Shut it Klaus!

[-o|DarkJedi|o-]

I'm amazed....

No, im more than amazed, im erm... another word, that means double the amazement of the word 'amazed'...

Yes... the English did kill 650,000 germans in WW2.

War crimes?????????

WE WERE TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM SYSTEMATICLY WIPING OUT EVERY OTHER RACE BUT YOUR OWN....

Sure... the loss of life is never something a true humanitarian should condone... but come on... you bombed us, we bombed you, you tried to cull societies that you didn't consider part of your supremacy..

You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and you can't try taking over the world (twice) and then accuse us of war crimes when we do the only thing science allows to stop you!

Discuss.....

disclaimer : even if i was german, i would still be 2 x 'amazed'

[edit] today that link points to an article about jamie bulger, so, the line of finding it comical seems a tad onthe wrong side, so it's been removed[/edit

[MrL_JaKiri]

History favours the victors.

[edit] Except in Vietnam.

[ParraCida]

who

the

hell

cares.

[Tietäjä]

If we are talking about the English bombing German cities after the end of WWII (well), it's obviously true, and obviously slaughtering, and obviously against human rights, and obviously almost as evil as killing jews, but hey, the winner takes it all.

[ELeeming]

That's germans for you.

They're just bitter because we kicked their ass twice ffs!

[ParraCida]

to actually add something sensible to this thread.

Germany started by bombing london, which may or may not have been an accident. Point is, brittain retaliated and things escalated into a full city bombing war.

Had it not been for the fact that both sides hit eachothers cities in stead of airfields the battle of brittain would've been lost. The brittish were in fact forced to bomb german cities at first to divert attention from their airfields. Though in the end it was most likely used to indeed get a faster peace, pretty much the same as the americans used the atomic bomb and how the germans bombed rotterdam.

[-o|DarkJedi|o-]

Originally posted by ParraCida
to actually add something sensible to this thread.

Germany started by bombing london, which may or may not have been an accident. Point is, brittain retaliated and things escalated into a full city bombing war.

Had it not been for the fact that both sides hit eachothers cities in stead of airfields the battle of brittain would've been lost. The brittish were in fact forced to bomb german cities at first to divert attention from their airfields. Though in the end it was most likely used to indeed get a faster peace, pretty much the same as the americans used the atomic bomb and how the germans bombed rotterdam.

[Ditcher]

Well you really cant compare "Battle for England" bombing raids to those carried out by ****loads of b-17s in the later war years.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Ditcher
Well you really cant compare "Battle for England" bombing raids to those carried out by ****loads of b-17s in the later war years.

It's a very complex situation, in war things are not always equally clear, especially in a war that was fought over 50 years ago.
Suffice it to say that even in later years the bombing of german cities had the desired effect, considering how the V1, 2 and 3 projects were all aimed at killing brittish cities. During the entire war the nazis had to divert resources in order to attack brittish cities.

That in combination with forcing them to surrender, crippling the country and ofcourse retaliation for their own cities justified these actions back then. Was it a good decision? If you take a close look at WWII you will see many many occasions that you will just be in awe how germany actually managed to 'loose' the war.
I therefore believe that the way things ended could only have been achieved in the way things actually were done, that includes the bombings even later in the war.

[Ditcher]

Originally posted by ParraCida
It's a very complex situation, in war things are not always equally clear, especially in a war that was fought over 50 years ago...

Yes. That is why I was not bringing up any moral issues, just pointing out that luftwaffe in west, after germany 'pulled' them from England wasnt that serious threat anymore while allied wings became alot stronger all the time. Quite certainly germans would not have had any problems bombing the **** out of english cities either, if given the tools.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by ParraCida
how the germans bombed rotterdam.

at least we said sorry for that.
and thats all that some people here demand, a 'sorry' and to admit that bombing civil targets was a war crime.

[Dave]

One of only reason that Germany never bombed the **** out of London and other major British cities is that they lacked any form of heavy bomber.

Britain had the Lancaster, America the B-17. Germany on the other hand only ever had a bomber less than half the size of either of these, with a much smaller bombload.

Hitler never believed in heavy bombers, as it didnt fit in too well with the Blitzkrieg concept, and so as such the German air forces bombers were all small, fast and light, capable of fullfilling their purpose when used in the right roles.

General point of this, Germany would have done it had it had the resources.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Dave
One of only reason that Germany never bombed the **** out of London and other major British cities is that they lacked any form of heavy bomber.

Britain had the Lancaster, America the B-17. Germany on the other hand only ever had a bomber less than half the size of either of these, with a much smaller bombload.

Hitler never believed in heavy bombers, as it didnt fit in too well with the Blitzkrieg concept, and so as such the German air forces bombers were all small, fast and light, capable of fullfilling their purpose when used in the right roles.

General point of this, Germany would have done it had it had the resources.

Hello ?

Calling Stupid Dave

British Cities did have the **** bombed out of them. Coventry was pretty much destroyed and large parts of London were heavily bombed and do you remember the V1 and V2 missiles ?


honestly, what do they teach at school nowadays ?

Vaio

[MrMighty]

That link is for some televised stuff of GW2. Nice!

[Dave]

Originally posted by Vaio
Hello ?

Calling Stupid Dave

British Cities did have the **** bombed out of them. Coventry was pretty much destroyed and large parts of London were heavily bombed and do you remember the V1 and V2 missiles ?


honestly, what do they teach at school nowadays ?

Vaio

It still doesnt compare to Dresden....and other German cities. Which is the comparison I was making.

twat

[menth0l]

Originally posted by Dave
It still doesnt compare to Dresden....and other German cities. Which is the comparison I was making.

twat

That's because the Germans LOST. If they'd won i'm sure there'd not been one building left standing in western Britain.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Dave
It still doesnt compare to Dresden....and other German cities. Which is the comparison I was making.

twat

Tell that to the people that lived through it

twat

Vaio

[Nusselt]

'We won the war, therefore we were "right", therefore we did not commit any war crimes'



or if you prefer



'You started it, we finished it, but because we won you cant question us'


i mean ffs, we're British, we cant be held accountable!!!

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by wu_trax
at least we said sorry for that.
and thats all that some people here demand, a 'sorry' and to admit that bombing civil targets was a war crime.

I was merely making a comparison.

But now you bring it up I don't think germany deserves an excuse for what happened or that this should go to book as 'war crimes'.
It was the face of the whole war, digging it up 60 years later is just attention whoring.

I don't see the germans bombing brittish cities as warcrimes either, I do probably see it more as such with rotterdam mainly because the netherlands were neutral and had absolutly no way of ever returning the favour. IE two heavy guyz are fighting and punching eachother in the sack vs heavy guy vs small guy who he sneak attacks and then hits in the sack.

Tho it was all a long time ago - still don't see its relevance for today.

[Taratang]

Bombing cities is not in itself a warcrime.

However, the fire-bombing of Dresden was deliberately designed to maximise civilian casaulties in order to shock the Germans.

Whether this was a legitimate tactic or not is a debate I'm not prepared to enter without a more thorough knowledge of the history of the time, and the precise definitions of war crimes. (HINT)

[Dante Hicks]

One of the universal rules of humanity morality is "You started it."

As an aside, what is the big deal with saying "Sorry"? What does it achieve for the victims, or for the surviving victims family? The only real question is : given similar circumstance would we do the same again? If we would, then an apology is irrelevent.

The answer is seems pretty clear "Yes, we would". Given a fight for national survival, I suspect we'd do the same but with nuclear weapons.

Sure, make the British state apologise for Dresden. While you're at it, they can apologies for their part in the Transatlantic slave trade, their role in worsening the Irish potato famine and colonialism.

But what good is that going to do exactly?

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Allfather
only dif. between germany and the allies in ww2,is that germany lost. Warcrimes,slaugther of civilians,torture and general breach of human rights they both commited.

Yeah, apart from the whole slaughtering six million Jews in death camps thing.

[Teh_Necro]

and what is the point in discussing such a topic? And why bring up the fact that england bombed german cities? Why discuss the germans bombing our cities?

Its feutile, the fact that its over, we now have a more unififed and functioning europe, such issues only arrouse unwanted hostility.

-Necro

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Teh_Necro
and what is the point in discussing such a topic? And why bring up the fact that england bombed german cities? Why discuss the germans bombing our cities?

Its feutile, the fact that its over, we now have a more unififed and functioning europe, such issues only arrouse unwanted hostility.

-Necro

when the war starts up again, what rules should we play by?

no more bombing cities? no more bombing cities once the war has been for all intents and purposes decided?

obvioulsy once the **** hits the fan it's too late to decide what is 'cool' and what is 'very not cool'.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Teh_Necro
and what is the point in discussing such a topic? And why bring up the fact that england bombed german cities? Why discuss the germans bombing our cities?

Its feutile, the fact that its over, we now have a more unififed and functioning europe, such issues only arrouse unwanted hostility.

-Necro

I agree. Let's forget all the bad things that have happened in the past. That "learning from history" idea is so unrealistic.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by acropolis
when the war starts up again, what rules should we play by?

The rule is get the other guy before he gets you

Vaio

[Knight Theamion]

trying to lay morals and 'justice' over something so illogical, cruel and primal thing as war just seems to me as a bit on the silly side.

Almost as silly as when Hillary asked Bill if she was the only one and he answered : 'Ofcourse you are, don't be silly'













this thread is sponsored by the English Associating for the Support, Development and Usage of the Word Silly (EASDUWS)

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As an aside, what is the big deal with saying "Sorry"? What does it achieve for the victims, or for the surviving victims family?

its not more than symbolism, but thats at least something.

but then, it was 60 years ago so there arent many people who were responsible for all the evil things that happened in ww2 alive anymore