The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/ article/0,2763,1067259,00.html
An odd sort of story this; it seems to be saying that one should not acknowledge the human suffering caused by the Allied bombing campaign of Germany in the latter stages of WWII because of the human suffering caused by Germany in the form of the holocaust.
Does anybody have any thoughts about this?
An odd sort of story this; it seems to be saying that one should not acknowledge the human suffering caused by the Allied bombing campaign of Germany in the latter stages of WWII because of the human suffering caused by Germany in the form of the holocaust.
Does anybody have any thoughts about this?
Page:
Blank wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
>
> Congratulations: you've missed the point.
No more than you seem to - the Iraq analogy is a bad one, Chamberlain and others denied Germany was a threat to anyone before the war, and for at least five years (1934 onwards) British, French and other foreign intelligence services had heard 'wild' claims about what was going on in Germany with the jews. Other 'misguided and lying' individuals told insance stories of a secret rearmnament of German forces, or warehouses filled with vehicles, secret airfields filled with new fighter planes, and other's claimed to have seen strange vessels operating off the German coastlines.
Yet, in defiance of these claims, Chamberlain made peace in 1939 with Hitler. I don't need to tell anyone here how that worked out.
> Skarra wrote:
> Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
>
> Congratulations: you've missed the point.
No more than you seem to - the Iraq analogy is a bad one, Chamberlain and others denied Germany was a threat to anyone before the war, and for at least five years (1934 onwards) British, French and other foreign intelligence services had heard 'wild' claims about what was going on in Germany with the jews. Other 'misguided and lying' individuals told insance stories of a secret rearmnament of German forces, or warehouses filled with vehicles, secret airfields filled with new fighter planes, and other's claimed to have seen strange vessels operating off the German coastlines.
Yet, in defiance of these claims, Chamberlain made peace in 1939 with Hitler. I don't need to tell anyone here how that worked out.
Skarra wrote:
> Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
Congratulations: you've missed the point.
> Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
Congratulations: you've missed the point.
unknown kernel wrote:
> "The calculated use of violence against civilians to intimidate,
> induce fear, often to kill, for some political, religious or other
> end."
>
> That's a definition I agree with, and it describes perfectly the
> motives behind the bombing of civilian areas by both sides in WWII.
It's all too easy to apply today's morals to events that took place in the 40's. Truth is, they just don't apply to back then, right up until the past decade or two, those 40's beliefs were seen as ok, after all, the Germans did start it all, so the belief system went.
> "The calculated use of violence against civilians to intimidate,
> induce fear, often to kill, for some political, religious or other
> end."
>
> That's a definition I agree with, and it describes perfectly the
> motives behind the bombing of civilian areas by both sides in WWII.
It's all too easy to apply today's morals to events that took place in the 40's. Truth is, they just don't apply to back then, right up until the past decade or two, those 40's beliefs were seen as ok, after all, the Germans did start it all, so the belief system went.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Those in charge at
> that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as
> politicians do today.
>
> So can I take it that you mean....Iraq didn't have WMD and wasn't
> posing an actual threat, like Hitler was?
Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Those in charge at
> that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as
> politicians do today.
>
> So can I take it that you mean....Iraq didn't have WMD and wasn't
> posing an actual threat, like Hitler was?
Ask the people of Kuwait and Israel if they think Iraq was a threat.
Belldandy wrote:
> Those in charge at
> that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as
> politicians do today.
So can I take it that you mean....Iraq didn't have WMD and wasn't posing an actual threat, like Hitler was?
> Those in charge at
> that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as
> politicians do today.
So can I take it that you mean....Iraq didn't have WMD and wasn't posing an actual threat, like Hitler was?
Okay unknown kernel, but to my mind versions of history are only 'sanitised' to make them simpler and if people readily accept them then is it the fault of the authors, or the people who accept them ?
The details are there for those who can be bothered to find them - take Antony Beevor's account of the fall of Berlin for example.
We forget too easily, in an age of modern warfare, that there was never going to be an easy 'clean' way to win World War II. The greatest military minds of the time could not find it, so I highly doubt the many 'instant experts' of today could. Those in charge at that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as politicians do today. Hitler had steam rollered Europe and was right across the Channel, even in 1944 following D Day Victory in Europe was uncertain.
The details are there for those who can be bothered to find them - take Antony Beevor's account of the fall of Berlin for example.
We forget too easily, in an age of modern warfare, that there was never going to be an easy 'clean' way to win World War II. The greatest military minds of the time could not find it, so I highly doubt the many 'instant experts' of today could. Those in charge at that time did not have time to debate every aspect of an action as politicians do today. Hitler had steam rollered Europe and was right across the Channel, even in 1944 following D Day Victory in Europe was uncertain.
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most
> people make it out to be.
>
> A Third Reich could not be allowed to endure, no matter the cost. I
> think WWII is as black and white as it gets.
I don't doubt that the better side won; but only if you are looking back at a sanitised version of history, where photos and eyewitness accounts are replaced by statistics, can you divorce victory from the way the war was fought. The holocaust killed 6 million innocent Jews; allied bombing killed, according to this book, 600 000 German civilians; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed tens of thousands more. Are we good and are they evil simply because they killed more than us? How can the magnitude of their crimes absolve us of responsibility for our own?
This is what I mean by saying that WWII is not morally black and white. It is presented as a triumph, our finest hour, when it was closer to tragedy.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most
> people make it out to be.
>
> A Third Reich could not be allowed to endure, no matter the cost. I
> think WWII is as black and white as it gets.
I don't doubt that the better side won; but only if you are looking back at a sanitised version of history, where photos and eyewitness accounts are replaced by statistics, can you divorce victory from the way the war was fought. The holocaust killed 6 million innocent Jews; allied bombing killed, according to this book, 600 000 German civilians; the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed tens of thousands more. Are we good and are they evil simply because they killed more than us? How can the magnitude of their crimes absolve us of responsibility for our own?
This is what I mean by saying that WWII is not morally black and white. It is presented as a triumph, our finest hour, when it was closer to tragedy.
Belldandy wrote:
> Every side comitted atrocities against every other side, and I
> think's it's unfair to generalise as unknown kernel does;
>
> "There is a lot of hypocrisy over WWII but especially, I think,
> the idea that everybody we killed deserved it and that everybody they
> killed was a hero"
I don't think this is an unfair generalisation. There is never any recognition in the media that Germans, innocent or otherwise, suffered during the war. You will never hear it said that the people who dropped firebombs and those who gave orders were anything other than heroes. The underlying message behind almost every film, documentary and book is that we were human and they were not.
If this was an unfair generalisation then the publication of a book like this wouldn't be news at all.
> Every side comitted atrocities against every other side, and I
> think's it's unfair to generalise as unknown kernel does;
>
> "There is a lot of hypocrisy over WWII but especially, I think,
> the idea that everybody we killed deserved it and that everybody they
> killed was a hero"
I don't think this is an unfair generalisation. There is never any recognition in the media that Germans, innocent or otherwise, suffered during the war. You will never hear it said that the people who dropped firebombs and those who gave orders were anything other than heroes. The underlying message behind almost every film, documentary and book is that we were human and they were not.
If this was an unfair generalisation then the publication of a book like this wouldn't be news at all.
That definition is balls. So when the IRA were targetting military personnel stationed in Ireland by blowing them to smitherines by any means necessary, they weren't commiting acts of terrorism?
unknown kernel wrote:
> I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most
> people make it out to be.
A Third Reich could not be allowed to endure, no matter the cost. I think WWII is as black and white as it gets.
> I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most
> people make it out to be.
A Third Reich could not be allowed to endure, no matter the cost. I think WWII is as black and white as it gets.
Page: