PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS

[Haztoys]

I'm American ...And really did not get into the Civil War alot until just some time ago ..We learned about it in school and all (i'm 43)...Was always much more into WW2.. So I really did some looking around on WW2..( Not that I'm even in same league on WW2 as most of you here)... But I was always thinking that the Civil War was mostly about slavery... ..

Once I did some looking it was not... .. So they most of been teaching us the BS in the Dark Ages when I was in school also...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

I don't think it's that ridiculous Njaco, the reason being that it's true. Why else bomb the major cities when it was well known that the factories weren't located there ? Hitting the population has its own crippling effect.

Was Hitler's motives different? With London, Amsterdamn, Warsaw, St. Petersburg, etc. for example?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Was Hitler's motives different? With London, Amsterdamn, Warsaw, St. Petersburg, etc. for example?

Being Dutch and having lived there, I must correct you and say it was Rotterdam, not Amsterdam that was bombed ... ...Sorry Chris, I just had to.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Being Dutch and having lived there, I must correct you and say it was Rotterdam, not Amsterdam that was bombed ... ...Sorry Chris, I just had to.

No problem, I was just naming off cities in allied countries.

I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.

All the way back to the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion bombed Guernica in 1937.

And the Japanese were dropping bombs on civilian population centers (Manila, Nanking to name a few) long before the first American bombs fell on the land of Nippon.

Payback is a bitch!

TO

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

All the way back to the Spanish Civil War. The Condor Legion bombed Guernica in 1937.

And the Japanese were dropping bombs on civilian population centers (Manila, Nanking to name a few) long before the first American bombs fell on the land of Nippon.

Payback is a bitch!

TO

go further cack to WW1 and the Zeppelins Gothas

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I find it rather wiered that people always bring up the fact of the allied bombing, but fail to realize that Hitler was bombing civilian cities first.

Agreed, but I think it's due to the fact that the allies were so much better at it. Also Hitlers bombing doesn't make good the mistakes made by bomber command and the USAAF. I think they were on a thin line using a strategy like that. This doesn't take away the fact that the NAZI's easily stepped over this line, though.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Agreed, but I think it's due to the fact that the allies were so much better at it. Also Hitlers bombing doesn't make good the mistakes made by bomber command and the USAAF. I think they were on a thin line using a strategy like that. This doesn't take away the fact that the NAZI's easily stepped over this line, though.

Good point Marcel, I think the Allied bombing of German cities is harder to defend because it had little military effect. I have always felt that too much production was taken up by bombers, I think it would have been better use if they had made more fighters, escorts, ground attack & maritime patrol.

But the heads of the British & American Air Forces were big on Strategic bombing....

[Soren]

Originally Posted by freebird

But that's one of the arguments that they use "But Stalin was as bad as Hitler"...

Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 & 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Soren

Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 & 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.

stalin killed more than hitler, but mao tse tung killed even more. but sure, you have to pay ateption in the size of germany, size of soviet union and size of china.

i believe 1° mao tse tung, 2° hitler, 3° stalin these are the top 3 psychos !

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by JugBR

stalin killed more than hitler, but mao tse tung killed even more. but sure, you have to pay ateption in the size of germany, size of soviet union and size of china.

i believe 1° mao tse tung, 2° hitler, 3° stalin these are the top 3 psychos !

In no particular order. Also consider the time span in which they did it. I think Hitler was as bad as any of them.

[Negative Creep]

I have read the book in question and it is actually a very interesting read. I haven't seen the programme but I can see where it's coming from. A lot of people see WW2 as if it were a 1950's movie - Brits and USA all good and virtuous, Germans all evil Nazis whereas soldiers from all sides committed war crimes. Of course the war crimes of Germany and Japan were on a far greater scale than anything the Western Allies ever performed, but as historians they have a right and duty to explore all aspects.

The topic title is just sensationalism really as they do have a legitimate point. That said, it's my view (one which I would imagine is held by most people on here) that deportations, internment and bombing were a necessary evil and that in total war, normal rules morals and rights just don't apply

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soren

Considering the crimes he committed against his own countrymen, even the ones "liberated" in 44 & 45, he was probably worse than Hitler.

Oh I think he was!

The point that I was making is that saying "Stalin was worse than Hitler" does not mean that "The Allies should not go to war with Germany"

[timshatz]

Not sure if I agree with the idea that everyone committed atrocities as a common currency for all armies during WW2. Doing so is a step in the logic that the Allies were no better than the Axis. It is an arguement based more on inference than actual fact.

While Allied troops did commit atrocities (Dachau, Stutgart, ect), they were isolated cases and not part of official policy. There were no orders written and signed by Ike, Monty or any other Western Allied General instructing the troops to massacre civilians or captured soliders. There were no orders calling for "extreme measures" or similar such as those sent to the Wermacht during the Battle of the Bulge (which were largely ignored by the German troops but not entirely ignored).

However, the Nazis exterminated civilians as a matter of course. The Sodercommando (sp?) were a unit designed to do just that. The objective was not done as an aim of winning the war (possible considered an unfortunate side affect of battle) but as an action of genocide.

Compared to the war in the East, the war in the West was generally fought within the bounds of some rules of war. With exception of units such as the SS, there were generally limitations. However, the underlying conduct of the powers involved (Allied and Axis) was completely different. And it is here that the arguement that the Allies and Axis were the same completely breaks down.

[Maestro]

I haven't read all of the tread, but here are my two cents...

Saying that the Allies are as bad as the Nazis is pure provocation. Of course there was war crimes commited on both sides, but ask yourself the questions :

Who started to bomb cities first ? Germans (First recorded bombing of a city in WWII being Wielun, Poland (September 1st 1939), destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people.)
Who started to kill P.O.W.s first ? Germans (Invasion of Poland, September 1st - October 25th 1939.)

So you know, as someone stated earlier, payback is a bitch. They "accidently bombed" (yeah, sure... who can thrust a Nazi's word ?) a civilian area of London in 1940, the RAF replied by bombing Berlin and then they started to bomb London, Liverpool, Portsmouth and so on...

Then, a few years later, the RAF/USAAF wiped out Dresden... In my book, it was not a war crime, it was justice. A blind justice, but still justice.

And now some Neo-Nazi @ssholes in Germany wants the Queen to apologize for that bombing ? Are they f*cking retarded ? If I was the King of Great-Britain, I would never apologize... Even worse, I would call in the media and say something like : "So you want me to apologize for Dresden ? Sit on it, bitch ! (Give the finger to the camera.)" But once again, I've never hidden the fact that I'm a scumbag... Anyway, I'm getting off-topic here...

For the record : I'm glad the Queen has not apologized for Dresden.

So the Allies did some nasty things... Who cares ? It was greatly justified.