|
Yes, with their own.So you prefer memorials to the great achievers who grit the drive of civilization with the bones of ordinary people whose only achievement is being born human. Ok.Do these fit your description? Or this?? Did they 'grit the drive of civilization with the bones of ordinary people'?
Since that pretty much applies to everybody...you do prefer such memorials, too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, we are grateful for all the help we got from anybody, including the aussies fighting along the brits.
Just take a serious look at the giant comemorating ceremonies coming for the 70th anniversary of D-Day if you want a proof.
BUT, having a good memory and being grateful doesn't mean that the USA get a free ride for everything. "Old Europa" does remember the Bush administration too.
(and also, historically, the first ones to turn the nazi tide were the russians, not the americans. Operation Torch in 1942 wasn't a big success in that instance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Europeans didn't fight nearly so well? Ever hear of Stalingrad, and the Russians sweeping over the territory of Germany on the way to Berlin? Ever hear of the Eastern front?
Here is a wonderful timeline to show you just how many battles there were, so you can get a sense of the larger picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eastern_Front_of_World_War_II
Churchill begging for aid from America that had been sitting out, doesn't mean that the Russians didn't do more of the fighting and conquering, or that the Brits weren't fighting longer and harder. Ever hear of the battle for Britain? The Luftschlacht um England? It wasn't an American victory, lol.
1) What does Russia's involvement have to do with how well Europe fought? (FYI: Russia / Soviet Union is not part of Europe.) I fully acknowledge how well the Soviet's fought and the difficulties we had before they joined us, never said or did anything to indicate otherwise.
2) Yes, I've heard of them. The Brits didn't all die. Good for them. They weren't exactly storming the beaches prior to American involvement.
What, exactly, is your problem with the Brits?
And be careful in your phrasing.
Because I don't think there's a single town or village in Britain that doesn't have a war memorial for the soldiers who've died for their country. World War I and II and many conflicts since.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) What does Russia's involvement have to do with how well Europe fought? (FYI: Russia / Soviet Union is not part of Europe.) I fully acknowledge how well the Soviet's fought and the difficulties we had before they joined us, never said or did anything to indicate otherwise.
What? The dividing line between Europe and Asia is commonly drawn in the Urals. Parts of Russia, and even more parts of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, the Baltic states, etc.) are part of Europe. I've never in all my life heard anyone try to claim that Russians weren't European.
So still no love for memorials comemmerating the birth of every citizen? Guess more room for me on the boat.
They try to have those already.
They are called Cemeteries.
You're damn right I value the innocent lives lost in terrorism more than I do the terrorists lives. I don't think my values are a f@!$ing problem, and if you do sounds like you need to look in a mirror.
Interestingly, the terrorists say pretty much the exact same thing: "You are damn right I value martyrs' lives more than I do thelives of the evil oppressors who kill our people! That is why each jihadi must kill many, many infidels! I don't think my values are a f@!$ing problem, and if you do sounds like you need to look in a mirror."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that I haven't advocated killing them.
Saying their lives are without value skirts the line pretty closely, though, don't you think?
Nor have I, or anyone I know, flown a plane into one of their buildings full of civilians.
Assuming you're a U.S. citizen, your elected leadership flies drone planes into their builings full of civilians on a regular basis.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
No, it really won't. That's also the reason you're seeing this as "picking a fight."
There is a significant moral difference between unintentionally harming noncombatants as collateral damage and intentionally, actively targeting noncombatants.
In most cases, I'd agree, but just for the sake of argument:
Sure, there's a moral difference there, but to my mind it's not as big a gap as it's being made out to be. Our endless war against the Middle East is not on firm moral ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all there was no formal plans for an Invasion of Australia by the Japanese in WWII. The Army suggested it but the IJN said it was impossible and no plans were drawn up.
The battles of the Coral Sea (a technical defeat for the allies) Milne Bay (first land victory against the Japanese primarily Australian) and the Kokoda track campaign ended any chance of Japanese invading.
Understandably after the fall of the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia there was worry and panic, and Allied command did not know what the Japanese would do next or how to stop them. The worry was particularly intense in Australia as our professional army was in North Africa ruining Romels plans. All Australia had were under equipped and under trained militia divisions facing the undefeated Japanese.
WWII in the European theater - the Russians killed over 1 million German soldiers, the combined combat deaths for German soliders by the rest of the Allies was just on 200,000.
The Russians fought and won more battles recovered more territory then the allies combined.
The thing to remember is that they were able do this because they were being supplied by the rest of the allies and sacrificing 100000 of thier own soldiers to win a battle was not a concern because they did not have a government elected by the people to answer to.
The difference being you get your name on the wall when born, not having died poor enough to not qualify for a burial.So still no love for memorials comemmerating the birth of every citizen? Guess more room for me on the boat.They try to have those already.
They are called Cemeteries.
Please explain. In the UK, 'cemetery' is more or less another word for 'graveyard', and as such, where burials normally do take place.
Europeans didn't fight nearly so well? Ever hear of Stalingrad, and the Russians sweeping over the territory of Germany on the way to Berlin? Ever hear of the Eastern front?
Here is a wonderful timeline to show you just how many battles there were, so you can get a sense of the larger picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Eastern_Front_of_World_War_II
Churchill begging for aid from America that had been sitting out, doesn't mean that the Russians didn't do more of the fighting and conquering, or that the Brits weren't fighting longer and harder. Ever hear of the battle for Britain? The Luftschlacht um England? It wasn't an American victory, lol.
1) What does Russia's involvement have to do with how well Europe fought? (FYI: Russia / Soviet Union is not part of Europe.) I fully acknowledge how well the Soviet's fought and the difficulties we had before they joined us, never said or did anything to indicate otherwise.
2) Yes, I've heard of them. The Brits didn't all die. Good for them. They weren't exactly storming the beaches prior to American involvement.
What, exactly, is your problem with the Brits?
And be careful in your phrasing.
Because I don't think there's a single town or village in Britain that doesn't have a war memorial for the soldiers who've died for their country. World War I and II and many conflicts since.
I have no problem with the Brits, or anyone else actually, I just don't see "they didn't roll over and die" as the height of achievement. They weren't even close to winning the war before America got involved.
But I'm not taking anything away from them either, persevering during that time would have been unimaginably difficult for us that didn't live through it and I didn't mean to give any offense. I apologize for my flippant tone.
I never said that Europe was unappreciative of what was done for them, simply that building...
Well, you're being flippant about some 380,000 military and 67,000 civilian deaths just in Britain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't just Britain from beginning to end - It was Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), South Africa and Fiji and the Caribbean and so on.
As for turning things around The Battle of Britain, and North Africa were sign that when run by professionals and without interference of Churchill the Commonwealth was regaining its war fighting skills. Had the war just been the British "Empire" V Germany and Italy then the Empire would have won. The amount of resources and man power that could be mustered dwarfed Germany's considerably. It was time that was needed, if the Britain was over run then the war would have continued from Canada.
So the resolve of the British (and it's Commonwealth) is to be admired - in the face of rolling disasters they did not stop and they did not give up and as much as I think Churchill is overrated - he personified that never ever stop fighting attitude.
Think about it this way the British financially ruined themselves and brought down thier own empire to fight on. Hitler gave them the option of retaining it all and they said no!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems you have not been told the truth. There were other European countries involved in world war 2 that fought longer, harder, did more and were far more responsible for ending the Nazi threat. Look up on the victories of the Russians for instance. The UK and British empire kept fighting even when pushed to the brink of collapse, and they stuck it out from start to finish. No late entry for them.Oh, I know the truth, you're just blinded by your own anti-American feelings. And while European countries might have fought longer, they didn't fight nearly so well. What country was it that freed Paris and kept her free? Who was it that Churchhill begged for aid? It wasn't the Soviet Union. Or did you think it was just coincidence that the germans started losing ground when America entered the fray?
I am also pleased to once again see that when you bring up the destruction of US adventurism and neo-colonialism, someone has to point to that one time when they were the good guys. Milk it for all its worth, please, the good guy capital won't last forever.Europeans really, REALLY shouldn't try and preach at Americans about colonialism.
Actually, Paris was liberated by the Free French Army and the French Forces of the Interior and the Americans. And the French Resistance.
Consider the Normandy Landings, for example. The US fielded 73,000 troops, without whom, the invasion would have failed. The British and Canadians (and Australians and Belgians and free French and Poles and Norwegians and lots of other nationalities) fielded 83,000 troops, without whom, the invasion would have failed. And the French Resistance sabotaged railways and cut Normandy off from Germany, so without them it probably would have failed. And gratitude does not extend to forgetting or ignoring all the non-US troops involved.
Did you know the George Cross was awarded to the entire Island of Malta? The entire island? Do you think perhaps it was for sitting back and twiddling their thumbs?
So you dont think that it might be better for us all if we did comemerate every child born, despite how they might spend that life? Yes, i'm suggesting everything that has gone wrong has gone wrong because we dont.
I thought we called that a 'birthday party'.
I'm partial to McDonald's or the bowling alley for mine.
Only Royal Australian Navy & Royal Australian Air Force personnel at the D-Day landings. The Australian Army was Island hopping through the Pacific.
When you see movies about the war you only see the American contribution and while it was essential it was no more and no less important than than that of the British Commonwealth, Russians and Chinese.
First of all there was no formal plans for an Invasion of Australia by the Japanese in WWII. The Army suggested it but the IJN said it was impossible and no plans were drawn up.
The battles of the Coral Sea (a technical defeat for the allies) Milne Bay (first land victory against the Japanese primarily Australian) and the Kokoda track campaign ended any chance of Japanese invading.
Understandably after the fall of the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia there was worry and panic, and Allied command did not know what the Japanese would do next or how to stop them. The worry was particularly intense in Australia as our professional army was in North Africa ruining Romels plans. All Australia had were under equipped and under trained militia divisions facing the undefeated Japanese.
WWII in the European theater - the Russians killed over 1 million German soldiers, the combined combat deaths for German soliders by the rest of the Allies was just on 200,000.
The Russians fought and won more battles recovered more territory then the allies combined.
The thing to remember is that they were able do this because they were being supplied by the rest of the allies and sacrificing 100000 of thier own soldiers to win a battle was not a concern because they did not have a government elected by the people to answer to.
Thanks for the info, that I didn't know. I am more familiar with the Japanese invasions of China and Korea, and did not realise they did not want the headache of taking another continent. They certainly gave Darwin a pounding. There was plenty of prep for an invasion in Australia, still plenty of evidence of that around.
There was plenty of prep for an invasion in Australia, still plenty of evidence of that around.
There is? Please post links to reliable sources.
There's an entire book on the subject of the 'Japanese Invasion', Peter Stanley's Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942, Penguin:Camberwell,(2008).
To summarise Japanese planning; in December 1941 Captain Tomioka Sadatoshi of the Plans Division of the Operations Section of the Imperial Japanese Navy advanced the idea that the north of Australia be invaded. This idea was firmly rejected by the Army General Staff on 6 January 1942. Arguing continued to the end of February 1942 when senior staff got sick of the squabbling and adapted Plan FS, the isolation of Australia through the capture of Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia. In recommendations submitted to the Emperor on 17 March, a temporary invasion of Darwin was listed as a 'future option'. [from Stanley pp.153-157].
No planning, just proposals that went nowhere.
The first bombing of Darwin wasn't to prepare for an invasion, it was to destroy the port as a logistical hub for the support of Timor and the Dutch East Indies.
With hindsight I think the Japanese landing a division of troops at Darwin would have been beneficial to their war effort due to the panic it would have caused in Australia and the ensuing diversion of the totality of our war effort to their eradication. However, at least in 1942, the IJA was prepared to sacrifice it's men like that.
Actually, the Japanese had well developed biological weapons program.
Which they used extensively in China.
They likely used them in north Australia
What does 'likely' mean? They either did or they didn't. Any non-chemically addled sources for this startling historical revelation?
(or would have).
When? After Crocodile Dundee killed Godzilla?
The only chemical weapons used in Australia were the only chemical weapons used by the Allies and they were used on Australian volunteers for testing to see what would happen if the Japanese used chemical weapons in the tropics.
TPoV I got my army and navy mixed up... That's what I get for going from memory.
My grandfather was stationed in Darwin with a militia division, before he transferred into the regular Army 2/3 Pioneer Battalion.
He joined up when he was 16 he tried when he was 15 but they knew he was under age. He went from Sydney to Wollongong (met my grandmother there) to Darwin transferred into the Regulars then to North Queensland and New Guinea then Borneo at the end of the war he spent a few weeks in Japan mainly in and around Nagasaki and then back to Sydney.
There was plenty of prep for an invasion in Australia, still plenty of evidence of that around.There is? Please post links to reliable sources.
There's an entire book on the subject of the 'Japanese Invasion', Peter Stanley's Invading Australia: Japan and the Battle for Australia, 1942, Penguin:Camberwell,(2008).
To summarise Japanese planning; in December 1941 Captain Tomioka Sadatoshi of the Plans Division of the Operations Section of the Imperial Japanese Navy advanced the idea that the north of Australia be invaded. This idea was firmly rejected by the Army General Staff on 6 January 1942. Arguing continued to the end of February 1942 when senior staff got sick of the squabbling and adapted Plan FS, the isolation of Australia through the capture of Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia. In recommendations submitted to the Emperor on 17 March, a temporary invasion of Darwin was listed as a 'future option'. [from Stanley pp.153-157].
No planning, just proposals that went nowhere.
The first bombing of Darwin wasn't to prepare for an invasion, it was to destroy the port as a logistical hub for the support of Timor and the Dutch East Indies.
With hindsight I think the Japanese landing a division of troops at Darwin would have been beneficial to their war effort due to the panic it would have caused in Australia and the ensuing diversion of the totality of our war effort to their eradication. However, at least in 1942, the IJA was prepared to sacrifice it's men like that.
Actually, the Japanese had well developed biological weapons program.Which they used extensively in China.
They likely used them in north AustraliaWhat does 'likely' mean? They either did or they didn't. Any non-chemically addled sources for this startling historical revelation?
(or would have).When? After Crocodile Dundee killed Godzilla?
Lol, glad you have done your research, you missed the context though. When I said there was plenty of prep for an invasion, I meant the Australians were quickly preparing as fast as they could to repel a Japanese invasion, which they thought would occur.
And by evidence I mean the quickly built air bases and giant turrets in Darwin, East point for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wizoSUoDcTY
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think he meant Australian preparation for an invasion by Japan, not Japanese preparation to invade Australia. In Australia, not of Australia.There was plenty of prep for an invasion in Australia, still plenty of evidence of that around.There is? Please post links to reliable sources.
Yep.
Apologies DM Under the Bridge, you're totally correct and I missed your context.