MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
I don't think Cornelius Ryan ever claimed to be a WW2 expert. His meticulous research and interviewing the people on both sides proved him to be an expert. My question, how do you define an expert? The proof as proved by Ryan is how much of your heart and soul you invest in your research. The Longest Day is far and away the best book ever written about D day.
Ya und?
Ryan wrote some terrific books.
Not part of this discussion, right?
I don't know what your saying. I understand the topic of discussion to be trying to define who is or is not a WW2 expert. Ryan not only wrote some terrific books. He was the consumate expert on WW2 in the European Theatre. His focus may have been narrow. His extensive interviews of participants on both sides tells the story from the perspective of both sides.
No, I'm not arguing that Frank isn't an "expert". Surely, he is.
I did take issue with Salty's proclamation of him as "foremost" and the dismissal of all others.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
I don't think Cornelius Ryan ever claimed to be a WW2 expert. His meticulous research and interviewing the people on both sides proved him to be an expert. My question, how do you define an expert? The proof as proved by Ryan is how much of your heart and soul you invest in your research. The Longest Day is far and away the best book ever written about D day.
Ya und?
Ryan wrote some terrific books.
Not part of this discussion, right?
I don't know what your saying. I understand the topic of discussion to be trying to define who is or is not a WW2 expert. Ryan not only wrote some terrific books. He was the consumate expert on WW2 in the European Theatre. His focus may have been narrow. His extensive interviews of participants on both sides tells the story from the perspective of both sides.
No, I'm not arguing that Frank isn't an "expert". Surely, he is.
I did take issue with Salty's proclamation of him as "foremost" and the dismissal of all others.
Ryan, in that context, is irrelevant.
Sorry there old chum. I dismiss your hypothesis on who is an expert and who is not. Ryan is an expert on the topic despite your argument saying he is irrelevant. The topic was about people claiming to be "experts" A nice try at spinning and deflecting. It just does not hold water IMO.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
I don't think Cornelius Ryan ever claimed to be a WW2 expert. His meticulous research and interviewing the people on both sides proved him to be an expert. My question, how do you define an expert? The proof as proved by Ryan is how much of your heart and soul you invest in your research. The Longest Day is far and away the best book ever written about D day.
Ya und?
Ryan wrote some terrific books.
Not part of this discussion, right?
I don't know what your saying. I understand the topic of discussion to be trying to define who is or is not a WW2 expert. Ryan not only wrote some terrific books. He was the consumate expert on WW2 in the European Theatre. His focus may have been narrow. His extensive interviews of participants on both sides tells the story from the perspective of both sides.
No, I'm not arguing that Frank isn't an "expert". Surely, he is.
I did take issue with Salty's proclamation of him as "foremost" and the dismissal of all others.
Ryan, in that context, is irrelevant.
Sorry there old chum. I dismiss your hypothesis on who is an expert and who is not. Ryan is an expert on the topic despite your argument saying he is irrelevant. The topic was about people claiming to be "experts" A nice try at spinning and deflecting. It just does not hold water IMO.
Nope, you really need to actually bother to read the thread.
Ryan's expertise (no one other than you was discussing such) is irrelevant to the question of the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons, why and how the decision was made, what factors contributed and what was dispositive or not. See the thread topic title as well.
Now, if Ryan had studied this particular question, great, put his views and work forward...it would be relevant. But far as I know, that was never his area of interest.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
With all due respect to your dad and all those other soldiers who fought, and so many died, were irreparably wounded, they did not make the decisions to drop the nuclear bomb once, nor a second 9 days later.
I'm quite sure that their lives were indeed a very important factor in the decision making of those actually making the decisions...no one, and I mean no one, has said otherwise.
But were they the only factors weighed and influencing?
Definitely not, according to many historians who have studied the communications and recounting of those decision makers on both sides of the decisions that were made.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Yada yada yada. There is a record of contemporaneous thoughts. Anyway, it’s not my argument sport.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
Thanks. I figured there was a number but not sure as a lot of friends and family work/worked on military bases. I was interested in the proportional response.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?
News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:10 pm
I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???
His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?
But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/
US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War
Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.
That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.
The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.
Certainly more than me!
But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.
I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.
Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.
Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.
The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.
Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.
Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.
Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?
And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?
I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.
How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?
News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...
Pay attention. I was asking a question because I didn’t know the answer….. well ladi da…. Them Japs sneak attacked us, if I remember my history. I was just wondering about what you military people call “a proportional response”…. I didn’t bring up Pearl Harbor…. Someone other fool made the comparison.
No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.
