View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
From: daniel spector <email@example.com> Subject: Re: REPLY: Weapons--Napalm/Flamethrowers Date: March 5, 2010 7:09:52 PM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Fire evokes primal human responses of horror. Hell is described as eternal burning, and no one can view the fire bombings of Germany and Japan without reacting to that horror. Even the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viewed as more an extension of incineration to a larger scale rather than nuclear war. The residual effects of radiation come later and do not get the visceral attention of the vision of a city disintegrating or a Vietnamese girl running naked after a napalm attack. Incidentally, my daughter and grandson perished in a house fire ten years ago, so I am probably more attentive to fire as a weapon than most. As a former Chemical Corps historian, I also recall that napalm was an invention of the Chemical Warfare Service. I grew up in Oak Ridge, home of the Manhatten Project. All of us need to step back from our experiences, put them aside as best we can, and evaluate use of weapons in war as what they are---weapons designed to cause dramatic and horrifying punishment of adversaries, including non combatants in the line of fire. These are very important discussions. Best Dan Spector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Hendrix" <hendsn1@GMAIL.COM> From: James Ward <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: REPLY: Weapons--Napalm/Flamethrowers Date: March 4, 2010 5:00:09 PM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Those more expert on the list, please correct what follows as once again the texts are in the office at school and I'm not. That said, I remember being gripped many, many years ago by descriptions of the firebombings of Hamburg (1943) and Dresden (1945) that included putatively first-hand accounts of civilians (plus block wardens, firefighters, first aid workers, et al.) being incinerated by phosphorus, presumably from the blankets of incendiaries being dropped, and finding to their despair that even immersion in rivers and canals provided no relief. Much more recent reading on the strategic bombing program against Germany informed me of reservations some (by no means all, and possibly not even many) RAF and 8th AAF flyers held knowing that their payloads would incinerate civilians in ghastly ways, in addition to the primary objectives of their missions. This may be a footnote to the larger thread as it twists and turns, and by no means am I suggesting we open the door to the relativization of suffering (Joerg Friedrich et seq.). Nor does it address the war in the Pacific, which may have been worse. But those schoolboy memories are still with me. James J. Ward Professor of History Director, Honors Program Cedar Crest College 100 College Drive Allentown, PA 18104-6196 USA tel 610 437 4471 x 3402 fax 610 606 4614 email@example.com Original Message: >>> Scott Hendrix <hendsn1@GMAIL.COM> 03/04/10 3:17 PM >>> From: Abrigon Gusiq <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: REPLY: Weapons--Napalm/Flamethrowers (5 Responses) Date: March 3, 2010 6:32:23 PM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Recent article in I believe World War 2, has an article on who used inhuman versus non-inhuman weapons.. Oddly the US used flamethrowers, while the Japanese and Germans did not, or not as much? Flame throwers are alot more effective than Tunnel Rats? But a very brutal weapon. True it is less brutal than Anthrax, Chemical Weapons and Nuclears.. The Japanese I understand was very close to having a nuclear weapon, but was short on raw materials to make it so. And was very close to having antrax and other bio-weapons, with camps in Manchuria where they had tested its effect on Chinese and Allied Prisoners.. I could understand part of why Napalm is on the prohbbited list, is likely in part due to its over use in US/allies movies? Napalm and some soon to be dead human dying from a clinging oily substance, having shades of the later Buddist Monks burning themselves up in Vietnam? The fun of living in a visual instantaneous world? Also I expect the US found other weapons to do much the same job? Or what? Mike Adams Alaska ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----