Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by VeenenbergR »

Ok Guys, it is on again.

Karl must be respected because of his phenomenal knowledge of WWII, if he is pro German biased and if most of the others ar pro British or pro American biased: YES!
I am Dutch so I have no particular sympathies.
Have always stressed and underlined that the German Army endured far more stress than any other army in WWII.
So the Kiev Pocket of 1941 for the Soviets and Stalingrad, Cherkassy, Sevastopol, Vitebsk, Orsja, Bobruisk, Minsk, Brody, Kishinev, Belgrado, Budapest, Königsberg, Breslau and Berlin/ Halbe were
the most stressfull battles of WWII especially for the loosing and trapped encircled Germans......

Bastogne is indeed laughable compared to the monstrous and terrible slaughterhouses mentioned above: both to the time period involved and the scale of units involved.
The US encircled regiments of the 106th in the Schnee Eifel and their road towards a POW camp: a holliday trip compared to the German ordeals and their transport to Siberia.
The American POW's were treated well like the Germans in the US. In the USSR, Yugoslavia and France the German POW's faced a terrible treatment: each day of survival was a miracle.

The US army was the best fed and supplied army of WWII, where the Germans were never in such a situation at all.
It is the same comparison for the psychological terrible circumstances of living for the hunted U-boat crew: most went mad!!!
Or taking off in a Focke Wulf with 100 buddies and have to face 1000 heavy bombers and their swarms of escorts........

The Germans performed GREAT when taking this in consideration: always outnumbered, always bad supplied and STILL making a good stand until mid 1944!!
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by boredatwork »

VeenenbergR wrote:Ok Guys, it is on again.
I am Dutch so I have no particular sympathies.
Have always stressed and underlined that the German Army endured far more stress than any other army in WWII.
The Japanese Soldier cut off on an island in the Pacific somewhere with few supplies, facing superior numbers of American troops backed up by the awesome firepower of the US Navy, WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, might disagree that you're not biased towards the German army.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by mkenny »

VeenenbergR wrote: Have always stressed and underlined that the German Army endured far more stress than any other army in WWI.
So the Kiev Pocket of 1941 for the Soviets and Stalingrad, Cherkassy, Sevastopol, Vitebsk, Orsja, Bobruisk, Minsk, Brody, Kishinev, Belgrado, Budapest, Königsberg, Breslau and Berlin/ Halbe were
the most stressfull battles of WWII especially for the loosing and trapped encircled Germans......
The poor dears.......however they were there BY CHOICE.
They CHOSE to invade Poland.
They CHOSE to invade Russia
They CHOSE to declare war on the USA.
Are you seriously saying this dumb nation that took on the 4 major powers in 1939-41 should be given credit for being so stupid?
They were always going to lose and all the 'stress' was due to their own incompetance. Should we have an award for the stupidist High Command because there is no real contest..............
How about some sympathy for the stress endured by the people of:
Poland
France
Holland
Belgium
Denmark
Greece
Crete
Norway
Egypt
Yugoslavia
Russia.

Why not laud the courage of the millions and millions of civilians who had to endure the heel of these disgusting invaders?
No somehow I think you care nothing for the death and destruction your favourites visited on them. Nothing matters other than the 'stress' felt by these poor German soldiers.
VeenenbergR wrote:Bastogne is indeed laughable compared to the monstrous and terrible slaughterhouses mentioned above: both to the time period involved and the scale of units involved.
The US encircled regiments of the 106th in the Schnee Eifel and their road towaord a POW camp: a holliday trip compared to the German ordeals and their transport to Siberia.
The 'laughable' bit is the fact no one is claiming it was. A fan boy brought it up so he could rant and rail against it. It is a figment of his imagination and he is arguing against his own staw man.
By the way how does the trip to Siberia compare to the fate suffered by the millions of innocent civilians who died at the hands of the poor suffering stressed Germans?
Do you not think their suffering was 100 times worse than these poor 'stressed' German POW's?
VeenenbergR wrote:The US army was the best fed and supplied army of WWII, where the Germans were never in such a situation at all.
Then you should vent your wrath on the totaly inept Generals who allowed their men to get in such a state. A state they CHOSE to enter.

VeenenbergR wrote:It is the same comparison for the psychological terrible circumstances of living for the hunted U-boat crew: most went mad!!!
Or taking off in a Focke Wulf with 100 buddies and have to face 1000 heavy bombers and their swarms of escorts........
Or the stress suffered by the CIVILIAN Merchant seamen who died because these 'brave' Germans attacked their defenceless ships?

VeenenbergR wrote:The Germans performed GREAT when taking this in consideration: always outnumbered, always bad supplied and STILL making a good stand until mid 1944!!
All the problems endured by the Germans were a result of their own CHOICES. Nobody forced them into anything. I would have thought any state that allowed itself to get into such a position can not be called good at anything. They were the most inept, backward looking and stupidest people every if they thought they had the remotest chance of winning the war.
The war was lost by 1943 and though there are those who claim the 1944-45 fighting 'proved' how good the Germans were you have to ask how could prolonging the war for an extra year (at least), getting about another 2 million of your citizens killed, your country totally destroyed, murdering civilians right up to the last day be something fit for admiration?
What did Germany get in April 1945 that she could not have got in January 1944?
Show me how Germany was better off by fighting to the end?
Please do not ramble on about 'military efficency' and ignore the extra millions who died as if they counted for nothing.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by alecsandros »

boredatwork wrote: The Japanese Soldier cut off on an island in the Pacific somewhere with few supplies, facing superior numbers of American troops backed up by the awesome firepower of the US Navy, WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, might disagree that you're not biased towards the German army.
The comparison between the forces involved in the Pacific and the European theatre is not valid.
Surely, you must have had something else in mind than implying that the "Japanese soldiers were harder pressed than the German ones". If you meant the perception of the Japanese soldier was that he faced overwhelming forces, you are obviously correct. But with commong places like this we aren't getting anywhere. After all, we (or at least I) aren't judgind based upon perceptions, but on available historiography. And it's modern historiography that shows us the amount of forces involved in defeating the Nazis and the Japanese (and there is a considerable difference between them).
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
The poor dears.......however they were there BY CHOICE.[...]
Then you should vent your wrath on the totaly inept Generals who allowed their men to get in such a state. A state they CHOSE to enter.
All the problems endured by the Germans were a result of their own CHOICES. Nobody forced them into anything. I would have thought any state that allowed itself to get into such a position can not be called good at anything. They were the most inept, backward looking and stupidest people every if they thought they had the remotest chance of winning the war.
The word "choice", in your mind, has such a power that you actualy believe it to work in a real dictatorship.

Consider the following scenario: you must join the army or be executed. If you will be executed, your wife will be sent to forced labor, where she will most likely die.
Where is your choice there?

Or perhaps, consider the following: a general is asked to hold a small piece of land north of Stalingrad. If he retreats, he will be court martialed and executed. His loyal officers will suffer the same faith. Where is his choice ? His real choice ?

The point: Talking about "choices" during war is like talking about smart revisionists: there aren't any.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

VeenenbergR wrote:Ok Guys, it is on again.

Karl must be respected because of his phenomenal knowledge of WWII,
Wrong again. I respect Karl but not for that reason nor is that reason sufficent to require respect.
if he is pro German biased and if most of the others ar pro British or pro American biased: YES!
It's not at all clear to me what you mean by this.
I am Dutch so I have no particular sympathies.
??? Karl is from Cost Rica what does that have to do with anything.
Have always stressed and underlined that the German Army endured far more stress than any other army in WWII.
And as others have pointed out you are wrong. But why is that relevant?
So the Kiev Pocket of 1941 for the Soviets and Stalingrad, Cherkassy, Sevastopol, Vitebsk, Orsja, Bobruisk, Minsk, Brody, Kishinev, Belgrado, Budapest, Königsberg, Breslau and Berlin/ Halbe were
the most stressfull battles of WWII especially for the loosing and trapped encircled Germans......
That's your opinion. Not at all clear why we should share it though.
Bastogne is indeed laughable compared to the monstrous and terrible slaughterhouses mentioned above:
You have an odd sense of humor.
The US encircled regiments of the 106th in the Schnee Eifel and their road towards a POW camp: a holliday trip compared to the German ordeals and their transport to Siberia.
The American POW's were treated well like the Germans in the US. In the USSR, Yugoslavia and France the German POW's faced a terrible treatment: each day of survival was a miracle.
And your point is?
The US army was the best fed and supplied army of WWII, where the Germans were never in such a situation at all.
Never? I'm not so sure of that. In any case isn't that a sign of a good army? IE they take care of their men.
... The Germans performed GREAT when taking this in consideration: always outnumbered, always bad supplied and STILL making a good stand until mid 1944!!
In some cases. But I'm not sure exactly what you point is.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:
boredatwork wrote: The Japanese Soldier cut off on an island in the Pacific somewhere with few supplies, facing superior numbers of American troops backed up by the awesome firepower of the US Navy, WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT TO THE DEATH, might disagree that you're not biased towards the German army.
The comparison between the forces involved in the Pacific and the European theatre is not valid.
Of course it is when responding to as broad a statment as was posted.
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by VeenenbergR »

mkenny wrote:
The war was lost by 1943 and though there are those who claim the 1944-45 fighting 'proved' how good the Germans were you have to ask how could prolonging the war for an extra year (at least), getting about another 2 million of your citizens killed, your country totally destroyed, murdering civilians right up to the last day be something fit for admiration?
What did Germany get in April 1945 that she could not have got in January 1944?
Show me how Germany was better off by fighting to the end?
Please do not ramble on about 'military efficency' and ignore the extra millions who died as if they counted for nothing.
mkenny: this was always my own point of view: mid 44 the Germans should have capitulated and 80% of the German cities: Magdeburg (45), Dresden (45), Würzburg (45), Nürnberg (44), Breslau (45) and imposing Berlin (43, 44 and 45) were nowadays STUNNING interesting and beautiful cities compared to what they are now: all historic glamour and beauty gone and they all are boring modern nowadays like a dead skeleton........ and 1,500.000 million soldiers still alive instead of KIA and 1.250.000 soldiers which would not have been starved in POW camps and 2 million soldiers healthy instead of wounded and 1.0000.000 civilians alive instead of killed by bombardments and Soviet troops and 2.000.000 civilians alive and not killed by faminine and extermination from the Eastern part of Germany. The last year was the most destructive for germany of them all.

German military death mid 44: 1.500.000 (compared to the 5,3 million when fighting to the bitter end). Civilian death mid 44: 150.000 compared to the 3.000.000 at the end of WWII and its bloody aftermath.

So don't tell me how to see it: we share the same viewpoints.

Iwd: you are a most respected criticaster, but now I don't can see you are right...... those many huge German cauldrons WITH the isolated Japanese beleaguered strongholds WERE the most terrible and sad places of WWII (on the military side).
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:
Consider the following scenario: you must join the army or be executed. If you will be executed, your wife will be sent to forced labor, where she will most likely die.
Where is your choice there?
Are you really saying this wonderful military Machine you spend so much time lauding did that?
Why then do you have any admiration for it.
Surely it was a brutal evil establishment that should be condemed?
alecsandros wrote:Or perhaps, consider the following: a general is asked to hold a small piece of land north of Stalingrad. If he retreats, he will be court martialed and executed. His loyal officers will suffer the same faith. Where is his choice ? His real choice ?
Get taken prisoner perhaps?
Maybe not execute hundreds of civilians or steal all their food and shelter and leave then to starve to death in the cold?
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote:The comparison between the forces involved in the Pacific and the European theatre is not valid.
Surely, you must have had something else in mind than implying that the "Japanese soldiers were harder pressed than the German ones". If you meant the perception of the Japanese soldier was that he faced overwhelming forces, you are obviously correct. But with commong places like this we aren't getting anywhere. After all, we (or at least I) aren't judgind based upon perceptions, but on available historiography. And it's modern historiography that shows us the amount of forces involved in defeating the Nazis and the Japanese (and there is a considerable difference between them).
Indeed I did have something else in mind - I'm not trying to imply that Japanese soldiers were harder pressed than the German ones - I'm implying that Veenenberg has not provided anything beyond his opinion to proove that they weren't.

VeenenbergR sated:
VeenenbergR wrote: Have always stressed and underlined that the German Army endured far more stress than any other army in WWII.
He didn't define what he meant by the word stress. He didn't specify European armies. He did however cite individual battles:
So the Kiev Pocket of 1941 for the Soviets and Stalingrad, Cherkassy, Sevastopol, Vitebsk, Orsja, Bobruisk, Minsk, Brody, Kishinev, Belgrado, Budapest, Königsberg, Breslau and Berlin/ Halbe were the most stressfull battles of WWII especially for the loosing and trapped encircled Germans......
I think in the absence of any defined standard one could present Okinawa, Pelilieu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Manchuria, etc as evidence where soldiers in other armies fought battles every bit as "stressful" as any the germans fought, on a man for man basis.
The Germans performed GREAT when taking this in consideration: always outnumbered, always bad supplied and STILL making a good stand until mid 1944!!
And (almost) always on the defensive. It's certainly alot easier to generate favorable kill ratios when you're hiding in a log bunker shooting at troops advancing in the open coming to you. They certainly didn't always perform that GREAT when attacking - for instance at Stalingrad, or at Kursk, or during the Siege of Tobruk, or attacking in Normandy, Salerno, or Anzio.

Likewise considering they were "always outnumbered", usually even worse off supplied, without the benefits of *ANY* air support - especially not even Rudel and his stuka wing - without the benefit of weapons remotely comparable in quality to their opponents, much less the wunderwaffen Tiger Tanks and Me262s that you folk have been trumpetting and yet the Japanese still managed to make "good stands" (if foolish ones) right up till early 1945.


VeenenbergR wrote:...if he is pro German biased and if most of the others ar pro British or pro American biased: YES!
I am Dutch so I have no particular sympathies...
Undoubtably we are all biased to a degree - as I have asked Karl multiple times in this thread however how can YOU be so certain that YOU are sufficiently unbiased to make an absolute judgement on other's biases relative to Historical "truth," whatever that may be??
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by VeenenbergR »

Boredatwork wrote:
And (almost) always on the defensive. It's certainly alot easier to generate favorable kill ratios when you're hiding in a log bunker shooting at troops advancing in the open coming to you. They certainly didn't always perform that GREAT when attacking - for instance at Stalingrad, or at Kursk, or during the Siege of Tobruk, or attacking in Normandy, Salerno, or Anzio.
NO ....definitely NOT!!!! All German defensive battles from mid 1944 on did cost them MORE casualties than the attackers. IF you are hiding in a bunker and can see only a small part of the surrounding and you are attacked by artillery......each shell can detonate and make an end at your life. If you go outside they shoot you.....if you stay inside they will blind you with smoke, throw handgrenades inside or a flame thrower will burn you or a long time will blast you to hell. The STRESS must be enormous inside........ The attackers however are outside in the open. THEY decide when to assault the bunker. They can rest and wait..... they watch the entrances...... So psychologically the attackers are in a far better position than the defenders.

I was in the bunkers in Normandy in 2005 and inside I felt not pretty save, knowing an enemy army was all around the forifications. It is also a matter of time to be killed or forced to surrender. If you come outside what will then happen to you???? Will they shoot you???

The Germans were shelled day and night, strafed by airplanes day and night...... their cities (wifes, children and parents) were burned in Germany...... bombed out. They were at the front and if in the East they could be overrun by hordes of tanks, waves of attack or be shelled by artillery barrages.....the only thing they will do to you is shoot you!!!!!

When will you finally understand that life in the German army (and Germany) was very hard and each one was waiting for his death....if you tried to flee you were shot by the Feldtgendarmerie or by partisans or the enemy.

Cint Eastwood made it clear that being on Iwo Jima, the Japanese soldier either were killed by enemy barrages, or had to commit suicide or when surrendering were killed by the Marines which had no care for an ordinary Japanese soldier...... (human life).

In the enormous German cauldron (pocket) battles the STRESS was enormous, the mass dying of fleeing soldiers the thousands of wounded, the slaying of the ones which surrendered.....the hunger, the humilation, the fear can not be described. The only thing they could do is staying together and fight for your life. They were with 200.000 in Stalingrad, with 200.000 near Minsk, with 200.000 around Kishinev, with 200.000 in Heiligenbeil Ost Preussen, with 200.000 around Halbe and in each of these battles they died almost all, the surrendered were enslaved and died of malnutrition, sickness, stress a.s.o.
It was all over within a couple of weeks. Only in the pocket of Stalingrad it ook a much longer time to perish: a slower but sure death.

The 200.000 surrendered in France in the summer/fall 44 were much more lucky than the 5 cases in the East.

The soldiers of the USA and Britain never experienced something like this....it happened rather frequently to the German Army.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by boredatwork »

VeenenbergR wrote:NO ....definitely NOT!!!! All German defensive battles from mid 1944 on did cost them MORE casualties than the attackers.

Kindly note my post was in response to YOUR statement in which YOU specifically said
VeenenbergR wrote:STILL making a good stand until mid 1944!!
If you're going to advance counter arguments please be sure you read what I'm arguing before replying.

Even then I did not say being on defense means you suffer fewer casualties than the attackers - I said more favourable kill ratios.

An army outnumbered 10:1 who achieves a 1:1 kill ratio on the defense is doing better than an army outnumbered 10:1 inflicting casualties at a 1:4 rate because they left their dug-in advantage and decided to go onto the attack where the superior firepower of the larger side can more effectively be brought against them. Again look at the Japanese - how few casualties their futile Banzai charges inflicted upon the US Marines at Guadalcanal versus how many casualties those same troop inflicted when fighting defensively against much better equipped and supported Marines in the later island battles.

Likewise the Germans had inflicted huge casualties against the soviets in 1941 - however the ratio would have been even higher if the same poorly led, poorly maintained soviet army had attacked Germany instead.
IF you are hiding in a bunker and can see only a small part of the surrounding and you are attacked by artillery......each shell can detonate and make an end at your life. If you go outside they shoot you.....if you stay inside they will blind you with smoke, throw handgrenades inside or a flame thrower will burn you or a long time will blast you to hell. The STRESS must be enormous inside........ The attackers however are outside in the open. THEY decide when to assault the bunker. They can rest and wait..... they watch the entrances...... So psychologically the attackers are in a far better position than the defenders.
IF you are attacking you can't rely that the opening bombardment will have killed all the opposition - as battles from the Somme to Goodwood have shown. You can't be certain of where the enemy minefields are or their extent. You can't be certain that you know all of the enemy's positions - indeed more often as not your first indication you're underfire is after the ambush has been sprung, when a machine gun has killed a dozen men or an anti tank gun has disabled a handfull of tanks. Unless your liberating your own part of your own country chances are the defenders have more knowledge of the local terrain than you do, have predicted potential avenues of attack and pre-plotted artillery targets. Being out in the open makes you more vulnerable to the limited defensive artillery, yet being dug in makes the defender less vulnerable to yours, assuming of course you haven't already advanced beyond your artillery.
The Germans were shelled day and night, strafed by airplanes day and night...... their cities (wifes, children and parents) were burned in Germany...... bombed out. They were at the front and if in the East they could be overrun by hordes of tanks, waves of attack or be shelled by artillery barrages.....the only thing they will do to you is shoot you!!!!!
The Russians were shelled day and night, strafed by airplanes day and night...... their villages (wifes, children and parents) were burned in the occupied territories.... bombed, shelled, or arsoned out. They were at the front could be overrun by hordes of tanks, waves of attack or be shelled by artillery barrages.....the only thing they will do to you is shoot you!!!!!

Again, what makes the Germans special?
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
Are you really saying this wonderful military Machine you spend so much time lauding did that?
Why then do you have any admiration for it.
Surely it was a brutal evil establishment that should be condemed?
Very good question. I thank you for it, because I can explain my point of view more clearly:
My orientation towards the German army comes strictly from a military/managerial perspective, definetely not from a political one. That is, I admire the skills, capabilities and results achieved by the officers and men who served in the navy, LW or land forces.
The Machine which you refer to was a monstrous construction, designed to crush individuality and the human spirit, just as every other dictatorship of the XXth century did. Despicable.

If you see me from time to time arguing on political issues ("HItler was a retard" for instance) it's because I have different sources, and experiences, not because I am in any way emotionaly attached to Nazism.

Hope this helps,
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

VeenenbergR wrote: .. those many huge German cauldrons WITH the isolated Japanese beleaguered strongholds WERE the most terrible and sad places of WWII (on the military side).
Were they? How do they compare to Iwo Jima or Okinawa? Or for that matter the Soviet "cauldrons"? Of course I'm still not sure exactly what relevance all this has.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

VeenenbergR wrote:... All German defensive battles from mid 1944 on did cost them MORE casualties than the attackers.
I simplly can't believe this is correct. Indeed didn't the Soviets loose more men that the Germans in even the final battle for Berlin?
IF you are hiding in a bunker and can see only a small part of the surrounding and you are attacked by artillery......each shell can detonate and make an end at your life. If you go outside they shoot you.....if you stay inside they will blind you with smoke, throw handgrenades inside or a flame thrower will burn you or a long time will blast you to hell. The STRESS must be enormous inside........ The attackers however are outside in the open. THEY decide when to assault the bunker. They can rest and wait..... they watch the entrances...... So psychologically the attackers are in a far better position than the defenders.
NO. If you are out in the open you have no protection and you have no idea where the next shot is coming from. For every reason you give for the defender being stressed a similar one can be made for the attacker.
...When will you finally understand that life in the German army (and Germany) was very hard and each one was waiting for his death....if you tried to flee you were shot by the Feldtgendarmerie or by partisans or the enemy.
And this was different from other armies how? In particualar one could argue that the Red army was even worse in this regard.
Cint Eastwood made it clear that being on Iwo Jima, the Japanese soldier either were killed by enemy barrages, or had to commit suicide or when surrendering were killed by the Marines which had no care for an ordinary Japanese soldier...... (human life).
Obviously we have different defintions of "made it clear". Note that the main chararater in that movie survived. Furthermore it was a Hollywood production.
...The soldiers of the USA and Britain never experienced something like this.....
You need to do a bit more reading if you think that. Try the following subbjects: Singapore, Bataan, and Wake for a start.
Post Reply