The supposition that bombing of civilians is generally morally repugnant and shouldn't be condoned.... AM Harris' many objective was to break the will of the German people........ much in the same line as the Blitz on London........ rather erroneous thinking that helped to raise morale.....
The paper presented casting the Allies is in the role of war criminals is justified, provided you disregard who initiated hostilities, bombing of urban areas... (the post re attacking military garrisons in cities is a fantasy)....... The Germans are crying over spilt milk, if you are efficient at hiding more industry and have formidiable flak defences, you would expected the bombing success rate to be pathetic...... If they were really concerned about civilian deaths, they could have stopped the war, painted bullseyes on targets and had no flak; what did they expect....
Would you classify the unrestricted U boat war in the North Atlantic as just, as it's ultimate aim was to starve the UK into submission....
Germans stirred by new look at WWII bombings
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
So, based on your comment, any nation that initiates hostilities has given the right of the double standardprovided you disregard who initiated hostilities
Terror Campaign (Germany for bombing England)
=
Strategic Bombing Campaign (England for bombing Germany)
Did the Germans dedicated the limited resources they had available to bomb cities instead of supporting their gound troops? The Polish, Norway and France campaigns were fast paced with no time to divert bombers to bomb cities (unless the city was the target and was defended by military units) instead of military targets.(the post re attacking military garrisons in cities is a fantasy)
Are you appliying the double standard again? Does the statement that "Bombing civilian targets is inmoral and a crime" only is valid when the enemy bombs you and not when you bomb the enemyIf they were really concerned about civilian deaths, they could have stopped the war, painted bullseyes on targets and had no flak; what did they expect....
Just following your example. All the ships that carry fuel, ammunition, and war supplies should paint a bulleyes and go without escort so they can be sunk, leaving the ones that have food untouch.Would you classify the unrestricted U boat war in the North Atlantic as just, as it's ultimate aim was to starve the UK into submission....
Besides, do you know why the US never complain about how the germans were conducting the submarine war? It is because they were doing the same thing to Japan.
-
101stDoc
- Associate
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:55 pm
- Location: Midwest, United States of America
Actually, it would be more fare to state that the submarine warfare in the Pacific was largely unrestricted by both sides, though there is ample evidence that the largely unrestricted sinkings by submarines was started by the Japanese before the US was even in the war, to say the least.
It should be noted, however, that often times, especially when it came down to vessels such as sampans and the like, the enemy WERE often given the opportunity to surrender, even with the crews of these subs knowing that it would likely be a "not in your life" reply. More than a few USN sailors were killed in action while offering what would be considered in the west an honorable way out.
It's interesting that much of today's modern piracy in places like Malaysia, Indonesia et al mimics the way that many of the WW2 sampan fleets were armed. Heavy MGs on the deck etc.
Doc
It should be noted, however, that often times, especially when it came down to vessels such as sampans and the like, the enemy WERE often given the opportunity to surrender, even with the crews of these subs knowing that it would likely be a "not in your life" reply. More than a few USN sailors were killed in action while offering what would be considered in the west an honorable way out.
It's interesting that much of today's modern piracy in places like Malaysia, Indonesia et al mimics the way that many of the WW2 sampan fleets were armed. Heavy MGs on the deck etc.
Doc
Hawk.... probably didn't make myself clearly understood.
Let me reiterate.
If you start a war, get beaten and complain that the victors used one of your tactics (bombing of cities), your compliant is without foundation..... we could split hairs on what would be a civilised amount of urban bombing, but frankly would be pointless.
The comment was meant to state, don't start trouble unless you're willing to suffer all the consequences.... take your beating like a man and don't whine about it.
I believe in '39/'40 the Germans took time out of their busy European tour to give Rotterdam a through seeing to.
I'm saying bombing civilians to crush their morale is wrong, to cause mass evacuations to swamp the transportation system is wrong. In an ideal world munition and armament factories would be built on greenfield sites, miles outside of town, with forests of flak, and big signs saying come and try it on if you're hard enough...
Your last point's a good one as the Japanese pretty much took your advice and sailed without escorts.
Aggressive war is immoral..... people always find a good excuse, ie Germany launching Brandenburger attacks to initiate the Polish campaign.
Probably all war is immoral.... but I'm not a philosopher.
Let me reiterate.
If you start a war, get beaten and complain that the victors used one of your tactics (bombing of cities), your compliant is without foundation..... we could split hairs on what would be a civilised amount of urban bombing, but frankly would be pointless.
The comment was meant to state, don't start trouble unless you're willing to suffer all the consequences.... take your beating like a man and don't whine about it.
I believe in '39/'40 the Germans took time out of their busy European tour to give Rotterdam a through seeing to.
I'm saying bombing civilians to crush their morale is wrong, to cause mass evacuations to swamp the transportation system is wrong. In an ideal world munition and armament factories would be built on greenfield sites, miles outside of town, with forests of flak, and big signs saying come and try it on if you're hard enough...
Your last point's a good one as the Japanese pretty much took your advice and sailed without escorts.
Aggressive war is immoral..... people always find a good excuse, ie Germany launching Brandenburger attacks to initiate the Polish campaign.
Probably all war is immoral.... but I'm not a philosopher.
Banzai!
You are right, now I understand. Now, the point I want to get understood is, that if you are denouncing as a crime what the enemy is doing to you and afterwards your using the same tactic, you should get the same treatment. At least you should be label as a hypocrite, since you are preaching the evil they did against the good you did, while in the final analysis the action was the same.Hawk.... probably didn't make myself clearly understood.
Let me reiterate.
If you start a war, get beaten and complain that the victors used one of your tactics (bombing of cities), your compliant is without foundation.....
Right.we could split hairs on what would be a civilised amount of urban bombing, but frankly would be pointless.
I understand the concept of retaliation in force. Once talking or other measures are over, and the only recurse is force, use it the at its outmost to defeat the enemy.greenhorn wrote:Hawk... hypocrite is a bit strong.
I'm not denouncing it a crime, more of a greenlight, showing what the Germans thought of as acceptable limits. If someone fires at you, let rip give them double back.
If you ever watch the movie "The Untouchables" with Kevin Custer and Sir Sean Connery, there is a phrase that I had always remember.
Anyway, going back to my comment. The thing I can not stand is best said by a saying in my country "aventar la piedra y esconder la mano" ( throw the stone and hide the hand). If you did an action take responsability and do not hide behind the actions of somebody else, this aplies to countries as well as individuals.I he pulls out a knife, you pull out a gun; if he sends one of your men to the hospital, you send one of them to the morgue