"Heil mein Führer. Sie sind verhaftet!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

No, what I'm saying that just as it isn't criminal for the police to kill a shooter to save a hostage. Likewise, it isn't criminal to indiscriminately bomb legitimate industrial and military targets. In both cases things could be done differently; the police could try to incapacitate the shooter without killing him and risk him shooting numerous hostages, just as the Allies could carry out precision bombing and risk thousands of airmen futilely dying and the Nazi war industry continuing to produce weapons to be used to kill millions.
 

Adler

Banned
No, what I'm saying that just as it isn't criminal for the police to kill a shooter to save a hostage. Likewise, it isn't criminal to indiscriminately bomb legitimate industrial and military targets. In both cases things could be done differently; the police could try to incapacitate the shooter without killing him and risk him shooting numerous hostages, just as the Allies could carry out precision bombing and risk thousands of airmen futilely dying and the Nazi war industry continuing to produce weapons to be used to kill millions.

That comparisation is very wrong. Indeed Harris targeted German civilians to break the German morale. And in no way factories. He himself said that. Thus making him a similar monster than Himmler. Yes, Himmler killed more people. But that doesn't mean a man killing ten is not to be hung than a man, who killed 100.

You compare it with the police? Fine. But then the Allies did not kill the shooter, but his wife and child to save the hostage. And his neighbour, too! If you beat me, I am not allowed to burn your home with your parents. No crime justifies the other.

Adler
 
That comparisation is very wrong. Indeed Harris targeted German civilians to break the German morale. And in no way factories. He himself said that. Thus making him a similar monster than Himmler. Yes, Himmler killed more people. But that doesn't mean a man killing ten is not to be hung than a man, who killed 100.

You compare it with the police? Fine. But then the Allies did not kill the shooter, but his wife and child to save the hostage. And his neighbour, too! If you beat me, I am not allowed to burn your home with your parents. No crime justifies the other.

Adler

Ok then you would agree with me then that the bombings of Warsaw and Rotterdam were war crimes as these had the main Objectives of killing civilians? also the Baedeker raids of 1942? What in your opinion is the difference between these and Dresden etc? If you say what you said earlier that Warsaw and Rotterdam were legal, well so was area bombing as officially it was targeted at industrial targets.
 
That comparisation is very wrong. Indeed Harris targeted German civilians to break the German morale. And in no way factories. He himself said that. Thus making him a similar monster than Himmler. Yes, Himmler killed more people. But that doesn't mean a man killing ten is not to be hung than a man, who killed 100.

You compare it with the police? Fine. But then the Allies did not kill the shooter, but his wife and child to save the hostage. And his neighbour, too! If you beat me, I am not allowed to burn your home with your parents. No crime justifies the other.

Adler

Harris wasn't the Combined Bomber Offensive. He was highly infuencial in its policies and doctrine, but by no means was he the sole decision making body. The British government and most of the military hadhim to choose targets that were legal, even if he executed his attacks as indiscriminately as possible. He certainly wanted to kill people, but he honestly believed that it was the best way to defeat Nazi Germany and save lives; he wasn't some kind of sadist who got off from it. He certainly was a brute for that, but not a crimina; he killed for reasons that were justified, though not right. Himmler in contrast wanted to kill people because he was a sick bastard who was fanatically commited to the most disgusting ideology of all time. He killed for utterly unjustifiable reasons.

Actuallly it means the police took the hostage taker out with a quick headshot rather than risking going in and capturing him alive. The Allies chose to death with the situation as brutally as possible, even if there were other options possible.
 
I think ultimately it all comes down to this: the Allies, while they certainly employed brutal and immoral methods that would be unthinkable in a modern "humanitarian" military context nevertheless continue to hold an unassailable moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Why? Because there are still Germans alive, today. Had the Nazis somehow won their war with the same degree of totality, you would be hard-pressed to find any living European Jews, Roma, Poles, Czechs, Russians etc.
 
I think ultimately it all comes down to this: the Allies, while they certainly employed brutal and immoral methods that would be unthinkable in a modern "humanitarian" military context nevertheless continue to hold an unassailable moral high ground over Nazi Germany. Why? Because there are still Germans alive, today. Had the Nazis somehow won their war with the same degree of totality, you would be hard-pressed to find any living European Jews, Roma, Poles, Czechs, Russians etc.

Thanks, that's exactly my point; the Allies did some bad things, but in most cases they were done for unquestionably good reasons.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, we have come to this now? Justifying Rotterdam? Coventry? GUERNICA?

This T/L has been sliding ever more and more into the status of apologist for the actions of the Wehrmacht and the Reich (while carefully avoiding the most specific excesses linked to the Nazis) and down the slope of moral equivalency to justify the action of the Reich.

Let's be really, really clear:

There is NO moral equivalency between the Western Allies and the Reich. There isn't even a moral equivalency between Stalin's USSR and Nazi Germany. There is NO equivalency between the German Army in WW II and any of its opponents. NONE. They waged a war of utter aggression and conquest that had NO possible moral excuse or justification. This war was waged with enthusiasm and the greatest happiness by all involved, from the top leadership down to the basic rifleman and by the civilian population until they started to lose the war.

I went so far as to ask for a couple others to look at this thread before moving on to action.

I have not yet decided if any sort of sanction will be coming for attempting to justify Guernica mainly because it is so far beyond the Pale.

This much is decided.

This thread is closed.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top