Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
Well this news should end our long search for Cap. Hara, would still be nice to get a " final" confirmation.
TOMO WHERE ARE YOU !!!!!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Hi, (Mogami's style:) ) i found that i can add one word for this subject.
I have a book (in Polish of course):
Z.Flisowski "Burza nad Pacyfikiem" (Storm over the Pacific), Warszawa 1995
Author (famous Polish naval warfare historician) is mentioning (page 650, vol. II) his visit in Tokio in September 1975. He wrote:
"I tried to contact with the author of the book Destroyer's Captain, Captain Hara, but he was very ill in hospital and he was already unable to speak..."
(sorry for bad english and, translation)
I hope that this will help a little.
Capt. Tameichi Hara
The few people old enough to have personal experiences do talk about some issues and don't talk about others - the cases I know vehemmently deny having had knowledge of the holocaust at the time, and do not like to talk about war experiences. The younger generations does talk if they care about this topic at all - most younger Germans tend to be preoccupied with being afraid of losing their jobs or - the teens - getting the latest mobil phone ring-tones [8|].ORIGINAL: Marc
Hm. I don't think that Germans generally don't like to speak about Holocaust and Hitler. At least that is not true with me and the people I know.
You must be one of the few Germans who knows this - did you study history?My hometown gave Hitler the german nationality (he was Austrian) and so paved him the way. Nothing to be proud about.
Me neither. War causes weird biographies. My mother's father was a GI on occupation duty in Germany in 1945. Spent his time flirting with a German Fräulein, but went back stateside when grandma was pregnant - she never heard of him again.But if Hitler would not have existed, I wouldn't be here either.
Because my father was dislodged from Silesia (now Poland) and would have never met my mother. Kind of weird situation. [X(]
True, we tend to equal national pride with nationalistic attitude. Someone flying the German flag in front of his house would receive quizzical looks. IMO you can be proud of your own achievements in life, but not of the simple fact that it happened that you were born in this or that country.Perhaps interesting is that many Germans tend to have very little national pride.
[:D] Know what you mean, people tend to take me for a warmonger and militarist only because I'm interested in history and the roots of conflicts. They don't see that periods of peace are exceptions in human history.I have sometimes the feeling that I have to excuse myself that I am interested in the second World War and other armed conflicts. Many people think this means glorifying(correct word?) war.
What is available in German on the Pacific War are a few bad translations of general works - i.e. "bei den Kämpfen um den Guadal-Kanal" - as if it was a canal for ships, not an island [8|]. The books on the ETO are either dry academic works or the glorifying stuff a la 'Landser' or Paul Carell. But there are some very good novel from German authors.For example you won't find very many german books about war. My book about german tanks from WWII is in english.
Funny, I was a gunner in a Leopard 1 in 1993/94. My comrades felt the same way. I for my part wouldn't have followed them in their flight - I would have led the mob [:D]. I've read too many graphic descriptions and have seen too many horible pictures of what happens to the crew when a tank gets hit...I was a gunner of a Leopard 2 in 1990/91. I think if an enemy would have attacked us most of my comrades would have fled.
Yes, I've read somewhere that "we have been told by the US 're-educators' for the past 60 years that war is bad, militarism is evil and German militarism is the worst of all evils - and now the Americans are wondering why we are against the war in Iraq?" [:D]In my opinion Germany made a 180 degree turn in the past century. From a military state to a quite pacifistic attitude. (Which is quite good in my opinion)
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
The few people old enough to have personal experiences do talk about some issues and don't talk about others - the cases I know vehemmently deny having had knowledge of the holocaust at the time, and do not like to talk about war experiences.
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
But what I've observed in the past years in German politics (started with humanitarian aid, then logistical support, now we have combat troops, and all this outside NATO territory, now there are paving the way for a professional army) and TV (series on Bundeswehr soldiers in the Balkans, lots of documentaries about the modern military) makes me soemwhat uneasy, looks like a slow remilitarisation of German society.
ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
But what I've observed in the past years in German politics (started with humanitarian aid, then logistical support, now we have combat troops, and all this outside NATO territory, now there are paving the way for a professional army) and TV (series on Bundeswehr soldiers in the Balkans, lots of documentaries about the modern military) makes me soemwhat uneasy, looks like a slow remilitarisation of German society.
Sleep, baby, sleep, in peace may you slumber,
No danger lurks, your sleep to encumber.
We've got the missiles, peace to determine,
And one of the fingers on the button will be German.
Why shouldn't they have nuclear warheads?
England says no, but they all are soreheads.
I say a bygone should be a bygone,
Let's make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon.
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
So, sleep well, my darling, the sandman can linger.
We know our buddies won't give us the finger.
Heil - hail - the Wehrmacht, I mean the Bundeswehr,
Hail to our loyal ally!
M L F
Will scare Brezhnev.
I hope he is half as scared as I!
--Tom Lehrer
ORIGINAL: byron13
ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
But what I've observed in the past years in German politics (started with humanitarian aid, then logistical support, now we have combat troops, and all this outside NATO territory, now there are paving the way for a professional army) and TV (series on Bundeswehr soldiers in the Balkans, lots of documentaries about the modern military) makes me soemwhat uneasy, looks like a slow remilitarisation of German society.
Sleep, baby, sleep, in peace may you slumber,
No danger lurks, your sleep to encumber.
We've got the missiles, peace to determine,
And one of the fingers on the button will be German.
Why shouldn't they have nuclear warheads?
England says no, but they all are soreheads.
I say a bygone should be a bygone,
Let's make peace the way we did in Stanleyville and Saigon.
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
So, sleep well, my darling, the sandman can linger.
We know our buddies won't give us the finger.
Heil - hail - the Wehrmacht, I mean the Bundeswehr,
Hail to our loyal ally!
M L F
Will scare Brezhnev.
I hope he is half as scared as I!
--Tom Lehrer
I don't think you all have anything to worry about. As Target mentions, morale has been very low in the Bundeswehr for a long time, and the peace dividend has cut heavily into their readiness and capacity. Very few Germans want to serve in the military and very often opt for some nasty civil service positions instead of military conscription. I think most Germans are genuine pacificists at this point and no one sees much purpose for the military.
Add to that the fact that the Germans have almost no way to project force outside of their borders. You have nothing to fear from the Bundeswehr as tool of solely German politics - in fact, it probably should be strengthened.
What is more likely than Germany remilitarizing is continuing development of the WEU or some other body to coordinate EU military policy and for the EU to start exerting a more unified foreign policy that may need to be backed up by military forces capable of projecting influence. This probably affects the U.S. the most since it creates more competition in the foreign policy arena. Personally, I'm in favor of it.
My hometown gave Hitler the german nationality (he was Austrian) and so paved him the way. Nothing to be proud about.
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
You must be one of the few Germans who knows this - did you study history?
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
This is what ultimately leads to wars. [;)]
ORIGINAL: testarossa
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
This is what ultimately leads to wars. [;)]
Well, US needs a counterweight, for its own good.[;)]
ORIGINAL: testarossa
Looks like we are highjacking the thread…[8D]
When I said “counterweight” I meant just that “counterweight” – something to balance the forces. And EU is the best for that role. Of course Russia is always in the equation...
IMHO I believe that China is a real threat to the world (US dominance) now. China economy is growing startling 10% per year, population in 10 years will hit 2 billions and it needs oil to fuel the expansion.
Facing worldwide oil output crisis and no alternative energy sources, it is all or nothing conflict for China – kind of Japan faced in 1940. Now add to the brew some spicy ingredients like China being a communist country with nuclear weapon, Chinese warmongering toward Taiwan and Japan and US being an ally of both… “War on terror” will look like a sandbox game after that.
Of course there is a possibility of invention of advanced fuels and energy technologies, like hydrogen fuel cells or cold fusion, but they are still in development.
ORIGINAL: byron13
I don't have a problem with the EU obtaining some self-sufficiency. For the next couple of decades, I would think that our interests would be sufficiently aligned that the result of them obtaining capability to project military force would only be that they might choose to inderdict in places the U.S. takes a pass. Two policemen on the beat, if you will.
As for China, I don't think there would be a war over resources per se. There aren't any places with real resources that China has a legitimate claim to. She's not going to invade Indonesia for oil. She's just going to have to learn to live in an ever-tighter oil supply world like the rest of us.
I don't know much about China, but she seems to have some pent up patriotism/national pride issues that may cause problems. Once she gets her economy really humming and her military large and modernized, I can see her getting frisky and wanting to test her powers after having been subjugated by the colonials or marginalized politically and economically for so long. You know: U.S. and USSR had their time to run roughshod over the planet, now it's ours. I would think the likely hot spots would be places where she has held claims for decades and she would press her claims more seriously when backed with a large, modern military. The most obvious spots are Taiwan, which she takes very seriously, and probably some of those stupid rocks sticking out of the water that everyone has been arguing over (with underwater gas and oil?) for so long. Probably start small to test world (and particularly U.S. reaction) and take it from there.
ORIGINAL: testarossa
Here is a good link on the subject.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/03/ ... _syndr.php
There are numerous internal links to the supporting studies, especialy good is the link to the Naval War College Review.
readers' rersponce is of particular interest too.
Edit: last year China spent 5 bills US$ buying arms from Russia. I wonder why... May be to make Japan admit Nanking massacre?
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Ain't gonna happen. At least not any time soon. There is absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing altrusitic about French international policies and aims, just for example. Should the smaller, newer members of the EU come to share a greater role, however, then yes, I could see some good coming from that. As it stands now, though, Europe is its own worst enemy.
ORIGINAL: byron13
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Ain't gonna happen. At least not any time soon. There is absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing altrusitic about French international policies and aims, just for example. Should the smaller, newer members of the EU come to share a greater role, however, then yes, I could see some good coming from that. As it stands now, though, Europe is its own worst enemy.
I agree with France. But they are more likely to lead in Africa as they did in the Ivory Coast situation. And the Europeans may involve themselves sooner in other places, especially closer to home, like the Dalmation Coast, maybe Cyprus, or, given France and Italy's close proximity to North Africa (and any boat refugees), there as well. America still doesn't have a real policy on police actions; we are isolationist (not worth our boys getting killed over) until some televised ugliness threshold at which point we often become involved. I'm just saying that an independent European military with the ability to project would provide another military force that may interdict in situations that the U.S. may not otherwise. Assuming our interests are generally aligned with the Europeans, this is a good thing.
As for the article on China, I don't really understand why China would need to invade Taiwan before the Olympics. Seems this would result in half the world boycotting them. Besides, as was pointed out, China is not positioned qualitatively to take on Taiwan (backed by the US) yet. I'm looking for problems after 2008 when, I'm assuming, their trade wealth will permit upgrading their military. Of course, the more China becomes tied to the world economy, the less likely it is to cause real problems.
