Moral objections on warfare.

hellmaker · 03-22-2005, 08:34 AM

NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-22-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellmaker

NO Trackend... I would defenetly not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?

You have to understand that the German people are a prideful people and they lost everything in the Versaille Treaty. Also the depression did not help matters and the people were poor and shamed. Hitler basically came along and made them feel pride in being Germany again and gave them self worth. Before he showed his true face and the his idea of world domination he was even made a Time's Man of the Year for the things he did for the people. If you were in the peoples situation you probably would have followed him also.

hellmaker · 03-22-2005, 10:22 AM

I'm not blameing the germon people for anything... In those circumstances any other nation would have been confronted with the same problem... and every nation did have at one time such a leader that could turn people aginst one another(take Ceausescu). In such circumstances the promises of one man for a better and richer country would have been believed by anyone desperate enough...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-22-2005, 10:29 AM

They should not be but at the same time you have to question what they were thinking, once they truely found out what was going on. Why did they not revolt and try and overthrow the government. No matter how many SS and Gestapo and Polizei you have there are still more people who could fight to take down Hitler. It is just a thing to wonder. I was watching a Documentary on Vox (A German TV station) last night called Als Das Krieg nach Deutschland Kam. And I ask my wife how? I would have said no and rather die for such things.

hellmaker · 03-22-2005, 10:32 AM

I understand you completely... but take for example the time it took for the rebelion in the Eastern Block to take place... The comunists were at power for allmost half of century... why didn't anyone do anything in the meanwhile??? The answer might be because no one was confident enough in enyone... The SS had placed SPYES everywhere from the top of the Pyramid to the Bottom... It was very hard to plan something and get away with it... You could have lost everything including your own life and the lifes of you close ones without acheiving anything... This made you feel powerless... Even now there are being found dayly Files of Informers some of them which even their family didn't know about... So it makes your wonder... Who to trust??? Alone you couldn't stand a chance...

trackend · 03-22-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellmaker

NO Trackend... I would definitely not have dropped it...
You are right though... Those thousands of Germans were BRAINWASHED into believing Hitler as their saivior... I agree with this... There was no hope for them... And maybe I am an Idealist... True... and it is bad...because great Ideal always and up last on the list...
BUT... do you think that by showing them the same treatment they showed you, you would influence them in any other way then in hating you even more? The saying may be true: "Give someone a finger and he will take your entire hand", but why not try?

In my opinion I don't believe the allies or the axis forces cared one iota if they where hated more or less by the enemy they just want them eliminated.
If as you say Hellmaker you would not have dropped the bomb on Japan
surely that means necessitating an invasion of the Japanese mainland with a total casualty figure (as estimated by Truman's advisers) running into the millions. A moral dilemma indeed , The bomb was the lesser of two evils .
There is no harm in being an idealist Hellmaker in fact its very laudable but that only works if everyone has the same ideals, in a perfect world it would be great if the need for armed forces or any weapons did not exist but all that's happened over the century's is that men have devised more eficient and vile ways in which to kill each other in ever increasing numbers.

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackend

If as you say Hellmaker you would not have dropped the bomb on Japan
surely that means necessitating an invasion of the Japanese mainland with a total casualty figure (as estimated by Truman's advisers) running into the millions. A moral dilemma indeed , The bomb was the lesser of two evils .

I agree to this... But why choose such heavely non military populated areas... ? Why not bomb an army facility and show it's power were it would heart the most???

And further more... why the hell are we only good at finding more and more ways to kill other humans? It's no wonder no other civilization want's anything to do with us... In panic we would destroy ourselfs without not even clencing... Is it normal?

trackend · 03-23-2005, 01:47 AM

I agree Hell A better target could have been allocatted but it would have had to be as large as a city so as to demonstrate the power of the weapon to the Japanese.

Are you when say other civilizations meaning from another planet because I cant think of any on this one that can be classed as particulrly civilized is it normal for the human to race destroy each other history says yes. unfortunatly

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 01:51 AM

Yes...that is what I mean... it would be a shame for us to be the only intelligent creatures in this entire universe... and also history has prooven that we are a distructive kind, and my guess is we won't change, and we'll slowly die by our oun hand...

trackend · 03-23-2005, 04:22 AM

Well at least we can say our discusion was civilized Hellcat so there may be hope

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-23-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellmaker

I understand you completely... but take for example the time it took for the rebelion in the Eastern Block to take place... The comunists were at power for allmost half of century... why didn't anyone do anything in the meanwhile??? The answer might be because no one was confident enough in enyone... The SS had placed SPYES everywhere from the top of the Pyramid to the Bottom... It was very hard to plan something and get away with it... You could have lost everything including your own life and the lifes of you close ones without acheiving anything... This made you feel powerless... Even now there are being found dayly Files of Informers some of them which even their family didn't know about... So it makes your wonder... Who to trust??? Alone you couldn't stand a chance...

That I can agree with, look at North Korea, the people there will never stand up and say anything.

As for the A-bomb in Japan. I agree better targets could have been picked but look at this way, the bomb did save a lot of lives both allied and japanese. An invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been devasting for both sides. Every man, woman and child would have come down to the beaches even with sticks and stones to fight the invasion force. It would have been terrible, so the bomb actually did save lives.

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 08:13 AM

Ironic...isn't it...I'm shure it saved a lot more lifes than it took... but why not choose an appropiate target... a militarry faciliy, as I said, would have been a more efficient way of prooving the Japs that they were up againsta a superior enemy... Why take down 2 cities with no imediat connection to the war...

Is this what will happen in the event of a nuclear war??? "Let's take out the villages, then the cities, the metropols,and last(but by no means least) the army." Does this sound right to you???

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-23-2005, 08:29 AM

I would have to say, they chose cities because of the shock factor. What is going to shock you and your people more, a military barracks or a city full of people?

And yes that is pretty much what would have happened had Russia and the United states gone into nuclear war. The targets were cities and other nuclear sites... Washington DC, Moscow, Los Angoles, Kiev, New York, St. Petersberg....etc.
and then Nuclear Winter, those who did not die in the attacks would die soon after. Basically the concept was if we are going to bestroyed lets take the rest of the world with us.

hellmaker · 03-23-2005, 09:28 AM

Yeah...I know the concept... It's sad...
On the other subject, would you surrender if you saw an innocent City in your country being evaporated by your enemy??? wouldn't this make you more and more angry? Wouldn't you be more and more determine you to fight...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-23-2005, 12:32 PM

Yes I would surrender if I knew that there was no way to win and all I would do is cause more death and suffering for my people. Japan did the right thing and surrendered and look they turned out all right and so did Germany.