現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３０ > 150.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３０ > 150.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●ドイツの著名な戦史家マンフレット・メッサーシュミット博士や、
ゲルト・クルーマイフ教授、ベルンハルト・クレーナー教授、
そしてヘルムート・ハオフ退役准将のような軍人たちが、米英
「侵略」軍はバグダッド侵略に失敗して敗北する、と予測しています。
●下記の投稿で紹介しましたが――
-----------------------------------------------------------
元・国連査察官スコット・リッター氏が「米国はこの対イラク戦で敗走する」と予想
http://www.asyura.com/0304/war29/msg/110.html
WA29 110 2003/3/26 12:06:17
-----------------------------------------------------------
――リッター氏が語っていたように、米英軍は、イラクに侵攻すれば
それに呼応して“サダム打倒”の民衆蜂起が起きて内部からサダム体制が
崩壊する、と愚かにも信じていたようです。それゆえ「大量破壊兵器」とは
何ら関係のない「サダムの首狩り（トップリング）」とか、さらに脱線して
「解放軍で乗り込む」などという馬鹿げた戯言[たわごと]を公然と吠える
ことができたのでしょう。
ですからナチスドイツばりの“電撃侵攻”と、ナチスを凌駕する“畏れと
おののき”戦略を使って、簡単にイラクを打ち負かせるなどと妄想を抱いて
いたわけです。
しかし、下記の記事に紹介されたドイツの戦史家たちによれば、この半世紀
にわたって“教条”として信奉されてきた“空爆万能神話”はもはや通用しない
し、サダム打倒の民衆蜂起どころか「侵略者打倒の抵抗運動」に国民がまとまる
状況さえも呼び込むことになり、英米軍が勝利の足がかりにしてきた土台が次々
と崩れつつある、というわけです。
●メッサーシュミット氏によれば、米英がバグダッドを占領したいなら、包囲戦
によって住民を徹底的に餓死させるか、徹底的に町を焼き尽くすしか方法はない、
とのこと。（合衆国の連中は「明白なる天命」などと宗教を乱用して自己欺瞞を
押し通し、アメリカ先住民を殺し尽くした凶暴で悪辣な“野蛮人”どもなので、
そういう大量虐殺を本当に実行するかもしれない……。）
●ドイツの軍人は、対イラク侵略戦争についてコメントするのを禁じられている
そうですが、ハオフ退役准将ははっきりこう言っています――「軍事力でバグ
ダッドを征服するのは不可能です。この先は、街頭で一軒一軒をつぶしていくと
いう正真正銘の小型版のテロ戦争が、一年ばかり続いて行くでしょうね」。
●こういう大量殺戮を開始したブッシュ政権とブレア政権は、国際的な法廷に
よって身を以て罪を購わねばなりません。その罪の重さはすでにミロシェヴィッチ
を凌駕しているといえるかもしれません。なにしろ完全な「侵略戦争」ですから。
……しかし最大の軍事力を振り回し、最低の自制心しか持ち合わせていない合衆国
のことですから、逆ギレを恐れて国際社会はそれを裁くことをしないでしょう、
たぶん。……こうして横暴が許されて、自制の効かない戦争や紛争が世界中に拡散
していくことになるのでしょうが、それもまた「創造的破壊」による“火事場泥棒的
な覇権泥棒”戦略にとっては好都合なことなのかもしれません。英国も米国も、
そういう陰謀を仕掛けて紛争を増長させて、そこに首を突っ込んで掻き回して覇権を
握る、という強盗政策で大きくなった国なのですから……。
……そしてもちろん、侵略戦争の開戦を積極的に後押しした日本政府の閣僚たち
も、国際的な裁きの場で身を以て罪を償うべきだと思います。殺人狂どもを裁くため
の理論的な根拠と国際的な結束が求められています。
●以下は『オンラインジャーナル』に掲載された、問題の記事です。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Online Journal
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/032903Speke-Reuter/032903speke-reuter.html
German military historians predict Anglo-American defeat in Iraq
By Cassandra Speke and Stephan Reuter
Online Journal Contributing Writer
March 29, 2003 -- Never in the history of war have such formidable cities as Baghdad been conquered militarily by an invading army. The single exception may be the recent Russian siege of Grozny (400,000 inhabitants), but the focused brutality of its assault may not be easily replicated on Baghdad's 5 million inhabitants under the eyes of a watchful and angry planet.
Indeed, the invaders have but two choices: to incinerate the city or to starve it. Recently declared a military target, Basra's civilians, for example, have automatically been militarized. This means fighting in the streets. And this type of fighting cannot be won.
This is the opinion of an eminent and nationally respected German scholar, Dr. Manfred Messerschmidt, 76, leading historian of the Research Department of Military History in Freiburg, Germany. Controversial and at times inconvenient, Dr. Messerschmidt's views command respect even among his critics.
Dr. Messerschmidt's considered opinion is that a defeat of the Anglo-American forces is very probable. If Saddam Hussein's regime can manage to stay in power, the conquest of Baghdad is impossible, unless the two allies raze and burn the city to the ground.
Possessed of a clinically analytical and sharp historical memory, Europeans have been drawing analogies between Bush's war and WW II since the fateful "axis-of-evil" speech, which caused a giggling disbelief mixed with mounting alarm that the citizens of the most powerful state on earth should be bamboozled by a Hollywood-style script of no historical accuracy whatsoever. Germany, Japan, and Italy -- the original Axis -- were each a modern military machine of astounding size and force.
Bush's axis was a collection of third-rate powers of no world-domination potential whatsoever. The Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis' war machine had a clear goal: to rule the globe.
They didn't count, however, on people's resistance to their plans of domination. Invasion offered no alternative: either one submitted or one fought. There were things worth dying for -- things that gave life meaning.
The siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad in WW II illustrate the flaw in the fantasy of invasion by superior military force. Besieged by the Nazis for the famed 900 days, Leningrad resisted, in spite of millions of corpses -- the victims of starvation -- littering the city, freezing in the snow. In Stalingrad, Hitler's Sixth Army was entirely obliterated. The Russian winter, with its blinding storms, rendered the mighty Luftwaffe, Hitler's equivalent in military novelty to the arsenal of techno-weapons today, entirely useless in terms of delivering supplies and providing aggressive or cover operations.
The defeat of Germany's "Operation Barbarossa," to conquer the Soviet Union and provide Germany with more "living space," turned the tide of WW II. The hitherto unstoppable Nazi war machine had been stopped by the Russian people, united against the invasion, by 1942, a month after the United States entered the Pacific War. As many Europeans acknowledge, Europe's liberation was effected by the heroism of the Soviet people in defense of their homeland.
These heroic battles, singularly in the case of Stalingrad, show that fighting in the streets of a city ends in its destruction and in an appalling number of casualties of both civilians and military personnel.
The German Wermacht, in its Barbarossa invasion of the USSR, at first hesitated to enter Stalingrad until Hitler himself ordered that either the city be destroyed or starved. Neither in Leningrad, where the strategy was starvation, nor in Stalingrad, where both bombing and urban battles were engaged, did the strategies work. A city with a population of millions cannot be secured. Invasion forces can only concentrate and hold on to stationary, select positions. Should it become possible to enter a city after punishing bombings, the tanks cannot move in the streets for the rubble and the debris. This happened in Stalingrad.
German military historians, such as Dr. Messerschmidt, are convinced that if the British and the Americans manage to conquer Baghdad, this feat would be a first in the history of humanity for a city of this size.
Dr. Gerd Krumeich, a professor at the University of Dusseldorf, has a similar opinion. He recalls that in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Paris fell only because the entire French army, including the French emperor, surrendered, and because supplies to the city were catastrophically unplanned.
American planners of the attack on Iraq apparently believed that the Iraqi people would desert Saddam. This expectation has not materialized. If the Iraqis continue to resist the invasion, the technological superiority of weapons and air power of the Anglo-American forces will be useless in the event of fighting in the streets of Baghdad. This battle will not be bloodless
In addition, once the allies enter Baghdad, smart bombs will have to be very smart indeed to distinguish between friend and foe. Should B-52s be sent "to soften" the city, prior to invasion, bombardments will only serve to unite the population behind Saddam. In WW II, allied bombardments of German cities awakened loyalty to Hitler, in spite of his obviously tyrannical and disastrous regime.
Another military historian, Dr. Bernhard Kroener of the University of Potsdam, is convinced that "If resistance occurs, a major city cannot be conquered."
Again, in the experience of WWII, Paris (1940) and Rome (1944) were occupied by the Germans because they did not resist. The city of Saigon (now Ho-Chi-Minh City), in South Vietnam, was taken in 1975 by the Vietnamese people, not by foreign invaders.
European perspectives on war have changed, says Kroener. Aerial bombardments, such as the ones that hit Hamburg, resulting in 30,000 deaths within two nights, are no longer feasible; neither is a street war
in Baghdad. "Anyone, who is not a complete idiot, will try to prevent this. It is impossible to win," says Kroener. If the allied invasion army means to seal off the entire city, it will need far more troops than it has now and had better count on a siege duration of a month or even a year.
The original idea of "conquering Baghdad" presumed that the population would remain passive. Even if the population remains inactive, however, a mere group of elite soldiers could still organize an effective resistance in defense of the city. Dr. Bernhard Kroener suggests that the US/Uk military planners do some reading in some old but valid texts. The collected works of Mao Zedong would show, for example, that the guerrilla warrior moves within the population as smoothly as a fish through water. This is how Iraqi commandos will act to defend Baghdad.
The German military has been forbidden from commenting on the Iraqi war. This applies to the press office of the Bundeswehr, as well as to the Department of Research in Potsdam, regarding military history. However, retired members of the military, such as Brigadier Helmut Hauff, former chief commander of the German troops in Kosovo and now CEO of the Defense Industry Committee, are more honest and open.
Hauff agrees with German military historians. "To conquer Baghdad through military means is impossible. There will be a year-long, house-to-house fighting in the streets, a real mini-terror war."
This has been already observed and proven in the relatively small city of Mogadishu, in Somalia. There, Americans had to draw back because public opinion in the USA turned against the adventure when resentment of the Somalian people against US forces became patently obvious and uncompromising.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。