"Heil mein Führer. Sie sind verhaftet!"

[Derek Pullem]

Problem is, referring to WWII, all the crimes or perceived crimes committed by the Nazis are magnified and in many cases removed of context.
The crimes committed by the allies, especially by the WAllies, are whitewashed and rationalized every-time. Is not a war of white knights against evil. Bot sides committed horrible crimes, but the side that wins, decided that history only consider crimes the ones committed or they say are committed by the losers.

Rubbish

It's only those who seek to minimise the crimes of the nazi regimne who play the moral equivalence card.

Crimes were committed by both sides but the vast preponderance of guilt lies with the Axis and the German forces in particular. Any other conclusion is usually sourced from far right nationalist sources inside and outside Germany (and occasionally the odd Marxist who apparently has a blind spot about dear old Uncle Joe)

 

[paulo]

Rubbish

It's only those who seek to minimise the crimes of the nazi regimne who play the moral equivalence card.

Crimes were committed by both sides but the vast preponderance of guilt lies with the Axis and the German forces in particular. Any other conclusion is usually sourced from far right nationalist sources inside and outside Germany (and occasionally the odd Marxist who apparently has a blind spot about dear old Uncle Joe)

I never say they here equal. If you read, i say that the Nazi ones, not denying they here very very bad, received all the publicity and the others are rationalized.

 

[Adler]

The War in the Middle East Part 3, August 1st - September 6th 1945

For Montgomery the situation in the Middle East was problematic. The Turks and Germans had forced his forces to retreat to Baghdad. In the Levante the front had stabilised at the line Palmyra - Hims - Tripoli. Cyprus was under heavy air strikes from German and Turkish forces. Even an invasion could not be excluded.

On August 2nd an uprising of nationalistic Arabs started, aided and directed by Germany and Turkey. Here Max v. Oppenheim was a great help to negotiate with several important Arabs, although he was already 85. However, he managed to get in contact with the Hashemites and the newly founded Baath party.

Guerilla like attacks on the Allied forces and Arab governments, who supported the Allies, started. Although the governments tried to subpress the movements, they were not successful. So the supply lines were endangered.

The Turkish and German forces had reached Baghdad in the meantime, but they did not attack the city. In contrast, they built a defensive line and waited for Montgomery to attack.

Montgomery did not think to attack, as he feared about the supply situation and as he needed more heavy weapons. He (rightfully) assumed, that Rommel would try to attack his support lines, so he laid an ambush. But again the Germans attacked in the night. So the supply convoy was destroyed as well as many forces from the ambush. And although it was a tactical victory for Rommel again, he had suffered losses. And this time a fully working IR device was captured by the British. Finally the reason behind the superb night fighting capabilities of the Germans was revealed. It might have been revealed sooner, but only a few US officers got to know about the destroyed IR device captured before and none of them knew about the US devices. After the war, Montgomery was blamed not having used more US officers in his staff.

However, it would still last several months until a working system could be delivered to his forces. The same was true for a fully automatic rifle. Although his forces demanded for an assault rifle, only some fully automatic M-1 arrived the Allied forces before the war ended.

Montgomery feared about his supply situation and so ordered a retreat of his forces to Basra. He wanted to build up a defensive line there and to restart his campaign there. In the west he gave the order to make an offensive to force Rommel to use forces elsewhere.

Indeed for Rommel the offensive could not come worse. In the Levante there were little forces, as he had used most forces for other operations. So indeed the Allied forces could break through the lines and force the Pact foces back to Banyas.

Rommel had to transfer forces from the east to the west. He finally managed it to stabilize the front there. But that gave Montgomery the possibility to retreat to Basra. He wanted to take the Iraqi king with him, but at this day, on August 31st, a 10 years old boy appeared in Rommel's HQ, together with his mother and uncle.

On September 1st Montgomery got to know, the Turks would try to invade Cyprus. So he asked Vice Admiral Sir H. Berhard Rawlings, commander of the newly formed Allied Mediterranean Fleet, for help.

At the very same moment the Résistance against the Allied occupation in the French colonies started. Troops bound to Cyprus were to be used elsewhere, especially that the troops in North Africa were already not many. So only the fleet left Bône to get to the Eastern Mediterranean. This would become a gaunlet.

But before September 6th came.

TBC

Adler

 

[grdja83]

Voices for Peace - At this point there is a failed D-Day, a deposed Hitler, public persecution of Nazi crimes, open calls for negotiation for a peace other than unconditional surrender (Which was a surprise by Roosevelt for everybody): Why would there not be calls for peace from the public ?
In the US the president got there by shaky means and his doing by mere chance is probably an open secret by now.

But 50k dead in London and Germany winning an all fronts must make everyone see that "peace" with Germany would be acknowledging German victory.

 

[Julian]

rip89, the attack on Warsaw (and Rotterdam originally) was against a defended city. In these cases even the bombardment is allowed and the protection of civilians was reduced. If you want to argue, you need to argue with the rules and laws. Also the removal of a criminal government does not justify any attrocities. Otherwise the Nazis would be justified as well with their crimes against the Soviet population as they wanted to remove a criminal regime as well...

Adler

They were most certainly not against a "defended city" they would be against a "defended city" if the aircraft were used to attack military or industrial targets in residential areas. The German attacks instead were completely targetted against defenseless civilians with no nearby military targets present; indeed, the military consequences of the attacks were secondary, the objective was always to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in order to terrorize the Dutch and Poles into surrendering. There is a major difference between killing civilians as "collateral damage", like if there were military forces in a crowded residential area and the bombers were aiming for the military but also killed civilians, and purposefully killing civilians without any justifiable military goal, like in Rotterdam and Warsaw where the sole German intention was to bomb residential areas regardless of whether Dutch forces were stationed there; indeed, mos of their bombings were in areas without a major Dutch military presence.

I never say they here equal. If you read, i say that the Nazi ones, not denying they here very very bad, received all the publicity and the others are rationalized.

Well to some degree they have to be. The Combined Bomber Offensive, while morally reprehensible, is justified in that it was being carried out with the goal of destroying the Nazis. It was a cruel way of going about it, but the Nazis were the most evil regime of all time; they had to be defeated. The Red Army's crimes are simply war crimes and such be treated as such.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

As soon as civilian quarters had become the main targets and terrorizing the population was the only goal all those bombings had become war crimes.

 

[paulo]

Well to some degree they have to be. The Combined Bomber Offensive, while morally reprehensible, is justified in that it was being carried out with the goal of destroying the Nazis. It was a cruel way of going about it, but the Nazis were the most evil regime of all time; they had to be defeated. The Red Army's crimes are simply war crimes and such be treated as such.

And comes the rationalization...

The bombing of Ploesti, the rail network, factories, Schweinfurt. the dams, are military targets.
Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima are pure terror raids.
A crime is a crime, don't exist on/off because is committed by one side or the other. BTW, from the military point of view, they are useless. Is not a cruel way, is a criminal way.

 

[Julian]

And comes the rationalization...

The bombing of Ploesti, the rail network, factories, Schweinfurt. the dams, are military targets.
Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima are pure terror raids.
A crime is a crime, don't exist on/off because is committed by one side or the other. BTW, from the military point of view, they are useless. Is not a cruel way, is a criminal way.

Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Hamburg were all legitimate targets with major rail, industrial, and military facilities (Such as naval bases). Harris was an asshole who wanted to inflict major civilian losses, but the bombings weren't solely directed against civilians as the Rotterdam bombings were. That was a goal, but there were again legitimate targets. There's also the fact that this is NAZI GERMANY we're talking about. Y'know, the most evil regime that has ever existed? That alone makes the Allied bombings somewhat justified; not necessarily morally good, but still justified in that they were intended to bring about the defeat of Nazi Germany in the swiftest way possible. Those are some reasons why I differentiate between the two sides.

As soon as civilian quarters had become the main targets and terrorizing the population was the only goal all those bombings had become war crimes.

British bombing was indiscriminate yes, but its sole goal wasn't to terrorize and murder civilians. Certainly that's what Harris intended, but the cities bombed all had major industrial targets that couldn't be destroyed by precision bombing. The Americans tried and failed to do that.

 

[Ariennye]

Also the removal of a criminal government does not justify any attrocities.

The Combined Bomber Offensive, while morally reprehensible, is justified in that it was being carried out with the goal of destroying the Nazis. It was a cruel way of going about it, but the Nazis were the most evil regime of all time; they had to be defeated.

There are two different opinions. I don't see a possibility to get you two even. So let us agree to disagree at this point. I personally am not thinking, that fighting a "criminal regime" at all costs is legal. Neither morally nor legally correct. There would have been better methods than killing innocents. Fighting murderer by murdering innocents nothing but murder.

The Red Army's crimes are simply war crimes and such be treated as such.

Maybe they were. But they weren't treated as such. Never.
But the soviet regieme does much more than war crimes. I don't think they are better than the Nazi-Regime. My opinion.

There's also the fact that this is NAZI GERMANY we're talking about. Y'know, the most evil regime that has ever existed? That alone makes the Allied bombings somewhat justified

Sorry, Julian, but with this opinion you has disqualified yourself totally. For nothing - I repeat - nothing justified murder. And bombing innocents is nothing than murder. Point.


Last but not least is one thing correct forever: The victor writes history.
What would have been written if the South had won the civil war? Or if the britisch had won the war of independence? Or if Frederic the great had lost the 7-year war?
He would never ever been 'the great' but 'the bloody', I'm sure.

 

[paulo]

Harris and LeMay... both want to go and go against the civils.

 

[Julian]

There are two different opinions. I don't see a possibility to get you two even. So let us agree to disagree at this point. I personally am not thinking, that fighting a "criminal regime" at all costs is legal. Neither morally nor legally correct. There would have been better methods than killing innocents. Fighting murderer by murdering innocents nothing but murder.

Maybe they were. But they weren't treated as such. Never.
But the soviet regieme does much more than war crimes. I don't think they are better than the Nazi-Regime. My opinion.

Sorry, Julian, but with this opinion you has disqualified yourself totally. For nothing - I repeat - nothing justified murder. And bombing innocents is nothing than murder. Point.

Last but not least is one thing correct forever: The victor writes history.
What would have been written if the South had won the civil war? Or if the britisch had won the war of independence? Or if Frederic the great had lost the 7-year war?
He would never ever been 'the great' but 'the bloody', I'm sure.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. Nazi Germany was pure evil. Not criminal, but pure evil. Its goal was to murder upwards of 100 million people in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union. Even though it didn't get that far, it did kill tens of millions of people based off its sick and twisted ideals, and killed many more fighting wars based off of those ideals. It needed to be defeated by any means necessary. That is not to say that those means are morally right. But they were certainly justified.

I completely disagree with you about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was certainly a cruel state, but nowhere near the sheer debased evil of Nazi Germany. The Nazi's goal wasn't just to kill the number of people it did; it would simply keep on killing until either it killed everything or was defeated. There is no moral equivalency between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union was bad, but Nazi Germany was in all respects worse.

Finally, this has nothing to do with history being "written by the victors." Nazi Germany was evil. Period. No one can legitimately argue otherwise. It needed to be defeated.

Harris and LeMay... both want to go and go against the civils.

And like I said, they were assholes for doing it; but their targets were also industrially and militarily viable.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

@Julian: So you would annihilate awhole country just because its government is 'evil'? Then you are not better.
Harris, LeMay etc. are war criminials.
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime, because at that point in the war this act had no military use.

 

[John Farson]

@Julian: So you would annihilate awhole country just because its government is 'evil'? Then you are not better.
Harris, LeMay etc. are war criminials.
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime, because at that point in the war this act had no military use.

1) Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated and occupied, not annihilated. The Allies and the Soviets were not Nazis.

2) Debatable. To a certain extent they were nuts, yes.

3) Maybe no actual use, but it was still a legitimate act of war. And the death toll seems to have been exaggerated, at any rate, for propaganda reasons (first Nazi, then communist).

But please, do carry on.

 

[Julian]

@Julian: So you would annihilate awhole country just because its government is 'evil'? Then you are not better.
Harris, LeMay etc. are war criminials.
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime, because at that point in the war this act had no military use.

Of course I would not annihilate it; that's genocide. I never said what I would personally do, I was stating my opinion of what the Allies did. I think many Allied acts were morally repugnant. But they were justified in the context of the war and what their enemy was. Dresden was a major military transport hub and an industrial center. It was a viable target. That does not make it right to indiscriminately bomb it and kill thousands. I agree that Harri and LeMay were cruel in their methods, but they weren't criminals.

 

[paulo]

Of course not annihilate it. I never said what I would personally do, I was stating my opinion of what the Allies did. I think many Allied acts were morally repugnant. But they were justified in the context of the war and what their enemy was. Dresden was a major military transport hub and an industrial center. It was a viable target. That does not make it right to indiscriminately bomb it and kill thousands. I agree that Harri and LeMay were cruel in their methods, but they weren't criminals.

Lemay itself once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.

Look, nobody denies that the Nazi regime is the worst, or one of the worst in all history. What piss me off, is the fact that some sub-culture don't accept the fact that the ones fight against then also committed many war crimes.
One of most easier to demonstrate, is the fact that at Nuremberg they tried to judge Donitz because it give orders to U-Boats crews to ignore survivors of torpedo ships. When the defenders produce US documents proving that the USN give same orders, that suddenly is not a war crime. Or is a war crime for both sides, or is if only one (the loser) can be prosecuted?

And i really like this - your side bomb a city - they were assholes - other side bomb a city - they are war criminals - both bombings clearly targeting the population, not the military locations in the city - more easy to demonstrate in the Wallies case, because they massively use incendiary bombs.
And to be fair to Harris, the order to go against german cities is given by Churchill, not by him.

 

[Julian]

Lemay itself once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.

Look, nobody denies that the Nazi regime is the worst, or one of the worst in all history. What piss me off, is the fact that some sub-culture don't accept the fact that the ones fight against then also committed many war crimes.
One of most easier to demonstrate, is the fact that at Nuremberg they tried to judge Donitz because it give orders to U-Boats crews to ignore survivors of torpedo ships. When the defenders produce US documents proving that the USN give same orders, that suddenly is not a war crime. Or is a war crime for both sides, or is if only one (the loser) can be prosecuted?

And i really like this - your side bomb a city - they were assholes - other side bomb a city - they are war criminals - both bombings clearly targeting the population, not the military locations in the city - more easy to demonstrate in the Wallies case, because they massively use incendiary bombs.
And to be fair to Harris, the order to go against german cities is given by Churchill, not by him.

Good for him. I have never denied that the Allies committed immoral acts. However, the majority (Majority, not all) or their acts can be justified in context with their war against Nazi Germany; a war against an evil state bent on killing millions. There is utterly no equivalency between the two, and attempting to use Allied crimes to justify German crimes is simply wrong. There is utterly no comparison. The Germans killed in order to subjugate nations, murder defenseless civilians, and enslave entire peoples. The Allies killed in order to end those attrocities.

Yes, they were assholes because while they encouraged methods that would kill civilians, however they also primarily wanted to destroy Germany's industrial potential. Precision bombing was in their minds impossible so they used incendiary devices along with explosive ordinance in order to indiscriminately destroy military and industrial targets without regard for civilians. The difference between that and Rotterdam was that at Rotterdam the sole German intention was to kill civilians, while the Allies at least also had justifiable military and industrial goals in mind.

 

[paulo]

Good for him. I have never denied that the Allies committed immoral acts. However, the majority (Majority, not all) or their acts can be justified in context with their war against Nazi Germany; a war against an evil state bent on killing millions. There is utterly no equivalency between the two, and attempting to use Allied crimes to justify German crimes is simply wrong. There is utterly no comparison. The Germans killed in order to subjugate nations, murder defenseless civilians, and enslave entire peoples. The Allies killed in order to end those attrocities.

And thats the point we diverge. I'm not trying to justify german crimes. I'm against white-washing allied ones. Nor I ever say they here equal. I'm against the given a free ride to Wallied criminals because they fight against a much worst criminal.

 

[Adler]

No crime justifies another crime. Full Stop! And even Harris remarked, that except Essen only the population should be hit. Thus making him also a criminal. He deserved the rendezvous with the gallows in the very same way like Himmler.

Adler

 

[Julian]

And thats the point we diverge. I'm not trying to justify german crimes. I'm against white-washing allied ones. Nor I ever say they here equal. I'm against the given a free ride to Wallied criminals because they fight against a much worst criminal.

Because the Allies were so horrible, right? Just because Allied acts have been ignored doesn't mean that they should be exagerrated. I also think it's completely unrealistic to assume that the Allies would ever prosecute their own after the war. Most of their acts were justifiable in their war against Nazi Germany; it was evil, it needed to be defeated, and cruel things needed to be done to defeat it. They were morally wrong, but it's not criminal to shoot a gunman who has taken hostages. Neither is it criminal to do whatever it takes to defeat an enemy that has and will kill millions without the slightest hesitation.

No crime justifies another crime. Full Stop! And even Harris remarked, that except Essen only the population should be hit. Thus making him also a criminal. He deserved the rendezvous with the gallows in the very same way like Himmler.

Adler

Harris is no way comparable to Himmler. Full Stop! He was a brute, but Himmler was a monster. Himmler killed millions for sick and twisted ideals which he was never even consistent with, while Harris encouraged methods that killed thousands in order to defeat men like Himmler. Not that the bombings were very effective until the Luftwaffe was destroyed but still.

 

[paulo]

Because the Allies were so horrible, right? Just because Allied acts have been ignored doesn't mean that they should be exagerrated. I also think it's completely unrealistic to assume that the Allies would ever prosecute their own after the war. Most of their acts were justifiable in their war against Nazi Germany; it was evil, it needed to be defeated, and cruel things needed to be done to defeat it. They were morally wrong, but it's not criminal to shoot a gunman who has taken hostages. Neither is it criminal to do whatever it takes to defeat an enemy that has and will kill millions without the slightest hesitation.

They here not horrible, and they crimes are not exaggerated - they simply exist. They here not ignored nor are ok, and that is what you want to do. The police don't need to commit crimes to catch the criminal, but in your logic, is ok if do.