Churchill - War Criminal?

[Idaho]

On the Iraq thread I talked about the conflict between conservative world view and the movement to revise previously imposed views of historical figures.

BBC - Churchill War Criminal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2494747.stm)

Essentially the debate splits two ways - you can either discuss the practical outome of the bombing - whether it changed the outcome, or have a discussion about history written by the winners (it being a German proffessor who has proposed the ideas - although he did not suggest the term war criminal).

[Catiline]

It'd be interesting to see Mo Mowlam present the case for Churchill as the greatest Britain, even if that whole affair is a facile nonsense...

technically Churchill initiated the 'terror bombings' as his grandson seems to like reffering to them as. The German bombing of civilian areas was a navigational error, they thought they were attacking Richmond docks. Churchill launched a bombing raid on Berlin in retaliation the next night, tit for tat Hitler started the blitz. An eye for an eye and the world will soon be blind.

IIRC Churchill was quite prepared to use gas in the event of a German invasion in 1940.

What is now euphemistically called collateral damage is ofcourse inevitable in war. Should we try to avoid it? Undoubtedly from a moral point of view. But while wars are fought for moral reasons (or one would at least like to think they are) morals rarely win wars.If the only way to destroy German infrastructure had the consequence of killing civilians that's unfortunate but inevitable. So far it seems that the intention wasn't directly to attack civilians. regardless of magnitude the intent is very different from Serbian troops rounding up Muslims in a Stadium and shooting them.

As an aside I wonder what now would be the reaction of Europe and the US to Muslim rebels against the Yugoslav regime if we transplant events 10 years from 1991/2 to 2001/2

[Idaho]

Interesting last point... it's a good question.

Dragging my own thread OT too rapidly - how much do you think Mo Mowlam's Churchill thing is an early play at the next Labour leadership? She is probably the most popular Labour politician and is relatively untainted with connection to Blair, despite being very New Labour.

[Inferno]

Without a crystal ball to tell us how things would have turned out if various people had acted differently, it is difficult to make the argument that I want to put into this debate. However, I will try.

Before America entered the war, it was (to all extents and puposes) Britain + Russia verses Germany. (Obviously there were other countries involved and helping as well, but I am only stating the main combatants...please don't bite my head off for it&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The balance of power was firmly with Germany. It is widely believed that if Hitler had fought one front at a time (rather than fighting the eastern and western front simultaneously) then Germany would have been hot favourites to win the war (better equipped, better trained, better strategists than either of their opponents.)

Germany started the civillian bombing (accidentally or not.) Would (or even should) the people of Britain have stood there and taken this without demanding revenge? Of course not, revenge is a natural human emotion. Would the USA have gone after the Taliban in 2001 if not for 9/11? Probably not.

Chuchill did what he had to do to appease the British public. Not only that, but by bombing civillians he let the people in Germany (who were being fed a pack of lies about the war situation) know that things were not quite as they were told.

A human life lost in conflict is a tragedy, I firmly believe that. But I would postulate (and I cannot prove this) that if it hadn't been done, most of Europe could very well be speaking German by now.

This is not to say the Churchill is getting my vote (I'm going for Elizabeth 1st) but it is to say that he was fine Britain and a good leader, IMHO.

(Edit - Typo that made a sentence not make sense.)

[Mithrandir]

Moved to history/Monastery.

[Wavesword]

Some comments on Churchill's use of Chemical Weapons
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s02.html
A short history from same sources of Chemical Weapons use, rather sparse really tho'
http://www.al-bushra.org/temp/grossman.htm
I have some notes a couple of thousand miles away on Churchill's plans to douse Germany in poison gas and his anxiety that psalm singing spineless pacifists wouldn't get in the way.

However... There is a very difficult question to face when one is destroying Stalin & Churchill, who were for all their faults very instrumental in defeating the Nazis by virtue of sheer stubborness. This is more important in Stalin's case of course, since his crimes and contribution were so much greater. Were ruthless men like these the only kinds who could have defeated Hitler? If yes, was the price worthwhile, and how often will it be paid? No real answer seems possible, I haven't come up with one after much thinking and WW2 reading.

[Catiline]

You htink Mo Mowlam is going for the leadership? Rather her than Gordon Brown or any of the other nonentities, but i think sugggesting that she's going on TV to propose Churchill as greatest Briton is stretching the point a bit far.

That poll is shocking. I seriously fail to see how Princess Di can be in there, even in the top hundred, let alone top 3. Some spoilt rich bitch who died early ensuring iconic status (in the short term at least. John Lennon is another case. The guy wrote songs. Big deal, in the scheme of things that's not greatness. Is Paul Mcartney there, he wrote all that beautiful Rupert the Bear music, but then he didn't get shot.

There are problems with Churchill but he's in a totally different league regardless of what you think of his politics.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I have read previous suggestions about Mr. Churchill being a war criminal...

As far as some of the bombings go, this is definately a warcrime.. the creation of the first firestorm bombing (Hamburg) was an accident. Yet allied scientists quickly found out why the firestorm occured, and told the military how to create it. The firestorm bombings on the ballbearings-factory in Braunschweig (?) and on Dresden were warcrimes, just as the firestorm bombing on Tokyo. The bombings on Tokyo and Dresden supposedly killed more people then either of the nuclear blasts above Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or according to some reports even these two combined).... The Allied high command supposedly decided to destroy from early 1945 on every major German city, whether the city had strategic importance (factories and so on) or not, and go for the city centers. This as a retaliation for Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry etc. Dresden and Münster are examples of the latter.. Also, on quite a few occasions the arrival of the second or third wave of bombers was deliberately timed in such a manner as to hit as many firefighters, rescueworkers etc. as possible...

But somewhere a couple of years ago I read an article about Winston Churchill being involved in another warcrime, the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 (as Winston Churchill was Secretary of the Navy at the time). There have always been rumours that this ship, and other passenger vessels, had been used to transport weapons from the US to the UK, which is a warcrime. Also, there have always been rumours that the Germans announced their attempt to sink the ship before it left New York on its last voyage. This article/discussion was triggered by the fact that the Lusitania was found by civilian divers in a location that was far away from the supposed site of the attack, and that (supposedly) right after the discovery became public, the area around the wreck was declared military territory, and off limits for civilians. Yet divers reported seeing gunbarrel-like tubes. Also the location of the wreck was in an area that was known to be infested with German subs at the time, and also various other neutral ships had been send around this area at the time by the British admiralty (some even claim the course of the ship was actually diverted by the British admiralty into the dangerzone). So the theory, according to some is that the British wanted the ship to be sunk, to draw the US into the war, because they would not be able to win it, and were on the verge of bankruptcy, while Russia was collapsing (which freed up additional German troops). If the British admiralty was involved, odds are Winston Churchill at leat knew about it.

[PFJ_bejazuz]

I heard a mad 'thing' about churchill on the World Service. About his implication in the death of the acting Polish head of state in Gibraltar. Apparently dude had discovered the mass slaughter of Polish officers by Russians & wanted to make it public. Churchill really didn't want the Allies to have a major division in their ranks & so bumped dude off ... allegedly.

[Inferno]

Well, looks like the majority of British people don't think Churchill's a war criminal...he won by a sizeable majority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2509465.stm

[DojoRat]

What I found truly criminal about strategic bombing in WWII was its ineffectiveness. Considering all the lives taken on both sides it had no major impact on morale or production IMO. German production rose throughout the war (until mid '44 I think)despite the bombing and the need to move underground. Much of the improvement came from Speer's management and the late switch to a total war economy but it still shows the lack of effectiveness of the air campaign.

Unfortunately, the US air force still clings to this doctrine in its high altitude, 'precision bombing'.
It has it effective uses but it's not the panecea they keep telling us it is.

[Idaho]

Oh he was a dodgy old drunk and no mistake:

Churchill, the Truth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,801438,00.html)

[Ktonos]

When Churchill bombed Berlin he knew what exactly was doing. Next day Hitler gave the order to bomb London, the civilians, their houses and public buildings giving space to the military airports and RAF bases.This was what exactly Churchill desired. If Hitler was not stupid enough (at this situation) and continiued his strategic bombing, soon enough RAF wouldn't have an airfield to lift from or land on and no facilities for their planes.

[Xer0]

Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Dec. 02 2002,04:30)]When Churchill bombed Berlin he knew what exactly was doing. Next day Hitler gave the order to bomb London, the civilians, their houses and public buildings giving space to the military airports and RAF bases.This was what exactly Churchill desired. If Hitler was not stupid enough (at this situation) and continiued his strategic bombing, soon enough RAF wouldn't have an airfield to lift from or land on and no facilities for their planes.
That were in 1941. The real terror bombing started around 1943-1945. Cities like Dresden,Hamburg and Berlin was bombed to ruins. Many houndred thousand germans lost their life.

[King James I]

I read somewhere that British High Command and Churchill knew that Coventry was going to get bombed, cos that had cracked the Ultra codes, but kept quiet, cos they didn't want the Germans to know that the codes had been cracked. I'm not sure this qualifies as a war crime. As for the argument that it was important for the Germans not to know about the cracked codes, how important was their ignorance, what long term affect would it have had on the war effort? Methinks not enough to balance out the deaths of those British civilians.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Nov. 25 2002,21:05)]What I found truly criminal about strategic bombing in WWII was its ineffectiveness. Considering all the lives taken on both sides it had no major impact on morale or production IMO. German production rose throughout the war (until mid '44 I think)despite the bombing and the need to move underground. Much of the improvement came from Speer's management and the late switch to a total war economy but it still shows the lack of effectiveness of the air campaign.

Unfortunately, the US air force still clings to this doctrine in its high altitude, 'precision bombing'.
It has it effective uses but it's not the panecea they keep telling us it is.
Ahh, the so, so, superior judgement of hindsight. Your pious moralising would have meant little to people at the time. The Allies did what they thought they had to do to win the war, and it worked...and I believe the world is a better place for it.

I'm sure you will now go on to claim that Churchill and the rest of the Brits deliberately started WWII in order to effect the genocide of the German people...it was all a dastardly plot and conspiracy After all, this is a logical extension of your warped thinking.

[Wellington]

Red Peasant - very well said.

Interestingly, whilst all the 'liberal European moralisers' like to raise the issue of poor dead Germans in bombed cities, none of them appear to have raised the issue poor dead jews in concentration camps ...

... bombing cities? war crimes? ... Er ...

... a little perspective please.

[Rob The Bastard]

People that think that "The pen is mightier than the sword" obviously have not attempted to disarm an armed man with one.

At least with todays technology more precise accuracy is posible. We hope.

[Wellington]

Bob the 'ard Rasta,

I once read a short story, SF, by R.G.Ballard in which he postulated the Germans had won WWII and now had control of India. Ghandi, as per History, started his policy/movement of 'peaceful disobedience' against these new occupiers.

The German solution? They executed Ghandi and shot thousands of his fellow pacifists. Nazi order was restored, the peaceful opposition was elimated and India remained part of the greater Third Reich

Fiction? Maybe .. but not too removed from fact

(don't know why I told you that ... it just sprang to mind&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Theodoret]

By 1943 the Germans had quite openly committed themselves to a 'total war' of annihilation and brutality. In fact Goebbels gave a speech at Hamburg where he asked the crowd 'Do you want total war?' They hysterically shrieked 'yes'. So we gave them total war. Personally if I had been in Churchill's shoes I would have done the same thing. Bear in mind that this was a regime that was openly 'purging' its occupied territories of non-Aryans. There were plans in place (partially enacted) to slaughter a significant portion of the Czech and Polish populations to remove 'Slavic' influence. Britain would no doubt have faced a similiar fate had we been conquered (all of our Jewish, Gypsy and Asian citizens would have been slaughtered for a start). Therefore preparations (and note that they were preparations never enacted) to dose the invading German armies with poison gas and burning petroleum as they landed on the beaches were perfectly valid.

Germany was also a regime with a significant amount of support amongst German citizens, who therefore suffered a horror of their own making. Unlike the Russians whose government had taken power by force, the Germans had wanted the Nazis in power. They could hardly plead ignorance either as Hitler had laid out his plans quite clearly prior to his election victories. It is an utter joke that such civilians could ever be described as 'innocent'. During the Kosovan campaign I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when our media described dead Serbian civilians as 'innocent', another example of a country's citizens knowingly voting for a program of genocide.

There is absolutely no moral equivalence between British and German actions during the Second World War. Germany was fighting in order to exterminate or reduce to abject slavery a significant portion of the world's population. Britain was fighting to avoid such a fate. In that sort of struggle, deliberatly slaughtering not-at-all-innocent munitions workers and destroying their homes was a perfectly valid tactic in my opinion. If commiting war crimes saved us from the Nazis then I applaude Churchill for doing so, and I hope that should such a situation occur in future we will have leaders courageous enough to follow his example.

[BDC]

Churchill saved my country. He's a hero, obviously not perfect, but nasty things happen in war. You can't win a total war in Europe without hurting people.

[Longshanks]

Churchill is a hero. I'm an American and I think we should be erecting statues of him. Furthermore I feel no pity for the sufferings of Germans or Japanese, civilian or military, during WW2. It was total war and both nations deserved every bit of punishment that they got. That's the price you pay for starting a genocidal world war. They reaped the harvest that they had sown.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

To Theodoret, BDC and Longshanks:

You do realise that the last post was made in Jan 11th of 2003?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

However I must comment:


Quote[/b] ]The firestorm bombings on the ballbearings-factory in Braunschweig (?) and on Dresden were warcrimes, just as the firestorm bombing on Tokyo. The bombings on Tokyo and Dresden supposedly killed more people then either of the nuclear blasts above Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or according to some reports even these two combined)...
It's painfull, but it's true.
Yes, they were retaliations, but they were war crimes.
Yes, they were understandable, but not justifiable.

In my opinion, Churchill was a great leader and a great man.




Quote[/b] ]Furthermore I feel no pity for the sufferings of Germans or Japanese, civilian or military, during WW2.
Shame on you... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

rubbish http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif

[Lehesu]

Do not judge a man out of his own time. Any real student of history will learn this. Although conclusions can be drawn from events in history, which we hopefully use to predict/avoid certain aspects of the future, it is impossible to judge a person out of the standards and stresses of his time. One can not quantify, categorize, or sort an entire man's life or soul into one data point or piece of evidence, nor pick out one detail out of many in a man's life and decide the worth/value of that life on that one detail.

[LordMonarch]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 04 2004,08:38)]Churchill is a hero. I'm an American and I think we should be erecting statues of him. Furthermore I feel no pity for the sufferings of Germans or Japanese, civilian or military, during WW2. It was total war and both nations deserved every bit of punishment that they got. That's the price you pay for starting a genocidal world war. They reaped the harvest that they had sown.
The question is did they indeed sow it? Japan's aggression was seemed very pre-meditated [they started a bit too late with the old imperialist game], but among others, Keynes put forward a good argument towards the problems of the Versailles Treaty and other argued about the inevitable war that would follow its fallout.

But then again, I don't think the treaty was too harsh looking at it from the British or especially the French point of view.

I think you can show some sympathy, Longshanks, for the people of Germany, particularly the Communists, Socialists and churchmen who fought against Hitler.

Evil Communists, says you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]I think you can show some sympathy, Longshanks, for the people of Germany, particularly the Communists, Socialists and churchmen who fought against Hitler.
Yes, he really should.



Quote[/b] ]Evil Communists, says you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
What else to expect from a guy with the nick of Edward I? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] ]I think you can show some sympathy, Longshanks, for the people of Germany, particularly the Communists, Socialists and churchmen who fought against Hitler.

Certainly I can feel sympathy for any anti-Nazi Germans who were killed during allied bombing missions. All 5 of them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ok, that's an exaggeration...but they certainly were a minority.

Taken as a whole, I don't pity the Germans. There is no people less deserving of pity than the WW2 era Germans. I choose to reserve my pity for the millions Germany enthusiastically killed and oppressed throughout Europe. Ultimately the blame for all loss of German life also lies at the feet of the Nazi party leadership.

[Brutal DLX]

But you realise that your statement is a gross generalisation based on your black & white view of the world, don't you?

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 08 2004,04:05)]But you realise that your statement is a gross generalisation based on your black & white view of the world, don't you?
Are you suggesting that the average German wasn't an ethusiastic supporter of the regime? Is that why Germany had to undergo "denazification" during the Allied Occupation? Where was the large resistance movement? Where was the public outcry when GERMANS who happened to be Jewish, Communists or other "undesirables" like homosexuals or the disabled were shipped off to death camps?
Where was the opposition when Germany invaded just about every nation in continental Europe? The German civilian populace was not innocent. They were culpable in all of Germany's crimes.

There was no such thing as pinpoint bombing in WW2, and the bombing of German cities helped hasten the end of the war.
As Theodoret already pointed out, the Germans cheered "YES" to Goebbels when he asked them if they wanted total war. Well, they got their wish.

It is regretable that civilians were killed, but I'm not going to feel any guilt over it or start labeling allied leaders as "war criminals." Germany caused every bit of its own suffering.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 08 2004,05:09)]There was no such thing as pinpoint bombing in WW2, and the bombing of German cities helped hasten the end of the war.
Now that's new to me - could you please explain what makes you think that this was the case?

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 08 2004,05:09)]As Theodoret already pointed out, the Germans cheered "YES" to Goebbels when he asked them if they wanted total war. Well, they got their wish.
I agree with you that the German populace was not innocent with regard to WWII.
While the Nazi-regime was not actively supported by the majority, it can at least be said that its policy was widely accepted in a sense that (too) few people stood up to oppose it.

Using Goebbels speech at the Berliner Sportpalast as an argument that the German people wanted the "total war" is however a bit too simple IMO. If you think that a propaganda speech in front of a selected audience is representative for the will of a people you should ask yourself if you might a bit too receptive for propaganda yourself...

BTW, what is your opinion about Iraqi civilians who died during the bombardments? Do you have the same "serves them right" attitude regarding these people?
After all, a lot of them did support the Baath-regime and failed to openly oppose it...

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 08 2004,11:09)]
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 08 2004,04:05)]But you realise that your statement is a gross generalisation based on your black & white view of the world, don't you?
Are you suggesting that the average German wasn't an ethusiastic supporter of the regime? Is that why Germany had to undergo "denazification" during the Allied Occupation? Where was the large resistance movement? Where was the public outcry when GERMANS who happened to be Jewish, Communists or other "undesirables" like homosexuals or the disabled were shipped off to death camps?
Where was the opposition when Germany invaded just about every nation in continental Europe? The German civilian populace was not innocent. They were culpable in all of Germany's crimes.

There was no such thing as pinpoint bombing in WW2, and the bombing of German cities helped hasten the end of the war.
As Theodoret already pointed out, the Germans cheered "YES" to Goebbels when he asked them if they wanted total war. Well, they got their wish.

It is regretable that civilians were killed, but I'm not going to feel any guilt over it or start labeling allied leaders as "war criminals." Germany caused every bit of its own suffering.
I'm already sorry I even replied in this thread, I know where this was going, but I urge you to rethink what you have written, especially the "as a whole" comment, to which I take serious offence.

All ~60 million Germans screamed yeah in that hall. All did so out of their free will. All of them eagerly killed Jews, foreign soldiers and other enemies of the state. All of them were perfectly informed about what happened by CNN and the BBC as well as the Reichsfunk about what was happening, even on colour TV. We should do a parade for the wise Allies to listen to our wish and coming down to our morale level at the end stages of the war. Yes, you got it right, Longshanks, thank you for making my lose my temper, which is hard to do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Longshanks, Brutal DLX, and others.

I'm sorry that this has come pass.

This topic is of course sensitive. Personal opinion is always something that runs closely with the Wars, through experiences and other things.

But I will not close the topic; not unless something far more serious happens. It is not my place to say you cannot talk of such things, but it is my place to stop any flaming. So far nobody has lost their cool enough to flame one another (which is a compliment to you both.)

[Teutonic Knight]

take some pills and cool off Brutal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
maybe dump some ice-water on your head?



If you feel that what Longshanks said was erroneous, correct it in a civil manner, don't get upset. It doesn't look from his tone that Longshanks is becoming upset. So why should you?

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Jan. 08 2004,10:09)]
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Jan. 08 2004,04:05)]But you realise that your statement is a gross generalisation based on your black & white view of the world, don't you?
Are you suggesting that the average German wasn't an ethusiastic supporter of the regime? Is that why Germany had to undergo "denazification" during the Allied Occupation? Where was the large resistance movement? Where was the public outcry when GERMANS who happened to be Jewish, Communists or other "undesirables" like homosexuals or the disabled were shipped off to death camps?
Where was the opposition when Germany invaded just about every nation in continental Europe? The German civilian populace was not innocent. They were culpable in all of Germany's crimes.

There was no such thing as pinpoint bombing in WW2, and the bombing of German cities helped hasten the end of the war.
As Theodoret already pointed out, the Germans cheered "YES" to Goebbels when he asked them if they wanted total war. Well, they got their wish.

It is regretable that civilians were killed, but I'm not going to feel any guilt over it or start labeling allied leaders as "war criminals." Germany caused every bit of its own suffering.
Got to agree with every word Longshanks.

What were the Allies supposed to do? Fight Germany with both hands tied behind their backs in a 'gentlemanly' fashion? Challenge her to a game of cricket maybe?

I think it is terrible that British bombers were pounding German cities, but hey, the Allies hadn't made the rules of this nasty game and they sure weren't going to let the Germans get away with anything else. British bombers and troops would never have been within spitting distance of Germany if she had not elected a brutal and inhuman regime that murdered people in their millions and invaded most of Europe in a megalomaniacal and ideological thirst for conquest and power. I have no time for Churchill's domestic politics but his instincts were right on this issue, and he had the courage to pursue his anti-nazi stance even though he was denounced by many nazi appeasers in the British establishment. Such a policy was also detrimental to his beloved British Empire, but, for once, he did the right thing and stuck to his beliefs.

It is a shame that so many ordinary Germans died. It is shame that anybody dies. May all the poor lost souls of that war rest in peace.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 08 2004,11:38)]What were the Allies supposed to do? Fight Germany with both hands tied behind their backs in a 'gentlemanly' fashion? Challenge her to a game of cricket maybe?

I think it is terrible that British bombers were pounding German cities, but hey, the Allies hadn't made the rules of this nasty game and they sure weren't going to let the Germans get away with anything else.
I do not quite get your point here, Red Peasant

I think we can all agree about Germany's guilt regarding the start of the war and that alot of Germany's deeds during the war were clearly war crimes (including the bombarding of English cities).

The question is, does that make turning entire major cities into ashes a justifiable act of self defence, even if it was and understandable action (in terms of retaliation)?
To which extend did the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg do anything to shorten the war? Longshanks pointed out that pinpoint bombing was not possible in WWII. This is true but it has nothing to do with these bombings - of which the only aim was to kill as many people and spread as much terror as possible (or is somebody trying to tell me that detroying an entire city is the collateral damage in the attempt to destroy war-relevant industry? - I think not).

The same can be said about the bombings of English cities by the German Luftwaffe. Pure terror and warcrime.

Does that make the bombings of Dresdeb and Hamburg under standable? Yes - Did that make them a necessary action to end the war? Hardly

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] ]Does that make the ings of Dresdeb and Hamburg under standable? Yes - Did that make them a necessary action to end the war? Hardly

I think that's debatable, I doubt you can say that- tragic as it was- the b0mbing of Dresden didn't shorten the war at all.

And Longshanks, in all fairness the support for the regime was not unanimous by any stretch of the imagination.

assasination attempt anyone?

[Dhepee]

In order to understand Germany's acceptance of Hitler you can't just look at the late 1930's through 1945, you have to go back to November 1918. You have to understand that the Weimar Constitution allowed any politcal party to get on the ballot for elections which meant that there were sometimes as many as 60 parties running at once, without a primary election or a dilution clause to the constitution. This allowed the Nazis to take control of the Reichstag without ever actually winning the popular vote.

At the end of world war one the whole of German society was in chaos, massive hunger, unemployment, inflation, population loss due to war and influenza, and armed groups "Freikorps" attempting to seize control of local and national government. In this environment the Nazi Party through their own Frekorps, the Brown Shirts, were able to take over political meetings, run opponents out of town, put mobs in the streets during elections to intimidate people, which ultimately gave them control of local governments which allowed them to catapult to national prominance.

By the time the Nazi party was making its truer intentions known, arrests, executions, suspension of civil liberties, it was so firmly in place that mute acceptance was the only recourse for the roughly 65% that never voted for the Nazis. (The highest the Nazis ever polled in a national election was roughly 35%) Perhaps if Germany had not gone through 20 years of war, turmoil, famine, and political unrest that 65% would have been more apt to resist, but as it was the energy to resist was not present when it would have mattered, the late 1930's. In 1935 all that was there was slight relief that life was more "normal", that soon gave way to the horror of World War Two.

This is not to say that the German people are innocent in all things, but it should serve to explain a little better and in a general manner why and how Hitler came to power. It is also important to note that the 35% in Germany that supported Hitler, combined with the ethnic Germans in Central and Eastern Europe, demographically provide more than enough to have committed the atrocities of World War Two. It is blind to accuse a whole people of a crime that they could have only prevented through hindsight.

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Nov. 20 2002,13:24)]technically Churchill initiated the 'terror bombings' as his grandson seems to like reffering to them as. The German bombing of civilian areas was a navigational error, they thought they were attacking Richmond docks.
im sorry but no.






All Churchill is guilty of is revenge.


an eye for an eye. the germans should have thought about that before they whent to war.

[Red Peasant]

Lol Ok guys.

Germany was a poor, put-upon, defenseless weakling, bravely defending herself.

GB and the US were the blood-soaked, genocidal aggressors, thirsting after the guiless Germans, and led by cynical war criminals to boot. Hang'em all

All Germans (except for Adolf and a small coterie of his pals) were innocent dupes, frolicking in their lederhosen at beer festivals, totally ignorant of the oppression and death all around them.

What scoundrels the Brits were, they should have let the Germans get on with their pacification, purification and civilisation of Europe (and the world) in peace. Lebensraum for all

If I didn't laugh, I'd have to cry. One day history will be re-written by a German dominated EU exactly as above, it's already happening. Germans now live in a better world *because* they lost....ironic eh? They should be thankful to the allies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 08 2004,15:27)]Lol Ok guys.

Germany was a poor, put-upon, defenseless weakling, bravely defending herself.

GB and the US were the blood-soaked, genocidal aggressors, thirsting after the guiless Germans, and led by cynical war criminals to boot. Hang'em all

All Germans (except for Adolf and a small coterie of his pals) were innocent dupes, frolicking in their lederhosen at beer festivals, totally ignorant of the oppression and death all around them.

What scoundrels the Brits were, they should have let the Germans get on with their pacification, purification and civilisation of Europe (and the world) in peace. Lebensraum for all

If I didn't laugh, I'd have to cry. One day history will be re-written by a German dominated EU exactly as above, it's already happening. Germans now live in a better world *because* they lost....ironic eh? They should be thankful to the allies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Red Peasant, I do not think that I downplayed Germany's guilt in my posts (if you think I did please point me to the remarks where you think I did so).

However, you again fail to give any other reason for the bombings than revenge and spreading terror (interestingly, Knight Yellow does not argue with that point).

As I said, revenge as a motive is understandable but not justifiable IMO. If you feel otherwise than we can agree that we disagree and further discussion of this issue probably does not make any sense.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

As I have said recently, for a serious topic, I see sarcasm in a very poor light. There is no need and it can only lead to misinterpretations.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] ]This is not to say that the German people are innocent in all things, but it should serve to explain a little better and in a general manner why and how Hitler came to power. It is also important to note that the 35% in Germany that supported Hitler, combined with the ethnic Germans in Central and Eastern Europe, demographically provide more than enough to have committed the atrocities of World War Two. It is blind to accuse a whole people of a crime that they could have only prevented through hindsight.

It is good to learn how Hitler and co. got into power and the circumstances around it.

However all you have done is provided a motive and oppourtunity for a crime.

The people who benefited from Nazi Germany and did nothing to alleviate the suffering it caused added and abeited the crime. They feathered their own nests through the suffering of others directly or indirectly. Receiving stolen goods is still a crime as much as stealing the goods in the first place.

The businesses, homes and families of people where crushed for Germans benefits, countries where invaded. They seemed happy enough to get all that. They where happy to get rewarded with the consequences of there actions or inactions.

Seems just that they got retribution based on there actions or inaction.

It would have been nice if Germany and the Germans that made it decided not to invade other countries, not to be racist towards peoples in their area, not to benefit by sending them away. They treated people inhumanly.

As long as a single person was in a concentration camp any and all means was justified in trying to end that war as quickly as possible. If the Allies thought that bombing the cities would finish the war quicker by either fear, destroying war materials, collatoral damage of those who benefit from the war then it was justified.

The less deaths the better. Germany could have surrended at any moment. How many bombings occured after surrender... they would have been war crimes.

[bhutavarna]

not that i'm condoning mass slaughter of innocent people, but those who played AoE knows that to beat your opponents you need to kill not only the fighting men, but more importantly those little peasants that produces food, wood, and gold. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Ok, I cooled off a bit, not that I went overboard in my prior post, but it angers me to read such generalisation in a time where we supposedly should know better and have a more progressive and distinguished way of making statements than what Longshanks and RedPeasant produced, although the former indeed raised some valid points, apart from his last post. I fail to see that in RedPeasant's post, so I will not reply to that.

I think many points made were obviously right, nobody is denying that Germany commited warcrimes and crimes against humanity in form of deportations and concentration camps. However it is wrong to assign a collective blame of that scope to the German people as a whole, as much as nobody blames all the British or US American people for the war crimes they commited during the bombings of German and Japanese cities. I am not going to debate whether or not that makes Churchill a war criminal, I am just pointing out that even the allies commited atrocities in that war, which can't be morally justified by the biblical eye for an eye phrase, at least not by the common morale standards we have today.
Furthermore I often read remarks, just like in Pape's post, that make it seem as if the majority of German people profited from the dispossession of the jews or the border corrections that Hitler conducted through threats, blackmail or military invasion. That is not the case, as in any regime, the rich get richer and only the most loyal supporters get a piece of the cake. The wealth of the jews wasn't equally split amongst the populace, but of course wherever people saw an opportunity and had less of a conscience than others, they took action and benefitted from it. But that was by far not the majority of the German populace. It has happened before in all major European countries, however it appears to be overshadowed by the larger extent of it in Germany.

Dhepee made a very good post that explained some basic things, and it should be noted that the people benefitted most by Hitler during the years prior to the war, the jobless quote was reduced, wellfare projects were introduced and people finally felt some confidence of leaving the bad times that Dhepee described behind.
The average German had not much if any reason to object Hitler, his daily life was improving, whcih is what counts most at the end of the day. Sure there have been ones that pondered, second-guessed and warned, but ask yourself what would you do if your life was improving, and don't ask yourselves in hindsight, but without knowing what we know now.
Many trusted in Hitler to know what he was doing, and many weren't quite satisfied with the infamous treaty of Versailles, which was a big part of prolonging the economical post-war recession and one of the factors for inflation. When Hitler went and took Saarland back from French occupation, when he managed to get the mainly German settled parts of former Bohemia to join the "Reich" again,it was felt as a good and just move by the German population, it is understandable, but that still doesn't make it right by the then existing treaties. And it is furthermore understandable that when he annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia as a protectorate and started pressuring the Polish, that people of Germany didn't revolt, because he was believed to have made the right decisions before to restore the national integrity and pride, and they trusted him now to be right again. It was wrong, but understandable after decades of misfortune and decline.
I also often read the line "if not for the allies, most of Europe would speak German today" which is also slightly uniformed propaganda in my eyes. Neither Hitler nor Germany had any intention to permanently keep France or Britain (if they would have gotten that far)and somehow "convert" its inhabitants to German speaking as in an "evil empire" Star Wars fashion. It is more probable to assume that these countries would have been kept under occupation for the duration of the war and remain independent after, but very possibly with a pro-German government, which is the usual method of procedure after wars (see Afghanistan and possibly Iraq for today's example). Hitler recognised the territory of the Western European countries as formed by history and tradition, his main focus laid on the East. And that is where he was preparing for major genocide and deportation, which is undeniable. If the Western allies never acted after the invasion of Poland, it is very possible that we would have seen a war between the Soviet Union and Germany alone, if we forget the Japanese and Italian adventures for a moment. It is quite unlikely that Hitler would have attacked Britain and France without a cause given by them. This is not to say France and UK should have stayed out of the war, I think it was right to support Poland, it is just to say that no agression was directed directly at the British or French. In a war between Hitler and Stalin, which side would the allies have picked, I'm curious?
Next, I want to comment on the bombings. Eye for eye I can understand that, however it IS a fact that the LATE bombings that occured when the Allies already invaded parts of Germany and it became clear that organised resistance was dying down outside of Berlin, did nothing to shorten the war or destroy any meaningful production sites. Those sites were hit hard in the years before, and the ones still working were not in cities but in underground sites. Bombing a city suahc as Dresden at a time when roughly half a million refugees from the East Prussian and Silesian regions arrived there and the end of the War was foreseeable is nothing more than a blind act of hatred and revenge and thusly murder, a warcrime, and by no means a veritable military operation.

And lastly, the failure of the German people to get rid of Hitler when it was clear what course he was steering, and the inability of the military command to override the "total war until destruction" order given by Hitler and offer capitulation at an earlier date is something my people has to live with as well as with the warcrimes and concentration camps, but collective generalisations and condemnation of a whole people makes one not one bit better than the Nazis were.

[Dhepee]

Brutal and Pape both excellent posts.

I agree with Pape that a large number of people benefited either directly or indirectly from the Third Reich's war. I also agree with the statement that any and all means were justified to end the war as long as one person was in a concentration camp. What I do not want to lose sight of - and I am not accusing anybody of losing sight of it - is that of those Germans that died in the allied bombings a good number were probably caught in the middle of things. It is important to not villify a whole people, or write of their suffering, when so many of them were no more able to stop with invasion of Poland than I as an American was able to stop the invasion of Iraq. (which is not to compare GWB to Hitler or the invasion of Iraq to the invasion of Poland)

In the abscense of a unifying leader against Hitler the average German, who did not benefit directly from the war and had no real individual political power, should be remembered for their suffering. The guilt rests not with the average citizen but with the social, political, and economic elites who cynically ignored Hitler's racism and militarism and gave him their tacit support because they saw a return to profits and power for themselves via a militant Germany. Without strong leadership it is nearly impossible to foment effective political dissent. By and large the trusted institutions bowed to either the promise of returned power and profit or were cowed by the SA Brownshirts, the average German only followed the lead of the institutions that they had trusted all their lives. Perhaps if just one of the important German social institutions had taken a strong lead, and been willing to fight back against the Brownshirts, history would have been much different.

The historical lesson in the rise of Nazism is that the instutions that are at the forefront of society have to recognize their leadership roles within their society and step up to them, should they fail to live up to their responsibilities then they should not maintain their places of prominence. It is the tragedy of the 20th century that the only strong leader that Germany could produce in the 1930's was Adolph Hitler. The problem of producing a strong leader in opposition to Hitler was that organized street violence was one of the single most important political tools in Weimar Germany and that any leader that could command an effective Freikorps was likely to be as bad as Hitler.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Excellent posts, Ser Clegane, Brutal DLX and Dhepee




Quote[/b] ]Does that make the bombings of Dresdeb and Hamburg under standable? Yes - Did that make them a necessary action to end the war? Hardly
Preciselly. They weren't industrial or military war-cripling bombings.

One justification that was often mentioned by Allied Strategic Command was "the crushing of German morale to abreviate the war".

How is that, if civilians don't negociate war treaties? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Red Peasant]

I will not take this any further. I had to defend a position that I believe in implicitly, and enough has been said on the matter. You know where I stand.

*bows* to honourable forum members

I hope we beg to differ politely, and I accept that you have a different point of view.