PDA

View Full Version : DANG NAZIS er...J@PS!



sbl
02-12-2007, 09:15 PM
"G&oumltz von Berlichingen" 
17.SS Panzergrenadierdivision 

WWII Reenactors.....in Japan



http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://suzuka.cool.ne.jp/akuyaku/17.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E3%2583%25AA%25E3%2582%25A8%25E3%2 583%258A%25E3%2582%25AF%25E3%2583%2588%25E3%2583%2 5A1%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2583%2588%26start%3D10%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DpxV%26sa%3DN

tompritchett
02-12-2007, 09:26 PM
I wonder how many 100th INf Bn and 442 Regimental Combat team WW II units they have over there.

flattop32355
02-12-2007, 10:39 PM
You have got to be kidding me.

Next, we'll be seeing Japanese Vikings.

huntdaw
02-12-2007, 10:51 PM
They look better than a lot of American WWII German reenactors I 've seen.

AZReenactor
02-13-2007, 09:17 AM
They really do look better than many US German reenactors, don't they...

Reminded me of a fellow who came over from Japan to Arizona in 2005 to reenact with a WWII Japanese Reenacting Unit. He ended up falling in with a confederate outfit as a flag bearer during some of the CW skirmishes.

http://www.americanheritagefestival.com/2005AHF/2005AHFGallery/2005AHFGallery_A.jpg (http://www.americanheritagefestival.com/2005AHF/2005AHFGallery/2005AHFGallery.htm)

It was a little sureal hearing him shouting across the field "Yankee, you go home now or you die." in his very heavy Japanese accent.

FloridaBummer
02-13-2007, 09:50 AM
Yeah I have to agree they look alot better than some of the World War 2 German reenactors. I wonder how high their authenticity is for portraying World War 2 Japanese soldiers. I imagine it would be quite high.
And its got me wondering if they used Japanese soldier reenactors in any of the latest World War 2 movies.I do know they use them for some of the History Channel documentaries. Sometime I saw a site for ACW in Japan. Can't seem to find it though. I'll post it if I find it.
Fascinating!
Regards

bob 125th nysvi
02-13-2007, 03:01 PM
considering the Japanese officially don't talk about WWII, I'd be surprised if there were many reenactor groups portraying Japanese WWII soldiers outside the hard right nationalists.

My nephew spent a year in Japan as an exchange student. beleive me he is no genius when it comes to history (pick anytype) and even his knowledge was massively above and beyond what the Japanese students knew about WWII.

About all they know is we unjustly ended the war by blasting two cities with A-bombs. If they ask much of anything else they are greeted with silence.

flattop32355
02-13-2007, 10:36 PM
About all they know is we unjustly ended the war by blasting two cities with A-bombs. If they ask much of anything else they are greeted with silence.

Funny how we (USA) always end up being the bad guy.

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 06:57 AM
Actually
considering the Japanese officially don't talk about WWII, I'd be surprised if there were many reenactor groups portraying Japanese WWII soldiers outside the hard right nationalists.

My nephew spent a year in Japan as an exchange student. beleive me he is no genius when it comes to history (pick anytype) and even his knowledge was massively above and beyond what the Japanese students knew about WWII.

I suspect that it may have something to do with the shame associated with their part in the war - shame on multiple levels. Based upon certain actions involving a particular war memorial, some could argue that even the highest levels of the current adminstration have yet fully acknowledged 1) the role that Japan's imperialist policies played in bringing about the war in the Pacific and 2) the war crimes that they commited both against allied prisoners of war and against many citizens of mainland China. Then of course, there is the shame of their military in starting a war in which they were ultimately forced to an unconditional surrender. I suspect that it will take at least one more generation before the Japanesse can fully come to grips with their role in WWII.

Robert A Mosher
02-14-2007, 10:47 AM
It was a little sureal hearing him shouting across the field "Yankee, you go home now or you die." in his very heavy Japanese accent.

Reminds me of my old National Guard unit. I was in the Recon platoon with another guy and we were the M-60 gunners on our two jeeps. He was a German refugee from the old Soviet zone whose father disappeared near Leningrad during the war. His grandmother got the two of them out of the Soviet zone to the west and he eventually got to the States.

Once our two jeeps came back from a patrol during an exercise at AP Hill to find some of the leg infantry guys guarding a group of "prisoners." Wolf gets out of his jeep and walks over to take a look at them - after a minute or two he glances around at them one more time and asks in his heavy German accent, "Does anyone here haf any gold teeth?" I glanced at the prisoners and realized that for them this military exercise had taken on a whole new level of 'reality.'

Every once and a while, Wolf would get on the battalion radio net and was almost always followed on the net by someone from battalion HQ demanding to know who the comedian was!

Robert A. Mosher
'Scouts Out!"

Trooper Graham
02-14-2007, 11:11 AM
the war crimes that they commited both against allied prisoners of war and against many citizens of mainland China.


.

...and not just in China Tom. The Phillipinos recieved alot of atrocities too. The nips thought the phillipinos were at the bottom of the sub-human race. I think it was a ratio of 25 to every american pow that died on the death march and in the camps. Gen Homa, CinC of the PI was hanged after the war.

tompritchett
02-14-2007, 12:14 PM
Gen Homa, CinC of the PI was hanged after the war.

but, if I remember correctly, may be listed on the war memorial as "honorable" Japanese dead that the current Prime Minister would visit yearly over the protests of governments such as China and South Korea. I do not remember all the names of the senior Japanese leaders included besides Tojo but I do remember that there were several generals listed who had been executed for their war crimes rather than having been killed in combat. The inclusion of their names generated an International protest which was only magnified when the Prime Minister then decided to add an annual pilgramage to his agenda.

Trooper Graham
02-14-2007, 09:17 PM
but, if I remember correctly, may be listed on the war memorial as "honorable" Japanese dead that the current Prime Minister would visit yearly over the protests of governments such as China and South Korea. I do not remember all the names of the senior Japanese leaders included besides Tojo but I do remember that there were several generals listed who had been executed for their war crimes rather than having been killed in combat. The inclusion of their names generated an International protest which was only magnified when the Prime Minister then decided to add an annual pilgramage to his agenda.

Gen Homma is not one of the 14 class A war criminals enshrined in the Yasukuni Shrine. He was executed by firing squad outside Manila on April 3, 1946.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/135371.htm

Gary
02-14-2007, 10:49 PM
Predominantly Asian units could be fitted into the German ToE if they're protraying asiatic Rooskies who were captured and volunteered for German service. Many of them were captured by the Allies at the Normandy Invasion. When returned to Mother Russia, they were executed by the loving hands of their communist comrades of the NKVD. Long Live Comrade Stalin! :-?

tompritchett
02-15-2007, 12:09 AM
Gen Homma is not one of the 14 class A war criminals enshrined in the Yasukuni Shrine. He was executed by firing squad outside Manila on April 3, 1946.

Thank you for that correction and for the link about the memorial. I was having to go strictly from memory and we know how dangerous that can be at our age.

However, inclusion of the 14 Class A war criminals is just an example of my eariler point about the Japanese still not having fully reconciled themselves to their role in starting the war and their attrocities during it.

Trooper Graham
02-15-2007, 12:38 AM
Thank you for that correction and for the link about the memorial. I was having to go strictly from memory and we know how dangerous that can be at our age.

However, inclusion of the 14 Class A war criminals is just an example of my eariler point about the Japanese still not having fully reconciled themselves to their role in starting the war and their attrocities during it.

The practice of Brushido still exist in the japanese mind and the disgrace of loosing face is still un-exceptable. Surrender (even unconditionally) was disgrace enough in their minds.

reb64
02-15-2007, 01:46 AM
Funny how we (USA) always end up being the bad guy.


Yes i know the war ended, lives may have been saved or not. In any case the dems blew to heck 2 civilian cities. not military targets. thats the legality question. regardless of what they did, we profess to have the higher standard, the geneva convention etc. yet we nuked thousands of women and children. I would have bombed out the imperial palace first w/ conventional weapons and then see .

VA Soldier
02-15-2007, 07:42 AM
In any case the dems blew to heck 2 civilian cities. not military targets.

I see little point in attempting to politicize the decision as it is doubtful that any other course of action would have been taken whether the reps or dems were in office.While the A bomb was seen as a potential means to end the war early, it was just another tool in the American arsenal and given the sentiment of the American people towards the Japs in 45 to have not used it would have resulted in much more scorn (at least within the nation) that not doing so.


Also I am thinking, at least with the first city, there was a munitions plant in that city, and let us not forget that a firebombing of Tokyo a few months priror to the dropping of the A bomb killed many more people than the A bomb itself

Trooper Graham
02-15-2007, 08:30 AM
there was a munitions plant in that city, and let us not forget that a firebombing of Tokyo a few months priror to the dropping of the A bomb killed many more people than the A bomb itself

Hiroshima was a military target. Nagasaki was a mistake...on their part. They didn't think we'd drop a second one.

"If there had not been a Pearl Harbor there would not have been a Hiroshima"

I have no sympathy to anyone who picks a fight and then whines to the world why they lost, especially when that person is deep in blame for cruelity, astocities and murder. If you stop and think hard, Germany and Japan as a country and people both came out smelling like a rose.

flattop32355
02-15-2007, 09:39 AM
Nagasaki was a mistake...on their part. They didn't think we'd drop a second one.

Nagasaki was a secondary target; the primary target city had to be scractched due to weather conditions.

Both cities had war industries. Both had been spared traditional bombing so they would be "pristine" to show the full effects of an atomic blast, so the Japanese government would see what they were facing.

Trooper Graham
02-15-2007, 10:25 AM
Nagasaki was a secondary target; the primary target city had to be scractched due to weather conditions.

Both cities had war industries. Both had been spared traditional bombing so they would be "pristine" to show the full effects of an atomic blast, so the Japanese government would see what they were facing.

I know Nagasaki was the secondary target. I said it was a mistake...on their part. If they had surrendered after Hiroshima the second bomb would not have been dropped regardless where.

Nagasaki had numerious conventual bombings prior to the A Bombing. Hiroshima was picked not only for it's large industrial purposes but it was found to be the only city that did not have any POW camps although they were a few POWs in the local jail at the time.

http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp6.shtml

bob 125th nysvi
02-17-2007, 09:44 PM
Yes i know the war ended, lives may have been saved or not. In any case the dems blew to heck 2 civilian cities. not military targets. thats the legality question. regardless of what they did, we profess to have the higher standard, the geneva convention etc. yet we nuked thousands of women and children. I would have bombed out the imperial palace first w/ conventional weapons and then see .

were VERY legitimate military targets based on war production, military facilities (Hiroshima was HQ for both a Japanese Army and a defense zone) and units stationed in and about the cities.

Furthermore if a government uses it's civilians as shields (example putting war industry facilities in civilian neighborhoods) then it is THAT government's responsibility if they become casualties.

What you are espousing is a rewrite of history to suit a particular academic viewpoint thta became popular in the 60s.

In the 70s I actually wrote a term paper at a catholic university for morality class defending the bombing of the cities after the priest and I got into on this very subject.

Got a b+ for proving my point.

As pointed out we killed more people firebombing Tokoy than we killed in BOTH nuclear attacks combined.

bob 125th nysvi
02-17-2007, 09:47 PM
the Japanese are not the only ones who don't cover history when they are the guilty party.

We do it ourselves by NOT discussing in most schools our many many MANY broken treaties and violations of American laws in our dealings with the natives.

The difference here is you can actually discuss it and learn about it.

There isn't systematic suppression like in Japan.

But we still don't shine a light on it.

Union Navy
02-19-2007, 01:30 PM
Allied casualities for an invasion of the Japanese home islands were estimated as high as as 2,000,000, with up to 500,000 dead. In wartime Japan, there were no civilians. All were being trained to kill the Americans (and British and Australians - the Soviets didn't decide until the end was assured). If they couldn't get an Arisaki, they would use farm implements or pointed sticks. The Emperor ordered it, so they would do it. My father (GM2, USS Hissem) was on his way to Japan for radar picket duty when the war ended. DEs were a favorite target of kamikazes, because they could sometimes sink them with one hit. I'm glad the bombs were dropped, or I might not be here. The Japanese would have fought to the death, as they had been doing all through the war. We actually SPARED a large number of Japanese casualties by convincing them to end the war early.

They would also have shown us no quarter, as they had throughout the war. Whan the gunboat USS Asheville was sunk early in the war, the Japanese selected one man to save for questioning. The rest were left to drown. Even that one man did not survive, as he died in the Ashio copper mines later, where the Japanese sent many Allied prisoners, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Sorry to stray so far from the original topic, but this subject just gets my gutchies in a knot.

Malingerer
02-19-2007, 01:50 PM
Bob,
My Dad was in the pacific serving on a destroyer tender at the end of the war and previousley had been doing destroyer escort duty in both the Pacific and the Atlantic. I think the poster who got your gutchies in such a knot was simply tossing out some flame (and I can guess why) and I would only advise: consider the source.
Hurrah for the Navy!
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

dclarry
02-20-2007, 04:09 PM
The Japanese would have fought to the death, as they had been doing all through the war. We actually SPARED a large number of Japanese casualties by convincing them to end the war early.


I normally would not jump in to a such a hot thread , but I had to jump in here and support Union Navy with his excellent post.

Many historians, amateur or otherwise, who review the decision to drop the bomb on Japan do so looking to find fault with the American decision. If that's your bag, well, I guess you can do that. But at least do it right.

Like Union Navy said, the bomb SPARED more Japanese civilians than it killed. This, actually, is well-known if you do even a modicum of research. Besides the millions of causalities that would result from resisting a US invasion, fighting to the death as we know they would have, there were other ways the bomb spared civilians. One thing I find particularly interesting is that by ending the war when it did, the bomb saved Japan from devestating starvation. By summer 1945, the US Navy had shut down coastal shipping between Japan's home islands and there was no way to ship rice between them. With the war's end, Japan was able to get in the harvest and distribute it. One can make many similar arguments for the bomb sparing civilians, this is just one.

It's true that there were alternatives to dropping an atomic bomb on Japan. One was, of course, an invasion. Another was, since Japan was by summer 1945 completely isolated, to just continue the blockade and let them wither and starve. Yet another was to continue the fire bombing campaign, while, of course, maintaining the blockade. The dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are small compared to the almost unimaginable number of dead any of these three alternatives would have created.

A negotiated end to the war was not an option. Even after the two A-bomb strikes, Japan's military leaders and war cabinet were not fully convinced of the need to surrender. The Emperor himself intervened to end the war.

Yes, the A-bombs killed and injured tens of thousands of civilians, which horrifies us today. But the leaders of the time had long since decided cities and their population were legitimate targets, either by direct bombing or starvation due to blockade. The Japanese gave no quarter to civilians, and in some ways, neither did we. Whatever their value as military targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed to destroy a munitions factory, or whatever, but to kill Japanese and convince their leaders to surrender. It worked; the Emperor stepped up and did the right thing. We don't need to feel guilt or shame about it. If blockade and conventional bombing would have convinced Japan to surrender after a million or so dead, we would have done that, too. In fact, that was 'Plan B'. World leaders in 1945 were cold and calculating, with little more than national interest at heart. Let's just be honest about it and get over it. The A-bomb was not seen as difference in kind only of degree from what the tactics they were already pursuing. It was the efficiency of the killing (one plane, one bomb), not the killing itself, that was the difference.

With the war ending when it did, with little outside help from our allies or intervention by the Soviet Union, America was able to dictate the peace and solely occupy Japan. This may have been the greatest consequence of the Bomb's use, keeping Russia out of Japan. Anybody who argues for letting the war drag on has to accept, as an eventual consequence, a joint occupation of Japan along with Russia. Not a good thing, the Russians would never have left.

Japan is BETTER today because of the Bomb. An honest reading of history makes this clear. It's too bad the Japanese can not face their history honestly.

TimKindred
02-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Comrades,

In fact, the US Military Intelligence folks were aghast when they got into Japan proper after the war and found out what had been awaiting them, had they invaded.

Japan had more than 4000 aircraft, fully armed and fueld and hidden away to use against the invasion force. She had literally thousands of mannded torpedoes, attack boats (small, fast wooden boats with bow charges to ram and sink warchips) and tens of thousands of special "assault mines" for use against landing craft and LST's. These mines were fitted to the ends of long poles, and had a contact fuze, as well as a lanyard for hand-detonation. Both civilians and invalid soldiers were trained to don breathing apparatus (about 45minute's worth of air) and wade out into the sea ahead of the landing craft. When the boats came overhead, the holder blew the mine.

My father was a Pharmacist's Mate on independant duty with the Marines from New Guinea up through Leyte. Afterwards he was assigned to a ship bringing back US POW's. He saw enough that, to this day, he will have nothing to do with any Japanese national.

As to the Nuke attacks, what was said earlier is quite true. Not only were more civilians killed during the incendiary attacks on other Japanese cities, but but more were also killed by the incendiary attacks on Hamburg and Dresden as well. One reason not talked about much when discussing the Nukes, for their employment, was that the US was running low on incendiary weapons, and also had waning stocks of conventional munitions. Either we used the (nuke) bombs soon, or we risked having to scale back operations until sufficient stores could be brought in from state-side.

For an excellent read, go here:

http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/american&military_history/Conversion%20of%20CDR%20Rogers.pdf

This officer's research into WHY the bomb(s) were dropped is very well done, and his logic and findings excellent. It is well worth your time to read. It's a PDF file, and I saved a copy for myself, as I think it's that good.

Respects,

reb64
02-20-2007, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=dclarry]
Like Union Navy said, the bomb SPARED more Japanese civilians than it killed.

While I do not believe in pc or pretend to play arm chair president, and am not for/against the bomb-it happened. However we do not know nor can justify how this saved lives. we can only theorize, suppose and debate. the bomb killed thousands of civilians, women children. it was a harsh punitve measure aimed to end the war by demoralizing the civilian population, plus a excuse to see how the bomb worked. they could have nuked the palace if needing a legitimate target. I don't know when bombing of civilians is ever condoned, ayankee attitude if anything if you take Charleston for example.

reb64
02-20-2007, 10:00 PM
were VERY legitimate military targets based on war production, military facilities (Hiroshima was HQ for both a Japanese Army and a defense zone) and units stationed in and about the cities.

Furthermore if a government uses it's civilians as shields (example putting war industry facilities in civilian neighborhoods) then it is THAT government's responsibility if they become casualties.

What you are espousing is a rewrite of history to suit a particular academic viewpoint thta became popular in the 60s.

In the 70s I actually wrote a term paper at a catholic university for morality class defending the bombing of the cities after the priest and I got into on this very subject.

Got a b+ for proving my point.

As pointed out we killed more people firebombing Tokoy than we killed in BOTH nuclear attacks combined.


spoken like a true yankee, afterall you bombed Charleston, a civilian city interdispersed with some troops. This attitude is prevalent in yankeedom. when a war can't be one militarily, then hit the civilians/morale etc

Robert A Mosher
02-20-2007, 10:05 PM
spoken like a true yankee, afterall you bombed Charleston, a civilian city interdispersed with some troops. This attitude is prevalent in yankeedom. when a war can't be one militarily, then hit the civilians/morale etc

A perfect match of noise to signal.

Robert A Mosher

TimKindred
02-20-2007, 11:37 PM
spoken like a true yankee, afterall you bombed Charleston, a civilian city interdispersed with some troops. This attitude is prevalent in yankeedom. when a war can't be one militarily, then hit the civilians/morale etc

Hmmmm... trying to remember the name of the city that Jubal Early burned down because they wouldn't pay his protection money....

Say there, Reb64,... I believe that Paul Tibbets was a southerner..... you might wanna look that up.

Respects,

sbl
02-21-2007, 06:28 AM
Tim,

Not only Chambersburg, PA.....


American History: 1864 Attack on New York
Manhattan proved an irresistible target for Confederate saboteurs who wanted to set the city ablaze and settle some scores with the Union.
By Phil Scott........

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3027276.html

Pete K
02-21-2007, 07:34 AM
The Confederates also tried to burn the bridges accross the Susquhanna River near Harrisburg in an attack on the capitol of Pennsylvania. Many small fires were set in New York City, and there was the raid on St. Albens, Vermont (a bit north from the theatre of war). Both sides were at war. Civilains on both sides were at risk. That's why it was called the Civil War.

tompritchett
02-21-2007, 11:45 AM
However we do not know nor can justify how this saved lives. we can only theorize, suppose and debate. the bomb killed thousands of civilians, women children. it was a harsh punitve measure aimed to end the war by demoralizing the civilian population, plus a excuse to see how the bomb worked. they could have nuked the palace if needing a legitimate target.

While I will agree that dropping the atomic bombs (as well as the various firebombings mentioned in earler threads) were example of terrorists acts conducted by a state (i.e., direct attacks made primarily against civilian populations for the purpose of changing a government's policy), but I strongly disagree with the remainder of the conclusions. Had we not attacked civilian targets and instead attacked the imperial palace itself, we would not have stopped the war as the senior military staff was not dissuaded at all by the wholescale loss of civilians, but instead, it was the emperor himself that pulled the plug. In fact, once it became apparent that the emperor was going to pull the plug, there was even an attempted military coup the night before his radio surrender broadcast. Had the emperor been killed in an atomic blast, obiviously he would not have been alive to make that broadcast. Even worse, the negative backlash among the Japanese people and the military may have had the exact opposite effect and enraged both to the point that the conquest of Japan may have had to become a total genocide of the Japanese people before there would have been peace. Therefore, IMHO, even though I do classify the use of the atomic bombs as state terroristic acts, I believe that they were the right thing to do at the time and that, in the long run, they saved far many more lives than were killed in those two blasts.

tompritchett
02-21-2007, 11:52 AM
spoken like a true yankee, afterall you bombed Charleston, a civilian city interdispersed with some troops. This attitude is prevalent in yankeedom. when a war can't be one militarily, then hit the civilians/morale etc

Let's not even talk about the attocities committed against citizens by both sides in Kansas and Missouri. As bad as the Lincoln administration was on stomping down on dissent, it actions pale against actions that some Southern states took against their own citizens who disagreed with the ideas of either secession (the Unionist) or just fighting a war against their Northern brothers - a war that the South started - an act of ultimate hubris.

flattop32355
02-21-2007, 05:15 PM
they could have nuked the palace if needing a legitimate target.

Let's take this statement a step further than the surface:

If the Imperial Palace had been nuked as a legitimate military target, would not those civilians still residing in Toyko, the site of the palace, also have been killed along with the Emperor/government? Was Tokyo not a larger city than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, possibly even combined?

All this argument does is change who got killed. Thousands of civilians still die, so there is no difference on that score. And you kill off the one man who could, and did, cause the war to end swiftly. It makes as much sense as assassinating Lincoln.

As for the Evil Yankees, I also seem to recall that JEB Stuart bombarded the town of Carlisle, PA because it refused to allow him in to gather supplies for his men. So it's not all one sided in our war, either.

bob 125th nysvi
02-22-2007, 01:50 PM
spoken like a true yankee, afterall you bombed Charleston, a civilian city interdispersed with some troops. This attitude is prevalent in yankeedom. when a war can't be one militarily, then hit the civilians/morale etc

ever read and research any history or do you get everything spoon fed to you by someone who doesn't know anything?

The fact that civilians get hurt in war is as old as war. The fact that a country can not WAGE war with the contribution of it's civilian population (as in making war material or growing food or providing replacement soldiers) is as old as war itself.

The concept that civilians should NOT be hurt in war goes back to just after the 30 Years War in Europe, never really worked there and was ONLY applied by European powers to WHITE people. It was perfectly ok for non-white civilians to be killed (ask any African/America's tribe, Middle Eastern, Asian sub-continent or Far Eastern person).

And as to yankeedom v secessionists for atrocities ever hear of a little place called Lawrence, KS?

bob 125th nysvi
02-22-2007, 02:10 PM
considering the ferocity of the actual combat, the collateral damage inflicted on the civilian population both intentionally and unintentionally was remarkably light by human standards.

Furthermore the treatment of the losing side by the winning side was remarkably lienient.

It was a relatively civil Civil War.

rbright
02-22-2007, 06:39 PM
As I recall these Japanese reencators could actually be correct as I have seen a picture of actual Japanese in Wehrmact uniforms during the war in Europe.

Your humble servant,
Roger Brightwell, 1 Neb Vol Inf

bulletsponge
02-22-2007, 08:02 PM
Wehrmacht? Are you sure it wasn't SS? Towards the end of the war, Himmler would sign up anybody who wanted to fight communists.

road_apple1861
02-22-2007, 08:37 PM
If the war Hadn't ended and the A-bombs wernt dropped Too many of our boys would have been killed in the Invasion of the Japanese mainland seeing that our conventional bombing really wasnt stopping he Japanese Military