Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting richierich:

Quote:
...but the facts remain that Germany had no chance of taking Britain,

That, I'm afraid, is pure revisionist history.

Britain was on the brink of collapse after non-stop bombing.  Any objective history book paints a very different picture of Britain's ability to continue the fight at the time the U.S entered the war.

I am not and never will be one to arrogantly boast about what we did in Wold War II.  We did what we had to do.  That's all.

I fully agree with you though that I find the "we saved your butt comments" to be nothing short of disgusting.

I have to agree with Rich on this one (mostly anyway). You may have been told we were on the brink of collapse as a way of making entry into the European side of the war more popular with the public, but the truth is we'd managed to successfully hold off Germany's bombing campaign which Hitler abandoned in May 1941. And although the African front would still continue to fluctuate over the years of the war, there again there was no real danger of a "collapse". On the Eastern front, Hitler had seriously underestimated both the Russian winter and the stubborness of it's leaders.
Of course, had the US not formally joined the war it would most likely have dragged on for many more years. And it is very true that without US help it's possible that we would never had defeated Hitler outright, but a stalemate may have been reached instead.
But essentially Rich's statement of Germany never being able to take Britain is true. Barring a change of loyalty from the Soviets I just can't see how that would have happened.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting richierich:

Quote:
...but the facts remain that Germany had no chance of taking Britain,

That, I'm afraid, is pure revisionist history.

Britain was on the brink of collapse after non-stop bombing.  Any objective history book paints a very different picture of Britain's ability to continue the fight at the time the U.S entered the war.

I am not and never will be one to arrogantly boast about what we did in Wold War II.  We did what we had to do.  That's all.

I fully agree with you though that I find the "we saved your butt comments" to be nothing short of disgusting.

I have to agree with Rich on this one (mostly anyway). You may have been told we were on the brink of collapse as a way of making entry into the European side of the war more popular with the public, but the truth is we'd managed to successfully hold off Germany's bombing campaign which Hitler abandoned in May 1941. And although the African front would still continue to fluctuate over the years of the war, there again there was no real danger of a "collapse". On the Eastern front, Hitler had seriously underestimated both the Russian winter and the stubborness of it's leaders.
Of course, had the US not formally joined the war it would most likely have dragged on for many more years. And it is very true that without US help it's possible that we would never had defeated Hitler outright, but a stalemate may have been reached instead.
But essentially Rich's statement of Germany never being able to take Britain is true. Barring a change of loyalty from the Soviets I just can't see how that would have happened.

GSyren,

You have some strange notions about the applicability of the criminal justice system to wartime realities. In your view is it ever proper to hold prisoners during a conflict? Are they to be held to the same standards of proof as in normal civiilian justice system? The Geneva Conventions permit the detention of prisoners for the duration of the conflict

I also should point out that each of the remaining detainees were going to be afforded a status review and then a trial before a properly and lawfully constituted military court - exactly as contemplated by the Geneva Conventions. You seem to be suggesting that this was not happening, that it was insincere, or that detaining them pending a review is unreasonable.

Given that some of these detainees have irrefutably taken up arms again after their release from Gitmo suggests that at least most of the detainees we were more worried about are probably exactly what they seem. Do you have specific reasons to doubt the sincerety of the US process for detaining these prisoners? You haven't mentioned anything specific?

You seem to be suggesting that there is some serious doubt as to the involvement of a significant number of detainees in the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda? I'm aware of a couple of cases where the people claimed to be innocent bystanders who were caught up in the warzone but there was some dispute as to those cases (their stories made little sense). It also bears mentioning that in none of the cases I'm aware of was there any evidence that US forces disregarded clear indications a particular detainee was innocent. Some mistakes were made -- we've released hundreds of the prisoners over the last few years after thoroughly reviewing their cases.

I guess I put more trust in the good faith efforts of my fellow citizens to identify and detain the right people than you seem to. My assumption is that the vast majority of these detainees were engaged in armed conflict against my country whether in Afghanistan or as part of the larger struggle.

I've never been to Sweden nor do I have more than a passing familiarity with your justice system but I assume that pre-trial detention occurs and that in some cases people initially detained are later exonerated and released. Were those people assumed to be guilty? Even knowing fairly little about your legal system and the specific safeguards it provides I am confident that in the vast majority of cases your authorities act in good faith to try to detain and prosecute only guilty people and that those prosecuted receive a fair hearing.

You seem to have an irrational belief that the US troops who chose to detain these prisoners had some nefarious agenda. Why else would you express such profound doubt about their guilt?

You argue that there must be lawful combatants in this war with Al Qaeda (which by the way declared was on the US first and then attacked us demonstrating their weren't kidding) - but I don't see the logic of that point.

A person is (based on their conduct as defined by the treaties) either a lawful or an unlawful combatant (or a civilian). There is no reason you can't theoretically have a conflict where 100% of the combatants are lawful (i.e. unformed soldiers) or a theoretical conflict where 100% are unlawful (i.e. terrorists).

The only "lawful combatants" I can readily ID in the recent conflicts the US engaged in would be the uniformed soldiers of the Iraqi army. They clearly qualified as POWs when captured and were treated as such by our forces - the vast majority were released fairly quickly after the formal end of conventional hostilities. Of course some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraid were mistreated in violation of the treaties and those in our army responsible for those abuses were prosectuted and punished for those violations. Although I should add that I'm not certain any of the abused prisoners were formal POWs or not (but in my view that hardly matters since those abuses were obvious and uncalled for).

If the reality is that you sincerely see the US as a malevolent force in the world and that we have committed some horrible and reckless miscarriage of justice (as opposed to good faith mistakes about the facts) than that's unfortunate. I acknowledge that we have made some errors and that we are not perfect but I feel just as strongly that we have sincerely tried to strike the proper balance between human treatment of these prisoners and the security of our troops and citizens.

This is a sticky and difficult conflict for these issues precisely because our enemies so flagrantly flaunt the rules of war and humane behavior. None of them really come close to qualifying as soldiers. When an enemy sets out to kill innocent civilians as their deliberate goal it makes it very hard to fit them into our categories that civilized nations have agreed to.

Brian

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
But essentially Rich's statement of Germany never being able to take Britain is true. Barring a change of loyalty from the Soviets I just can't see how that would have happened.

Possibly with a very large suction excavator!   

Your theory of a stalemate including a truce would only have worked for a limited time (less than 20 years). Hitler's Germany was highly agressive and expansionistic (Volk ohne Raum). So a fragile truce would have been broken as soon as possible and on the second attempt they would have learned that it was an extremely stupid idea to fight on all sides and possibly would have tried to get the "enemy-countries" one by one. Using any possible pretence to end the truce.
Seeing how the predecessor of the UN did it's job, this probably even would have worked.

So thanks to the USA and their engagement in the, up till then, European war, the allies had the power to end the war, even though it cost a lot of lives.

Whilst I agree that Germany would have been unable to bring Britain to its knees through an invasion, it is also true that (at least from 1941 onwards) the biggest threat to Britain was not invasion, but getting its supply lines cut by the German wolfpacks of U-Boats. If anything, the U-Boats could have brought Britain to its knees. And the US did play a very significant role in this "War in the Atlantic", even before they formally entered the war.

Having said that, I think it's also fair to say that if you would have to name one single country that in the end beat the Nazis, it would have to be the Soviet Union, rather than either the US or Britain. Throughout 1944-1945 around 70% of German resources were concentrated on the Eastern rather than the Western Front (and still they couldn't stop the masses of T-34s the Russians threw at them).

Of course, this is not taking anything away from the sacrifices made by other nations. I for one am very grateful to be living in a free country thanks to the efforts of the British, Canadian, US and Polish forces that liberated it back in '45. 

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Whilst I agree that Germany would have been unable to bring Britain to its knees through an invasion, it is also true that (at least from 1941 onwards) the biggest threat to Britain was not invasion, but getting its supply lines cut by the German wolfpacks of U-Boats. If anything, the U-Boats could have brought Britain to its knees. And the US did play a very significant role in this "War in the Atlantic", even before they formally entered the war.

Having said that, I think it's also fair to say that if you would have to name one single country that in the end beat the Nazis, it would have to be the Soviet Union, rather than either the US or Britain. Throughout 1944-1945 around 70% of German resources were concentrated on the Eastern rather than the Western Front (and still they couldn't stop the masses of T-34s the Russians threw at them).

Of course, this is not taking anything away from the sacrifices made by other nations. I for one am very grateful to be living in a free country thanks to the efforts of the British, Canadian, US and Polish forces that liberated it back in '45. 

Don't forget the over 300.000 German troops tied up in Norway during the final months of the war as part of Hitler's "Festung Norwegen" strategy. 

All very true, whispering and Berak! All goes to show that simplification is the enemy of truth!

Whispering's comments remind me of an old joke that was popular in Poland when it was still under communist rule:

Question: Suppose you're a Polish soldier and once again, Poland is invaded by both the Germans and the Russians. Where are you supposed to go first? The German or the Russian Front?
Answer: the German Front, because duty comes before fun! 

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Correct, we weren't the first or the last or the only ones to comit war crimes, but we were the first to give it industrial standards.

Why we? Were you part of it?