Enola Gay display angers victims

[Caldric]

Caldric wrote:

..........the treatment of the Chinese and other Asians people's.

True, the Japanese occupiers of the Philippines did perpetrate a lot of massacres.

But they were merely following the path blazed by that American hero Pershing, a great butcher of Filipinos.

And many of the Asian peoples were quite willing to collaborate with the Japanese occupiers - Thais, Malays, Javanese. It was mainly ethnic Chinese who suffered at Japanese hands, because of their connections with the Guomindang. I doubt that any of the indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia cared about Japanese persecution of local Chinese; they probably applauded it.

Unlike you I do not care what the people Asia applauded. Japanese atrocities and aggressive warfare all over Asia and the pacific killed millions. They should be angry with themselves and live up to the millions of souls they destroyed. Until then their anger is worth dung.

[Beppo Schmidt]

I do not care if it angers them will not lose any sleep over it. Pearl Harbor angers me. So does the death marches and execution of POW's and constant atrocites and the treatment of the Chinese and other Asians people's.

Reap what you sow.

Reap what you sow for having the bad luck to live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[Caldric]

I do not care if it angers them will not lose any sleep over it. Pearl Harbor angers me. So does the death marches and execution of POW's and constant atrocites and the treatment of the Chinese and other Asians people's.

Reap what you sow.

Reap what you sow for having the bad luck to live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Yes I suppose so those same people would have raped and burned my own nation. I have no concern over winning.

They deny their own horrible crimes against humanity but expect people to give one damn when they whine about an air plane that has historical importance?

[der Bilderstürmer]

Caldric wrote:

..........the treatment of the Chinese and other Asians people's.

True, the Japanese occupiers of the Philippines did perpetrate a lot of massacres. But they were merely following the path blazed by that American hero Pershing, a great butcher of Filipinos

No one was more xenophobic than the Australians. 100 years of fear-mongering over the so-called "Yellow Hordes" of Asia fed nicely into their racist "White Australia" immigration policy.

When US troops were sent to Australia in WWII, many Australians called the authorities to complain when they saw black American soldiers dating white girls. Black members of the US forces in Vietnam were also well aware of the White Australia policy. They said they were uncomfortable with what they considered an often insincere and patronizing manner of Australian soldiers.

Because it was the Australian PM who literally pleaded that the USA should protect them from Japan, it should not be surprising that the loudest voices calling for war in Vietnam came from Canberra; at least until Menzies was asked to directly participate instead of pressuring the USA to do it for him. Australia's goading compared to its own marginal contribution only served to highlight their hypocrisy.

[Beppo Schmidt]

Yes I suppose so those same people would have raped and burned my own nation

Because someone was born in Japan and lived in Japan during WWII they would happily have raped and burned other nations? You can't take an entire race and say everyone born into that race is guilty, that's ridiculous...and by your logic, if there is to be no whining about Hiroshima and Nagasaki then people should shut up about the Blitz and Rotterdam and Warsaw. No "whining" about bombs falling on your head and killing your family.

[Caldric]

Because someone was born in Japan and lived in Japan during WWII they would happily have raped and burned other nations? You can't take an entire race and say everyone born into that race is guilty...and by your logic, if there is to be no whining about Hiroshima and Nagasaki then people should shut up about the Blitz and Rotterdam and Warsaw.

When did I say that?

I said they would have destroyed my country and raped and murdered and burned. That is not an opinion it is based on historical actions of Imperial Japan. Yes most of the Japanese would have done that without concern. I never flung guilt out anyway. I have no problems with guilt. Bombing Hiroshima was horrible but it had to happen is just the way war was waged. Hiroshima is nothing compared to Tokyo, Osaka etc.

You never once heard me whine about Warsaw, Rotterdam or the Blitz. War is war and destroying your enemy was the mind set of the day.

[michael mills]

Der Bilderstürmer wrote:

No one was more xenophobic than the Australians. 100 years of fear-mongering over the so-called "Yellow Hordes" of Asia fed nicely into their racist "White Australia" immigration policy.

I agree entirely.

In 1912, the British Government was able to utilise Australian paranoia about the potential Japanese challenge to European domination of Asia and the Pacific to blackmail the Australian Government into making secret prpearations for the expected war with Germany, by threatening the withdrawal of the British Fleet from the Pacific (and hence protection for Australia against the dreaded "Yellow peril") in the case of a British defeat.

I am sure Australians did not like the idea of American Negro servicemen dating white Australian women. But I am also sure that white American servicemen did not like it either, and any Black serviceman who dared to date a white girl would have risked lynching by his fellow soldiers, or at least a severe beating.

Furthermore, Australian men did not like to see Australian women dating any American servicemen, no matter what their colour. There were a number of riots over the issue, including the famous "battle of Brisbane", when an Australian soldier was shot by US Military Police.

As for Vietnam, no matter the pretensions of the menzies Government here, I think they played only a marginal role in the decision-making of the United States Government.[/quote]

[michael mills]

Berichter wrote:

Can I ask you a question, Michael? Do you know of any plans that the Soviets had for any invasion of Japan? Of all my years of study into WWII, I never heard of Stalin desiring the conquest of mainland Japan. If Stalin had designs of hegemony in the Far East, a unified Communist Korea and a stable Communist republic under Mao in China would offset any potentially renewed Japanese military threat and the U.S. plan to occupy Japan would keep the U.S. busy in the Far East.

No, I hve not seen the Soviet plans. But has anybody?

I dare say they are buried in the former Soviet archives.

But I am sure that Stalin would have wanted to deny to the United States the "unsinkable aircraft-carrier" represented by Japan, which it could use as a base to oppose Communist domination of East Asia. United States occupation of Japan meant its domination of the whole Pacific and a severe hindrance to Soviet projection of naval force into the Pacific from Vladivostok.

That is the reason why the Soviet Union held on so doggedly to the South Kurile Islands, the only part of the Japanese Home Islands it occupied (and which Russia occupies to this day).

In the first few years after the end of the war there were strong Communist subversive movements in both South Korea and Japan which could only be suppressed with difficulty.

[alf]

I see we have wandered off topic wonderfully, White Australia Policy, Australian troops in Vietnam, Micheal still purusing Stalin's secretive Invasion of Japan in amongest it all. So I will wander a little also

There wasnt much bias to black US troops in Vietnam by Australians soldiers from what I saw there, it was no greater than that shown to the majority US troops. Australian troops took immense pride in their battle skills, something they saw sadly lacking in US troops (except Marines).

The Australian Army was and still is fairly egaltrian, much like the British Army, it was used to working with troops of many nations. They had and still have the highest respect for Gurkhas and Maoris as combat equals, they judge an army by its performance in combat not by its members (allies and enemies).

a link showing WW2 Australian troops attitude s
http://www.anzacday.org.au/anzacservice ... ywuzzy.htm

And the look upon their faces,
Makes us think that Christ was black

Thats off topic of course but everyone is enjoying a detour so I would join in.

I see, Michael still clings to a Soviet Invasion of Japan before the US/Commonwealth forces in Novemeber 1945, never offering any proof. At that time it is more probable Stalin was satisfied with seizing large tracts of China and Korea (as he did exactly), through which there a gateway into SE Asia.

Japan is just an island with no natural resources and its location does nothing to prevent incursions into SE Asia. Chinawas far more important , as shown post era.

As I said a page or so ago, the only Soviet plans were for small incursions to Hokadido, there were no plans for a full invasion. No naval assests, no supply train, no plans, talking blithely of island hopping short distances, discounting resistence, based on opportunism only confirms the old military adage "amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"

The civilians of Okinawa did not die mercilessly under US flamethrowers, another myth. That tens of thousands did die is fact. 23,000 fought as levies, Japanese troops themselves forced many thousands to commit suicide, others committed suicide themselves volunatrly , their heads filled with racist propaganda what would happen to them. There is an horrific US combat film clip showing women and children jumping to their deaths, in front of a small group of US soldiers (either Saipan or Okinawa, I think Okinawa though).

Again, Okinawa is the only yardstick to be used to judge the success and causalties of a landing on the main home Islands of Japan.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... fault.aspx

I am sure we will wander of track again, US treatment of the Phillipine natives pre WW1 seems a popular distraction to divert Japanese atrocities in WW2.

[der Bilderstürmer]

Australian troops took immense pride in their battle skills, something they saw sadly lacking in US troops (except Marines)

The 173rd Airborne Brigade and the Marines were not impressed with Australian "battle skills", which did not lend itself to locating the enemy or luring them into battle. The numbers bear this out. The paratroopers of The Herd referred to Australian infantrymen as "rice farmers" because they were more efficient at finding food than Vietcong guerrillas.

The only consistently good Australian outfit was the SAS, which used US equipment, wore US uniforms, believed in heavy use of US helicopters, and adopted US methods used by the LRRPs. The SAS made successful contacts with the enemy much more frequently than the Australian infantry companies.

The Australian Army was and still is fairly egaltrian, much like the British Army, it was used to working with troops of many nations. They had and still have the highest respect for Gurkhas and Maoris

US special warfare experts viewed the Filipino, Burmese, and Vietnamese mountain people in much the same way. The US Army has a long history of employing highly skilled native American scouts and trackers, although such people are no longer segregated into race-based units.

they judge an army by its performance in combat not by its members (allies and enemies)

I'm afraid that is not true. The Australian Army's performance in Vietnam left much to be desired, but they tried to disband the SAS which was the most effective combat arm. Maybe the infantry was flushed at being outperformed by a reconnaissance unit that was supposed to gather information and avoid contact with the enemy. After they worked with US Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs, the Australian SAS was exposed to a greater variety of missions and their role gradually changed.

[Peter H]

The Soviet Pacific Fleet based at Vladivostok in 1945 consisted of the following strength:

2 Light cruisers
16 destroyers
30 mineweepers
92 patrol boats
94 submarines.

The overemphasis on lighter craft highlights the coastal defense nature of this Fleet.

While acknowledging that it was capable of landing detachments of Soviet marines,it was nowhere capable of a sealift capacity to move,fight and maintain an invasion force of the size to invade Japan proper.

Vladivostok also not being a year round warm water port meant the 'campaign' season for naval activities would have ceased by November.

The reality was that any Soviet advance,unchecked by a Japanese surrender,would have grounded to a halt at the Korea Strait.Whether Soviet advances would have continued into northern China against the Japanese foe relies on assuming that Stalin was aiming for more 'concessions' outside Manchuria.

[Peter H]

The 173rd Airborne Brigade and the Marines were not impressed with Australian "battle skills", which did not lend itself to locating the enemy or luring them into battle. The numbers bear this out. The paratroopers of The Herd referred to Australian infantrymen as "rice farmers" because they were more efficient at finding food than Vietcong guerrillas.

The Australian aim was to cripple the VCI(VC Infastructure);cull the rice and weapons caches and the Main Force suffer.Abrams in his wisdom followed thru with this same approach in 1969,disregarding the failed 'Search and Destroy' policy of Westmoreland.Its notable that the Herd in its first major action in 1965 in Zone D,shot the place up,pulled out,and then had to do the same thing over and over again while in III Corps.RAND studies showed that the PAVN/VC controlled the level of fighting and initiated over 70% of contacts throughout SVN.Perhaps helped by the poor patrol discipline of certain US forces,stealth wasn't a premium.

The only consistently good Australian outfit was the SAS, which used US equipment, wore US uniforms, believed in heavy use of US helicopters, and adopted US methods used by the LRRPs. The SAS made successful contacts with the enemy much more frequently than the Australian infantry companies.

Your infering that the SAS adopted the tactics of the LURPs,when in fact the opposite is the case.US Special Forces doctrine up to 1966 was to establish blocking bases in the Highlands with the assistance of the locals,sit tight,and hope you didn't get overrun by a PAVN regiment on the rampage.LURPs didn't enter the scene until after 1966.Read David Hackworth's About Face,a battalion commander in the 101st who having observed Australian jungle tactics pushed for the same adoption by his paratroopers.His Primer on Vietnam spread the word even more.

US special warfare experts viewed the Filipino, Burmese, and Vietnamese mountain people in much the same way. The US Army has a long history of employing highly skilled native American scouts and trackers, although such people are no longer segregated into race-based units.

Also make sure you carry a big wallet to pay off 'mercenaries' like the Nungs.The Montagnards were only effective under American guidance and supply.After 1969 this ceased and put under ARVN control they suffered greatly from the rascism you so decry.Staying power for these forces is the key and it was limited.

I'm afraid that is not true. The Australian Army's performance in Vietnam left much to be desired, but they tried to disband the SAS which was the most effective combat arm. Maybe the infantry was flushed at being outperformed by a reconnaissance unit that was supposed to gather information and avoid contact with the enemy. After they worked with US Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs, the Australian SAS was exposed to a greater variety of missions and their role gradually changed.

Can you provide details on the supposed disbandament of the Australian SAS?If anything the 1969 'Green Berets' Trial showed a greater resistance to Special Forces in the Pentagon brass set.Westmoreland even despised the US Marines,disregarding their own pacification efforts in I Corps,and setting up the greatest folly of the war,the 9th Division in Riverine form(a duplicate Amphibious force) while the USMC guys bleed to death against the conventional PAVN along the DMZ.

[der Bilderstürmer]

Read David Hackworth's About Face

I noticed that Hackworth mentioned Lt. Colonel Brumfield of 1 RAR.

Have you read To Long Tan? It says that after the war, Brumfield admitted that the US search and destroy strategy was more effective than the enclave strategy employed by the Australians.

Westmoreland even despised the US Marines, disregarding their own pacification efforts

He didn't despise their effort, but he was pessimistic for good reasons:

1) There was never enough troops to hold all ground that was searched. Not even close. That alone damaged the credibility of an enclave strategy, which could never succeed until the enemy main forces were eliminated first.

2) The VC/PAVN logistics bases were outside South Vietnam, in three countries. They could not be occupied by US forces. In other words, the basic military principle of maneuvering into the enemy's rear areas was forbidden by politicians.

3) Size of the enemy. Millions of troops passed through the ranks of the PAVN and the VC, while in Malaya and the Philippines a few thousand guerrillas rose up with no government and no external support. As Bernard Fall warned, any attempt to compare those insurgencies with Vietnam was nothing but a dangerous delusion.

The Australian aim was to cripple the VCI(VC Infastructure); cull the rice and weapons caches and the Main Force suffer

This is a better idea than an actual event.

The VC infrastructure always remained intact in the Phuoc Tuy province -- in "every village", as one Australian officer admitted. The Australians could hardly cull most of the rice and weapons; the HQ and main supply depots of 5th VC Division were in Cambodia.

Abrams in his wisdom followed thru with this same approach in 1969, disregarding the failed 'Search and Destroy' policy of Westmoreland

That cannot be true. North Vietnam sent the PAVN south, because the VC had failed.

Abrams never abandoned search and destroy -- they certainly didn't invade Cambodia to carry out civic action programs. The border was crossed en masse only because Nixon approved it, unlike his predecessor. Abrams did expand pacification, though by that time General Giap admitted to losing 500,000 troops dead through 1968.

RAND studies showed that the PAVN/VC controlled the level of fighting and initiated over 70% of contacts throughout SVN

Letting the enemy initiate contact was largely intentional on the part of the Americans, because it resulted in many more contacts. One cannot say the same for the Australian Task Force. They were credited with just 410 kills in 29 months, through October 1968. In their biggest battle (at Long Tan) Allied artillery fire accounted for nearly all casualties inflicted on the Vietcong.

Perhaps helped by the poor patrol discipline of certain US forces, stealth wasn't a premium

The Australian research proves that "stealth" as you interpret it was not consistently effective, except for reconnaissance. In thick jungle, it was very easy for both sides to walk past each other undetected.

Unlike the Australians, US troops typically watched the jungle tracks and followed them because that is where you could find the enemy. Sometimes, US infantry patrols would intentionally create noise, smoke and dust to bait the enemy into attacking; because that was the only way to smash them in large numbers. Wiping out the guerrillas a few at a time would have taken forever. You should have learned that from the Long Tan battle.

Your infering that the SAS adopted the tactics of the LURPs, when in fact the opposite is the case. US Special Forces doctrine up to 1966 was to establish blocking bases in the Highlands with the assistance of the locals, sit tight,and hope you didn't get overrun by a PAVN regiment on the rampage. LURPs didn't enter the scene until after 1966

I guess you've never heard of Project Delta. They were charged with long range recons for the US infantry brigades until they formed their own LRRPs. They were dispersed all over Vietnam, including Vung Tau in 1965-66.

Montagnards were only effective under American guidance and supply. Staying power for these forces is the key and it was limited

Without artillery and air power, the Aussies had no staying power either. That was demonstrated at Long Tan, Coral and Balmoral.

setting up the greatest folly of the war, the 9th Division in Riverine form (a duplicate Amphibious force)

Who else would do it? In 1965, Westmoreland asked the Australians if they were willing to fight in hot areas like the Mekong Delta or Central Highlands, but they balked. Wilton wanted a quieter area and asked for the Phuoc Tuy province. The terrain was flat, and the land formed a corner on the sea which simplified security. The base at Nui Dat was close to Vung Tau, in case the Australians had to retreat. Wilton's main priority was not defeating the enemy, but keeping casualties to a minimum.

[Andy H]

Lets keep this thread on topic please, otherwise it will be locked

Andy H

[Stu-hun]

You know, it is your own country, you can display your own god damn airplane. Who cares if some old Japanese soldier gets angry because he sees the very object that brought in the nucular age? I though Americans were suppose to be strong and proud of their histroy no matter what occured. Don't go the way of Canada and turn into liberals and socialists, Sentence removed by Moderator

Regards,

Stu