Did we win the hearts and minds of the axis forces or bomb them into submission killing millions of civilians.

Question

Are we forgetting how we won ww2 . Fire bombing entire cities . This worked .
Vietnam and Korea failed with the kinder and genteeler war which tried to win the hearts and minds of the people .

The only kind of war that wins is the kind that bombs people till they say ok we will do whatever you want please stop killing us . Then for good measure a few more deaths, hangings ,and trials to keep the people in line .

A permanent occupation like we have in Germany will not work in Iraq till we bomb them into complete submission .

Answer 1

I agree; we bombed Dresden to the ground, bombed Monte Cassino into a mess, used flamethrowers and hand grenades to kill Japanese soldiers in Iwo Jima, Tarawa and Guadalcanal and we firebombed Tokyo into Hell (more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo (100,000) than in Nagasaki (70,000))

War is not pretty and people die; that's what war is all about; as General Patton said; "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."; soldiers are trained to kill the enemy in brutal fashion and break stuff beyond repair, not to be handing out chocolates and building schools; that's what the Peace Corps is for.

The way you win wars is by inflicting such death and destruction on the enemy, that they will lose all taste for combat and surrender.

Answer 2

Really like mass murder of innocents, don't you?

So all the 3 year olds who have done nothing, should be slaughtered.

Fortunately, not everyone is a brutal, mindless, hate-filled sub-human, so Bush wouldn't be able to get away with it.

What won the hearts and minds of Germans was the Marshall Plan after the war, that helped them rebuild, and have a robust economy.

Vietnam and Korea were not kinder or gentler, as we DID bomb, and drop Napalm on a lot of area and a lot of people. Only one of many legitimate reasons why everyone in the world hates us.

As for Iraq:

We illegally and immorally invaded a country that wasn't threatening us.

We gave their resources to known thieves, and put the country in control of a bunch of liars, thieves, and murderers that the people had no respect for or faith in.

We completely mis-managed everything after that -- rounding up people and torturing and raping them for months, when they had done nothing wrong; firing all the people of one sub-group within the country, thus fomenting sectarian violence; destroyed their infrastructure, and slaughtered non-combatants by the hundreds of thousands.

That's why they want us out.

Committing even more Crimes Against Humanity is NOT the answer, but simply makes everything worse.

Why do I bother.

Apparently the only thing you value is brutality and slaughter.

Some of us have at least a shred of human decency -- some even more than that.

Answer 3

World Wars One and Two were fought for completely different reasons to Korea and Vietnam. The World Wars were fought because contries were attacking American TERRITORY. This meant that the desired outcome was the complete destruction of the enemies ability to 'wage war'.

Korea and Vietnam were fought because the SOME of the people chose a political position opposed to that of the US. Thus, the desired outcome was to 'change the minds' of the SOME of the people.

You can only win a war in which you can succesfully choose your enemy.

In Korea, it was political, but with clear boundaries. The US then won.

In Vietnam and Iraq, the enemy, and the oppressed people, were and are mixed. Thus, the US can only ever shoot second, which is a ridiculous way to wage war.

The only way to win, is either leave them to kill themselves, or accept collateral.

Answer 4

I think there is much to agree with in your statement.

General Sherman basically said that winning a war is not done by winning hearts and minds but by so brutalizing and demoralizing the enemy that their grandchildren will still be afraid to pick up arms.

He also said "war is hell." His march through Georgia was brutal, and did go far to end the Civil War. Controversy about it still rages in some circles. But it worked.

Sherman's message could be read as saying, essentially, "don't fight unless you willing to do whatever it takes, no matter how brutal, to prevail."

Actually, the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities killed more than the attacks on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The message was "surrender, or we will utterly destroy your country and kill all your people." The Germans and Japanese were no more restrained than we were, just less capable of inflicting similar destruction at the end.

The rules of engagemrent in Iraq have been relaxed but are probably still much more restrictive than those of WWII. We are trying to prove we are humanitarians, but instead seem to be perceived as showing weakness.

Answer 5

Yes we did bomb cities in WWII but we were in all out war not a police action. Also remember that after we did conquor the enemy in WWII we were greeted as liberators. I doubt that is the feeling of anyone in Iraq right now. Comparing the world wars to any of the smaller conflicts is like comparing apples to oranges. This mess in Iraq is even smaller than Korea or Vietnam.

Answer 6

I do not particularly care by some means what non-navy individuals consider of him. Their reviews don't rely i this subject. However, as a peace-time and struggle-time veteran myself, I could name this Sailor a Veteran. He enlisted and served ample time to be legally a Veteran. During the historical past of the United States, there were hundreds and hundreds of 1000's of Servicemen who both served best for the duration of peace-time or in no way went downrange for the duration of struggle-time - they're all Veterans. All that mentioned, I am stressed approximately this PO3 factor. That is an automated merchandising after a designated time period of Serivce - except the Commander says no. From your tale, I simply don;t recognize why he didn't pin on his PO3 - whatever is up. BTW: it's "honorable" discharge, no longer "honorary" - that implies whatever fully exclusive.

Answer 7

There is a lot of truth in what you say. We would easily have won Korea and Vietnam if we had fought with the same passion and tactics we used in WW1 and WW2. We were not allowed to, just as we are not allowed to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Liberal bleeding heart democrats think all we have to do is talk with Al Quaida or Taliban and we can convince them that killing is wrong. Hah!!! There is no reasoning with a Muslim bigot. None. We will lose again in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we lost in Korea and Vietnam, because of people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who are traitors to all the US stands for

Answer 8

The difference would be that we were at war with Japan and Germany and their governments were intact. The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have been removed and replaced, unlike those in WWII. We are currently fighting an insurgent force and an ideology, not a country andf it's government.

Answer 9

We were not out to win the Hearts and minds of the Germans, the goal was to completely defeat them. Our enemies then got what they deserved, they gave no quarter to us in the war.

Answer 10

I think the wars that you are talking about are very different from the World Wars.