Churchill war criminal, says German historian

[Chris 62]

Did the allies plan and wage agressive war?
NO
Did the allies systematically tortue and kill civillians in occupied countries?
NO

Those were the war crime charges at Nurmemberg, so stop trying to play symantics, it's becoming quite tiresome.

[zulu9812]

You're absolutely correct. However, the reason why no Nazis were tried for the carpet bombing of cities is because that would have shown the Allies in a bad light since they did the same thing. Thus, no new rules of engagement were drawn up for the conduct of an air war. See carpet bombing in Cambodia 20 years later...

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Did the allies plan and wage agressive war?
NO

YES

Invading another country is an aggressive act, even if they did it first. Particularly if they didn't invade YOUR country (i.e. British and Americans).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by zulu9812
See carpet bombing in Cambodia 20 years later...

Cambodia was never "Carpet Bombed"

I suppose you are referring to tactical strikes on a primative trail called "Ho che min".

To compare the this to WWII era city bombardment is, quite frankly, moronic.
Not saying you are moronic, saying the suggestion is.

So how many other pointless lemmings are going to be brought up in this thread?

[Drogue]

I agree with zulu. We were aggressive. The fact we didn't start it doesn't mean we can do anything.

[Chris 62]

Consider this:

The allies aern't "agressive", and lose WWII.

List the consequences.

[Drogue]

No, the allies could still win and not be aggressive. Overall gain.

[Chris 62]

Bull.

Your talking through your hat, you didn't consider it at all.

If you did honestly, you would see how that invalidates your entire argument.

If your not going to debate honestly, don't waste my time.

[Wernazuma III]

You can't "silently oppose" anything. Every silent member of society in a dictatorship is part of the collective structure of oppression, you're not "just following orders" but are an integral part of any social machine. As a citizen, you have the duty to actively pursue freedom, otherwise you're implicitly supporting the system. Thoreau can kiss my ass.

Buck Birdseed: I think you're talking about heros, not normal people. According to your logic, all the conquered people in Europe except for the partisans and their active helpers were supporting the system. I agree though, that "only following orders" is too little and makes you part of the machine. Trying to evade the system, like not becoming party member, not aiming a career in the hierqrchy or setting actions that are indirectly against the system (if being a judge, giving the lowest possible sentences) should be considered enough. You can't expect from a whole population to emigrate or risking their lives. The most effective part of totalitarian regimes is always the fear among its own citizens not to know who's a spy and would accuse you in no time and who silently suffers like you.
I have the highest respect of those, who risked and/or lost their lives in the active try to fight the system, but I don't blame the others who opposed the system but did nothing. Those who are really to blame (for being criminals) are only the opportunists and convinced followers.

[mactbone]

These kind of questions make you wonder how high in our psyche self-preservation is compared with all the rules and laws we are taught. If there are 45 people in a town of a few hundred threatening to kill people individually, do you figure that it's impossible for the 45 to win, and force the issue, or are you more concerned with your life and the lives of the people close to you?

Is it dillusional to think that if the murder does not occur in front of you that it will never occur (in the case of regular German civilians)?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Dresden was bombed in Feb. 1945. The war was over, we knew it was over. The V2s weren't hitting London daily. They were very sporadic at this point in the war.

That must have been a great comfort to Londoners wondering if the next V2 would contain mustard gas.

[TCO]

My Dad was named as a war criminal by the North Koreans. He had to ferry prisoners back to North Korea after the war. And they were getting all uppity and singing and ready to revolt. And he had been forbiddent to use fire hoses on them. So he drove perpindicular to the swells until they were all to seasick to care about the war. He was named by the NK government on the radio as one of the 100 US war criminals of the war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In that case, when the US finally attacks Iraq, will Iraq be justified in doing anything at all to win the war? Will it be OK in your eyes for them to kill innocent women and children? After all, they won't be the ones 'starting it'.....

If Iraq wins, then I guess they will say that anything they did was justified for the victory.

[TCO]

Isn't it funny how the Germans always want to run and hide from the recent memory of Nazi rallies and the Holocaust. If they had won, I bet they wouldn't be so bashful.

[Jaakko]

Yeah, they're all Nazis. Goddamn Krauts.

[Berzerker]

The newspaper's crusade, prompted by a new German history of the bomber offensive, is the latest manifestation of a belief among Germans that they, too, were victims of the war - albeit a war started by their country.

Doesn't that sound a bit like the kid who murdered his parents asking for mercy because he's an orphan?

[gsmoove23]

GP, you're full of crap. The Germans as a whole seem to be constantly facing up to the past. Its almost sad how their history weighs so heavily on their actions even up to the present. The fact is the german people were also victims of the war and of nazism. They were murdered on a large scale by the allies and lets not forget by the Nazis as well. It was German leadership that carried out murderous policies against citizens at home and abroad, it was allied leadership that responded in kind and the German people were caught in the middle.

[Wernazuma III]

well, to make the statement less biased - all people in Europe (and Asia) were caught in that war. But you're right, one really has to wonder how GP comes to think that Germans hide from working up their history. IMHO, no other people has so controversely and profoundly discussed, weighed and judged its own past. The other countries still live much more in their nationalistic view of history.

[TCO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
GP, you're full of crap. The Germans as a whole seem to be constantly facing up to the past. Its almost sad how their history weighs so heavily on their actions even up to the present. The fact is the german people were also victims of the war and of nazism. They were murdered on a large scale by the allies and lets not forget by the Nazis as well. It was German leadership that carried out murderous policies against citizens at home and abroad, it was allied leadership that responded in kind and the German people were caught in the middle.

Tell it to the Jews.

[zulu9812]

Do not even start. The idea that every German citizen born after WWII deserves to live with the consequences of their fathers' actions is insane.

[zulu9812]

Just to put this back on topic (Chuchill as a man capable of war crimes)...

After WWI, the Middle East was carved up by the victorious European nations. Britain got part of Mesopotamia and renamed it Iraq. We put in power a puppet king, a man who we'd tried to use as a king elsewhere but he got kicked out in a revolution so we stuck him in Iraq. Eventually, the various tribes decided they hated us more than they hated each other, and got together in order to throw us out. In response, Britain used their brand new planes to bomb the villages, so that the men wouldn't rebel for fear of their families dying in bombing raids whilst they were away causing mischief. This was the very first example of terror bombing as a means of subduing a population: something else the world has to thank the British Empire for. Then, in the 1930s, with the situation still not under control, gas bombs were deployed. The decision to authorise the use of nerve gas on a civilian population was taken by future Prime Minister and Greatest Britain Of All Time...Winston Churchill. So if you ever wondered where Saddam Hussein gets his ideas from...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by zulu9812


YES

Invading another country is an aggressive act, even if they did it first. Particularly if they didn't invade YOUR country (i.e. British and Americans).

Golly. Somebody is clearly unaware that part of the British Isles was invaded, occupied, and had a concentration camp erected on its soil.

The Channel Islands were held by Nazi germany, and Solomon Steckoll has written an account of the camp on Alderney.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Golly. Somebody is clearly unaware that part of the British Isles was invaded, occupied, and had a concentration camp erected on its soil.

The Channel Islands were held by Nazi germany, and Solomon Steckoll has written an account of the camp on Alderney.

So? In what way does that affect the definition of an aggressive act?

[TCO]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Do not even start. The idea that every German citizen born after WWII deserves to live with the consequences of their fathers' actions is insane.

Never said that. I'm indicting their grandfathers.

[molly bloom]

Zulu, do you read your responses before sending them?

You stated that Great Britain was not invaded- ergo, its attack on Nazi Germany was unjustified. How is self-defence aggressive? The occupation/invasion of Germany clearly was justified

Besides which, the Blitz of 1940 and 1941 would alone justify attacking Germany, and the Baedeker Raids which targeted cultural centres, such as York and Bath would go some way to explaining Dresden and Nuremberg- I'm not an apologist for Churchill or Bomber Harris, but hindsight seems to be a wonderful way of secondguessing the morality or otherwise of Allied war tactics and strategy. I believe even Old Testament Christianity allows for an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and if you had lived in the preserved mediaeval centre of Coventry (one of the best preserved in Western Europe, with a cathedral a marvellous example of English Perpendicular) then it might be difficult during the course of WWII, to shed many tears over Hamburg or Koln. Similarly, if you had been starving to death during the German occupation of Kharkhov or had been a relative of one of the wounded soldiers massacred during the Japanese takeover of Singapore's hospitals, again, the firebombing of Tokyo or the Russian advance through Berlin would cause you little grief at the time.

Was WWII a total war? Yes.

All wars have involved to some extent, the destruction of civilian property and life- unless countries agree on some new 'bushido' rule that allows only for the killing of armed combatants in regular armies then it will always be that way.

To seek some kind of moral equivalence between the conduct of the Allies and the conduct of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is a futile quest- the Allies did not as a matter of course execute downed German or Japanese pilots, nor did Allied soldiers routinely engage in acts of cannibalism (as did Japanese soldiers in the Pacific war theatre). The Allies did not execute prisoners of war as a matter of policy (as did the Germans and Japanese) or use them as slave labour (as did the Germans and the Japanese).

The bombing of Dresden was in February of 1945- German High Command did not surrender until May 1945. During the course of 1944 and 1945, German V1 and V2 rockets killed thousands, and Great Britain effectively had no defence against the V2. Government records show that Churchill was greatly disturbed by the effect that the silent V2 rocket was having on civilian morale.

You might see the bombing of Dresden as revenge for Belgrade, Rotterdam, Lidice, Oradour sur Glane, Plymouth Hoe, Exeter and Warsaw- you might also see it as a way 'pour encourager les autres' - a hint to the German High Command that Allied strategy was heading towards a scorched earth scenario.

Either way, seeing WWII through 20-20 hindsight serves no purpose whatsoever.

[Chris 62]

The decision to authorise the use of nerve gas on a civilian population was taken by future Prime Minister and Greatest Britain Of All Time...Winston Churchill. So if you ever wondered where Saddam Hussein gets his ideas from...

Wrongo Zulu.

You were OK on the bombing of houses (by really funny looking bi-planes, with men throwing little hand bombs from the back seat), but the nerve gas is an out and out lie on your part.
Even in the first world war Britain didn't use nerve gas (they used poison gases).

Where are you guys being told these falsehoods?
A number of you posted factual errors, distortions, or simply incorrect data.

Do not even start. The idea that every German citizen born after WWII deserves to live with the consequences of their fathers' actions is insane.

The matter is actually a German trying to mitigate Germany's guilt by the old "look, he's worse" bull.

You can go at this endlessly, but the fact is bombing is NOT a war crime, it wasn't then, it isn't now.
Killing innocents is, but civillians engaged in weapons manufacture are considered legitimate targets by all treaties.
This may not be YOUR personal morality, but it doesn't make everyboody you disagree with a "war criminal".

From several posts here, it would seem to be the immpression Churchill is a war criminal because Britain declared war (which is rediculous, that ol Appeasar Chamberlin was the PM who declarred war).
To say the allies invaded other countries is also ludicrous, liberation is not invasion.

These kind of threads always depress me, are all of you so ignorent of the past that you now think the allies should not have stopped Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
Their world was a waking nightmare.
Many of you are free and safe because the allies did fight that war, and I'm not USA flag waving, all the allies, including the free contingents and the Soviets.
Those people knew the difference between right and wrong.
It seems many of you don't.

[TCO]

They're just mad that we kicked their asses. A good thing though. They'd have put half the population of Europe in those ovens.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by UberKruX
the Americans went out of their way to give veitnamese children shots to protect from some diseases, and the veitnamese chopped off their arms

Just because Marlon Brando's character in Apocolypse Now said that doesn't mean it really happened. The Vietnamese didn't have to force the civilians to hate the Americans, we accomplished that all by ourselves with out free fire zones and removal of populations and the way we treated the Vietnamese people. We were outsiders, foreign invaders, we never had any trust to lose.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Stalin requested it [the bombin of Dresden].

No he didn't. The Allies bombed Dresden because it was in the path of Soviet armies. It was a demonstration to the USSR of the power of the Western Allies before the dropping of the atomic bombs. Even in 1944, the Western allies were already laying the groundwork for the Cold War.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by zulu9812
Eventually, the various tribes decided they hated us more than they hated each other, and got together in order to throw us out.

Ah, the very seeds of nationalism. How very much they have to be thankful for!

In response, Britain used their brand new planes to bomb the villages, so that the men wouldn't rebel for fear of their families dying in bombing raids whilst they were away causing mischief. This was the very first example of terror bombing as a means of subduing a population: something else the world has to thank the British Empire for. The decision to authorise the use of nerve gas on a civilian population was taken by future Prime Minister and Greatest Britain Of All Time...Winston Churchill.

The Zepplins that the Germans used to bomb London during WWI actually carried larger bomb loads than puny biplanes. In the middle east the Turks were the first to use airplanes against civilian populations, the Saudi Arabians.
Nerve gas was a WWII German invention. The British didn't have nerve gas until they captured some at the end of WWII.