at the same time, if you can sleep with a comfortable conscience, more power to you.
I'll just remind you people have been tried for war crimes and genocide for killing just a few hundred people.
And it seems we still don't. ;)
What about 9/11 struck you as 'negotiated
diplomacy'? What about the antrax attacks
reminded you of polite discussion?
Can the rest of the world not accept that
we're still pissed off? While most of the
world is ready to accept the deaths of
3000 Americans, we can't. As we swept the
cremated ashes of fellow Americans off our
decks the day after 9/11, we took a vow:
We don't give a fuck; alone or with allies,
we're going to destroy asshole nations.
Skinnarland used to communicate with SOE using a transposition cipher. This encryption was carried out by hand by a fairly tedious algorithm. Skinnarland was just about the worst agent SOE had to deal with - he would repeatedly make mistakes in his enciphering. Leo Marks was one of the people back in Britain who had to decrypt the erroneously encoded messages. As you might imagine - decrypting an incorrectly encoded message was a horrendously difficult task and Marks seems to have spent much of his time during the war dealing with his messages. In fact, Marks had so much trouble with these messages he dubbed anything indecipherable a 'Skinnarland'!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0057811
"Based on" the real events (and stolen for the Star Wars Death Star battle)
> 90% of French and British citizens were against standing up to Hitler when he waltzed into the Sudetenland. Look where that got us. No one wants war, but the realists in the world realize that inaction is actually worse in some cases.
The problem is that no one has a crystal ball that lets us examine the future the way we can examine the past. I for one am not eager to have tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed on the basis dubious claims that we can detect when history is repeating itself. Far better to reason things out on the basis of what we see now than to base our decision on a weak analogy with the past.
And remember, there have been times when we intervened and things still didn't work out exactly swell, and times when we sat back and weren't afflicted with another world war as a result. Appeals to history make great rhetoric, but so far as I can tell they are actually worthless.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There is a very good book out there written by the man that developed the codes that Skinnarland used. While the focus is on wartime codes and the internal struggles in the British War Department, it still contains good information about Skinnarland, and is a very good read It is called Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0057811
Yes, as I've proven by giving another view, it another way to look at it: Japan was weak. It's military was near collapse, and stretched way to thing, and a military victory without the bomb, even the first one, would have been possible relatively quickly, and with far fewer casualties.
Man, the historical accuracy of your posts just keeps going downhill...
"Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency."
Off the top of my head, I can't remember the signifigance of Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was on the list of potential targets because of its port facilities.
" And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost,"
On US territory.
"if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so..."
Uncle Sam wouldn't have had to worry if Uncle Sam would have continued exports to Japan that were fueling Japan's nine-year-old (at the time) war of aggression and expansion on the Asian mainland.
"Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less."
They were a major strategic loss, a minor tactical victory at best. There were no carriers at anchor at Pearl, which were Yamamoto's primary target. He played his only trump card and gained next to nothing because of it.
"That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)"
You are right only to a degree, only in the tactical sense.
Even the US public was well aware of Japanese intentions towards the US. Those on Oahu and the Philippines that day were taken by surprise by the attacks themselves, not the ones attacking them. Operation Barbarossa was far more of a surprise than 12/7/41.
"Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?"
The US wasn't in the middle of diplomatic negotiations with either bin Laden or Mullah Omar's government in September 2001. Afghanistan was only butchering its own civillians, and had yet to even consider invading one of its neighbors. Tojo's Japan had already slaughtered many, many more civillians for a longer period of time by 1941 than bin Laden could possibly hope to achieve, even after 2001.
Your metaphor is strenuous at best.
Really, all I can do now, is quote some big lebowsky because I'm too irrate at your mother theresa point of view. "Smokey, this is not Nam, there are rules".
For your information, I *am* european, but I like many others find both the french and the british to both be whimps, and ultimately the cause of WWII.
My only difference from you sir, is that I don't try to justify their actions.
See my last post for my final words. I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
Argh. That's what I get from writing when I'm sleepy. The above should read "Yes, as I've proven by giving another view, there is another way to look at it:"
No,no,no....Americans were against getting involved in Europe's fight. Americans rightly felt that containing Hitler's aggression was Britain and France's responsibility. Unfortunately, Britain and France (especially France) shirked their duties to the rest of Europe.
If Britain and France didn't give a damn about the rest of Europe, why should the Americans have cared back then?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Far fewer casualties for whom? Japan?
I'm sorry. When you're at war, your primary concern is to mitigate the losses of your own people.
If the U.S. had to invade Japan to force it to capitulate, that would have been the wrong decision because tens of thousands of Americans would have died.
No. Japan had ample time and warning to surrender. It chose not to only until it realized that it by not doing so, Japan would cease to exist.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
The original poster was merely making fun of the fact that some of the mods here obviously favor their homeland(s) by slipping in stories about them as often as possible, even if of borderline relevance or interest. This bugs many of us due to the fact that something interesting was probably rejected in order for them to wave their little flags.
And PUHLEESE! "Australia the new United States"? No offense dude, but your own patriotism has blinded you to the fact that Australia wouldn't even qualify as a *state* of the US! A bunch of Inuit seal hunters would have more knowledge of, say, the Maryland State Legistature than anything about Australia, and not even Americans in Maryland know anything about the Maryland State Legislature!
As amusing as you're trying to be - belittling those who desire peace means nothing, especially since comparisons between the 2nd World War and Iraq are meaningless.
I should perhaps point out that the hostile aggressors were a German dictatorship in 1940 and are now the democratic republic of the United States in 2003. The "resistance" position then was the Allies, the "resistance" position is now the Iraq.
I really don't think you intended to be seen as cheering for violent Iraq resistance against the US. If a peaceful solution can be found - it should be taken.
Really, all I can do now, is quote some big lebowsky because I'm too irrate at your mother theresa point of view. "Smokey, this is not Nam, there are rules".
I'll quote some more Lebowski, which is probably a paraphrase of something Roosevelt spoke on Dec 7, 1941:
"This aggression shall not stand"
If Japan didn't want to get destroyed, they should never have woken the sleeping giant. They got what they deserved. They've learned their lesson since then which has served the world well.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
"Are you and that other [slashdot.org] wise crack telling me with straight faces that the world would have been a burning ball of fire, and that millions of lives would have been lost if those two bombs weren't dropped?"
Hrm, let's see...
Ignoring the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) that would have died (mostly on the Japanese side) in a conventional invasion of Honshu, Japan still had a stranglehold on much of the Asian mainland, stretching from Pyongyang to Singapore (and beyond) in 1945. Japan's soldiers had a warped sense of bushido and sense of ethnic superiority that caused them to perform acts of genocide that rivaled (if not surpassed) what Hitler and Stalin are known for doing. If the war would be allowed to grind on for another year or two, millions more would have died.
Just before the second atomic bomb, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Aside from the usual "slant-eyes"/"gaijin" dehumanizing tendancies of both Japanese and Western cultures, the Soviets were fresh from a very bloody war in their western republics and Russia still remembered their stinging defeat in the Ruso-Japanese War (by a bunch of "slant-eyes"). If the Soviets and the Japanese were to be given the opportunity to shoot at each other in a long, protracted campaign, no quarter would have been asked for or given (making the Great Patriotic War seem downright civil by comparison). Millions would have died.
So, do I really think that if the war in the Pacific were not brought to a rapid conclusion by the two atomic bombs, millions more would have died? Yes.
Groucho?
If one American life would have been lost during an invasion of Japan, that would have been one life too many.
America warned Japan and Japan thought America was bluffing. When you call someone's bluff you have to live with the the consequences.
I consider Truman to be a hero for having the courage to drop those bombs. American blood is too precious to waste. If 80% of the world has a problem with it, maybe they can put together a U.N. resolution to reprimand us.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
That is being silly. None of the parties showed any restraint durring WW2. The Americans didn't show any restraint with its bombs either. They ran out.
Maybe it matters a slight amount that the thing was used by a democratic nation to end a dreadful war launched against them rather than by the Nazis to achieve world domination in a war of their own making?
Remind me again what military installations were being targetted? The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what, human shields? The bomb couldn't have been dropped off-shore or somesuch?
Bombing a dam is damn hard. seen from the air they are very small targets. And they are concrete and over built. even if you hit the top you have not done much damage. to destroy the dam you have to hit is near the bottom where the water pressure is high. hence the need for a raid on the ground: to hard to hit.
Enter the skip bomb. the Skip bomb is a spinning cyllindric bomb dropped in the water above the dam. it skips, skips, skips and slams in to wall of the dam. but it does not explode. instead the back spin makes it claw its way down the side the dam where it detonates near the bottom.
there's lots on the web on this, including . http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_nazidams/
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Who said that the only intent of the bomb was to destroy military targets?
Obviously the bomb was intended to kill lots of people and to instill fear in the Japanese people, much like the Dressden fire bombings were intended to break the German spirit.
It's too bad that the Japanese rulers didn't surrender in the face of this destruction.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
From tealover.
I rest my case.
Just to be more explicit Guppy, what you are talking about is open for argumenting, and there are many answers that can come of it. Don't call me hypocrit so quickly, because I have arguments too... and yes, I know of Nankin as well. And I've read books, not "little factoids" off of Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. And I do not condemn you for having your opinion.
But the above statement goes a loooong way in my favor I'd say...
From the article:
Mr. Skinnarland emigrated to the United States shortly after the war, moving to Toronto in 1965 to take a job with a construction firm.
Because Toronto's a part of the United States. Err...
Thanks for proving my point that what 90% of Norwegians believe is in any way relevant to the reality of the Iraq situation. 90% of people are always opposed to war, even if their own nation is indirectly threatened.
There are times when you have to look beyond the poll numbers and do what is right. Unfortunately, in Old Europe, there are no Churchills. There sure are a lot of Chamberlains though.
That's quite sad.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Well, both Britain and France did indeed care... they declared war against Germany two days after the invasion of Poland. Britain moved a large contingent of troops to France, but when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France in 1940 both the French army and the British Expeditionary Force to France didn't stand a chance. The British managed to evacuate a large part of their troops via Dunkirk to Britain and fought on, even when most parts of the world including large groups in the US thought that the war was over and that they just should surrender their powerful fleet to the USA and surrender to Germany.
Without Roosevelt helping the Britons more or less unofficially while still a lot of people in the US wanted to stay out of Europe indeed also the UK would most likely had fallen, but one really cannot say they didn't care or didn't fight.
Pleas have a look at this node on Everything2.com. It is a short piece I wrote up on the bombings and the massive attempt to thwart Hitler's atomic ambitions.
Go ahead and say it was to save x number of troops or y politcal plans
It was neither.
It was to keep the Japanese population from being decimated. Most of Japan was convinced the US was going to kill the Emperor, and as a result, US soldiers would have been fighting against every man, woman, and child able to pick up a stick, shovel, or gun. It would have been a very, very, very bloody slaughter on -both- sides.
Britain and France appeased and placated Hitler from '36 - '39. Three years went by as they watched Germany remilitarize. Three years went by as they actually sold Czechoslovakia down the river to Germany...all in the name of peace (I'm sure the Czech's had a different view of things).
Britain and France may have cared. But they didn't do anything about it when they had a chance and when it would have mattered. Their inaction brought on the world's most destructive war in history.
Let's hope future inaction on Old Europe's part doesn't doom humanity again.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
this might be OT, but it is incredibly interesting...
good links too...
it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact...
Speaking as a historian, it is generally accepted that neither of the weapons needed to be dropped to end the war, or certainly no more than one. However, and I think other posters have mentioned this, it is generally believed that the resultant loss of life from an American invasion of the Japanese mainland and/or an all-out war between the Soviet Union and Japan would have resulted in horrendous casaulties for all involved. Bottom line, war is a shitty business, especially when there are militant fundamentalists (Japanese hard-liners, Islamic radicals, Christian right-wingers) on any side...
No statement is true, not even this one.
This man was a terrorist. And, one could argue, a "cowardly terrorist" - he didn't go on the boat and go down with it. He'd done other things more classically heroic, but the bombing of the ferry Hydro was not an act of heroism. At best, it was militarily necessary.
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. I'm sure that your world would be a much better place. Where everyone loves everybody, and there are no scary weapons. And kids don't even know the word 'gun'. Cry cry cry. What can't everybody get alongggggg?????? Wah wah waaaaahhhh!!!! Sob!!! Snifffle!! Waaaaahhh!!
it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war. The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc. Yadi yada. Read up on some history...
So in other words, Stalin would have been a nice old gentleman, if only the bomb hadn't been dropped?
How then do you explain the fact that Hitler and Stalin had a secret nonaggression pact? Before Hitler decided to doublecross poor old Uncle Joe, the USSR had in fact conquered almost as much of Eastern Europe as Germany had.
"Read up on some history" indeed...
What's your point?
So, why is Norway the right place to
make heavy water? I have never seen
an answer to this. Why did not the Germans
make heavy water at home? Was it the
abundance of energy in Norway? Even if
so, if the $D_2 O$ production was so
important for them, couldn't they (the
Germans) have moved the production at home
after the Norwegian facility was blown?
You must be really naive if you think Diplomatic talks degenerate because of bad manners at the tea table.
The thing about the attack on Pearl Harbor: the Japanese diplomats in New York strung along the US for at least two months, pretending that they were making progress, when they already knew that there was going to be an attack. Back then, it took quite a while for an aircraft carrier to steam from Japan to Hawaii.
After the attack, it was completely obvious that the negotiations had been in bad faith from that start, and that the only goal was to catch the US with its pants down. It worked, of course. Most of the US's Pacific fleet was destroyed.
It was not a good way to make friends.
The ferry incident was merely an extension of this first effort. The ferry was carrying parts from the reactor and the remaining supply of heavy water back to germany to be used in further atomic research. He blew it up to stop that, and he was greatly saddened by the fact that there were several norweigans on board at the time.
As well, Norway wasn't neutral, it was occupied by germany and as such was part of the Nazi war effort.
The UK one The Heroes of Telemark, and a much less known one, because it was norwegian. I can't even manage to find the name of the norwegian one, though I've seen it. The latter is a real documentary, and while it may not have the same suspense, it is much more true to the real story. If that's of interest, of course...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
One of the members of the Norwegian Resistance, Oluf R. Olsen, wrote an excellent autobiography called "Two Eggs On My Plate." It was published in 1954, but it can be found in used bookshops. If you want to know more about the bravery and character of Norwegians during WWII, see Jan Baalsrud's autobiography, "Defiant Courage." Baalsrud's incredible and harrowing journey was confirmed by historian David Howarth in "We Die Alone," which can be found on Amazon.com. Hollywood also told the story, but not very well: Heroes of Telemark. Truly, there were giants in those days...
"It's a pity todays so called "wars" are more like playing starcraft with unlimited resources against an AI set on "easy"."
You just described pretty much all the wars from 1815 right on up to the middle of the nineteenth century. Then 1861 happened.
You just described pretty much all the wars from 1865 right on up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Then 1914 happened.
"... doomed to repeat," yadda yadda yadda.
Argh, sorry you're right. I hate it when i get stuff like that mixed up.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
He moved to US shortly after the war = 1940s.
In 1965 he left US and moved to Toronto.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And it was not really about religion. The Branch Davidians chose to live "outside the system". That's unacceptable. If you aren't part of the system, then you might be uncontrollable, therefore you must be either brought back into the system or destroyed.
90 men, women and children were burned alive so that some bureaucrats could keep their stacks of paperwork a little neater.
Yes, that's right. I get angry when people give too much credit to minor characters in the effort to disrupt German heavy water production. Of far more importance was Col. Robert Hogan, US Army Air Force and his team of saboteurs when they were able to destroy a secret shipment into Luft Stalag 13 in 1944. Yes, they were able to convince the camp kommandant, who happened to be a bumbler that the heavy water was in fact, water from the Fountain of Youth and could grow hair on his bald pate by drinking it which prevented the Germans from removing it right away. They were able to destroy this shipment which happened to be the purest that the dirty Nazi's could generate and single handedly prevented a nuclear catastrophe in Europe as well as saved the war for the Allies. Sorry, but when people give Skinnarland more press than Hogan and his heroes I get all mad and stuff.
I think that a recent episode of the History Channel's Greatest Raids covered some of his work against the Norsk Hydro factory in Telemark, Norway.
bcl
Remember Lexington Green!
The Germans weren't even close to making the bomb so the raid on the Norsk Hydroelectric plant and other destruction of heavy water didn't really make a difference.
First, heavy water is not the only moderator available to someone who wants to make a chain reaction (the first US pile used very pure carbon) and heavy water isn't used in an atomic weapon (although it is used in a thermonuclear weapon but you have to crawl before you can run.)
Second, the Germans didn't even have the explosive material to make a bomb. In an atomic bomb you can use either plutonium or enriched uranium. The Manhattan Project got it's plutonium from the residue of a self-sustaining chain reaction and the Germans hadn't even completed a self-sustaining chain reaction by the war's end, hell they weren't even close. Heisenberg kept insisting on creating these elaborate designs of natural uranium for the pile such as concentric spheres or huge disks which took a lot of time and labor to produce when the best configuration for a chain reaction is small cyclinders which was the only configuration the Manhattan Project ever used. Using enriched uranium was just out of the question for the overworked German war machine. America had the money and resources to build gaseous diffusion plants and centrifuges, but what with fighting two fronts Germany had better things to do with its money and Heisenberg was not really pushing for more resources since he couldn't convince himself let alone Hitler that they would be able to produce a bomb.
And then had they somehow had a chain reaction they would have to extract the plutonium (not easy), then they still have to construct the bomb (not easy), and figure out a way of delivering it (not easy.) For more information I highly recommend the Richard Rhodes book, Making of the Atomic Bomb.
If you don't want to be labeled a hypocrite in the future, I'd highly recommend staying unemotional during a debate, try not to be so pompous, and realize that it is completely possible that you are (being a human and all) wrong. (anything's possible, right?)
Later,
AC
PS: By the way, I didn't participate in this debate...
I have two reasons why I don't like you. You're a moron, and your nick is in Hungarian notation.
Simply evil you are.
democratic?!?! Hitler was ELECTED democratically several times. And countries such as austriavoted in popular vote to join with hitlers visions.Anyway...
.
I have seen the Nazi heavy water artifacts. (and other artifacts) For many years in the 1980's the University of Michigan had apules of heavy water (double ended sealed glass vials) on display in the old chemistry building in central quad area on main floor toward the east. Lots of universities have interesting artifacts in display cases, including the worlds smallest MOVINGmotor at caltech and other exibits.
The nazi heavy water display was fascinating because the vial had pretty high quality white stickers with red swastika prominently on them. The display would not have been complete without the sticker obviously.
The german heavy water exhibit looked cool.
At that time the Univ of Michigan harbored Dr Mengeles lab book results (and luftwaffe freezing of human spine in artic temp brine, and decompression tests on humans) and was in the flack.
I noticed hundreds of rare Nazi books being stolen or defaced one by one from the MASSIVE collection (yes massive) grad student library at the Univ of Michigan . The book that I thought was the most fascinating was a german book of all uniforms for a particular year... I was shocked by the futuristic and overly high-tech look of the White winter SS officers uniform (formal version?). It looked like it hopped out of a start trek movie. It was a small book, but it too was stolen or removed many years later when I tried to take a glance at it and perhaps color photocopy it to prove to people how futuristic and out of place that uniform looked. All the books were in german , row upon row, and I did not know a word of german.
The librayy entrance of the library had a display on vigilante vandalism... jews and arabs were detroying each others books each week and leaving destoyed volumes (sometimes with graffitti) in the building itslef, but sometimes stealing them. I asked them why the religious zealots were desroying each others "indfidel books" and they told me THAT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ATHIEST BOOKS BY CHRISTIANS. I replied "huh?"and they said, that christians steal, or check out and "lose" all the most provocative athiest books and that they REFUSE TO RESTOCK and REORDER THEM. They had so few it was an easy targert goal to work on I assume, as opposed to the muslim and jewiosh works.
I then asked a country librarian about censorship destruction of books by religious nuts, especially books in athiesm and they concurred that it is common.
Lots of closed minded people despise Germans and their Nazi era-engineering, as much as despise books on athiesm. People should learn from the past. Not celebrate acts ofsabotage for sabotage's sack. Trusted patrons in a Library, and trusted workers at a hydroelectric plant that extracts heavy water, should not be celebrated for treachery and sabotage. It is a form of dishonesty. And truly just people hate dishonesty
Reposted because the first one got modded -1 by an idiot.
I have seen the Nazi heavy water artifacts. (and other artifacts) For many years in the 1980's the University of Michigan had ampules of heavy water (double ended sealed glass vials) on display in the old chemistry building in central quad area on main floor toward the east. Lots of universities have interesting artifacts in display cases, including the worlds smallest MOVINGmotor at caltech and other exibits.
The nazi heavy water display was fascinating because the vial had pretty high quality white stickers with red swastika prominently on them. The display would not have been complete without the sticker obviously.
The german heavy water exhibit looked cool.
At that time the Univ of Michigan harbored Dr Mengeles lab book results (and luftwaffe freezing of human spine in artic temp brine, and decompression tests on humans) and was in the flack.
I noticed hundreds of rare Nazi books being stolen or defaced one by one from the MASSIVE collection (yes massive) grad student library at the Univ of Michigan . The book that I thought was the most fascinating was a german book of all uniforms for a particular year... I was shocked by the futuristic and overly high-tech look of the White winter SS officers uniform (formal version?). It looked like it hopped out of a start trek movie. It was a small book, but it too was stolen or removed many years later when I tried to take a glance at it and perhaps color photocopy it to prove to people how futuristic and out of place that uniform looked. All the books were in german , row upon row, and I did not know a word of german.
The librayy entrance of the library had a display on vigilante vandalism... jews and arabs were detroying each others books each week and leaving destoyed volumes (sometimes with graffitti) in the building itslef, but sometimes stealing them. I asked them why the religious zealots were desroying each others "indfidel books" and they told me THAT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ATHIEST BOOKS BY CHRISTIANS. I replied "huh?"and they said, that christians steal, or check out and "lose" all the most provocative athiest books and that they REFUSE TO RESTOCK and REORDER THEM. They had so few it was an easy targert goal to work on I assume, as opposed to the muslim and jewiosh works.
I then asked a country librarian about censorship destruction of books by religious nuts, especially books in athiesm and they concurred that it is common.
Lots of closed minded people despise Germans and their Nazi era-engineering, as much as despise books on athiesm. People should learn from the past. Not celebrate acts ofsabotage for sabotage's sack. Trusted patrons in a Library, and trusted workers at a hydroelectric plant that extracts heavy water, should not be celebrated for treachery and sabotage. It is a form of dishonesty. And truly just people hate dishonesty
Reposted because the first one got modded -1 by an idiot.
I've read that the second bomb was dropped to give the impression that the U.S. had a supply of such weapons.
If you think island fighting with the Japanese was a walk in the park, read "With the Old Breed" by E.B. Sledge. Just because our kill ratios were high in comparison doesn't mean our boys were having any fun.
If I was president at the time, and new anything of the horrors of fighting the Japanese, I would have signed my name to the order to drop those bombs and slept like a baby that very night. The hindsight we have changes nothing in my eyes.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
Yeah, heard about that on some Nova documentary or somewhere. They feature clips from from Scandanavian-produced feature film about it. Always wanted to rent the video if I could.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were BOTH of major military importance to the Japanese which made them candidates for bombing.
Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.
Also you might want to realize that without using the atomic bombs the invasion of Japan was to take place on Dec 1, 1945. It was to start with the invasion of the Island of Kyushu (Operation Olympic). The invasion was projected to cost the lives of some 245,000 Americans, and 1,000,000 Japanese, far more than died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
The Japanese had no plans on surrender and the reason no major battles were taking place is because the Japanese were consolidating their forces for 'Ketsu-Go'; the plan to defend their homeland.
As part of Ketsu-Go, the Japanese were building 20 suicide take-off strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases. On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.
The Japanese had 58 more airfields on Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks. Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.
In August 1945, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5651 army and 7074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12,725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing facility. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.
Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot. When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a four-fold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.
While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an elite force of 2000 army and navy fighters would take off to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 non-combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using fire support and air cover to protect the troop-carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of suicide planes was to hit the American transports.
As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.
American troops would be arriving in about 180 lightly armed transports and cargo vessels. The Japanese defenders would be the hardcore of the home army. These troops were well fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit. Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of off-shore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches.
You say in your post "Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels..." I think before you look for any parallels you should first learn your history and find out exactly WHY things happened the way they did. If after knowing of what awaited in Operation Olympic and then Operation Coronet you still come to the same conclusion.... I say we're damn lucky you're not in any decision making capacity.
I try to make everyone's day a little more surreal.
but the bottom ine is that the first to discover the thing was going to use it, and this world has been quite the scary & dangerous place ever since.
Funny, and here's me thinking all along that the reason we didn't fight WW III against the Russians is that the bomb made it unthinkable, and that it is only because of this that we have had 58 years without a world war, instead of the 21 we had between WW I and WW II.
Russia's role in the war was to march enough bullet stoppers to the front and keep the Germans slaughtering them while the US & UK got a force together to invade Western Europe. Even though they were are 'ally', they wouldn't let the US use any of their bases for use against Japan.
It's interesting to note that if Japan wasn't such a big menance, then why did the War Dept at the time authorize the creation of 400K Purple Hearts that they believed were needed to be delivered after a typical invasion of Japan. We're still handing out 60 yr old medals.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
really tends to be a hegemonic power rather than a colonial one. You can say we colonized the portion of North America we occupy and the Hawaiian Islands and very little else. Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the Ottoman Turks, were all big colonial powers at one time or another. Following the Spanish-American war we took over the administration of the Phillipines and some Caribbean islands such as Puerto Rico, but we did not colonize them in any logical sense. Nor has the US ever "colonized" any part of Africa. The nearest to that would have been the establishment of the nation of Liberia.
As far as eastern Europe is concerned, it was a mess before there WAS a US. The idea that the US could "help" there is wishful thinking. The Ottmans created that problem, just as Britain, France and Germany finished off the job for the Ottomans in the Middle East, creating the present hodge podge of borders. Even so, you can't track back through the region's (or the world's) history and point to some time when things were right. The idea is wishful thinking.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Nagasaki was not the original target. The mission was supposed to target Nagaii, but because of inclement weather that would have interfered with bomb damage assessment photos, the pilot flew onward to hit Nagasaki.
And those who were against the nuclear bombings seem to ignore the fire bombing of Tokyo quite readily...
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Reading about the clandestine operations run by the Allies is always really fun. Operation XX (double-cross, get it) in particular was amazing. One man, code-named Garbo, got Hitler to believe that the entire Normandy invasion was an extensive feignt for an invasion at Calais. Hitler held back reinforcements for days.
Another squad put an abrasive in axle grease to effectively sabotage Nazi transportation.
And a radio operator was captured and forced to send Nazi messages. There was a fail-safe system in which all uncoerced messages contained a deliberate error, so that a perfect message would mean the sender was compromised. However, the people at base forgot about this protocol and kept on sending people to their deaths. Then the radio operator started to send "compromised" in parts at the end and beginning of messages but to no avail. When two POW escaped to friendly territory and warned them of the radio operator's fate, he was forced to send a message that they were in fact German spies. They were executed.
Really good reading.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
But, that's what history is for: to learn from the past so the same mistakes will not be made in the future. The patterns of behavior and response now very similar to what has happened in the past: Evil dictator breaks treaties & agreements while the great democracies craft additional additional ones in order to avert war and keep the peace. Past experience is a factor in evaluating what we see now and what needs to be done. Otherwise, the situation will be played down as not as serious as it really is, right up until the point that it is too late to do anything about it. Saddam's playing 'boil a frog'.
Many of the passengers got to lifeboats and survived.
There are lots of little secrets still coming out concerning World War II that should have been declassified years ago. I know about this incident only because of a background in history, but what about other secrets? Such as why Joe Kennedy Jr. (brother of JFK) was killed while trying to test a B-24 loaded with explosives to serve as a primitive cruise missile? What about the target of this primitive Columbia, the secret V-3 weapon ("high-pressure pump", a super-cannon with 150+ mile range that Saddam tried to outdo in 1991 w/ help from Gerald Bull under the "Babylon gun" project)? How was the fact taht the Germans built a stealth aircraft in 1945 left out of public documents? Or that they had a long-range bomber built and running capable of hitting NYC with a "dirty bomb" like the ones we fear today? For some reason much of WWII's secrets are only now being released, so it should be interesting to see what happens with this and similar stories in the near future.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
For all the yahoos out there who clothe themselves in an American flag and bash the Europeans (especially the French), remember this: the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans protected American factories and A-bomb experiments from direct bombing.
Actually, Stalin was the only one suprised by operation Barbarossa. He always knew that Nazi Germany was going to attempt to invade Russia, he just thought it wasn't going to be for another year...
However, his generals had been getting intel from the british about troop movements and could see that Germany was massing millions of troops on their eastern border, but Stalin wouldn't do anything about it. Supposidly, he didn't want to provoke Hitler.
Though, from a tactical point of view, I think the fact that the Germans could penetrate so deeping into Russia without any real resistance tactically helped the Russians.
If Stalin had moved 8 million troops right to the border and stiffened up its defences, Germany would have gone "oh shit!" and moved alot more troops and materials and probably would have made it a priority to go after Moscow.
Instead, the Germans rushed into Russia and out paced their supply lines and by the time they hit any solid resistance it was too late to call for speedy reenforcements.
All and all, Nazi Germany invading Russia will go down as one of the worlds greatest military blunders.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
I saw a thing on the History channel about the Nazi's attempts to get a nuclear weapon during WW II. It turns out, the researcher in charge of the program had some bad math for how much uranium was needed (weither or not this was deliberate is still a matter of debate) to make a working nuke, and that's the main reason they never produced one. They had an example that showed how bad of a miscalculation he made. First, only about a baseball sized amount was needed. They then pulled back to show the amount the scientist said was needed, and it was a ball about as large as the host, who had to be around 6 ft tall. I don't remember the exact amount, I think it was something like 800 Kg's, but just figure a baseball vs. a small boulder. By the end of the war, the Nazi's were churning out enough refined uranium to make about 1.5 nukes a day, but thought it was only a fraction of what was needed.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
So are the "stocks of heavy water" still at the bottom of the lake? Is 300 meters deep enough to prevent someone from retrieving it? Wouldn't it be worth the cost?
"The Japanese should have surrendered"
;)
Who are "the Japanese"? As you note, the country was a political mess ("impotent Emperor") and deeply divided. You don't see many governments that can make a difficult decision in three days at the best of times, let alone a time like that. There's no single group "The Japanese" for you to blame for this "egregious failure". The political pressure and divisiveness in Japan were far worse than that in the US (and those were pretty bad).
The main reason for wanting to force a quick surrender was because the Soviets were about to invade Japan and the Korean peninsula and end the war by conventional means (and zero additional American casualties). That would have left them in possession of those areas, which the paranoid American administration couldn't face the thought of. Better to nuke all of Japan than let Stalin have it. Maybe they were right, but call it what it was.
The other reason for the Nagasaki blast was as a weapons test. If it was primarily to force surrender, why would a little cloud cover matter? They dropped it on Nagasaki instead of Nagaii (sp?) because they wanted to be able to assay the damage on people and structures within a specific type of terrain (different from Hiroshima's), and they knew the war was almost over - no live weapons testing on captive populations in peacetime, curse the luck!
All of these reasons are a lot more calculating than the noble motives you ascribe. I'm not even sure what my position on some of them are, but engaging in wilful blindness like you are sure wouldn't help me decide. Honestly, someone with your nickname should know better.
I disagree completely. When you're at war, your primary concern needs to be resolution with the fewest casualties period. Innocent civilians are not expendable, and tens of thousands of Americans are not worth more than hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
Yeesh. If the US had pulled off Pearl Harbour against one of its many enemies, regardless of whether war had been declared, we'd be singing its praises and reading about the brilliant strategy behind it in military history books. History is written by the victors.
Pearl Harbour was a surgical strike, and when it was obvious that war was going to break out, the Japanese would have been fools not to do it. First of all calling Hawaii "US soil" has always been pretty ridiculous, and you should at least know what the rest of the world thinks of your little vacation playground. Beyond that, they destroyed practically the entire fleet of battleships while they were as minimally staffed as could be expected, because they were in port. If those ships had been deployed at sea, a lot more sailors would have died on the Arizona and the Utah. And if they'd understood the importance of aircraft carriers and had good intel on where they were located - well, slashdot would be in Japanese.
It was a war. People got shot and bombed all over the world. Get over it.
No you moron, the invasion of Russia was strategical and tactial brilliance. Blitzkrieg (nowadays called pre-emptive strikes) executed in perfect fashion. The greatest blunder was Hitler's insistence, over his generals, that they push on to Moscow. If the generals had their way, they were to dig in and shore up supply for the upcoming winter; wait out the winter, and then attack in springtime, with nicely rested troops and reinforcements.
Quote: " And believe it or not, I'm not a political kind of person"
So maybe you shouldn't be talking about these issues at all?
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Here, basically the German's had abandoned the idea of a "nuclear bomb" because they belived that the amount of uranium required for a critical mass would require something on the order of a giant barge to deliver, making it impractical as a weapon. Here is information on Hiesenberg's reaction to hearing of the Allied nuke.
It's as if everyone has forgotten what the second world war was about. Do they not teach this stuff over in Europe? I was just watching a special on the History Channel here in the US and was watching pictures of WWII in color. I was born 25 years after that war, but this special made me realise that it was not that long ago. The way people are reacting today, you would have thought that 9/11/01 was sixty years ago.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Actually the best thing would have been torpedoes, but the Germans had anticipated this and were using nets to protect their dams. The skipping was necessary to jump over those nets.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis there were several occasions where a nuclear war (including mutual destruction) would have started, if Kennedy had done what his military advisors thought was safe to do.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
Except that UN does not have any armed forces of it's own. Nor will or should it have any in the forseeable future. The world isn't ready for a global government yet, unfortunatelly. Best we can realisticly have right now is UN mandating use of force by it's member states.
I also object the statement that "the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent." I too am sickened by Srebrenica. But to say that the UN or the Dutch "watched idly by" the massacre is simply slanderous. The lightly armed UN/Dutch troops guarding Srebrenica were outnumbered, outgunned and cut off from suport. Would the Serbs have attacked had the UN troops refused allow the Serbs in? I don't know, but I can't blame the commanders on the field too much for not gambling with the lives of their soldiers.
Would US commanders in that situation have done anything different? Probably not. Although it must be said that it is unlikely that an US commander would find himself in that situation, as the US does not send out lightly armed ground troops into danger. Military considerations have not always been sufficently present in UN planning, hopefully a better balance has now been found.
East Timor and Angola come to mind as succesful recent UN missions. Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia are now at peace. There were serious errors and failures in the Balkan missions but they were successes in that the wars are kept local and the war-mongers were checked.
For all his tough words Tony Blair may find it impossible to lead the UK into war without UN Security Council resolution mandating it. There is no threat of force against the UK by any objecting nation, and there needs to be none. The internal war opposition will gain strenght in the absense of the UN mandate and, I belive and hope, be strong enough to prevent the UK involvement. That would an impressive feat by the UN.
Would the US go to war alone, without the UK? Militarily they could do it. There is little that the rest of world can do if the US attacks Iraq, even if it wanted to. That doesn't mean that the UN is impotent, it would mean that the US strong or foolish enough to ignore the rest of the world.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Thank you to the norwegian nazi resistance. Your underground terrorist work helped fight the unjust.
The norwegian underground killed sivilians and placed explosives in public buildings. All to reach a goal of justice.
The world is never black and white. It is the fine tones of gray that defines reality. The history has lots to tell us.
The world can only come to peace by justice through distribution of wealth and power.
My hope lies in the people of the world. Let us fight unjust and violence through justice and peace.
I think my grandfather said it well:
"Ask a prisoner of war of the Japanese whether America should have shortened the war with the atomic bomb"
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Interesting call. In "Total War", a one volume history of the 2WW, a theory was advanced that the Japanese capitulated because a Russian invasion force was gathering on the East Coast of the USSR. Food for thought anyway.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Japan had surrendered before the US dropped the *first* bomb, fuckwit. At least, that's what the history books in every country except the US, which has a history of revisionism, say.
You are right in pointing out that Norway wasn't it neutral, but wrong in claiming it was part of the Nazi war effort. Norway was at war with Nazi Germany, and an Allied country. The country was occupied by the Germans and the only legitimate government was in exile in London. There were collaborators in Norway who sided with the illegitimate government installed by the Germans, but the civilian population as a whole considered their representative government to be that operting from London on the Allied side. Many payed a very high price for this.
Are you referring to the V2 rockets? This is NOT an excellent delivery system by any stretch of the imagination. I won't even go into how inaccurate these rockets were. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot more to delivering an atomic bomb to target via a missile than "mount it on the nosecone, point, and fire". The first atomic bombs were goddamn heavy. There is no way that a Nazi V2 could be fitted with one. It would flop over and crash from the added weight.
If the Nazis had developed the bomb, they would have had to deliver it the same way the US did, via bomber. And if the Luftwaffe had been in the same sad state it was by the '44 or '45, the earliest they might have ever had the bomb, not even that would work. They'd be forced to drive it on to the battlefield, or leave it behind in a city and retreat.
Even if the Nazis developed the bomb, it would have been too little too late.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
You can disagree all you want. That doesnt' change the fact that you are wrong.
One American life was worth more than 100 million Japanese lives at the time of the conclusion of WW2. Truman made the right call and the world has been better for it ever since.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Japan only surrendered after the 2nd bomb was dropped. Unfortunately for the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If your history book suggests otherwise, you may be a communist.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Ah, good old USian, always with the "Communist! Communist!" thing. Don't you ever shut up? Do you even know what a communist is?
Morons like you are the reason that the Arabs flew planes into your buildings. Pretty soon now a few other countries will probably do the same, and George W. Bush will be shot on sight if he comes to Scotland. We just don't trust you guys any more.
C'mon, was it really so hard to spot what a lot of bullshit Gordon-wossname is spewing?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Thank the lord there are at least *some* people on slashdot that aren't uncle sam's overprotective children.
Did America do anything in 1936-39? No? Not even after the invasion of Poland, eh? So, why were the UK and France uniquely responsible amongst the victors of the first world war for enforcing the peace treaties?
Why do you keep mixing up Rumsfeld's dubious 'Old Europe' (he was referring to France and Germany) claim with the UK? The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is in favour of a war, against the polls, so doesn't he count as 'a Churchill' in your peculiar world view?
"the thought police come after you for even thinking about nazis"
Actually, french law says you cannot discute the facts as approved by the official history. As in "It's in the book, read it, this is the garanteed truth".
This happened because manipulation trhrought education has been used a lot in the 30s-40s, and the government wanted a clear way to stop people launching scandalous alegations and going into pure educational revisionism for their own good.
The law worked fine, but soon became overworked by just the ones you wouldn't think : the JJF (Jeunes Juifs de France) and various other jewish organisations that used the law to control information and attack as soon as someone made too daring attacks on Israel and other local french subjects (Jewish lobbying DO exist in France too 8p ).
The oveworking of the law came short when one Faurisson, History Professor and highly educated on the subject, put some revelations about the war in a book of him, pertaining to jewish/swiss emigration and monetary transfers at the time.
Faurisson got attacked on his book and actualy WON the trial...cauz he was a real historian and had documented proof.
Just remember this is just noise from one local jewish organisation using local law to make a small international sensation. We, alas, have a good share of right minded people (18% Max, as from last elections)... So what, we just now how many redneck we have NOT to rely upon. 82% nice people accounted for in a country IS a good score 8p
"they don't realize certain things should never be forgotten"
Well, now that you know that we don't forget, just that someone wantd to make so PR noise, please realize WE french live with them german. we don't make a fuss about it, and we also decided not to pass on the sons their fathers deeds.
As I remember, Nazism was a mix of democraty and corporatism, supported by a high media coverage....
In EU we try not too openly to do it that way.
Now back to the original subject. Three Cheers for the late Hero. He saved lots of us today.
Shame my mother had me take German Class anyhow 8(
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
What about 9/11 struck you as 'negotiated
diplomacy'?
Show me the evidence Iraq was behind 9/11... Show me the evidence there's a connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein...
There is no credible evidence for this.
Some of the early indications of this has been retracted by the CIA, like the alleged meeting between an iraqi intelligence officer an one of the 9/11-attackers on Prague airport.
US politicians are using 9/11 as a pretext for lots of basically unrelated wars. Most americans actually think there is a connection between iraq and al-Qaida. Most intelligence aganecies do not.
What about the antrax attacks
reminded you of polite discussion?
Who were behind the anthrax attacks?
As far as I know, it's still a mystery. But the substance seems to be of US origin.
I haven't seen any credible evidence that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks.
Can the rest of the world not accept that
we're still pissed off?
Sure, I can understand you're pissed off.
And the natural american reaction to being pissed off seems to be to get an Ak47 and shoot randomly around the neighbourhood.
Al-Qaida was thrown out of Afghanistan, and both Germany and Norway helped with major military contributions in Afghanistan.
But attacking Iraq is totally unrelated to 9/11. Bin Laden and his gang are islamic fundamentalists, and Saddam is nearly secular and socialist, and they basically seems to hate the guts of each other.
9/11 doesn't give you the right to attack whatever country you want.
We don't give a fuck; alone or with allies,
we're going to destroy asshole nations.
If the rest of the world would also go to war with such a motto, the US would be history.
Calm down. Listen to your allies. War should always be the last resort.
There are times when you have to look beyond the poll numbers and do what is right. Unfortunately, in Old Europe, there are no Churchills. There sure are a lot of Chamberlains though.
George W Bush is hardly a Churchill. He's more like a Marx brother. Hardly the kind of politician you'd want to lead your country into war.
You are both wrong. It is obvious from your comment that you have never served in the military. Simply put, you do not command the loyalty of your troops by putting the welfare of the enemy over theirs. As to a commander's priorities, the short version is: completing the mission comes first, preserving your resources comes second, other concerns like minimizing collateral damage come last.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
That being said, please don't shoot The Shrub. If you do, The Dick will take over. (As if Chaney isn't really running the show now), and will get to appoint a new VP. Trust me, an intelligent warmongering goober is far worse than a moronic one.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
From memory, Labour (UK) got well under 47% of the vote at the last election, and the Conservatives ruled for 18 years with a typical result of 43% or so. I also seem to recall hearing that Bill Clinton never came close to getting a majority of the vote, but nevertheless ruled for 8 years.
The British and American electoral systems really ought to be brought out of the 19th century and at least into the 20th. They won't be, however, because modern electoral systems allow small parties to participate in government, and the large parties in the UK and USA have no interest in allowing such a thing.
First of all, I support a war to remove Saddam.
But its a little rich of any American to criticise the actions of Britain and France during WWII, when the US was led by cowards like Joe Kennedy who turned their backs on their Allies hoping the oceans would keep them safe. Only Roosevelts resolve saved the day.
Hitlers madness caused him to shun or kill his greatest minds, otherwise the US and Britain would have fallen.
Churchill was probably the greatest wartime leader ever, followed closely by Roosevelt, please dont insult us by hinting George Bush may be like them.
George Bush knows the US vs Iraq is like a Rotweiller vs a chihuahua, a nice quick fight and hopefully painless, Churchill was facing superior forces, at least in terms of numbers and technology, but Britain had a strong navy and airforce and with the help of the US prevailed.
Old George aint so keen to send troops and stuff against real dangers like North Korea, but hey, they have nukes and other stuff and would use them, Saddam has some rusty old short range missiles which because of inspections are nicely catalogued. For the sake of US and British troops I hope he does not have some 'real' unknown weapons or George will have his very own Vietnam.
As for the 'old europe' crap, if a range of opinions and views is wrong and outdated, then here comes the Fascist states of America. An awful lot of Americans know little or nothing about the world and just buy into the rhetoric served up by George and gang. France has always been eccentric, but if the arguments are that strong they will fall in line.
Lets not forget, some of the worst monsters like Saddam have been fueled/payrolled by the US, Iran/Iraq war anyone.
Well the thing is, France is known by its leaders.
The French, the people, are generally nice and friendly. Shame then that they are represented by organised criminals and cowards who are mor ethan eager to open their arms and legs for any invader.
That is the reason why France is not respected. All sad really.
The Heros of Telemark is an embarassing travesty best forgotten.
What you are looking for is the movie which in Norwegian is known as Kampen om Tungtvannet (1948) and features some of teh real heros who particpated.
It is low key, humble, honest and has many qualities you never find in Hollywood.
Some other names for tis movie: "Bataille de l'eau lourde, La (1948) (France)" and "Operation Swallow: The Battle for Heavy Water (1948)"
Please watch this movie. Thank you.
In the future, unless you enjoy broadcasting what a smug arogant fool you are, it might be advisable to know at least a little bit about whatever technical subject you are about to expound upon-- of the three mechanisms through which a nuclear device causes damage, thermal [as in PHOTONS] is by far the most important against unhardened targets. Photons being LIGHT do not penetrate clouds very well. ergo: any degree of cloud cover will degrade the effect of the weapon.
Thelma, I'm not making ANY deals.
Good god- funny is fine, but interesting? Someone actually thought my post was history? [shakes head]
The horrible terms of the armistice that utterly humiliated and bankrupted Germany were insisted on by England and France. America's advice to be benevolent in victory was completely ingnored.
Most Americans felt it was dumb of us to get involved in WWI in the first place; why should we get involved if Europeans remain stupid?
Are Europeans fundamentally unable to learn from history?
Your argument seems to be that since America was unable to dictate the peace terms entirely on its own, and had to compromise with the other Allied powers, it was thereby absolved of all responsibility. However, France didn't dictate the peace terms either, and neither did Britain.
As is invariably the case in a victory involving multiple powers, the treaties of Versailles and St Germaine were the result of compromise among the Allied powers. If the French had had their way, the Rhineland would have become part of France, which would certainly have left Germany too weak to have posed the threat it did in the 1930s. Are the UK and USA therefore to blame for having been too soft on Germany? Of course not.
I think virtually everyone would now agree that the treaties were disastrous and extremely unjust in their treatment of the German people (including Austrians), but a just treaty based on President Wilson's 14 points (which was the basis on which an armistice had been agreed) would have left Germany much stronger than it had been in 1914, with more territory than it gained through all of the appeasement which preceded the invasion of Poland.
The economic disasters of the 1920s and 1930s had many causes, and the harsh terms of the treaties which ended the first world war are only one. It is entirely possible that economic collapse would have come anyway, and that a nationalist or Communist regime would have come to power (consider what happened in Italy) in what would have been an even larger and stronger Germany than the one Hitler had built by 1939. We'll never know because this is all conjecture.
The central issue is that USA was a member of the Allied powers, with the same responsibilities as the UK or France in terms of enforcing the treaties it had helped negotiate. Damning the UK and France (which did declare war after the invasion of Poland) for not standing up to Hitler when the USA was even less willing to do so (and indeed never did declare war on Germany) entails a certain, shall we say, inconsistency.
Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less...
:-) would stand by and allow an attack of that nature, even though the total death toll on September 11th, 2001 was only equivalent to the daily death toll in American abortion "clinics"...
In reality, Pearl Harbor was a near-complete cock-up - the majority of the US fleet was safely at sea, especially the vital aircraft carriers, and the attack failed to take out the enormous fuel tanks only a short distance from the Navy yard. Without that fuel supply, the US would have had no choice but to sit idly by for a year or more, with no hope of mounting effective opposition. With the fuel intact, the losses at Pearl were bad, but quite manageable, and the US was able to respond quickly and with force in a very short time. It was a powerful symbolic attack, to be sure, but it was not a significant victory strategically, and only a minor one at best tactically.
That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)...
To be honest, I'm constantly amazed at the number of people that have been indoctrinated to believe this. As I pointed out above, it was only poor Japanese planning and specific orders to only hit designated targets that prevented the entire fuel reserves of the US forces in the Pacific from going up in flames in a matter of minutes. While Kimmel and Short *may* have had enough info to reasonably suspect an attack, and if so (which is far from certain), did not respond appropriately, it is quite certain that neither they nor any other American officer of political official would have been stupid enough to run the risk that the Japanese might bomb those fuel tanks, demoting the US to a 19th century power for a year or two while the Japanese ran unchecked throughout the Pacific. On such mistakes hinge the fate of nations.
Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels...
I suggest you read a bit of history yourself, concentrating on primary sources, not the predigested propaganda you've seem to have fallen for. The good news is that WWII was well-chronicled, and a good many first-hand accounts are available - although not so many perhaps as written during the War Between the States and certainly not of that surpassing quality. The letters of the average infantryman in that war are literate, well-reasonsed, intricate in structure, and powerful - and make an even more powerful statement about the total failure of our modern educational system, FWIW.
Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?
I don't think even someone with the moral deficit of Bill Clinton
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
For all of the atrocities the world has allowed to happen since WWII, you're pretty quick to dismiss the closest copy of Hitler our generation has seen. Your post is a good example of how the world could have been so blind to Hitler's rise. Saddam being an avowed admirer of Hitler should be enough to tip anyone off who cares, but if you are looking for some more tell-tale signs ...
Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat, for anti-Semites were many and Jews were few. He spoke of larger ambitions, but started by invading a single neighboring country (Czechoslovakia). He had no qualms about gassing civilians to death. And most of Europe, with the noteworthy exception of a courageous British PM, fell over itself like a hoard of quislings to avoid confronting him.
Saddam uses Zionists (Jews) as a scapegoat, for anti-Semites are still many and Jews are even fewer after Hitler was allowed to go and kill a third of the world's population. He has spoken of larger ambitions, but started by invading a neighboring country (Kuwait, if you don't count Iran). He has had no qualms about gassing civilians to death. And again most of Europe, with the noteworthy exception of a courageous British PM, is falling over itself like a hoard of quislings to avoid confronting him.
The world did a little better in 1991 than it did in 1938, but Saddam is far from through. So far. In this generation, however, America is out front in the effort to stop the most genocidal and expansionist dictator of our era.
Hahaha, Scotland! Go eat your haggis, young feller. You guys are irrelevant.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
It was a war. People got shot and bombed all over the world. Get over it.
Precisely. Which is why I don't understand all the noise about the nuke bombings of Japan. Everyone needs to get over it.
Just like everyone will get over the destruction of Iraq.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Einstein is always credited for creating or contributing to the development of the atomic bomb, but in fact had very little to do with it. The only thing significant Einstein did was write a letter to Roosevelt trying to persuade him to start a program to develop the nuclear bomb before Hitler did. It was Oppenheimer had his group of 5,000 strong scientists that developed, tested, and used the first atomic weapons. But, about Hitler and his anti-semitism, if he wasn't such a d*ck all the smart people wouldn't have left and only to be stuck with d*ckhead scientists that coudn't get the work done.
BTW, it was the Germans that were far ahead of the US in rocketry. If they had developed the bomb first then they would have a means to deploy it easily. We would all now be saluting the swastika, but that wouldn't matter because my mother would have been killed and I would never have been born.
P.S. It makes you wonder if there's a plan.
Lets not forget, some of the worst monsters like Saddam have been fueled/payrolled by the US, Iran/Iraq war anyone
And are currently supported by nation builders like France and Germany. I won't even mention Germany's shipment of tons of cyanide to N. Korea that was revealed today.
Good ol, Germany and France. Always against war...unless there's a buck to be made.
This is why Americans universally hate France and are now starting to see Germany in their true light again.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
... faster BogoMIPS calculations (yes, it now boots 2 seconds faster than
it used to: we're considering changing the name from "Linux" to "InstaBOOT"
-- Linus, in the announcement for 1.3.26
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...