Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GScholz on November 01, 2013, 12:32:48 PM
-
Something to look for when it airs/becomes available.
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/german-series-sparks-national-debate-war-history.html
"A miniseries billed as a German Band of Brothers has become a ratings hit here and sparked a nationwide discussion about the role of ordinary Germans during World War II."
The BBC has acquired the UK rights. Music Box has picked up the US rights and hopes to give the series a theatrical release before releasing it for TV and DVD.
-
The German Wehrmacht took a active role in the Genocide :old:
"SS the alibi of a Nation" is a very good book :)
-
Cool beans man, thanks for the heads up. I wonder when they will be able to get it sub-titled and released for English viewers, do any of the German articles cover that information?
I'm just finishing up 'The Forgotten Soldier' which is an autobiographical account of a german foot soldier on the Russian front.
-
BBC will probably be the first to air a subtitled version. I don't know when though, but I expect DVD and Bluray releases next year.
-
Their Eastern Front antics were certainly questionable, but no different to the Red Army.
-
Yes the Germans were defending their right to invade other countries :old:
Do they lose in this one like they did in the first? :old:
-
It was no different than the IJA vs USMC. If one side doesnt follow the rules the other tends not to either
-
If one side doesn't follow the rules of war then the other side(s) are no longer obligated to follow the rules either. So called "illegal combatants" for example are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. However that doesn't mean either side can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
-
If one side doesn't follow the rules of war then the other side(s) are no longer obligated to follow the rules either. So called "illegal combatants" for example are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. However that doesn't mean either side can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
those are subjective based on what a bunch of dipsticks in suits thinks is worse than any other aspect of war. personally, first side to do something as outrageous as i've seen, should expect 10 times worse in return.
-
If one side doesn't follow the rules of war then the other side(s) are no longer obligated to follow the rules either. So called "illegal combatants" for example are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. However that doesn't mean either side can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Patently untrue in all respects.
-
Patently untrue in all respects.
You need to back that up with something. Article two of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that a signatory power is bound by the conventions only if the opposing nation accepts and applies the provisions of the conventions.
-
I will check it out for sure and was curious as to something like this would come along.
-
You need to back that up with something. Article two of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that a signatory power is bound by the conventions only if the opposing nation accepts and applies the provisions of the conventions.
Geneva convention based in Switzland :old:
The Swiss have nothing to say about such issues :old:
Their behaviour in world affairs are a disgrace :old:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNUZgFNz8k
-
If one side doesn't follow the rules of war then the other side(s) are no longer obligated to follow the rules either. So called "illegal combatants" for example are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. However that doesn't mean either side can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.
I have always had a problem with all this. So, if one side doesn't follow the rules, and the other side follows suit for the sake of leveling the playing field{ in this case the usmc},can they still be prosecuted after the war for breaking the rules?
-
'tis a sad deal that such issues of politics and finger pointing can't be left at the front door when plights of the individual soldiers and their stories are being told. Truth be told that the common every day German soldat was no different than the common every day US soldier (or UK, French, Japanese, Soviet, Polish, Italian, Canadian, etc). Those individuals did not start the war, they didn't devise the political BS, they simply answered the call as most patriotic people would do if their country called. Stop and think how many fools in todays world eat up what the media and government fees them to this day??? These individuals had mothers and fathers, family traditions, hobbies, hopes and dreams, etc, just like everyone in these forums. To place a blanket statement to any group be it Nazi, Soviet, Japanese Imperialist, US GI "rogues", SS, etc, etc, is to rob those individuals within those organizations who were just like you and me and NOT of the rubber stamp label of their due humanity. Not every Nazi pulled the trigger on a Jew, not every Japanese Imperialist used a POW for bayonet practice, not every Italian fascist murdered civilians on a whim, and not every Soviet soldier raped and pillaged as he ran through German territory. If people have become so quick to point fingers and engage in the political babble of "which side did what and when and that group are more 'badder", then the stories of the individuals and their struggles and their ability to deal and cope with those struggles, but it winner or loser, can't be examined with an open mind. And that is a travesty.
The German Wehrmacht soldiers on the Ost Front were hardly any different than any other solders anywhere else in the world. Don't kid yourself.
I'll be looking for "Generation War" when it comes out. Thanks for the heads up!
-
The role of the German army in the genocide has been one of the best kept secrets for decades. Now the truth is starting to come out, and many who prefer to write history "their" way dont like it.
The German Wehrmacht soldiers on the Ost Front were hardly any different than any other solders anywhere else in the world. Don't kid yourself.
Im sorry but thats just not true.
The USMC in the pacific was fighting a murderous enemy that wasnt a signatory to the Geneva Convention and neither gave or ask for any quarter. How do you show mercy to an enemy committed to die at any cost? Even then, once the threat to our troops was removed, Allied troops were very merciful to Japanese civilians.
Both Japanese and German soldiers were raised in Martial society's who taught their children their future enemies were racial inferiors and that mercy towards them would be considered a weakness. To understand the mores of the soldiers one first has to understand what they were first taught as kids and young men in their respective countries. Most of these young soldiers had 5 to 10 years of instruction that their racial enemies were little more then vermin.
Germany however was a Christian country where being a soldier was an honorable profession. There WAS conflict in some circumstances with carrying out genocidal orders and these moral conflicts helped create the Historical record of the Wehrmact's participation the the Holocaust. Much of it in the tortured letters written home by deeply scarred young Germans who were so shocked by what was happening they didnt give a damn about the Nazi censors.
That it happened isnt what surprises ; What does surprise is that is was committed by such an honorable, Christian, western people.
Read Ian Kershaw if you want a real focused look at what happened in German society that led to the extermination of entire races. Ian is a fantastic Historian and really delves deep. I was a little surprised to see just how ad-hoc and unplanned the beginnings of the Holocaust was. The Nazis indeed were deeply worried about public opinion and danced around it even after the fog of a two front war kept many Germans from thinking of anything else but their own survival.
-
The role of the German army in the genocide has been one of the best kept secrets for decades. Now the truth is starting to come out, and many who prefer to write history "their" way dont like it.
Im sorry but thats just not true.
The USMC in the pacific was fighting a murderous enemy that wasnt a signatory to the Geneva Convention and neither gave or ask for any quarter. How do you show mercy to an enemy committed to die at any cost? Even then, once the threat to our troops was removed, Allied troops were very merciful to Japanese civilians.
Both Japanese and German soldiers were raised in Martial society's who taught their children their future enemies were racial inferiors and that mercy towards them would be considered a weakness. To understand the mores of the soldiers one first has to understand what they were first taught as kids and young men in their respective countries. Most of these young soldiers had 5 to 10 years of instruction that their racial enemies were little more then vermin.
Germany however was a Christian country where being a soldier was an honorable profession. There WAS conflict in some circumstances with carrying out genocidal orders and these moral conflicts helped create the Historical record of the Wehrmact's participation the the Holocaust. Much of it in the tortured letters written home by deeply scarred young Germans who were so shocked by what was happening they didnt give a damn about the Nazi censors.
That it happened isnt what surprises ; What does surprise is that is was committed by such an honorable, Christian, western people.
Read Ian Kershaw if you want a real focused look at what happened in German society that led to the extermination of entire races. Ian is a fantastic Historian and really delves deep. I was a little surprised to see just how ad-hoc and unplanned the beginnings of the Holocaust was. The Nazis indeed were deeply worried about public opinion and danced around it even after the fog of a two front war kept many Germans from thinking of anything else but their own survival.
I'm well aware of Ian Kershaw's writings, he has written some phenomenal work. You're observation on the beginnings of the Holocaust being "unplanned" is spot on, while there may have been some verbiage thrown around early in the 1930's by the higher level Nazis, but it was not spelled out as to how or when.
With regards to the comparison of the Ost Front and the PTO, be careful to not assume that just because two sides signed the Geneva Convention that they didn't gut each other alive when they had the chance.
-
I have always had a problem with all this. So, if one side doesn't follow the rules, and the other side follows suit for the sake of leveling the playing field{ in this case the usmc},can they still be prosecuted after the war for breaking the rules?
Yes, but not within reason. For example, if the enemy repeatedly does not honor surrenders or fake surrendering only to ambush etc. you are no longer required to honor surrenders. However that does not give you the right to for example summarily execute prisoners that you manage to capture. At least not without condemning them to death for capital crimes, spying or other valid reasons in some sort of tribunal first. Under no circumstances are you allowed to deliberately target civilians no matter what the enemy does or who's side the civilians are on. Haditha is a prime example of going too far.
-
Yes, but not within reason. For example, if the enemy repeatedly does not honor surrenders or fake surrendering only to ambush etc. you are no longer required to honor surrenders. However that does not give you the right to for example summarily execute prisoners that you manage to capture. At least not without condemning them to death for capital crimes, spying or other valid reasons in some sort of tribunal first. Under no circumstances are you allowed to deliberately target civilians no matter what the enemy does or who's side the civilians are on. Haditha is a prime example of going too far.
Thanks for clearing that up for me GS! By the way, I love your avatar!
:rock :salute
-
Yeah, the Oscar he won for that role was very deserved! :aok :salute
-
War is horror. Men become apathetic, unfeeling.
Has happened throughout History, by men from all walks of life.
A part of man that's always been there.
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
:cheers: Oz
-
War is horror. Men become apathetic, unfeeling.
Has happened throughout History, by men from all walks of life.
A part of man that's always been there.
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
:cheers: Oz
Well said oz. :salute
-
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
I must disagree.
My Lai is of course horrible and reprehensible, and it was 500 people killed. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler killed millions (or tens of millions). So, first, there is an enormous difference in scale -- 500 vs. 20,000,000, for example.
Also, America as a nation was not setting out to exterminate any races or classes of people, or to depopulate entire nations. So, second, there is a significant difference between a rogue group of a 200 people (which wasn't following its nation's dictates) vs. a whole nation and its accepted leadership.
As for nothing justifying war, I think that at least the defender is justified in fighting back.
"We as Americans are no better"? Cheers? and
Well said oz. salute
In my view, there is a vast difference between (1) rightly acknowledging that America has been far from perfect and (2) stating that America is the same as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China.
[Edited to make sure my response was even tempered. ;) ]
-
In my view, there is a vast difference between (1) rightly acknowledging that America has been far from perfect and (2) stating that America is the same as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China.
Fortunately we were never put in the position of having to fight on our own soil or up to our doorstep. We could afford to take the moral high ground. We'll never know what we would have done to preserve the nation until we're actually put in that position.
Another thing I'll say is that the moral high ground is a valuable asset to have. Something we've needlessly given up in more recent wars and times.
-
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
I get so tired of people trying to draw a moral equivalence to wartime atrocities. Comparing My Lai to say, the Rape of Nanking, the soviet purges in Poland and other systematic genocides with untold scale of human suffering. My Lai was what, a couple hundred people murdered by rogue elements of a military unit, vs the state sanctioned/ordered murder by an entire military.
I have an idiot dear friend who honestly believes the US has no moral authority to protest Assad using chemical weapons because the USA used phosphorus rounds in Fallujia in the Iraq war....against combatants.
-
I must disagree.
My Lai is of course horrible and reprehensible, and it was 500 people killed. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler killed millions (or tens of millions). So, first, there is an enormous difference in scale -- 500 vs. 20,000,000, for example.
Also, America as a nation was not setting out to exterminate any races or classes of people, or to depopulate entire nations. So, second, there is a significant difference between a rogue group of a 200 people (which wasn't following its nation's dictates) vs. a whole nation and its accepted leadership.
Now running in a different way America has a dark and bloody history..
1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness We then have slaves for over 100 years.. Many of whom were treated horribly.
2. What about the Native Americans { Indians is Politically incorrect} Taking the land without paying and the mass murders of Indians.
3 The bombing of Industrial Germany. Many civilians lost there lives because of that.
4. I love America.
5 I just hate it when people talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war. People need to realize that we are no better. The base nature of man is the same.
6. Oz you have said it
War is horror. Men become apathetic, unfeeling.
Has happened throughout History, by men from all walks of life.
A part of man that's always been there.
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
If we need rules of how to fight in war doesnt that mean something is wrong with the World...
"Love your enemys, do good to them that despitefully use you. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on there head." Remember that God will make everyone of those Leaders pay for there crimes against humanity with their own Horrible room in HELL!!!
May God Bless America and help her to KEEP her Hands CLEAN :salute
LtCondor :salute
-
5 I just hate it when people talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war. People need to realize that we are no better. The base nature of man is the same.
Let the coffee shop intellectual hand wringing begin.
Generally I agree that people are mostly the same, take a thousand and random and they will be substantially similar to another random thousand.
The USA however, goes to great lengths to avoid collateral damage in war, perhaps even at the expense of our own soldiers. We have a free press to report outrages and bring them to public light. We have not engaged in war to take land and subjugate foreign peoples. We spend vast sums both public and private in foreign aid and humanitarian causes. We open our borders to students and the oppressed, and as 911 proved to our disadvantage.
Funny thing is it is mostly people in the west who spend so much time bending over backwards to draw some moral equivalence. Stalin called them useful idiots. I don't find them that useful.
What is surprising to me is despite how universally 'despised' the USA, gosh there is just a line out the door to get here. :rolleyes:
-
I think we can safely disregard almost all of wpeters post as irrelevant drivel.
-
Now running in a different way America has a dark and bloody history..
1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness We then have slaves for over 100 years.. Many of whom were treated horribly.
2. What about the Native Americans { Indians is Politically incorrect} Taking the land without paying and the mass murders of Indians.
3 The bombing of Industrial Germany. Many civilians lost there lives because of that.
4. I love America.
5 I just hate it when people talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war. People need to realize that we are no better. The base nature of man is the same.
6. Oz you have said it
War is horror. Men become apathetic, unfeeling.
Has happened throughout History, by men from all walks of life.
A part of man that's always been there.
One is no better or worse than the other.
They are all equally evil. Nothing justifies it.
We as Americans are no better.- My Lai 1968
If we need rules of how to fight in war doesnt that mean something is wrong with the World...
"Love your enemys, do good to them that despitefully use you. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on there head." Remember that God will make everyone of those Leaders pay for there crimes against humanity with their own Horrible room in HELL!!!
May God Bless America and help her to KEEP her Hands CLEAN :salute
LtCondor :salute
It appears someone has read a high school history book and listened to an apologist teacher at the same time. So much of what you've said came straight from the heart and not with any historical context what-so-ever. Yeah, we all know slavery was bad, it always has been ***in our modern day manner of thinking***. But, you can't hold our modern level of righteousness to the same standards of 100, 200, 500, or 1000 years ago.
What if I told you that in 100 years it will be illegal to own pets and they will have the right to vote. Seriously. Stop and think of the context of that. In 1728, if you were to have asked that question to the average person about X group of people (blacks/slaves, Indians, women, non property owners, etc), the answer would have been much the same. Historical context. Learn to view history through the eyes and ideology of the time and you'll perhaps learn a few things.
and seriously, read up on the "Greta Leap Forward". Then try and find which country can fit in the same group as Mao's China. Stalin's Soviet Union? Maybe. Hitler's Nazi Germany? Nah, barely a fraction of Mao's totals. Others have already pointed out comparing My Lai and most of the other atrocities is a bit far fetched, they occurred under two very different sets of circumstances.
-
Now running in a different way America has a dark and bloody history..
[etc.]
This is perhaps the result of a lack of historical perspective.
Nearly every nation and tribe of mankind has slavery in its past: America, yes, but also: Britain, Western Europe overall, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, China, Asia overall, Africa overall (which practiced more slavery than America did), Central America, South America; tribes including the Vikings, the Mauris, the Slavs, the Arabs, the Persians, the Huns, the Egyptians, the North Africans, the Africans overall, the American Indians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, SE Asian tribes; city states of history including Babalon, Carthage, Rome, Athens, Sparta; etc. This is not saying that slavery is good -- it isn't. It is saying that picking out slavery as an aspect on which to discriminate national morality is faulty.
Nearly every nation and tribe took its land from some other nation and tribe. The history of Europe, the Mediterranean, central Asia, China, SE Asia, Africa, Central America, South America, and even North America is a history of tribes fighting, and killing off adversarial tribes or driving them off their original land. The American Indians from whom America carved out a nation were the ones who got their land from the native tribes that preceded them. This is not to say that imperialism is good -- it often is not. It is saying that picking out conquest of a predecessor as an aspect on which to discriminate national morality is faulty.
In WWII and prior, you couldn't win a war without fighting a nation and its complete resources; and in WWII in particular, you couldn't win without going after industry. To think otherwise is nonsense.
"I just hate it when people talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war. People need to realize that we are no better." Again, do you have a sense of vast scale differences? Do you see the difference between killing 10's of millions of non-enemy non-combatants vs. 100's of thousands who were part of a war zone and who were a supporting part of a nation that is trying to kill you?
War is unfortunate, but historically, it has been absolutely necessary for at least half the parties involved (unless their goal is to be wiped out or conquered).
I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system). One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China. That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood. What is the goal of such misrepresentation?
-
I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system). One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China. That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood. What is the goal of such misrepresentation?
Well said.
-
I just hate it when people lack a sense of history or seem taken in by a long-running leftist agenda (which unfortunately seems to have permeated our education system). One aspect of that agenda seems to be to misrepresent history and to conclude that America is just as bad as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China. That is just not so, and to promote that idea is to promote falsehood. What is the goal of such misrepresentation?
As a "leftist" I really hate it when people with a lack of knowledge believe what the right wing media machine says "leftists" think. Having known and interacted with many a "leftists", including teachers, I have never encountered anybody who believed anything close to that pack of slanderous lies.
You ought to be ashamed of pushing that tripe, Brooke.
Does the USA have flaws? Of course, but the moment a "leftist" says that we're accused of thinking or saying that the USA is just as bad as those abhorent nations you reference, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Mao's China.
The United States is the best, most benevolent world dominating power in human history, and we can do even better than we have in the past, but we won't if we stick our heads in the sand and insist we're perfect and nothing can be changed to make us even better. Pax Americana has been a boon to the world and we can make it even more so if we want to.
-
Stalin called them useful idiots.
:aok
One of the historical aspects that I find highly interesting is the following. Stalin engineered the takeover of many other nations and regions. One of his tools was to have indigenous communists and socialists in the area form a group, agitate, claim oppression, and call on Stalin to send in forces to help them. Stalin would send in forces, citing the call for help as the reason that, on humanitarian grounds, he just had to send in forces to help. Once he got control of the region, he would round up and kill all of those people in the group. Amazing poetic justice.
-
As a "leftist" I really hate it when people with a lack of knowledge believe what the right wing media machine says "leftists" think. Having known and interacted with many a "leftists", including teachers, I have never encountered anybody who believed anything close to that pack of slanderous lies.
Unfortunately being educated in a California University I came across exactly that sentiment in leftist professors and students, ubiquitous one might say. (I don't watch cable news television I read the WSJ and Economist for my news.)
You are missing the context too. This is in response to:
wpeters "I just hate it when people talk about the other countries and how immoral they are in war. People need to realize that we are no better."
"We as americans are no better--Mi Lai 1968"
-
I love a debate guys. I do debating for a hobby...
Brooke was there anyway we could have won the war without so many casualties.
OK the USA has a presidential finding that we cannot take out leader of the a unjust government... Actually it is stated something about not assassinating a head of foreign power.
Why could they not have just put bombs on Togo's palace. Hitlers residence.. These men are the ones that started it.. Not the population. Most of the German people didn't know or knew very little about the extermination camps.. Why not hold the leader responsible by dropping a egg on his head..
The people were being patriotic. They were defending their homes from the invaders. Read The Forgotten Solider.
Lets say China would say the USA government was in some way committing crimes against humanity. We would say that was just propaganda. Doesn't that apply to the Axis powers in WWll.... People tend to believe their government over a foreign powers words.
The majority of the SS Officers were Austrian.
Hitler was a Bolverian or Austrian by birth.. He wasn't even German.
My point is why not just take out all of the key leaders of the foriegn power.
The german people were ready to surrender after the bomb went of in Wolf's Liar.
Sorry about my ramblings.
The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender. Read Flag of Our Fathers & Flyboys.
In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved. It was a mind set, away of life for them. :salute
-
I was actually having a discussion about self defense with my dorm mate. He is of the opinion that use of lethal force in self defense is tantamount to premeditated murder.
The issue seems to be an inability to acknowledge differences of degree, only differences of kind.
-
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"--Mark Twain
-
As a "leftist" I really hate it
OK -- substitute some other term for "leftist" then. I have a problem picking a word that everyone will agree with. As just one example, "liberal" used to mean something completely different, but a group has stolen it to label themselves. Now we need to use "classical liberal" (which is what I am) to mean what "liberal" really should mean. I'm not sure what word to use.
I know lots of "left-leaning" people (in the general, common meaning of that term). I've lived in Michigan, Los Angeles area, San Francisco area, and the Seattle area -- all left-leaning states and regions. I have friends from all philosophies (from ultra right wing to socialist/communist), with perhaps roughly half of them being on the left (again, in the general, common meaning). I have several friends who are teachers and know several more as acquaintances. I've spent the first three decades of my life in educational institutions, so I have a lot of direct experience there, too.
From among the leftist side of my friends and acquaintances, it is not uncommon for them to feel that America is about as bad as any other country for approximately the reasons WPeters gives. From among the teachers (all are on the left), some of them feel approximately that way, and some do not.
My feelings on all of this are not from right-wing media, but mainly from my own direct observations and experience and my own friends and acquaintances, and secondarily from left and right sources (as I read both in approximately equal quantity, left and right news, left and right books on economic policy, education, and history).
I do feel that our education system on average has a left-leaning agenda that is not the same as unbiased education. I say "on average" because there is of course a spectrum that includes everything from far left bias to unbiased to far right bias, from pro socialism to anti socialism, from pro religion to anti religion, etc.
-
I love a debate guys. I do debating for a hobby...
:aok I am with you there! I do enjoy discussion and debate as a hobby, too.
Brooke was there anyway we could have won the war without so many casualties.
Of course. Nothing is ever perfect. Take two car engines. One gets 4 miles to the gallon, and one gets 40 miles to the gallon. The former is a gas guzzler, and the latter (by today's standards anyway) is not. If you argue that they are both the same and are both gas guzzlers, you are not correct. You are still not correct even though there is a way that the engine at 40 miles per gallon could get even better gas mileage (since perfection is rarely obtainable, and it is almost always possible to do at least a little better).
OK the USA has a presidential finding that we cannot take out leader of the a unjust government... Actually it is stated something about not assassinating a head of foreign power.
That is not very well followed and likely has all kinds of caveats on when it is in fact OK. All countries, the US included, have worked to kill the leaders of nations they were fighting (and sometimes not even openly fighting). The allies of course worked to try to kill Hitler for example.
Why could they not have just put bombs on Togo's palace.
I think you mean the Emperor's palace (as Tojo was the Prime Minister, and we would have been happy to kill him). We didn't want to kill the Emperor for very practical reasons. Because of the way Japanese society worked, we felt that if the US killed the Emperor, the Japanese people would rather die to the last person fighting us than give up; but that if the Emperor were alive, he could (if he saw how doomed things were) convince the Japanese people to surrender and not fight to the last person. Which is exactly what happened.
Hitlers residence..
The allies did try to kill Hitler. They weren't worried that killing him would cause the Germans to fight to the last person suicidally.
These men are the ones that started it.. Not the population. Most of the German people didn't know or knew very little about the extermination camps.. Why not hold the leader responsible by dropping a egg on his head..
Incorrect. It was the whole upper echelon of government that started it, not one man, and that government was strongly supported by the nation overall. If we could have ended the war by killing one man, we would definitely have tried it. We did try it in some cases. It is not easy to take out the head guy, by the way. Even with the most-modern technology available (like magic compared to WWII technology -- triangulation, satellite-guided missiles, bunker busters, full air superiority, etc.), fighting against a third-world country, and trying our best, we didn't manage to kill Sadam during the Iraq war.
The people were being patriotic. They were defending their homes from the invaders. Read The Forgotten Solider.
Of course. That's one of the things that makes war tragic -- people dying for bad causes.
Lets say China would say the USA government was in some way committing crimes against humanity. We would say that was just propaganda. Doesn't that apply to the Axis powers in WWll....
No. There is the truth that matters.
People tend to believe their government over a foreign powers words.
Yes. See remark on tragedy above.
The majority of the SS Officers were Austrian.
I don't know if this is true, but even if so, it is moot.
Hitler was a Bolverian or Austrian by birth.. He wasn't even German.
Where he was born doesn't matter at all. It's what is going on that matters. If a nation is working to kill you, you have to fight back. It doesn't matter if it is being led by a Bavarian (which is part of Germany, by the way), and Austrian, or an Eskimo.
My point is why not just take out all of the key leaders of the foriegn power.
If you can, you do that. If you can't, you fight a big war.
The german people were ready to surrender after the bomb went of in Wolf's Liar.
No they weren't, and they didn't. The US kept up a propaganda campaign for a long time in the war, trying to convince Germans to surrender. See your own comments about nationality and belief in native government above. The Germans were a people with a lot of fighting capability in them, and they kept it up until the end.
People also argue the same about Japan. "The sinking of all the supply ships put them in such a dire condition for food that they would have surrendered. We didn't need to use the atomic bombs." Yet if you read history (including the excellent "With the Old Breed," by E. B. Sledge or know what resources were being collected into Japan for the final battle for the home island, what toll Kamikaze attacks were having on US ships, that hundreds of mini subs were being readied on the coast, that 750,000 Japanese troops were in the area to oppose landing by 500,000 allied soldiers, how Japan fought for every single little island leading to Japan to nearly the last man despite knowing they would lose the battle, that estimates of taking the home island would involve 10 million Japanese casualties and 1 million allied casualties), you realize that the two atomic bombs were a huge savings in number of lives compared to the alternative.
The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender. Read Flag of Our Fathers & Flyboys.
In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved. It was a mind set, away of life for them. :salute
Yes, but so what? There is right and wrong in the world defined by those with the power to enforce it. I'm sure that there are Satanists who think it's good to torture to death a child. Almost no one would conclude that their actions are then OK because by their religious beliefs it was OK. The folks who think it's bad have more power in the world and will enforce their idea of right and wrong. That's the way the world works.
I have said that I think our education system has a leftist agenda, which Karnak objected to. Again, perhaps my term "leftist" is wrong; but what I see is (again on average, not every single institution) a greater belief in things like the US being as bad as any other nation (even ones that killed 20 million of their own people), that socialist policies are good (when history is replete with very strong counter examples), and also these things like cultural and moral relativism -- that there is no real good or bad culture or morality. The idea of all that counts is whether the person doing it considers it bad or good -- no objective measurement outside of that whether it is bad or good. This is foolishness. Some things in the world work well and some work poorly, which makes some things good and some poor. I might have the opinion that putting saltwater in my gas tank is good for my car. But reality proves that it is stupid to do that. Therefore, it is a stupid action, and my belief otherwise does not counter that fact.
-
The United States is the best, most benevolent world dominating power in human history, and we can do even better than we have in the past, but we won't if we stick our heads in the sand and insist we're perfect and nothing can be changed to make us even better. Pax Americana has been a boon to the world and we can make it even more so if we want to.
perhaps at the level of the ignorant general population some of that may be true, but as a nation run by idiots...not even close.
-
The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender. Read Flag of Our Fathers & Flyboys.
In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved. It was a mind set, away of life for them.
Much truth in this but you dont quite get it all.
The Japanese were also raised with the notion they were racially superior to other peoples. While they may have despised surrender, at least the most militant of them, the fact is they also thought the lives of other peoples were beneath them. that and they werent raised with western concepts of Christian values. thats how they were able to enslaves thousands of Korean woman to sex slave camps. And how they were able to commit the most horrible of atrocities without western values of guilt.
Its amazing what a person will believe if they are raised since childhood with a mindset or set of values that is constantly reinforced, while seeing all the while what the penalties are for thinking other wise. The Japanese didnt think so much they were giving "POWs what they deserved" ; More like they thought "they were giving other peoples what they deserved".
As did many Germans, which is even more fascinating because they actually were a western society with Christian values. The popular notion that very few Germans knew what was going on is wrong. The fact is the Holocaust was the worst kept secret of any genocide and for any single tortured soul who wrote home in agony over seeing it there were many who wrote home saying what they were doing was right. Really no different, tho on a much smaller scale, were the letters home by Yanks soldiers after slaughtering so many Filipino woman and kids in the war of 1898. Whats so frightening about the Holocaust is not only the scale but the Institutionalization and Industrialization of the slaughter.
And the lesson learned isnt that the Germans were evil ; Its that it could happen there it could happen anywhere. Which is why we should always remain vigilant, not only of other parts of the world but also of home.
"Apathy" killed those innocent people as much as the Nazis did. Maybe more so.
Good discussion but we are treading on thin ice. Lets keep Politics and personal flames out of it.
-
I love a debate guys. I do debating for a hobby...
By the way, I'm glad to discuss with you and glad that you enjoy the debate.
-
By the way, I'm glad to discuss with you and glad that you enjoy the debate.
Same to you!!!
Coming from the side of being a teacher it is hard for us to get approved books that are unbias. Most are all tweaked to benifit us a doing right or us as doing wrong! :rock :rofl
-
Same to you!!!
Coming from the side of being a teacher it is hard for us to get approved books that are unbias. Most are all tweaked to benifit us a doing right or us as doing wrong! :rock :rofl
Most public school textbooks today are not citing history, they are more telling a fairy tale than anything. Drama and insinuation is rampant. Apologist textbooks that insinuate and dramatize everything and the need for being PC are two reasons I am not a teacher.
-
"A miniseries billed as a German Band of Brothers has become a ratings hit here and sparked a nationwide discussion about the role of ordinary Germans during World War II."
By the way, I rambled far off topic here, but thanks for posting. I have for a long time wished that there would be a German Band of Brothers series. (Also wishing for a Japanese one.)
<S>
-
Guessing that Netflix wont have this? Where to see it, English subtitles would be nice too...
-
Franz, you'll find that info if you read the original post. It's on Music Box in the US.