The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
... Hitler won the war?
Page:
Do you think there'd the TV series "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet"?
We'd all have to eat those horrible frankfurters.
Still, you may have noticed that the nuclear bomb has never been used in anger since WWII, thus Nagaski and Hiroshima were clear warnings of the power man had and thus is possibly the main reason they have not been used since, because of the destruction.
Though we came damn close in the Cuban Crisis.
Those cockroaches are just waiting....
Though we came damn close in the Cuban Crisis.
Those cockroaches are just waiting....
erm...most of us would actually like Micheal Schumacher?
And not just me and the Italians.
And not just me and the Italians.
Doglatto wrote:
> SHEEPY wrote:
> I think the use of the A-Bomb and such was quite horrible and showed
> how crap humans we are.
>
> But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a
> good
> thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more
> people.
> And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have
> dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped
> it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and
> they could have easily dropped it.
>
> Yeah, and without creating controversy, the Japanese were butchers in
> the war, I saw a documentary indicating they went into hospitals and
> killed our troops while they were on operating tables. The A-Bomb was
> necessary, as nothing else would have convinced them to stop.
True, but what upsets me is that they had to kill all those innocent victims. Surely they could've just evacuated the entire area in a few hours and nuked it - that would've caused just as much ecomomical damage. There was no need to kill civillians, whether they did it to to us or not. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. I mean, how would you feel if England attacked another country, and in retalitation, you were nuked, and you were nothing to do with war. Its a sad fact that so many innocent people die in war, and ideally, all parties involved would be compotent enough to keep it between themselves and keep the public out of it.
Back to the topic, do you think that the Nazi regime would still be here today if Hitler won the war?
> SHEEPY wrote:
> I think the use of the A-Bomb and such was quite horrible and showed
> how crap humans we are.
>
> But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a
> good
> thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more
> people.
> And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have
> dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped
> it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and
> they could have easily dropped it.
>
> Yeah, and without creating controversy, the Japanese were butchers in
> the war, I saw a documentary indicating they went into hospitals and
> killed our troops while they were on operating tables. The A-Bomb was
> necessary, as nothing else would have convinced them to stop.
True, but what upsets me is that they had to kill all those innocent victims. Surely they could've just evacuated the entire area in a few hours and nuked it - that would've caused just as much ecomomical damage. There was no need to kill civillians, whether they did it to to us or not. Two wrongs do NOT make a right. I mean, how would you feel if England attacked another country, and in retalitation, you were nuked, and you were nothing to do with war. Its a sad fact that so many innocent people die in war, and ideally, all parties involved would be compotent enough to keep it between themselves and keep the public out of it.
Back to the topic, do you think that the Nazi regime would still be here today if Hitler won the war?
Protoss wrote:
> Oh trollocks! The USA was officially (sp?) at war with Japan so they
> had every right to drop the bomb, what about all the atrocious
> handling of prisoners the Japanese captured? Or the fact that Pearl
> Habour was bombed without warning.
> And the Trade Center attacks, well it was not in the bounds of war it
> was just an act of murder. Of course you could argue that legitimacy
> is in the eyes of the beholder.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> You use the word "war" yet you don't seem to understand it
> very well. "War" is formally declared between two nations,
> and they fight either for beliefs, profit, or survival. Al Quaeda made
> no formal declaration of "war"
I've been using war in the open-ended sense of a conflict of physical force.
Maybe i'm just a big pacafistic hippy, but i really don't believe that making appropriate declerations, following pre-concieved ettiquette, validates killing any civilians at all. Of course it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it right.
An individual voluntarily joining a military group (army, navy, terrorists et al) shows consent to the risks of dying in war. Obligatory national service is something of a grey area, claiming for legitimacy from a country's democratic process.
But civilians - any death of a civilian (not taking any active part in the conflict) seems totally unjustifiable. Or at least as unjustifiable as cold-blooded murder (or manslaughter, depending on particular circumstances).
I don't see how just by declaring war beforehand, anyone resposible can consider themselves to be keeping their fingers clean.
Protoss:
Personally I think the use of the bomb
> in WWII was to end the war faster and save lives...
Mr Ripper
> the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were done to scare Japan into
> surrender. without them, the war would have gone on possibly years
> longer, costing millions more lives, civilian and military.
Both good points (or the same good point). And does create a compelling argument for validation by necessity.
I still don't believe it to be 'right', but where a government's primary responsibility must be to those it represents, i guess its responsibility to protect them can force its hand.
Mr Ripper:
> Now that would have killed millions upon millions more. Being the high
> profile target, were USA the monsters you make them out to be, it
> would have been first on the list. Hit them, hit them hard, hit them
> where it'll hurt them the most. Cripple their capital, all their
> central business areas, high population areas, and set their economy
> back 200 hundred years. Crush them outright. Millions dead. Economy
> ruined. Emperor gone. An entire country destroyed with a single stroke
> of military precision.
>
> They had the capacity to do it, and didn't. Are they monsters?
Not exactly what i was trying to say. But just because they showed some mercy at this point, it doesn't justify/validate/counter-weigh any of their other acts.
Mr Ripper:
and they aren't a nation to
> begin with, they are a group of religious fanatics. And personally, I
> think that terrorism is the most disgusting and cowardly way to try
> and get your views across possible.
One of the underlying points of the first post was that people will have their different beliefs, their different philosophies, and when the only grounds on which we can dispute them is that they disagree with our own alternative beliefs, there is really no sound basis to merit either side as 'right'.
Then again, taken to another level, that seems to apply to our different viewpoints on this, whether/how killing can be justified.
Taken to yet a further level, of course, it compromises the certainty with which we consider killing to be 'wrong' at all, compriomises any notion of mutual responsibility between co-existing people.
I hate it when my philosophies do that, rip the heart out of everything i believe in :OS
> Oh trollocks! The USA was officially (sp?) at war with Japan so they
> had every right to drop the bomb, what about all the atrocious
> handling of prisoners the Japanese captured? Or the fact that Pearl
> Habour was bombed without warning.
> And the Trade Center attacks, well it was not in the bounds of war it
> was just an act of murder. Of course you could argue that legitimacy
> is in the eyes of the beholder.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> You use the word "war" yet you don't seem to understand it
> very well. "War" is formally declared between two nations,
> and they fight either for beliefs, profit, or survival. Al Quaeda made
> no formal declaration of "war"
I've been using war in the open-ended sense of a conflict of physical force.
Maybe i'm just a big pacafistic hippy, but i really don't believe that making appropriate declerations, following pre-concieved ettiquette, validates killing any civilians at all. Of course it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it right.
An individual voluntarily joining a military group (army, navy, terrorists et al) shows consent to the risks of dying in war. Obligatory national service is something of a grey area, claiming for legitimacy from a country's democratic process.
But civilians - any death of a civilian (not taking any active part in the conflict) seems totally unjustifiable. Or at least as unjustifiable as cold-blooded murder (or manslaughter, depending on particular circumstances).
I don't see how just by declaring war beforehand, anyone resposible can consider themselves to be keeping their fingers clean.
Protoss:
Personally I think the use of the bomb
> in WWII was to end the war faster and save lives...
Mr Ripper
> the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were done to scare Japan into
> surrender. without them, the war would have gone on possibly years
> longer, costing millions more lives, civilian and military.
Both good points (or the same good point). And does create a compelling argument for validation by necessity.
I still don't believe it to be 'right', but where a government's primary responsibility must be to those it represents, i guess its responsibility to protect them can force its hand.
Mr Ripper:
> Now that would have killed millions upon millions more. Being the high
> profile target, were USA the monsters you make them out to be, it
> would have been first on the list. Hit them, hit them hard, hit them
> where it'll hurt them the most. Cripple their capital, all their
> central business areas, high population areas, and set their economy
> back 200 hundred years. Crush them outright. Millions dead. Economy
> ruined. Emperor gone. An entire country destroyed with a single stroke
> of military precision.
>
> They had the capacity to do it, and didn't. Are they monsters?
Not exactly what i was trying to say. But just because they showed some mercy at this point, it doesn't justify/validate/counter-weigh any of their other acts.
Mr Ripper:
and they aren't a nation to
> begin with, they are a group of religious fanatics. And personally, I
> think that terrorism is the most disgusting and cowardly way to try
> and get your views across possible.
One of the underlying points of the first post was that people will have their different beliefs, their different philosophies, and when the only grounds on which we can dispute them is that they disagree with our own alternative beliefs, there is really no sound basis to merit either side as 'right'.
Then again, taken to another level, that seems to apply to our different viewpoints on this, whether/how killing can be justified.
Taken to yet a further level, of course, it compromises the certainty with which we consider killing to be 'wrong' at all, compriomises any notion of mutual responsibility between co-existing people.
I hate it when my philosophies do that, rip the heart out of everything i believe in :OS
SHEEPY wrote:
> I think the use of the A-Bomb and such was quite horrible and showed
> how crap humans we are.
>
> But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a good
> thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more people.
> And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have
> dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped
> it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and
> they could have easily dropped it.
Yeah, and without creating controversy, the Japanese were butchers in the war, I saw a documentary indicating they went into hospitals and killed our troops while they were on operating tables. The A-Bomb was necessary, as nothing else would have convinced them to stop.
> I think the use of the A-Bomb and such was quite horrible and showed
> how crap humans we are.
>
> But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a good
> thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more people.
> And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have
> dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped
> it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and
> they could have easily dropped it.
Yeah, and without creating controversy, the Japanese were butchers in the war, I saw a documentary indicating they went into hospitals and killed our troops while they were on operating tables. The A-Bomb was necessary, as nothing else would have convinced them to stop.
I think the use of the A-Bomb and such was quite horrible and showed how crap humans we are.
But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a good thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more people. And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and they could have easily dropped it.
But after reading Mr Ripper's post I agree that in a way it was a good thing as the war could have continued longer killing many more people. And as it was a World War... if Japan had the bomb they would have dropped it on America... if Britain had it they would have dropped it... and the Germans were infact close to completing the bomb and they could have easily dropped it.
I thought Mr ripper would reply, and i knew i would enjoy reading what he wrote. Well done.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Start a war and if you win, you were a freedom fighter, revolutioary
> or something good, if you lose you were filthymurderous scum.
Err, not quite. It's true that history is written by the winners of wars, but losers have a very long memory. Look at Argentina, who have been contesting the ownership of the falklands since the Americans blasted them off it hundreds of years ago. If Hitler had won, sure, every history class in the world may call him the creator of modern europe, but to the public eye of 90% of his domain he would be considered an oppressor and dictator.
> Take america slaughtering thousands of japanese in hiroshima and
> nagasaki, people overlook the civilian casualties partly because it
> was 'our' side that did it, and because it was instrumental in the
> course of te war.
the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were done to scare Japan into surrender. without them, the war would have gone on possibly years longer, costing millions more lives, civilian and military. It can also be counted as an act of vengeance by US militants against the Pearl Harbour bombing, which was acted out BEFORE the two countries were formally at war.
> Wheras when al quaeda (sp?) slaughter thousands of americans, it's a
> tragedy because it's not our side and not for our cause.
A tragedy in a similar sense as Pearl Harbour, since no war is declared, and hence no defence could have been prepared. What makes it worse is it's civilians in a time of peace. In a time of war, it is expected to accumulate civilian casualties. When you're not at war with anyone, civilian casualties can hardly be expected, and to accumulate them in such a manner is terrible.
If a group of americans had randomly flown some 747s into a couple of Afghan high-rises (if they have any...) with no provocation, it would be just as much a tragedy.
> Putting aside the larger context of what everyone's fighting for, and
> timing within the conflic, they're both just people waging war for
> what they believe in.
You use the word "war" yet you don't seem to understand it very well. "War" is formally declared between two nations, and they fight either for beliefs, profit, or survival. Al Quaeda made no formal declaration of "war" and they aren't a nation to begin with, they are a group of religious fanatics. And personally, I think that terrorism is the most disgusting and cowardly way to try and get your views across possible.
The world is a stage, and if you want to be heard, you need but stand up and speak. Words make people listen, guns and bombs just pišs people off.
> I don't support or condone either side's actions.
I don't support or condone terrorism, but during a time of war, almost anything goes. The Germans bombed London continuously for an extremely long time, knowing full well that they were hitting civilians the whole time. It's a strategy, not an atrocity. Of course, it's possible to go beyond the reasonable. The ethnic cleansing or "holocaust" instigated by the S.S. on Hitler's orders WAS an atrocity, because it was firstly unecessary, secondly not a part of the war he was trying to win and thirdly purely done on a discriminatory basis. The A-bombs that hit Japan were indiscriminate. Wipe out some of Japan's home resources. Let them know that the next one could easilly be Tokyo. And it was. If Japan hadn't ceded the war, Tokyo would have been hit next.
Now that would have killed millions upon millions more. Being the high profile target, were USA the monsters you make them out to be, it would have been first on the list. Hit them, hit them hard, hit them where it'll hurt them the most. Cripple their capital, all their central business areas, high population areas, and set their economy back 200 hundred years. Crush them outright. Millions dead. Economy ruined. Emperor gone. An entire country destroyed with a single stroke of military precision.
They had the capacity to do it, and didn't. Are they monsters?
> Start a war and if you win, you were a freedom fighter, revolutioary
> or something good, if you lose you were filthymurderous scum.
Err, not quite. It's true that history is written by the winners of wars, but losers have a very long memory. Look at Argentina, who have been contesting the ownership of the falklands since the Americans blasted them off it hundreds of years ago. If Hitler had won, sure, every history class in the world may call him the creator of modern europe, but to the public eye of 90% of his domain he would be considered an oppressor and dictator.
> Take america slaughtering thousands of japanese in hiroshima and
> nagasaki, people overlook the civilian casualties partly because it
> was 'our' side that did it, and because it was instrumental in the
> course of te war.
the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were done to scare Japan into surrender. without them, the war would have gone on possibly years longer, costing millions more lives, civilian and military. It can also be counted as an act of vengeance by US militants against the Pearl Harbour bombing, which was acted out BEFORE the two countries were formally at war.
> Wheras when al quaeda (sp?) slaughter thousands of americans, it's a
> tragedy because it's not our side and not for our cause.
A tragedy in a similar sense as Pearl Harbour, since no war is declared, and hence no defence could have been prepared. What makes it worse is it's civilians in a time of peace. In a time of war, it is expected to accumulate civilian casualties. When you're not at war with anyone, civilian casualties can hardly be expected, and to accumulate them in such a manner is terrible.
If a group of americans had randomly flown some 747s into a couple of Afghan high-rises (if they have any...) with no provocation, it would be just as much a tragedy.
> Putting aside the larger context of what everyone's fighting for, and
> timing within the conflic, they're both just people waging war for
> what they believe in.
You use the word "war" yet you don't seem to understand it very well. "War" is formally declared between two nations, and they fight either for beliefs, profit, or survival. Al Quaeda made no formal declaration of "war" and they aren't a nation to begin with, they are a group of religious fanatics. And personally, I think that terrorism is the most disgusting and cowardly way to try and get your views across possible.
The world is a stage, and if you want to be heard, you need but stand up and speak. Words make people listen, guns and bombs just pišs people off.
> I don't support or condone either side's actions.
I don't support or condone terrorism, but during a time of war, almost anything goes. The Germans bombed London continuously for an extremely long time, knowing full well that they were hitting civilians the whole time. It's a strategy, not an atrocity. Of course, it's possible to go beyond the reasonable. The ethnic cleansing or "holocaust" instigated by the S.S. on Hitler's orders WAS an atrocity, because it was firstly unecessary, secondly not a part of the war he was trying to win and thirdly purely done on a discriminatory basis. The A-bombs that hit Japan were indiscriminate. Wipe out some of Japan's home resources. Let them know that the next one could easilly be Tokyo. And it was. If Japan hadn't ceded the war, Tokyo would have been hit next.
Now that would have killed millions upon millions more. Being the high profile target, were USA the monsters you make them out to be, it would have been first on the list. Hit them, hit them hard, hit them where it'll hurt them the most. Cripple their capital, all their central business areas, high population areas, and set their economy back 200 hundred years. Crush them outright. Millions dead. Economy ruined. Emperor gone. An entire country destroyed with a single stroke of military precision.
They had the capacity to do it, and didn't. Are they monsters?
Page: