| dimcyril 21.03.2006 10:47 |
i was watching a programme the other day and they were discussing a new book that states that the RAF and USAAF boming of Germany in the second world war was a war crime. another chap on there said it was no such thing and that the nazis were asking for it. so what is the general opinion? War Crime or Asking For It? |
| spymyshadow 21.03.2006 11:07 |
it is hard to say, but it brings me back an isssue about a girl raped in the daylight in front of people. Somebody told it was a crime, and somebody instead said: she dressed in a slutty way, that means asking for it. So it all depends from the point of view. |
| FriedChicken 21.03.2006 11:30 |
War crime ofcourse. |
| FriedChicken 21.03.2006 11:31 |
If you answer 'Asking for it' that means New york was also asking for 9/11. London was asking for the metro attacks and so on. |
| deleted user 21.03.2006 11:38 |
Every violation of the Laws of War is a war crime, regardless of provocation or 'having a good reason'. The Germans sinking a refugee ship in the English Channel was a war crime; the SU sinking a refugee ship in the Baltic Sea was one. Even though Germany's entire war was one big war crime, the Allies committed plenty of war crimes themselves. However, whomever wins a war dictates the laws, so only the Germans got persecuted for them (and occasionally a bit too harshly. For instance, General Jodl should never have been sentenced to death at Nüremberg, and the naval crimes committed when Raeder was still in charge should not have been blamed on Dönitz (who got off lightly anyway)). |
| That guy who digs energy domes 21.03.2006 13:22 |
Id have to agree with Thomas, the Allies did their share of bullshit as well. You could even argue it was the Allies fault for the way they pinned WWI on Germany during the Paris Peace Conference. However, WWII was a long time ago and forgiveness would be the best poilicy here IMO. |
| deleted user 21.03.2006 14:10 |
Graf Von Stauffenberg and his 'mighty coup d'état' was a good notion, but should've happened in '39 when Poland was invaded. Let's face it, it wasn't just the good of Germany they had at heart. They knew the Allies were going to win, so they decided that they might as well do away with Hitler. Yes, to a) save many innocent lives, but also to b) secure their own future as being not that of an ex-Nazi loser, but of a resistance hero. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 21.03.2006 16:06 |
Hitler was a good leader. If he hadnt tried to exterminate the jews, Im afraid America may have backed him. We even saw an article from during the depression from a priest in Michigan saying "Where's our Adolf Hitler?" |
| That guy who digs energy domes 21.03.2006 22:02 |
Now that I think about it, Germany issued and apology for WWII and the Holocaust. The USA issued one for slavery awhile back. On that note, we could go into any culture and find reasons that it should be destroyed. Forgiveness or Annihlation... tough choices... |
| spymyshadow 22.03.2006 06:15 |
I thought it over, and I realized that if the allies weren't there would have been much more victims among jews, political prisoners, russians, gay people and so on. I was at a lecture held by a professor at the gerusalem university, stephane moses. This guy was held prisoner in morocco with his whole family, and allies set them free just two weeks before their being sent to another camp where they would have been killed. The final solution was applied even in nazi's colonies, and what if allies didn't come in africa? |
| dimcyril 22.03.2006 08:23 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: If you answer 'Asking for it' that means New york was also asking for 9/11. London was asking for the metro attacks and so on.yes i was worried about the terminology 'asking for it' i couldn't think of a better way of expressing it. 'deserved it' maybe. otherwise it would have had to have been a longer explanation. something alomg the lines of 'they had no right to complain about the bombing in the light of the fact that they had indiscriminately bombed many british and european cities, the allies were also engaged in a total war which would only end with the complete destruction of one of the sides. at the time it was believed by many that the destruction of germany's capacity to wage war was essential. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.03.2006 10:45 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Now that I think about it, Germany issued and apology for WWII and the Holocaust. The USA issued one for slavery awhile back.Someday we'll be expecting an apology from black people over hip-hop, and an apology from hispanics over reggeaton. |
| Smitty 22.03.2006 10:52 |
That I'd like to see. |
| spymyshadow 22.03.2006 11:57 |
<font color=teal>Sasha wrote:I'm glad it is, it's up to those who answer to it.spymyshadow wrote: it is hard to say, but it brings me back an isssue about a girl raped in the daylight in front of people. Somebody told it was a crime, and somebody instead said: she dressed in a slutty way, that means asking for it. So it all depends from the point of view.This is stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 22.03.2006 12:36 |
Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate. |
| spymyshadow 22.03.2006 12:40 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.whose lives? |
| That guy who digs energy domes 22.03.2006 12:46 |
spymyshadow wrote:Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.whose lives? Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.03.2006 13:12 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:An economic embargo against Japan would have been a better choice to force Japan to surrender. The bad consecuence is that that Japanese civilians would have taken the worst part, because by the end of the war the Japanese army was already stealing all food supplies from civilians and farmers in Japan.spymyshadow wrote:Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides. Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.whose lives? It's been said that an embargo wouldn't have worked due to the extreme national pride of the Japanese army in those days. Their mentality in those days was that an army should fight for their country to the last man standing. It's a very controversial subject, but at least from my point of view the decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken way too soon. Those who died had it better than those who survived and suffered from all kinds of diseases due to exposure to radiation. |
| spymyshadow 22.03.2006 13:13 |
was it necessary to attack japan? if japan's backbone, that is the nazi, surrendered, what was the use of attacking them? |
| Mr.Jingles 22.03.2006 13:16 |
I still believe that nuclear weapons should have never been invented. In fact, no weapons at all should have ever been invented. Sometimes I think that George Harrison was right when he said that if everyone who owned a weapon killed themselves, we'd live in a better world. ...but then again, WE ARE the weapons. Not the objects that we use to cause harm. |
| user name 22.03.2006 20:54 |
I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool. |
| FriedChicken 22.03.2006 21:26 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:Do you have any clue at what you're saying?spymyshadow wrote:Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides. Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.whose lives? I think someone should throw 10 a-bombs on America, because if they go on invading countries for no good reason they will make a lot of casualties on both sides. Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers. Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 ! |
| Mr.Jingles 22.03.2006 21:42 |
Musicman wrote: I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool.Swords can be cool, but lightsabers are far more cool. |
| deleted user 23.03.2006 04:08 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:Japan had prepared an unconditional surrender message before Nagasaki, and apparently also before Hiroshima. It was only due to communication difficulties that they didn't reach the Americans in time.spymyshadow wrote:Both the Japanese and American soldiers' lives. An invasion would have cost millons more to both sides. Im not condoning nuclear weapons either; but, defeating the Japanese through conventional means (if possible) would have severly increased the death counts.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Well, speaking of war crimes.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki- enough said. You can argue that we saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in a ground war; its a good topic to debate.whose lives? |
| spymyshadow 23.03.2006 05:11 |
are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people? After the attack on Pearl Harbour, convicing a great part of public opinion about the necessity of the atomic was not that hard. something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it? it all comes back to the initial question. and then here in Italy we're bombed in a different way but not less catastrophic, with berlusconi saying in fornt of the us parliament 'I'm the temple of democracy'....please.... shut your mouth and mind about what you're saying. |
| dimcyril 23.03.2006 07:34 |
I think someone should throw 10 a-bombs on America, because if they go on invading countries for no good reason they will make a lot of casualties on both sides. Do you have any idea how many people got killed during those cruel and heartless attacks? And are still dying from diseases from radioactivity in the area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? About 80.000 in Hiroshima and 220,000 in Nagasaki.. Maybe 0,1% of all those people were Japanese soldiers. Sometimes I can't believe the American government is still crying over 9/11 ! he is correct about saving of lives. also to be fair to america they tried their hardest not to get involved in WW2. japan attacked them and then germany, being allied to japan, declared war on them. |
| deleted user 23.03.2006 10:37 |
spymyshadow wrote: are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb. something similar happened few months ago when falluja was bombed with phosphores (I dont' know if it is the right word) anyway, the thing that burns you leaving your clothes untouched. Was that sparing the lives of american soldiers,war crime, or asking for it?Phosphoric shells were outlawed by the New York convention, I believe (otherwise, it's the second Geneva Convention). Thus, it's a war-crime. Whomever authorized the use of these shells is automatically guilty of war-crimes and crimes against humanity (see the Laws Of War), so that qualifies Bush and probably one or more ranking generals as war criminals in addition to Ariel Sharon, who used them against civilian targets when he was still a general. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 23.03.2006 13:05 |
Musicman wrote: I dunno...I think swords are pretty cool.Unfortunatley, theyve been obsolete since Shitaragahara |
| Sir Archie Leach 23.03.2006 14:29 |
It's all very well sitting in a nice warm house typing away that the Allies committed war crimes during the Second World War but if you lived in London during the blitz (at a stage where defeat for Britain looked likely) getting bombed nightly for months on end you'd want want to stick it to the krauts too. And breathe... I'm sure in sixty years time when the planet is beyond repair, things we do now will look disgraceful i.e. wasting energy, cheap air travel etc. But don't fear I'll be here to say 'told you so'. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 23.03.2006 16:07 |
Well, theyve proven time and time again, London can take it. |
| Teo_torriate04 24.03.2006 04:03 |
It's easy sitting in the comfort of your warm homes, after 60 years of comparative peace (yes, in spite of the conflicts which have arisen in that time, in relation to a world war these have been peaceful times), pontificating about allied 'war crimes'. Neither you nor I could have any possible idea what it must have been like to have bombs dropping over your heads night after night. V1's and V2's, pointed in your general direction and actually designed to kill indiscriminately and spread panic. I would talk about 'necessary evil' to defeat a madman who was never going to surrender and who was dragging the world into an abyss. Sometimes you have to do whatever you must do to acheive an end. It must have been the right thing, because the result was we won the war. Any suggestion that the war could have been won any other way is pure conjecture, and based upon hindsight and the benifit of information that would not have been known at the time. As for the A bombs, It could be argued that they are the reason why we've never had a world war since, although that too is conjecture. If that could be proved however, just think of the lives that those two bombs have saved in the last 60 years. |
| Mr.Jingles 24.03.2006 10:43 |
But we were in many ocassions on the verge of a nuclear war until 1989, and chances are that one could perhaps start at any moment. About a dozen nations have nuclear weapons, and a handful more are trying to get them. The truth of the matter is that we have reached a level of mutual distrust and hatred that instead of trying to resolve problems through diplomacy and rationality, all we think about is ways to kill each other. Does it make any sense that hundreds of millions of people everyday are dying of hunger and disease, and yet all these fuckin' politicians do is spend more money on weapons. |
| Teo_torriate04 25.03.2006 05:13 |
As you say, 'On the verge of neuclear war'. The fact that it hasn't happened is entirely due to the horrors witnessed in 1945. |
| Mr.Jingles 26.03.2006 22:44 |
This world doesn't need to kill thousands to avoid killing millions. Might be an easy alternative, but there are other ways to protect the lives of innocent people. |
| Sir Archie Leach 27.03.2006 15:33 |
Mr Spock would be turning in his grave. If he were dead or indeed would be buried upon death. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 28.03.2006 01:46 |
<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:What are you basing that off of?spymyshadow wrote: are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb. |
| deleted user 28.03.2006 08:48 |
Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Louvre wrote:Would four years of history classes, a teacher with a doctorate in 20th century history and a compulsory reading list containing roughly 70 titles do for you?<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:What are you basing that off of?spymyshadow wrote: are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 28.03.2006 14:43 |
<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:Well, I know a historian like that who claims that WWII and the Holocaust didnt happen. So -no. I'd need proof that Trumann or Roosevelt, maybe Eisenhower declared the intent of doing that.Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Louvre wrote:Would four years of history classes, a teacher with a doctorate in 20th century history and a compulsory reading list containing roughly 70 titles do for you?<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:What are you basing that off of?spymyshadow wrote: are you sure it was a question of communication and not the curiosity to see what would be the effect of an atomic bomb on people?Officially, communication. In reality: showing the Russians they had an A-Bomb. |
| deleted user 29.03.2006 07:43 |
In that case, I'd stop believing 99.8% of everything you attach faith to at this time. Seeing as that is an approximation of the amount that cannot be proven by DIRECT evidence. Moreover, your demand for a specific type of proof is ludicrous, seeing as it deals with a covert intention. You can get plenty of indirect evidence from defence-memos, White House memos, and especially presidential staff documents. I'm not going to bother posting them, though. They are readily accessible from tons of sites, not in the last place the National Archives, if I'm not very much mistaken. |