Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions in the '90's leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]

The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant. The public had seen a huge victory in GW I, and was convinced that the American military could handle ANY situation ANYWHERE.

[Nikademus]

thorny question. perhaps a bit of both. A good example was the Dresden bombing. Public was shocked after it came to light. On the UK side, it was pretty much a shoulder shrug....after all their concept of strategic bombing was more pragmatic and honest. On the US side, it was explained that the "doctrine" of the USAAF was that of percision bombing even though at that point they'd switched over to radar bombing during the day which was little more accurate than night bombing. It was the ultimate exercise in hair splitting...."well we meant to hit the factory but if a few bombs missed and hit a house well we didn't do it on purpose." (so that makes it better.) this mullified the US public somewhat. The British were like...."uh...we are at war...don't like it? end the war"

[Speedysteve]

Been mentioned here by Nik. I recommend to those who haven't read it to read "Robin Neillands' Bomber War".

A well written and thought provoking read.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for a new war?! [&:]

But we are drifting away from the initial topic into dangerous waters... [;)]

I think you make good points here. But I think it all boils down to knowledge and education.

We can all recite the relevant numbers and stats on history's battlefields and compare those past conditions to present circumstances and judge present reality through the prism of that knowlege.

The general public does not have the benefit of that knowlege of military history and when this ignorance is coupled with limited information and (shall I dare say) agenda driven information it should not be surprising that people believe what they are told by those supposedly "in the know".

[tsimmonds]

The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant.

Cool! And I was looking for a new job, too. Not sure I want that one though....[;)]

[el cid again]

it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )



This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

Not at all. The Law Of Land Warfare (an American invention in its codified form by the way) was very much a current subject. The conventions that defined it were pre-war ones, and they could not have been enforced otherwise. I remember reading about Hitler asking Ribbentrop if "withdrawing from the conventions" would prevent enforcement (like North Korea and the NPT)? Not at all - was the reply. We would enforce them anyway, Ribbentrop believed - and he was right. Everyone - even the evil enemy - knew the rules - at the time.

[Ursa MAior]

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.

[el cid again]

Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"

Curiously, this is the Japanese position post war. Many scholars and soldiers never criticize the USA for what it did - because "war is war" - a literal translation. IF this sort of reasoning is acceptable to you - fine. It is more typical of the Samouri culture than of ours. It turns out Lincoln (the inventer of codified law in war) had sound policy reasons. It turns out they all still apply today. It is politic, economic and above all, it promotes good order and discipline in the ranks and combat effectiveness. I am awfully glad I honored my conscience before I really understood the law - it paid off handsomely - not only saving my life but also preventing bad dreams many others suffer. Possibly the biggest reason to do things well is it keeps you sane and it helps your country win.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions in the '90's leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]

The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant. The public had seen a huge victory in GW I, and was convinced that the American military could handle ANY situation ANYWHERE.

I was merely attempting to bring more accuracy......nevermind[:)]

The American military could handle anything anywhere anytime after the Gulf War '90-'91. Ask the Soviets.

And it is completely relevant who sits in the Oval Office. The occupant has to have the will to use the armed forces of which he is commander in chief when circumstances warrant.

[tsimmonds]

I think that we Americans, having had considerable success in many previous conflicts, have come to believe that war is in general a fairly effective way of making things go the way we'd like them to go. I think that historically we have been fortunate in having our wars result mostly from the miscalculations of our foes. In our wars that have occurred as a result of our own miscalculations, we have had less success. I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"

Curiously, this is the Japanese position post war. Many scholars and soldiers never criticize the USA for what it did - because "war is war" - a literal translation. IF this sort of reasoning is acceptable to you - fine. It is more typical of the Samouri culture than of ours. It turns out Lincoln (the inventer of codified law in war) had sound policy reasons. It turns out they all still apply today. It is politic, economic and above all, it promotes good order and discipline in the ranks and combat effectiveness. I am awfully glad I honored my conscience before I really understood the law - it paid off handsomely - not only saving my life but also preventing bad dreams many others suffer. Possibly the biggest reason to do things well is it keeps you sane and it helps your country win.

Again, projecting modern thought processes onto past events (generationally past events especially) without consideration of the mentality and thought process of the time into account is falling into a trap.

Do I look back at Dresden '45 with horror and revulsion? Of course. But when I take into consideration the circumstances and conventional wisdom of the time, I do not judge those harshly who were trying to end the most destructive war in history as quickly as they could in the only way they felt at the time they could.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I think that we Americans, having had considerable success in many previous conflicts, have come to believe that war is in general a fairly effective way of making things go the way we'd like them to go. I think that historically we have been fortunate in having our wars result mostly from the miscalculations of our foes. In our wars that have occurred as a result of our own miscalculations, we have had less success. I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.

Good points. I would add also, that the combatant that can adapt to the changes in a campaign as far as tactics go can overcome miscalculations and mistakes, provided they are not too big i.e. Stalingrad, Midway.[:)] The Soviets on the Ostfront were perfect examples of learning from your mistakes to turn the tide.

As to your last statement I couldn't agree more.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.

Incorrect, I remember one Lyndon Johnson (DEM) entering a war that some remember rather badly.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yes, but that was all part of a giant military-industrial complex conspiracy, for which Johnson was just a puppet. Stone said so himself...[:D]

[Iridium]

Don't get me started, have we even talked about the whole 'Bay of Pigs' deal that Kennedy had going?[:@] Not really sure if I'd call it a war, more like a massacre.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.

Incorrect, I remember one Lyndon Johnson (DEM) entering a war that some remember rather badly.

Wars are all started by men who mistakenly believe that they understand what the outcome of that war will be; no political party can claim immunity to this folly.

[Iridium]

I'll agree with that irrelevant. I just feel the Democrats are not as candlestine as some might think.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.

Finally found time to search for it - thanks for info!

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-19.html


Leo "Apollo11"

NP, I remember reading about them a long time ago. For some reason I thought the raids had caused considerable damage. Insignificant would be more applicable.

I was looking for an excuse to get to 500.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.

Finally found time to search for it - thanks for info!

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-19.html


Leo "Apollo11"

NP, I remember reading about them a long time ago. For some reason I thought the raids had caused considerable damage. Insignificant would be more applicable.

The reason the Marines took Iwo Jima was because the Military needed an emergency landing strip and Fighter base. The number of damaged aircraft that safely landed on Iwo Jima was far greater than the cost of taking the Island.
Stopping these "raids" on B-29 bases was not the reason for assaulting Iwo Jima, though it may have been a nice little side affect.

[tsimmonds]

The number of damaged aircraft that safely landed on Iwo Jima was far greater than the cost of taking the Island.

IIRC, there were ~2400 emergency B29 landings on Iwo.