Why do american soldiers fight like cowards?

Yowsie

Your generalization of the American Soldier is ridiculous if not ignorant of the facts.In every army that has ever fought throughout history you will find cowards if you look hard enough,sure the Germans had less soldiers on the Western front that's because it was shorter by half than the Eastern front (and the soviets had more than 500 rifle divisions and over 44 tank and mechanized corp!!!) All armies will take advantage of air superiority and bombard the enemy before they send in ground troops i cant think of a country that did not.As far as bravery goes how do you explain the bravery of the 1st Marine division in its defense of Guadalcanal?Or the D-Day assault on the heavily defended Omaha beach which they still took despite over 4,000 casualities ,Or the 101st Airborne division in its epic battle of Bastogne which they held against no less than elements of 6 German Divisions(including Panzer Lehr,SS Leibstandarte,SS Das Reich,SS Hohenstaufen,2nd Panzer Division,or in other words the cream of the German Panzerwaffe)Or the brave 8th air force B-17 bomber raids in broad daylight over Germany and despite heavy casualties they continued untill the end of the war and never turned back once,or the one way mission flown by Colonel James H Dolittles B-25 bomber squadron against Tokyo on April 18 1942,or the august 1943 B-24 bomber raid on the Polesti oil fields which was defended by an entire Flak Division and in broad daylight and at a very low altitude,should i go continue?Even the enemy openly aknowledged the bravery of Americans such as Field Marshal von Rundstedt,Field Marshal Rommel,Field Marshal Kesselring,Admiral Yamamoto,SS General Hausser(the father of the Waffen SS) and finally General Dietrich commander of the 6th SS Panzer Army when asked during the battle of the Bulge why he had not captured the Elsenborn ridge he stated that 'it was not easy overunning the Americans as their soldiers were just as good as ours'.In Iraq i see no cowardice they are well trained and disciplined with a far superior officer corp than they had during the Vietnam war and as far as guerrilla warfare goes of course civilians will get killed, name one war where civilians were not caught in a crossfire or killed in air or artillery bombardments?

Stampy Skunk

Thats not a cowardly tactic, thats a smart tactic to use air superiority..... plus we dont kill many civilians over in Iraq.... I was there.... so I can tell you the truth, not the lies the media reports..... also before you call any american soldier a coward how about you join any branch on the military and put your life on the line for a year or more like I have..... you have some nerve calling americans soldiers cowards!!

beardog4314

If you aren't a coward, then maybe you should look one in the eye and ask.

P.S. The Russians got their butts kicked all the way to Moscow in that war.

joe t

well I can tell you have never been a soldier,or the parent of a soldier.the reason the soviets didnt do the air raids was that they didnt have the equipment .you fight with what you have,its not our fault that we have bombs and missles.and since you are a ww2 historian you should be aware that hitler had some major mental problems ,and his advisors warned him to move troops to confront the americans ,but he could not fanthom a major attack comming from that direction.and if you dont think the americans fought house to house you are sadly mistaken.do some research on the battle of the bulge,and the unit that was cut off,and the forced march to save them in freezing weather then talk to me about corwardis.beter yet go talk to your local recruter ,join the army or marines after basic ,AIT and maybe a oversee tour then lets talk.

DASHLOC4ever

When you are studying history you might want to look up who won WW2, it was the Americans and their allies. The Soviets did play a key role in the war but while you are studying the history of the war you might want to look up where the USSR is now.

The answer is that Americans fight for victory.

Since you are a historian, I am sure that you can provide a credible source for you tally of Iraqi civilian deaths.

michael b

first of dont ever call my fellow soldier airman and sailors cowards...there a lot more to it then just bombing...if you want to talk about cowards then talk about ieds not about our bombing

erlish

That's fighting smart!!

Wulfgang

Those soldiers give there lives so that you can post this crap? The Soviet Union had millions and millions of soldiers and Stalin just sent them with no care about there lives. Cowardly?? We protect our troops and the civilians.

Michael R

I would like to invite you to ANY military post and say that out loud. After that I would take you to any military hospital where servicemen/women have had parts of their bodies blown off, tie you to a bed, and let them give you a blanket party that would break world records. Finally I would take you to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day and let the families of the buried soldiers "Monkey Stomp" you until your entrails popped out and then hang you by your sack with them! It's Slack Jaw, Tree Hugging, Hippies like you that destroy the moral and support of our fighting men and women. You get to sit behind your desk on a computer that keeps you securely safe in your uneventful world while other AMERICANS fight for your right to ask such STUPID A$$ questions.

Liz S

It is called advanced technology.

In war it is always best to minimize your country's losses.
I care more US soldiers than I do the Iraqis. Its is the honest brutal truth.

conranger1

TROLL ALERT!!!!

What crap, the WW2 Soviet soldier was forced to advance because Stalins N.K.V.D. goons (for runner to the K.G.B) and Political Commissars were standing to the rear, ready and willing to shoot anybody who did not move forward quickly to do their Patriotic duty.

Military Historian duh!!!

Your figure of half a million German troops on the western front is a laugh, so you would have us believe with that amount they (nazi Germany) held France, Belgium Holland, Denmark, The Channel Islands under an Iron grip??

Military historian duh!!

In WW2 standard tactics was to blanket bomb areas or use creeping barrages which caused many hundreds of civilian casualties, if you were what you claim you would know about the bombing of the French city of Caen on D-Day.

After an area has been bombed it still has to be cleared of the enemy by going house to house and hand to hand with the enemy.

The figures for civilian deaths / collateral damage, on both the Eastern and Western Fronts run into the hundreds of thousands, caused by German and Soviet, German and Allied fighting.

again, this, your so called question, is just a rant against American & Allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by somebody with an obvious agenda to post crap, and yet makes no mention of the suicide bombings of Iraqi on Iraqi, and Taliban on Afghani citizens that take place daily

disckoala: The United Kingdom and its Commonwealth, with Allies had been fighting from 1939 so they to have their fair share of casualties from France, retreat to Dunkirk, raids on Norway, the North African Campaign Crete, Greece, Burma, Bombing campaign over Western Europe, Convoys to and from America and the Arctic Convoys to Russia etc..etc..

Russia also took many casualties in its sideline war with Finland (before the Germans sent the Fins help.) And its attack on Poland, when the Germans and Russians divided that country up for themselves back in 1938,

LadyLeatherneck

As a former military person and someone who has had to suffer through waiting for a good friend to come back from Iraq this question sickens me. How DARE you call American Troops cowards!! I don't see you running to the recruiter volunteering to pick up a rifle and get on the front lines yourself if you think it is so cowardly. Get your big bad self up and do it yourself instead of hiding behind the brave men and women of this country who protect you and your right to spew this garbage and disrespect. You should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you just say thanks and then SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH!!

cdizzle...love the quote, it is my favorite but it is from A Few Good Men. Thanks for putting it up because I was going to as well. Things like that need to be said and people like the asker need to be reminded of the hardship and sacrifice these people are making to keep America safe and free. Col. Jessup sums it up very nicely! God bless America and all of our troops.

cdizzle_69

You ever think the enemy shoots from civilian rich environments just because they know we try are trying to minimize unnecessary casualties? They are trying to win the psychological war over there by making us look like the bad guys since they can't stop us with physical means. Have your forgotten the day they hijacked those planes and killed all those innocent civilians in NY and D.C.?

Maybe you should also throw a thank you in there to the soldiers that defend your right to talk that way and notice it is English not in German.

"We live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? Deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. "

SS4 Elby

OK im not one for the war in iraq but think about what you just said. If your fighting you fight for victory not for fairness. Lets take karate for instance sure the stuff is nice but in a real life situation i dont think the people are gonna bow and wait for you to get your kattas off or whatnot. There are NO rules so you better do what you can to survive. Air strikes are a sound strategy less loss on your own side more losses on the other. Use your brain before you babble on.

disckoala

I am not American, but I found it offensive if you call American soldiers in WWII cowards... trying to reduce mortality rate does not mean being coward....

Russian casualty rates are high because they had been fighting war since 1941, four years prior to D-day

DJM3

Ignoring the fact that your question was extremely offensive (and full of baloney), I'll do my best to answer this from a logical and historically accurate standpoint.

In regards to WWII (which is my favorite war to study as well), Hitler allotted so many resources to fight in the East because it was so grossly outnumbered by the Soviets, despite having a technological advantage in just about everything except for tanks. And even then he knew it wouldn't be enough, as was demonstrated by the fact that he drew up and signed a non-aggression pact with the soviets prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939... he didn't want a war on two fronts, and was going to avoid conflict with the Soviets until after he was already victorious elsewhere and could concentrate all his forces to the east. Operation Barbarossa was an all-in gamble launched more or less out of desperation upon realizing that his advance to the west was halted by the Battle of Britain. It turns out that Blitzkrieg tactics and massive armor columns work better when there isn't a massive body of water in the way. But with his advance stalled in the west, and his invasion to the east failing logistically (Germany could not resupply its forces moving east fast enough, slowing progress and giving the Soviets time to organize), it was only a matter of time before a shift in momentum would occur in the east as well. It did, helped quite a bit by the bitter Russian winter as it set in, and soon Hitler was fighting two uphill battles simultaneously. Soviets were fighting on the land, because their air forces were no match for those of Germany. American and British forces relied heavily on bombing offensives early due to that big body of water I mentioned earlier that was kind of in the way of an advance over the ground. But just because they weren't on the ground didn't mean the airmen in those planes were any safer, or that their tactics were "cowardly". Odds of survival on those missions were extremely slim. About one in every five aircraft launched never returned. German fighters and artillery were second to none, and allied fighters didn't have the range to protect their bombers all the way to the target and back, leaving them unprotected for much of their journey. And not all of the American effort was in the air. What about the invasion of Normandy? How dare anyone refer to the men who stormed those beaches as being cowards. And once the allies finally had a foothold on the ground in Western Europe, it was only a matter of time before they were knocking at the doors of Berlin.

As for modern-day tactics, most modern militaries (not just the United States), rely on technology to minimize casualties of both civilians and friendly combatants. This is extremely effective against actual opposing military forces. Case in point, look at how quickly and efficiently US and coalition forces swept through Iraq during the first Gulf War. The war on the ground lasted all of 100 hours. It was unprecedented. The problem in Iraq now is that we are no longer fighting an army, or an air force, or a navy. We are fighting insurgents who lead a double life of soldier and civilian, depending on whichever is more beneficial to them at the time being. If anyone should be accused of cowardly tactics, it is the ones who fight like this. Using a precision-guided munition to eliminate an insurgent threat holed up in a civilian structure is not cowardly. Using your elderly father-in-law's living room as the staging area for your attacks on coalition forces, and then claiming civilian casualties when it is hit by return fire, or by an air strike, whichever the case... now that is cowardly. If you want to pin the civilian death rate on anyone, it should be the hide-and-go-seek tactics of the insurgents that you point your finger at... not the ones who actually wear a uniform and do everything they can to minimize such losses.

vantz

If you, sir, are a war historian I will take you on every day of the week and twice on Sunday. You just don't know what the h**l you are talking about. Have you ever served sonny? Are you aware of what the present tactics are in Iraq? Find out and then come back on here and we'll talk. Incidentally, I fought in WW2 and we all fought hand to hand on many occasions in France, in Belgium, Holland and Germany. Did you ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge Mr. Historian? Yanks fought the greatest panzer division ever assembled and by hand. There were no planes during this 5-6 day period due to bad weather and we held the Krauts. You, my friend, do not know your history.

mnbvcxz52773

You mean like the brave Soviet tactic of massing hundreds of artillery peices and destroying entire cities.... how many civilians died in those attacks.

As for recent events, the Russians didn't even try to invade Grozny, they just destroyed every building killing untold numbers of civilians... seems very "cowardly" of them, by your definiton.

If you are historian, you may want to check your facts.

sablelieger

Is not bein a coward, is called fighting smart; why push hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops armed with rifles and machine guns against entrenched German positions with 88mm guns, Tiger tanks and heavy support from Ju-87 Stukas is not bravery, is suicidal.

An also, i'd love to see you sources for the Iraqi casualty figures.

the proff

you forgot to mention those 500.000 germans on the western front were mostly conscripts and not even proffesional soldiers, well the bit about the soviet victory over nazi germany is known in europe and the rest of the world so that is a fact, the bravery and courage of the soviet soldier was what defeated nazi germany.

bulletbob36

For a war historian your all screwed up.
first FACT: Russian soldiers fought or were killed by their own officers. if they tried to move back to covered positions they were fired upon by their own officers.
Second Fact: Russian soldiers during an attack did not discriminate against civilians and killed them as well.
US soldiers use distance because of the technology and ability to use these weapons. If a civilian is killed it is unfortunate BUT they are well informed that there is bad guys in their house or building and they have the chance to leave. but elect to stay and / or help them by giving them cover or weapons making them targets. Just because there is not weapon in their hands does not make them Innocent.
I do agree that some civilians are killed accidental and for them I am truly sorry.
But to claim that we are cowards all I have to say is this: Come and walk a mile in my boots HERO and see what you can do. Better yet come and tell me to my face that I am a Coward.

Ken B

War historian? My dying A**.

Patrick W

I want you to walk up to an american soldier and ask him that question (unless, of course, you're too scared). $50 bucks says you'll be flat on your *** in the following 5 seconds. Furthermore, we have yet to lose a war (Iraq's still going on, and Vietnam wasn't even our war to begin with). So, what military do YOU call your own? The French?

Tominator

Ninety percent of those civilian deaths were caused by suicide bombers, and other insurgent tactics.
For a historian, you don't know much.

G G

Dear Mr War Historian; Why don't you join the army, go to Iraq and show the men first hand how they should be fighting ?

Crash

There are soldiers who feel brave when they have a gun in their hand otherwise they bury their heads in the sand, there are soldiers who go for war because of the 4000 USD salary they earn, such soldiers are not brave, on the other hand there are soldiers that never been in war but when they are in war, fear never finds a way to their hearts, there are soldiers that fight for an idea not for the salary, those are the real brave soldiers.

Steve

It is hard to be brave when you are always fighting wars of aggression against weaker nations. Amercians are stupid, ignorant and arrogant and have no grasp of reality. So when they get out into the world, all their preconceptions leave them terrified. Aussie troops hate being anywhere near the yanks. They are trigger happy and unprofessional. The USA has not won any war on its own, despite having fought dozens over its short history, always against weaker nations, yet they always lose. It is a fuinction of being the bad guy and thankfully incompetent and stupid to boot.

mee

America was still a growing country in ww2 and wasn't in the war from the beginning, and soldiers who can repair an aircraft carrier while it is bursting in flames or die trying in not a coward. I iraq, how much more beneficial is it to get air support on a building, rather than strolling on in and being blown into 500 pieces. Keep researching the US in ww2 and im sure that you will find that the soldiers then were no cowards, nor the soldiers today...well today...most of them are kids...well in ww2 they weren't cowards. They probably somehow felt as if it wasn't their war...even though it was.

mee

...Any human being who can get up from his good life and go to fight a war in iraq with children exploding in front of you, being shot at 24/7 and having your friends killed by a suicide bomber is not a coward. People like you who probably don't have the balls to say that to any serviceman's face is a coward. Charging in to a building and dying for no reason when you could have called in a PRECISION air strike is not brave it is stupid. If you were there i am dead sure that you would do the same thing. And you are a horrible historian. Also didn't the ALLIES win ww2 not just Russia...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: