ORIGINAL: Zardoz
Vietnam was not a real war....
I think that many, if not all, veterans of the war in Vietnam would disagree with this statement
Hatred
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
thetownsends
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:01 pm
RE: Hatred
I think that many, if not all, veterans of the war in Vietnam would disagree with this statement
-
Korpraali V
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:52 am
- Location: Finland
RE: Hatred
Mainly yes. Although Swedish army was mainly formed from Swedish and Finns [;)] The propaganda goal was mainly to keep the civilians loyal to 'us' and/or affect them to change sides if they were on the wrong side. Naturally mercenaries gave good tools to propaganda since they were not too gentle towards the peasants.ORIGINAL: Zardoz
Nevertheless, the situation was a bit different as the propaganda's goal was not to motivate the soldiers....if I see it correctly, they were all mercenaries often changing the sides...and their main motivation was making a fortune
RE: Hatred
townsend...
I would prefer it if you would use my full statement.... important is the relation betweenn Vietnamese losses and US losses. And, as I read..only a small portion of the US troops in Vientnam had contact to the enemy. The US had the reign in the skies, massive firepower on the ground..naval firepower at the coast...
The war was the hell....for the Vietnamese..they were hit by B52 - carpets and Napalm....they had to live in caves with rice and dirty water to survive and not the GIs. The war was lost only on a psychological side, not on the military side.
The US lost about 58.000 GIs in Vietnam, the Vietnamese about 1,5 Mio (source: Wikipedia)....so, this engagement was very one-sided
I would prefer it if you would use my full statement.... important is the relation betweenn Vietnamese losses and US losses. And, as I read..only a small portion of the US troops in Vientnam had contact to the enemy. The US had the reign in the skies, massive firepower on the ground..naval firepower at the coast...
The war was the hell....for the Vietnamese..they were hit by B52 - carpets and Napalm....they had to live in caves with rice and dirty water to survive and not the GIs. The war was lost only on a psychological side, not on the military side.
The US lost about 58.000 GIs in Vietnam, the Vietnamese about 1,5 Mio (source: Wikipedia)....so, this engagement was very one-sided
"No other troops in the world but German paratroops could have stood up to such an ordeal and then gone on fighting with such ferocity" — Field Marshal Alexander.
-
thetownsends
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:01 pm
RE: Hatred
If we were to limit the discussion to losses, this could be carried on to individual theaters, campaigns, and battles. The main strategy of the North Vietnamese was to string out the war as long as possible. The advantages that the US held didn't make them give up, didn't stop them from sending more units to the south. While I am not a Vietnam or Korean War veteran, I have plenty of my comrades in the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) that are. I served eight years in Navy, and I am glad that I will never know exactly what they had to go through while over there or when they came home. I have the highest admiration for those that serve or have served the US in the military, and it kind of disturbs me when I read that the Vietnam War wasn't a war.
RE: Hatred
I have read that it is historically considered a "police action". I view it as a war, tactical advantages not withstanding.
What won that war for the North vietmese was the US Media. The Tet offensive was a complete failure for the Vietmese, yet the US Media portrayed it in such a light as to raise public outrage against the war. They continued to aid the enemy in this manner, promoting blatantly fraudulent stories of GI cruelty, and painting a picture of a "noble" Vietmese resistance to "arrogant and cruel" US Army imperialism. Truth be told, I consider them to have committed treason, and are deserving of the fate such worthless slime should get. They have repeatedly done this in every campaign since, including the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan. I do not understand the abject hatred the US Media has for the country that gives them the freedom to blatantly lie, and give information to an enemy who has already shown to prefer defensless civilians as targets.
If the US had not allowed treasonous spies masquerading as journalists into the camps, and simply prosecuted the war, it would have gone far differently.
What won that war for the North vietmese was the US Media. The Tet offensive was a complete failure for the Vietmese, yet the US Media portrayed it in such a light as to raise public outrage against the war. They continued to aid the enemy in this manner, promoting blatantly fraudulent stories of GI cruelty, and painting a picture of a "noble" Vietmese resistance to "arrogant and cruel" US Army imperialism. Truth be told, I consider them to have committed treason, and are deserving of the fate such worthless slime should get. They have repeatedly done this in every campaign since, including the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan. I do not understand the abject hatred the US Media has for the country that gives them the freedom to blatantly lie, and give information to an enemy who has already shown to prefer defensless civilians as targets.
If the US had not allowed treasonous spies masquerading as journalists into the camps, and simply prosecuted the war, it would have gone far differently.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Hatred
Well to be honest, we, the US, had a chance to prevent the entire war from 1948 on. The French depended on us for about 75 percent of their war effort worldwide. Ho Chi Mein sent a letter to Truman asking that the french stop attacking him, reminding us that we once were controlled by a colonial power. He wanted nothing more than the right to run his own country. Truman did nothing.
After that Ho Chi Mein turned to the only people that would help him, the communists. While part of his Officer Corps and governemtn were real communists part never were. They were pragmatists that did what they had to win.
Having said all that.... The US stabbed an ally in the back in Viet nam. After we left in 72 we PROMISED to aid them, with money, parts ammo and supplies. We also promised to use our Air Force to protect them from an external invasion. In 1975 the Democrats in congress had managed to pull all the rugs out from under South Vietnam. They had cut aid to a fraction of what was needed, they had cut off ammo and repair parts and when North Viet Nam probed the Boarder in force they refused to allow the US Airforce or Navy to aid the South. Seeing this North Viet Nam invaded with almost their entire Army. The Soujt out numbered , out gunned and with little to no ammo or parts fought for over a month while we watched. WE deserted an ally and we payed the price for that for a long time.
After that Ho Chi Mein turned to the only people that would help him, the communists. While part of his Officer Corps and governemtn were real communists part never were. They were pragmatists that did what they had to win.
Having said all that.... The US stabbed an ally in the back in Viet nam. After we left in 72 we PROMISED to aid them, with money, parts ammo and supplies. We also promised to use our Air Force to protect them from an external invasion. In 1975 the Democrats in congress had managed to pull all the rugs out from under South Vietnam. They had cut aid to a fraction of what was needed, they had cut off ammo and repair parts and when North Viet Nam probed the Boarder in force they refused to allow the US Airforce or Navy to aid the South. Seeing this North Viet Nam invaded with almost their entire Army. The Soujt out numbered , out gunned and with little to no ammo or parts fought for over a month while we watched. WE deserted an ally and we payed the price for that for a long time.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Hatred
Back to the reasons why I mentioned the Vietnam war.... I wanted to show that the last war in which the US suffered heavily was the Civil war..
The US neve made the experience of a massive war on their ground afterward. This is also true fpr the British. The german bomber offensive 1941/1942 cannot be compared with the Allied bomber offensive against Germany. I think the attack on Coventry caused about 500 killed and this was of the most massive airstrikes the German aurforce carried out. Dresden caused about 20.000 - 30.000 killed persons.
This is an important point...in continental Europe every country suffered heavily at least from WW II..you will find memorials anywhere. This is still present...thereofre, it not possible to easily motivate people for war.
I wanted to show that the lost Vietnam war is not a comarable experience for the US because the damage was much much lower... for the US
The US neve made the experience of a massive war on their ground afterward. This is also true fpr the British. The german bomber offensive 1941/1942 cannot be compared with the Allied bomber offensive against Germany. I think the attack on Coventry caused about 500 killed and this was of the most massive airstrikes the German aurforce carried out. Dresden caused about 20.000 - 30.000 killed persons.
This is an important point...in continental Europe every country suffered heavily at least from WW II..you will find memorials anywhere. This is still present...thereofre, it not possible to easily motivate people for war.
I wanted to show that the lost Vietnam war is not a comarable experience for the US because the damage was much much lower... for the US
"No other troops in the world but German paratroops could have stood up to such an ordeal and then gone on fighting with such ferocity" — Field Marshal Alexander.
RE: Hatred
We had 99 Divisions in WW2, that was ground troops, we had a HUGE airforce and a huge navy. While it is true we lost more people in the Civil War, to claim it was the last war we suffered heavily in is either a joke or a misunderstanding.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Hatred
Where are you guys going with this topic? I start a thread about dehumanizing the enemy and you turn it into some sort of political thing. Don't go there -- [:-]
On a timely note, I watched a great documentary about the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy last night. It covered the period from the Mongol invasion of the 1200s up until today's JMSDF (Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force). It was very enlightening. The old animosities have given way to a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the relations between US and Japanese naval officers.
On a timely note, I watched a great documentary about the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy last night. It covered the period from the Mongol invasion of the 1200s up until today's JMSDF (Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force). It was very enlightening. The old animosities have given way to a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the relations between US and Japanese naval officers.
RE: Hatred
There were once two Pearl Harbor survivors. Both saw their ships and shipmates die. Both felt rage and sorrow over what had happened and vowed revenge on their tormentors. After the war, both went back to their lives to make of it what they would.
One of them was to eventually reconcile his hatred and learn to forgive his former enemy. Even more so than that, he learned that to a degree, forgiveness was not even required, as he would later tell a Japanese air veteran of the PH attack who, on meeting this PH survivor during a reunion @ that very place, apologized solomonly for having sunk his ship. The man realized that the other was only doing his duty, and that he should feel no shame or regret in the carrying out of that duty. He told the old withered Japanese this, and he wept in release. Together they forged a bond that only men who have been in war can know or fully understand. And both men know what war is and why it is a thing best avoided.
He was right.
The other man, horribly burned both physically as well as mentally, has never been able to let go of his hatred. He will never forgive the Japanese for what they did. He doesn't want to meet them. He doesn't want to ever visit Japan. He will carry his hatred, and his pain to his grave. And he also said, with a hint of defiance; you can't judge me for my view. You can't judge me unless you've gone through what i have;(over the years after the war as well as during). Experienced what i have. You simply can't.
He was right.
Each of us deals with hatred in our own way. I know which of the two cited above I admire more....but at the same time i am compelled to respect the view of the other. Made me a little less judgemental in my old age.
One of them was to eventually reconcile his hatred and learn to forgive his former enemy. Even more so than that, he learned that to a degree, forgiveness was not even required, as he would later tell a Japanese air veteran of the PH attack who, on meeting this PH survivor during a reunion @ that very place, apologized solomonly for having sunk his ship. The man realized that the other was only doing his duty, and that he should feel no shame or regret in the carrying out of that duty. He told the old withered Japanese this, and he wept in release. Together they forged a bond that only men who have been in war can know or fully understand. And both men know what war is and why it is a thing best avoided.
He was right.
The other man, horribly burned both physically as well as mentally, has never been able to let go of his hatred. He will never forgive the Japanese for what they did. He doesn't want to meet them. He doesn't want to ever visit Japan. He will carry his hatred, and his pain to his grave. And he also said, with a hint of defiance; you can't judge me for my view. You can't judge me unless you've gone through what i have;(over the years after the war as well as during). Experienced what i have. You simply can't.
He was right.
Each of us deals with hatred in our own way. I know which of the two cited above I admire more....but at the same time i am compelled to respect the view of the other. Made me a little less judgemental in my old age.
RE: Hatred
Hatred is never a good thing. It is destructive. But it is also personal. I may have at times hated someone for a moment, but it never lasts, it is much to hard for me to muster the resolve to continue to hate someone.
I can though recognize what some refer to as "evil" and I have little trouble labeling Societies, Countries or people "evil" if they are such. Doesnt mean I hate them though. Personally I would label Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ( from at least 1933 to 1945) as Evil Nations. I can understand why the people in those societies did what they did. But that doesnt mean understanding excuses what was basicly evil acts.
Both Japan and Germany are differnt societies now and I doubt either would easily fall back into the actions that occurred in those years before and during WW2. Both do how ever still have elements with in their society that would gladly go back.
I can though recognize what some refer to as "evil" and I have little trouble labeling Societies, Countries or people "evil" if they are such. Doesnt mean I hate them though. Personally I would label Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ( from at least 1933 to 1945) as Evil Nations. I can understand why the people in those societies did what they did. But that doesnt mean understanding excuses what was basicly evil acts.
Both Japan and Germany are differnt societies now and I doubt either would easily fall back into the actions that occurred in those years before and during WW2. Both do how ever still have elements with in their society that would gladly go back.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Hatred
it might be possible that my last postings carried a wrong attitude. This is triggered by the fact that I am not a native English speaker. I apologize for this.
What i wanted to describe ist that it is a different whether a nation has to bear a war on its own ground or not. The last war on US ground was the civil war.
If I a remember it correctly the US lost about 400.000 - to 500.000 persons in WW II.
Russia lost 20 million
Germany lost 6 million. Every major city was at least partially destroyed. My home town Wesel holds the record for Central Europe with 98 % destroyed houses. there were still ruins when I was a child in the 60ties.More or less every family lost someone in the war. An uncle of mine, for example, was killed in a concentration camp.
This makes an important difference in the perception of war. And my thesis is....the perception of war in the US and UK would be different if they had suffered also in this way.
And with the thesis that there are still elemnst in the Grman society who want to "go back". There are now right wing polticians in the parliaments of Saxony and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern....the got 5 % of votes. These are states of the former GDR. In the old staes of Western Germany...the NPD has no chance to get any seats.
I think that this percentage is much lower than in other European countries...Blegium and France and even The Netherlands for example. I think Germany had learned its lesson very well and the problem is more pazifism than nazism....
What i wanted to describe ist that it is a different whether a nation has to bear a war on its own ground or not. The last war on US ground was the civil war.
If I a remember it correctly the US lost about 400.000 - to 500.000 persons in WW II.
Russia lost 20 million
Germany lost 6 million. Every major city was at least partially destroyed. My home town Wesel holds the record for Central Europe with 98 % destroyed houses. there were still ruins when I was a child in the 60ties.More or less every family lost someone in the war. An uncle of mine, for example, was killed in a concentration camp.
This makes an important difference in the perception of war. And my thesis is....the perception of war in the US and UK would be different if they had suffered also in this way.
And with the thesis that there are still elemnst in the Grman society who want to "go back". There are now right wing polticians in the parliaments of Saxony and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern....the got 5 % of votes. These are states of the former GDR. In the old staes of Western Germany...the NPD has no chance to get any seats.
I think that this percentage is much lower than in other European countries...Blegium and France and even The Netherlands for example. I think Germany had learned its lesson very well and the problem is more pazifism than nazism....
"No other troops in the world but German paratroops could have stood up to such an ordeal and then gone on fighting with such ferocity" — Field Marshal Alexander.
RE: Hatred
Hi all,
first post for me, but as a long time reader I have no fear...[;)]
In my personal view dehumanising the enemy is a kind of regularity wich exists in every armed conflict all around the world in the past, in the present, and I guess in the future.
It makes things easier to do.
The leaders wants the enemy to be dehumanised and inspire their soldiers with hatred for motivating them. And if you got a common and hatred enemy it's easier to share the people behind you.
The soldiers dehumanising their enemy to make it easier for them to do the kill, wich I hope is not easy for everyone. Even not for a soldier, but I think they get used to it. This also helps in boosting the fighting spirit of the units. It's the "we are better than them"-principle, wich always works well.
But not always, this won't work for everyone. As an example my parents were/are of the war generation, my father even fights '44 in the Ardennes(actually he didn't get an oppertunity to shoot a single round: he marched, cleared a minefield, marched again, build a bridge, followed the offensive, retreated to the Siegfried Line and was taken prisoner by the americans -> yes, he was a pioneer and damn lucky about his POW status[:D]).
I've spoken a lot with them about this topic, but they never feel hatred for the allied forces. I was puzzled because at least my mother was bombed out in Kassel and later strafed by fighter bombers in a train. But she always said: It was war, all this has to be expected.
Of course the propaganda spoke in a different way, once the allied pilots were american terror bombers, once the american soldiers were only questionable and dubious guys from different races. The result was, that in some occasions bailed out pilots were killed by germans and allied prisoners of war were gunned down. Because sometime this mechanics work all to well......[:(]
Back to initial question about the japanese and the americans in the pacific. First the japanese attack at pearl harbour made it easy for Roosevelt to share the americans behind his back and it made it easy to hate them because of this way to start a war. Second the japanese culture of honoring death over life and continue fighting in hopeless situations and therefore costing lives of their enemies without a cause (in the american eyes) made it also very easy to hate them.
As a long time wargamer maybe I'm past these thoughts. Hatred and revenge (as KG Erwin stated the "Pearl Harbour"-Mentality) are bad advisors in a campaign and in a battle. But this only counts for wargaming, in a real conflict I doubt that I'm able to suppress this feelings and be such a clean strategist and commander.....damn I even loosing my nerves if the third tank in a row is destroyed by a nasty but heavily suppressed ATG....[:D]
Wow....long post, let's see what happens next.
first post for me, but as a long time reader I have no fear...[;)]
In my personal view dehumanising the enemy is a kind of regularity wich exists in every armed conflict all around the world in the past, in the present, and I guess in the future.
It makes things easier to do.
The leaders wants the enemy to be dehumanised and inspire their soldiers with hatred for motivating them. And if you got a common and hatred enemy it's easier to share the people behind you.
The soldiers dehumanising their enemy to make it easier for them to do the kill, wich I hope is not easy for everyone. Even not for a soldier, but I think they get used to it. This also helps in boosting the fighting spirit of the units. It's the "we are better than them"-principle, wich always works well.
But not always, this won't work for everyone. As an example my parents were/are of the war generation, my father even fights '44 in the Ardennes(actually he didn't get an oppertunity to shoot a single round: he marched, cleared a minefield, marched again, build a bridge, followed the offensive, retreated to the Siegfried Line and was taken prisoner by the americans -> yes, he was a pioneer and damn lucky about his POW status[:D]).
I've spoken a lot with them about this topic, but they never feel hatred for the allied forces. I was puzzled because at least my mother was bombed out in Kassel and later strafed by fighter bombers in a train. But she always said: It was war, all this has to be expected.
Of course the propaganda spoke in a different way, once the allied pilots were american terror bombers, once the american soldiers were only questionable and dubious guys from different races. The result was, that in some occasions bailed out pilots were killed by germans and allied prisoners of war were gunned down. Because sometime this mechanics work all to well......[:(]
Back to initial question about the japanese and the americans in the pacific. First the japanese attack at pearl harbour made it easy for Roosevelt to share the americans behind his back and it made it easy to hate them because of this way to start a war. Second the japanese culture of honoring death over life and continue fighting in hopeless situations and therefore costing lives of their enemies without a cause (in the american eyes) made it also very easy to hate them.
As a long time wargamer maybe I'm past these thoughts. Hatred and revenge (as KG Erwin stated the "Pearl Harbour"-Mentality) are bad advisors in a campaign and in a battle. But this only counts for wargaming, in a real conflict I doubt that I'm able to suppress this feelings and be such a clean strategist and commander.....damn I even loosing my nerves if the third tank in a row is destroyed by a nasty but heavily suppressed ATG....[:D]
Wow....long post, let's see what happens next.
"It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved."
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)
-
Korpraali V
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:52 am
- Location: Finland
RE: Hatred
I'd say not to honour death, but because of the honour itself. [;)]ORIGINAL: Dohar
Second the japanese culture of honoring death over life and continue fighting in hopeless situations and therefore costing lives of their enemies without a cause (in the american eyes) made it also very easy to hate them.
heeheehee...ORIGINAL: Dohar
Wow....long post, let's see what happens next.
[;)]
Just kidding...
Welcome to forums, Dohar! [:)]