No better than them

[LittleGrizzly]

Panzer are you trying to argue a moral equivelence between the nazis and the allies, you'll find alot of sympathy from me with regards to the bad things the allies did and sympathy for the way the nazi actions are looked at, as i always say when it comes to conflicts like this, there is no black and white just a hell of a lot of gray, but even taking a step back and looking at things from all pov's not just the victors, the nazis were far far worse than the allies...

the only point thats debateable (imo) is the atomic bombs on japan, if they were merely to show off to the soviets then that is truely detestable and would bring the allied moral superority down hugely but i think even assuming the bombs were just to show off that still leaves a gap compared to all the nazi crimes....

I get where you are coming from with the belief thing, as in its less evil to kill if you think your doing it for the right reason, but then you have to take into account what america believed...

and by that i mean, america was probably thinking by showing itself as such a great power and making russia a little scared that it could secure its own democracy and secure democracys abroad, it could generally push the world in a much better direction, and when you think of it this way.... it seems less worse

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer are you trying to argue a moral equivelence between the nazis and the allies, you'll find alot of sympathy from me with regards to the bad things the allies did and sympathy for the way the nazi actions are looked at, as i always say when it comes to conflicts like this, there is no black and white just a hell of a lot of gray, but even taking a step back and looking at things from all pov's not just the victors, the nazis were far far worse than the allies...

This is what I can't seem to wrap my head around. What is difference between the Holocaust and the allied mass death from above? Both events were the completely unnecessary and unjustified killing of innocents. In the case of the Germans, many involved truly believed they were doing the right thing - for the greater good, as nonsensical as it seems today. In the case of the allies, it was for terror or show, as the innocents they decimated were of defeated, impotent nations.

Hard to take you seriously anymore, PJ. Dave is still funny, but for you...it's a little dry.

I'm sorry to hear that.

In this case, trying to make the Allies into the Nazis by mentioning Dresden, while you have Coventry and Auschwitz being shuffled behind your back.

I'm not trying to make anyone into anything. You should ask yourself why the mentioning of simple facts gets you so upset.

When it comes to war crimes and their severity, I believe in quantity over quality.

While this may hold some merit if they allies had, say, killed only a few hundred people during isolated incidents, when the numbers reach into the millions, does it really matter? And if pure numbers are all you're interested in, the communists are your game. You can take your pick between the Russian or Asian variants, both killed far more than Germany.

I don't have problems with the facts, only with your interpretation of said facts. Wars are not about good guys vs bad guys. In wars there are only two sides. But if there is a war in the history of humanity that can be perceived as good guys vs bad guys it's WW2. What point are you trying to make? That Allies and Soviets committed crimes? True, you won't find much argument from me there. I spoke about it some threads here at the .Org. That Germans were mistreated in many European countries after the war? Also true, I spoke about how I perceive deportation of Germans from Yugoslavia morally wrong. That the main purpose of Dresden and Tokyo bombing was spreading of fear rather than a military goal? Once again true, and yet another thing I spoke about here.

We seem to be on the same page so far...

But to think that all this somehow absolves Nazi Germany from guilt and from all its crime is insulting and hilarious at the same time.

Here's where you are misunderstanding me. By bringing the Allies down to their historical reality, I am not bringing the Nazi's up.

Maybe most of the Germans back then didn't know about Holocaust or sick ideology that Hitler & co pursued, but I have some news for you - we're not in the 1940's anymore and we know about it. What's with the need to defend it?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. When judging past actions, it is essential to preserve historical context. My overarching goal in this discussion has not been to defend anyone, but to highlight the fact that no side would stand up in today's evolved moral environment. I take no pleasure in dredging up unflattering facts about the Allies, but sometimes the truth hurts. I owe it to my ancestors to at least make an effort to understand their condition and mindset, and so does history. Its simply not good enough to say the Nazis were evil and the Allies were good. I am sorry, but history is never that black and white.

IMO, it is important that people understand the reality of the German situation in the Second World War, and the reality of the Allied situation. Fact is - the Germans may have started the war, but the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms. The fact that the Germans committed war crimes did not force the allies to do the same. They did so of their own valition, and when their enemies were already defeated. There is no argument that can be made to justify what they did to the women and children of their defeated enemies, just as there is no argument that can be made to justify the Holocaust. We can only look at both situations in context. Most Germans did not know of the extent of the Holocaust and many of those that did believed what they were doing was for the greater good of their society, while many in the Allied populace reveled in bloodlust and didn't mind showing off their strength at the expense of their vanquished foes. If you want to take that statement of fact as some sort of defense of Nazism, that's your misunderstanding; and you wouldn't be the first...

[KarlXII]

While this may hold some merit if they allies had, say, killed only a few hundred people during isolated incidents, when the numbers reach into the millions, does it really matter? And if pure numbers are all you're interested in, the communists are your game. You can take your pick between the Russian or Asian variants.

And you'd never see me in a thread about the gulags and executions under Stalin trying to say "WELL THE NAZIS DID IT TOO". But this is not a thread about the killings under Communist countries, so it is irrelevant.

The difference between the Allies and Germans is, as already mentioned, when the Germans conquered a country, the deportations and mass exterminations began, when the Allies liberated countries, only the top leadership were put to a fair trial. And it's true, Dresden was an unnecessary and shameful act, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, well, I'm not too certain, maybe a different target could have been chosen, but the invasion of Japan was already being planned, and it is realistic to believe suffering and death on both sides would reach very high numbers.

[PanzerJaeger]

And you'd never see me in a thread about the gulags and executions under Stalin trying to say "WELL THE NAZIS DID IT TOO".

That's because you won't ever see any threads about the gulags or executions under Stalin.

The difference between the Allies and Germans is, as already mentioned, when the Germans conquered a country, the deportations and mass exterminations began, when the Allies liberated countries, only the top leadership were put to a fair trial.

That depends on what allied nation you're talking about. Many enthusiastically cleansed themselves of ethnic Germans and/or murdered German POWs; and no allied nation gave the Germans anything close to a fair trial. Even assuming you're only discussing the Western Allies, discounting the bombing of Axis cities simply because they ran out of population centers to decimate and won the war is highly selective morality if I've ever seen it. If the Germans had accomplished their goals, the Holocaust would have eventually had to come to an end as well..

[KarlXII]

the Holocaust would have eventually had to come to an end as well..

At what cost? Sure, it may have stopped, once they ran out of Jews to gas.

[Koga No Goshi]

Let's look at this another way.

Look at Germany today. And the status of the German people.

Would that be a good representation of the enemies of the Reich if Hitler had won the war?

Very simple question, IMHO.

[KarlXII]

Let's look at this another way.

Look at Germany today. And the status of the German people.

Would that be a good representation of the enemies of the Reich if Hitler had won the war?

Very simple question, IMHO.

And a very good one.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's look at this another way.

Look at Germany today. And the status of the German people.

Would that be a good representation of the enemies of the Reich if Hitler had won the war?

Very simple question, IMHO.

The question you have to ask yourself is:

Does saying "look what would've happened if" absolve the Allies of guilt?

Not at all. It has been stated in this thread that one atrocity does not justify another. If you believe that deportation of German civilians after the war, mass rapes in Berlin when Nazi Germany was practically finished, and so on and so forth helped to win the war, if your logic is that horrifically twisted, then fine. But none of these crimes helped win the war for the Allies, so the "what would've happened if" excuse is entirely null and void.

In the end, the whole "well, they deserved it after what they did to _____" excuse is complete and utter tripe. Was the child in Dresden guilty of war crimes in Russia? Was the raped woman in Berlin guilty of the bombing of Coventry? No. Punishing someone for something they are not guilty of is unjust.

Yes, the Western Allies at least killed a lot fewer civilians when compared to Nazi Germany. But there is something that one side in this argument does not understand:

That. Doesn't. Matter. Saying that the Allies committed crimes doesn't somehow detract from the fact Nazi Germany did as well. So, in short, bite the bullet and acknowledge that. Acknowledge history.

Revisionist poppycock.

Revisionism is not something that is universally bad, though it seems to have garnered that connotation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...al_revisionism

The Third Reich started the war and lost. When you lose a war that you started and given the atrocities the nazis propagated they were lucky they got off lightly.

Some people in this thread need to make the distinction between people who were guilty and people who were not guilty. Saying that all Germans are somehow Nazis or guilty is not revisionist, but it is certainly poppycock.

It's interesting to watch the younger generation decry the behaviour of the allies after the war. It's shameful IMHO.

So it is wrong to point out that someone committed an injustice? Here's an analogy for you:

Someone kills a murderer who is in the process of killing more people. They are right and just to kill that murderer. But is it also right to kill the murderer's parents, who started the murderer off by conceiving him? I think not.

[Sarmatian]

We seem to be on the same page so far...

So far, yes.

Here's where you are misunderstanding me. By bringing the Allies down to their historical reality, I am not bringing the Nazi's up.

Nothing wrong with that. That's not where the disagreement is. Only when you try to bring the Allies so far down that you can equate them with the Nazis there's a disagreement

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. When judging past actions, it is essential to preserve historical context. My overarching goal in this discussion has not been to defend anyone, but to highlight the fact that no side would stand up in today's evolved moral environment. I take no pleasure in dredging up unflattering facts about the Allies, but sometimes the truth hurts. I owe it to my ancestors to at least make an effort to understand their condition and mindset, and so does history.

Okay with that. We should devote more time to the causes Hitler's rise to power. Yes, I believe the treatment of Germany by the Allies after the WW1 had something to do with, but that's no excuse anymore than a guy who detonates a bomb in the supermarket says it was because he was victimized by his boss.

Its simply not good enough to say the Nazis were evil and the Allies were good. I am sorry, but history is never that black and white.

Tell me about it. Do you think I've slept through the nineties?

I, too, tend to see the world in shades of gray, and in the case of WW2, I see Allies as light gray and Nazis as very dark gray...

IMO, it is important that people understand the reality of the German situation in the Second World War, and the reality of the Allied situation. Fact is - the Germans may have started the war, but the allies were no better than the axis on moral terms. The fact that the Germans committed war crimes did not force the allies to do the same. They did so of their own valition, and when their enemies were already defeated. There is no argument that can be made to justify what they did to the women and children of their defeated enemies, just as there is no argument that can be made to justify the Holocaust. We can only look at both situations in context. Most Germans did not know of the extent of the Holocaust and many of those that did believed what they were doing was for the greater good of their society, while many in the Allied populace reveled in bloodlust and didn't mind showing off their strength at the expense of their vanquished foes. If you want to take that statement of fact as some sort of defense of Nazism, that's your misunderstanding; and you wouldn't be the first...

Ok, let's put thing into historical context.

Soviet Union: military deaths - 10,700,000; civilian deaths - 11,400,000
Poland: military deaths - 240,000; civilian deaths - 2,360,000
Yugoslavia; military deaths - 446,000; civilian deaths - 514,000
Nazi Germany: military deaths - 5,533,000; civilian deaths - 1,600,000

So, all three countries that were the victims of Nazi aggression had more civilians then soldiers killed, the most extreme example being Poland who lost 10 time more civilians then soldiers. On the other hand, Nazi Germany lost almost 4 times as many soldiers as civilians.

And for the grand finale:



So, bring down the allies, no problem with that. Just stop when you get to 4%.

I do understand that the chance for us to come to an agreement is very slim, so let me just say this before I quit. There are two main reasons why I disagree with you:

1. Cause and consequence - Nazi ideology was the cause of all those Allied deaths and all those German deaths were consequence of Allies fighting back.

2. Scale - the graph illustrates it better then words ever could...