American congress get maid

[Kralizec]

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.

The Germans were simply in a rush and didn't feel like committing the necessary manpower for taking Rotterdam by conventional fighting. It was a quick solution and they didn't care how many civilians would have died so long as it would force the surrender of the city. The only reason that so few people died was because the bombing had been announced and because of the air alarm, but nearly a hundred thousand people lost their homes.

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

On May the 14th the Dutch situation seemed to have improved: although the Germans occupied most of the territory, the major cities and the bulk of the Dutch population were still under Dutch control.

[Kralizec]

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

And yeah, occupying the Neth's was pretty useless as far as I know. Belgium was on the way around the Maginot line, but I never figured out why Hitler thought that taking the Netherlands was necessary or even desirable. The nazi's loved to preach their nonsense about a pan-germanic master race, but that doesn't explain why they let the Swedes and the Swiss get away with their quasi-neutrality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Not necessarily justified, but hey, the Americans did it.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

Completely different story.

[Kralizec]

Okay, how are they different?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Okay, how are they different?

Namely the fact that it didn't succeed. Rotterdam, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did.

[Kralizec]

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead.

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

Well, at least the Italians had no problems weasling themselves out of their treaty obligations...or turning on their former allies, for that matter.