No better than them

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What? The Allies sat down with the Czechs and said, "yeah go ahead", in actual fact we don't really care about ethnic cleansing or mass murder, we never started the war because of it and in fact we are off to go and do some of our own now.

Source?

If such a meeting occurred and there are records of who said what etc., then such crimes would still be actionable. Denounce those responsible and see them brought to justice.

If you're "summarizing" the actions of some individuals, then you aren't necessarily summarizing their intent correctly. Crimes of negligence are usually held to be less morally reprehensible then those conducted with intent -- so gauging intent correctly matters.

If you are attempting to make a claim along the following lines:

Action "A" was deemed evil; Action "B" is also evil; therefore Action A and B are the same.

You fail to account for degrees of evil, a concept with which most persons agree.



Your ardent emphasis on the term "ethnic cleansing" seems to me to indicate that you are attempting to draw some link in moral equivalence with recent occurrences in the former yugoslavia. This suggests that your posts may have an ulterior motive.

I could, of course, be incorrect. It is possible that you are merely annoyed with one series of regrettable incidents from European history and brought them to our attention as a result of your vexation -- without attempting any other rhetorical "turn."

[Incongruous]

Source?

Your ardent emphasis on the term "ethnic cleansing" seems to me to indicate that you are attempting to draw some link in moral equivalence with recent occurrences in the former yugoslavia. This suggests that your posts may have an ulterior motive.

I could, of course, be incorrect. It is possible that you are merely annoyed with one series of regrettable incidents from European history and brought them to our attention as a result of your vexation -- without attempting any other rhetorical "turn."

Well you can call it what you like, it will not detract from what happened. Ulterior motive? You trying to wave a fascism card at me? I'm not sure.

Your second analysis would be more correct, I am interested in the topic and brought it to the backroom, though it might seem too subversive? Even apologetic to the Nazis? If so that is not my game.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Panzerjäger and the others who argue against the assertion: Our thoughts on the subject are too rational and are therefore thrown out. Give up, unless debates are more with facts and less with emotions. My opinion anyway....

[Strike For The South]

Panzerjäger and the others who argue against the assertion: Our thoughts on the subject are too rational and are therefore thrown out. Give up, unless debates are more with facts and less with emotions. My opinion anyway....

I am fully aware bad things happened to the Germans. Im not debating with emotions at all. The Germans should be happy for any mercy anyone showed them. The relativism in this thread is mind boggling. The Allies could've have done much worse and cooler heads prevailed even after the Germans had there last machismo filled hurrah. Did Americans Brits and Russians always act humanely? No The shoe went on the other foot ,its war thats why it sucks because people die and sometimes they are tortured raped and killed thats why you shouldnt start a war simply because you think you are better than everyone else.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I am fully aware bad things happened to the Germans. Im not debating with emotions at all. The Germans should be happy for any mercy anyone showed them. The relativism in this thread is mind boggling. The Allies could've have done much worse and cooler heads prevailed even after the Germans had there last machismo filled hurrah. Did Americans Brits and Russians always act humanely? No The shoe went on the other foot ,its war thats why it sucks because people die and sometimes they are tortured raped and killed thats why you shouldnt start a war simply because you think you are better than everyone else.

Right because that's why the war started. I'd better just leave now....

[Strike For The South]

Right because that's why the war started. I'd better just leave now....

Why did it start then? Hitler definitely had a vision yes? Enlighten me rather than leave unless you cant back your assertion.

[Incongruous]

Right because that's why the war started. I'd better just leave now....

Im with Strike here, I beleive that was the main reasoning behind the German war effort.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Uggh....damn you backroom!!

I'll concede the fact that a certain feeling that Germany was better was partially behind the war. But which nation goes to war thinking themselves inferior then their enemy? Would be a bit illogical I would say...

It was not the major driving force for war. After World War I, Germany was treated as one of the sole perpetrators, when it was not even the aggressor. A series of alliances dragged them into the war, and with enemies on both sides the aggressive attacks you say by the Germans were only part of their strategy to deal with enemies on both borders.

After the war the Versailles treaty not only crippled Germany economically, but humiliated them. They had land carved away from them for a number of other countries. Hitler came to power and immediately changed everything. Not only did he help to eliminate corruption in Germany, he was one who would stand up to the French and British. He started a vast form of reform for public roads etc (autobahn) which created numerous jobs and began to stimulate the economy as well as war production.

Germany slowly made her military strong again to restore the honor of the German people. They brought Austria back to them in the Anschluss and annexed several areas with high German ethnic majorities. As evident by the end of the war, they were at a series lack for natural resources, which they needed to get elsewhere (scandanavia for iron ores and precious metal, Romania for oil etc).

The German people were tired of humiliation and wanted to rebuild an empire based on expansionalism and militarism, I will not disagree. But to say it was based on Hitler's idea of lebensraum and an inferior race is absurd. In fact, much of the belief of the inferior race came from the far more outspoken Himmler than Hitler ever said (and in fact Hitler often made fun of him for this).

Not justifying an aggressive attitude, but it wasn't based on a notion of a superior race...

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzerjäger and the others who argue against the assertion: Our thoughts on the subject are too rational and are therefore thrown out. Give up, unless debates are more with facts and less with emotions. My opinion anyway....

No, I think progress has been made. If we continue to speak the truth whenever these subjects arise and not let ourselves be cowed by the "OMG N@ZI DENIER!!1" crowd, history will eventually be rectified.

I am fully aware bad things happened to the Germans. Im not debating with emotions at all. The Germans should be happy for any mercy anyone showed them. The relativism in this thread is mind boggling. The Allies could've have done much worse and cooler heads prevailed even after the Germans had there last machismo filled hurrah. Did Americans Brits and Russians always act humanely? No The shoe went on the other foot ,its war thats why it sucks because people die and sometimes they are tortured raped and killed thats why you shouldnt start a war simply because you think you are better than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but being attacked does not give one carte blanche to carry out crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Being attacked does not impart the moral justification to drop fire bombs and nuclear weapons on the attacker once they are beaten. No, there's no justification for incinerating women and children, not in Auschwitz and not in Dresden. How amazingly cruel is it to annihilate two cities - housing hundreds of thousands of refugees from other cities burned to the ground - just to show off?

Yes, the relativism in this thread is mind boggling.

In '91, would the allies have been justified in dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad? In '03, would Hussein have been justified in gassing American troops?

How your enemy behaves does not legitimize immoral actions. The allies weren't even up against the wall when they carried out their largest war crimes, they'd practically won.

[Strike For The South]

I'm sorry, but being attacked does not give one carte blanch to carry out crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Being attacked does not impart the moral justification to drop fire bomb and nuclear weapons on the attacker once you've got them beaten. No, there's no justification for incinerating women and children, not in Auschwitz and not in Dresden. How amazingly cruel is it to annihilate two cities - housing thousands of refugees from other cities burned to the ground - just to show off?

Yes, the relativism in this thread is mind boggling.

In '91, would the allies have been justified in dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad? In '03, would Hussein have been justified in gassing American troops?

How your enemy behaves does not legitimize immoral actions. The allies weren't even up against the wall when they carried out their largest war crimes, they'd practically won.

The objective in war is to totally break your enemies spirit and will to fight. War is not something filled with honor, it is a dirty business fought by men with a glimmer of hope in there eye. Bullies have no right to bitch and moan when they get some of there on medicine. If my family had been living under the jackboot for years I would've taken a measure of revenge as well. I dont understand why you think we should've taken the gloves off. Frankly The American troops should've done whatever it took to subdue that scourge. Geez give me the Japanese any day now there was an enemy at least they died with a straight back.

[PanzerJaeger]

The objective in war is to totally break your enemies spirit and will to fight. War is not something filled with honor, it is a dirty business fought by men with a glimmer of hope in there eye.

The Nazis felt the same way. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a morality in war, and both sides are guilty of breaching it; or anything goes, and no one can complain.

[Strike For The South]

The Nazis felt the same way. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a morality in war, and both sides are guilty of breaching it; or anything goes, and no one can complain.

America did what it had to do to eliminate a great evil. Are some of the actions regrettable now in 20/20 hindsight? Yes but Im not going to sit hear and shed a tear for coming to the aid of oppressed peoples trapped in some demagogues sick game nor what kind of revenge those people exacted from the rulers when the tables were turned.

[Husar]

The objective in war is to totally break your enemies spirit and will to fight. War is not something filled with honor, it is a dirty business fought by men with a glimmer of hope in there eye.

Just like Al Queda, the Taliban and the Vietcong fight, then.

[Strike For The South]

Just like Al Queda, the Taliban and the Vietcong fight, then.

Yup. I should also mention is more about ideas than body counts. Al-Qedias idea needs good PR and a sympathy vote. The viet cong would've fought to the last man.