PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Maestro

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

Don't get carried away. IMO no warcrimes are justified. Not the whole population of Germany was NAZI, in fact most of them were not. And as Dresden is concerned. Most of the people in the city were poor refugees, with no home, seeking shelter in the unbombed city, children, mother, fathers and grandparents. This was the real world and they were bombed to the dead.
There's absolutely no justification in that

Saying "yeah, but they started it" is IMO just childish. I agree that appologies are also a stupid thing to do, just as blaming the Germans for what the NAZI's did in WWII.

[trackend]

I am certainly not after looking for justification for Dresden on behalf of a previous generation who had the unenviable job of fighting the war.
They kill us we kill them we win or they win its that simple.

I wonder how many people would be saying dont bomb that city its got civilians in it if they had been around during the war, bet not many, most would be saying lets nuke the bastards specially if half your cities had already had the crap bombed out of them and tens of thousand of your own men, women and kids killed.

Once again we get armchair morals 60 years after the real event a luxury they never had and also without a large helping of old fashioned revenge that was about in bucketfulls on all sides.

That was not an excuse for bombing cities just an attempt to understand the reasons why.

[ToughOmbre]

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

"War is Hell."

- William Tecumseh Sherman

My guess is that most, if not every, revisionist historian has never experienced war, and hasn't got a clue. They just want to sell books.

TO

[kaigunair]

Its interested to see the pendulum swinging both ways in this forum. I too felt the gutteral reaction they were probably hoping to get with the title. But I also don't believe in the idea that "in war, anything goes". This also wasn't the perspective many of our top military leaders during the war, and one reason why I'm proud to be an american.

... a japanese-american, if such a qualification is necessary. and yes, I'm darn proud of what the japanese americans did during the war. and no, I don't think the situation they were put in was IN ANY WAY justified. but darn proud that through their actions, all those reasons for viewing and treating jpn-americans as traitors and sabatours were made NULL and VOID.

but I wouldn't be surprised if PBS aired a show saying the interment camps were justified. PO'd, ready to throw down, but not surprised....

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Marcel

...no warcrimes are justified...

yes thats right agree with you mate 100%, but there´s no war wich doesnt had warcrimes by both sides, anytime !!!

war is dirty, it´s brutal, civilians always dies, womans usually are raped, national theasures are stolen, since 5.000 years to now, its the same thing, just changes the weapons and the strategies.

the war against hitler obviously wasnt 100% clean, like any other was. but was a fair war. thats the diference in mine opinion. some wars aren´t fair, because their reasons are not very specified or theres other goals behind, like the invasion of poland by germany, for sample.

[RabidAlien]

The fine line between "justified violence" in war, and "warcrimes" has a name: winning. If you win, then what you did was "necessary, but distasteful". If you lose, then what you did was "warcrimes". As they say, history is written by the winners. Did atrocities happen on both sides? Yes. Do they happen in all wars? Yes. Are they avoidable? Not without changing basic human nature. Does that change the fact that, even though 90% of Germany did not agree with Hitler's policies, we needed to kick the crap out of Germany? Nope. Does that make it right? Nope. Does whining about it change anything? Nope.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Don't get carried away. IMO no warcrimes are justified. Not the whole population of Germany was NAZI, in fact most of them were not. And as Dresden is concerned. Most of the people in the city were poor refugees, with no home, seeking shelter in the unbombed city, children, mother, fathers and grandparents. This was the real world and they were bombed to the dead.
There's absolutely no justification in that

Saying "yeah, but they started it" is IMO just childish. I agree that appologies are also a stupid thing to do, just as blaming the Germans for what the NAZI's did in WWII.

Agreed Marcel, and the fact that the city raids had a minimal effect on the Axis war effort removes the argument "we had to do it to win the war"

Yes Trackend, if people had their family killed in a bombing raid there would be a populist sentiment to round up all those with German & Italian names and have them shot. But in civilized society we have to resist our baser impulses.

Originally Posted by kaigunair

Its interested to see the pendulum swinging both ways in this forum. I too felt the gutteral reaction they were probably hoping to get with the title. But I also don't believe in the idea that "in war, anything goes". This also wasn't the perspective many of our top military leaders during the war, and one reason why I'm proud to be an american.

... a japanese-american, if such a qualification is necessary. and yes, I'm darn proud of what the japanese americans did during the war. and no, I don't think the situation they were put in was IN ANY WAY justified.

Good post Kaigunair, and welcome to the forum. Interesting to hear a Japanese American perspective.

To be honest, I can understand the government felt the need to move Japanese-born residents away from the coast. However it was certainly not justified to house them in tents in the freezing winter, and it was a terribly shameful act to sell off all of their property for cents on the dollar.

And while you might justify sending Japanese born residents away, I don't think you can in any way justify doing this to US born {or Canadian born} citizens of Japanese origin.


A very tricky question indeed, as it turned out almost 100% of the Japanese were loyal to the USA {or Canada}, but how could the Allies know that at the time? Especially as the west coast was going through an invasion scare.

Hope this post does not offend

[Soren]

Fully agreed Freebird.

[freebird]

In my mind in 1941-1942 it would have been better use of the long range heavy bombers as Naval Patrol, or to bomb the Italian Mediterranean ports, as they are easier to target at night, and reducing capacity of usable transport to Rommel would have some solid effectiveness. In 1942-1943 they should have built more fighters, naval strike & ground attack aircraft instead of so many heavy bombers.

Just a thought

[kaigunair]

hey freebird, I appreciate the comments, no offense taken. However, one point I'd like to bring out, was the island of hawaii and the scope of the internment of the large japan-born and japanese-american popluation, or lack thereof. Here you had something like 30% of the population was of "japanese ancestry", plus large, important, and key military bases that had been actually attacked by japan. I think 1% or less were rounded up and sent to camps. A rational decision to move the japanese to camps would certainly have to logically include these "enemies".

Then you have "western strategic area" where you had a japanese population of <1%, and 100% were rounded up and put into camps.

I'd have to say it was fear which was behind the relocation, and I can say it was a false fear, because the japanese americans demonstrated it by their actions. What made it hard for the jpn-americans is that there was no formal apology after the war...you have to remember these people lost their homes, farms, businesses. If it was wrong, why weren't these things returned? note: most had 24-72 hours to sell everything they owned, and had only what they could carry onto the trains.

An often missed reason for the interment is that the small japanese-american community was doing very well fiinancially. They bought junk land, spent years turning it into fertile soil...it was $$$. By law, japanese couldn't become citizens, so often the land was put in the names of their kids. Or, like the YWCA in San Francisco, put in the name of a organzation (fyi, who later sold it to China to become a Chinese embassy). Fear and fear mongering for profit - its why I don't ever plan to set foot in Hearst Castle based on principle.

Yes, there was the $10k and "formal apology" of the 1990's. I think its easy to see how it was sort of "too little, too late" thing, plus many never lived to see it. Many of those that did used it to self-publish books on their experience.

China is the up and coming superpower. Wonder what would happen to all the chinese and chinese americans living in the pacific coast. I sure it would be safer if they weren't all there, especially if there was a war on......

sorry, last thing, but one thing that has stuck with me is that most spies for the japanese weren't japanese or jpn americans. same with present day spies - I think these agencies have figured out its better to go with non-native looking people to hire on as spies. makes them less obvious? I could be wrong, since 007 seems to do blend in well in every country from africa, to asia, to the middle east...but oh, he's a fictional character...

(its late, and I've done a lot of personal study in this area, so its close to my heart).

[freebird]

Originally Posted by kaigunair

hey freebird, I appreciate the comments, no offense taken.

I'd have to say it was fear which was behind the relocation.

You are being polite here - you and I know that a major factor in their treatment was RACISM.

Originally Posted by kaigunair

What made it hard for the jpn-americans is that there was no formal apology after the war...you have to remember these people lost their homes, farms, businesses. If it was wrong, why weren't these things returned? note: most had 24-72 hours to sell everything they owned, and had only what they could carry onto the trains.

Yes I think the legacy would have been different if the government had simply held on to the property during the war, and then returned it afterwards {with an apology of course}

But selling it off at fire-sale prices was just a big rip-off,

[Clave]

War is Hell.

That is all you need to know...

[seesul]

The war crimes were on all sides, there´s no doubt, that´s why we call it WAR.
But we know the reasons why all the sides fought-the difference was the idea what the soldiers fought for:
on Axis side to create 3rd Reich, control at least whole Europe and Asia, destroy Jews,Slavonians, homosexuals,hadiccaped etc...
on Allies side to get back the occupied territory and liberate the nations
Both sides did it on their own: concentration camps, bombing the cities,executing POW´s and civilians...which has nothing to do with the normal human mind. But people become annimals in the war and the human mind goes appart...
If you are attacked, you gotta defend yourself, your family, your country...would you do it with a peaceful smile on your face and peaceful thoughts in your mind?
BUT NO WAR, NO WAR CRIMES,NO VICTIMS.
NO AGGRESSOR, NO WAR.
THE BIGGEST WAR CRIME IS THE WAR ITSELF

[Njaco]

25 June 1943 -

At Chequers, Churchill had been watching films taken during RAF raids on Germany. Suddenly, he sat up and said to his guest, the Australian cabinet minister Richard Casey: "Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?" Casey answered: "We didn't start it. And it was them or us."

[starling]

goebels said....do you want total war....yes...came the answer.from an allied point of view,everyone imo is fair game,the factory,the factory workers house,the factory worker,the person who makes his sandwiches and the person who grew the food,the worker eats.fair game.yours,starling.