The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Skarra wrote:
> I think the Allied bombing had a purpose. That was to break the
> Germans resolve. If thousands of people had to die to acomplish that,
> then so be it.
The official US definition of terrorism is:
"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.
In your post, if you replaced 'Allied bombing' with '9/11' and 'Germans' with 'Americans' and applied it to the Middle East - propping up certain barbaric regimes, bombing others - then you have, by your logic, a pretty good justification for modern-day international terrorism. The only difference being that our motives are seen as pure and their's as wicked.
I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most people make it out to be.
> I think the Allied bombing had a purpose. That was to break the
> Germans resolve. If thousands of people had to die to acomplish that,
> then so be it.
The official US definition of terrorism is:
"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.
In your post, if you replaced 'Allied bombing' with '9/11' and 'Germans' with 'Americans' and applied it to the Middle East - propping up certain barbaric regimes, bombing others - then you have, by your logic, a pretty good justification for modern-day international terrorism. The only difference being that our motives are seen as pure and their's as wicked.
I just think that WWII is less morally black and white than most people make it out to be.
War. Simple as that.
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 know from my own experiences - my Grandad served with the Dambusters Squadron both before, during and after the way, and I have met some of his surviving colleagues who took part in raids over Germany - that the bomber crews knew full well what must be happening on the ground as they bombed, they themselves had lost friends and relatives to the German's campaign, as well as many many comrades in arms. At the time the general consensus was that the German population had largely welcomed and let Hitler come to power - very few ever spoke out against the treatment of Jews, nor during Germany's successes early in the war.
I know my Grandad told me that, by 1945, many felt it was time for payback, but that attitude rarely lasted past one mission - the smell of human flesh could be smelt even as high as where the bombers were, that some nights they'd look out from the rear of the plane and the whole horizon would be flames. But the crews had to balance that out with the knowledge that this time in 1945 was potentially the sole chance to end the war in Europe.
Personally, I think opinions on this kind of thing are best left to those who have ever actually been in conflicts, they're far more qualified. I'm not trying to excuse this, just saying that I don't think anyone can undestand truly that period of history unless they were there themselves, to me anything else seems little more than second guessing.
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 know from my own experiences - my Grandad served with the Dambusters Squadron both before, during and after the way, and I have met some of his surviving colleagues who took part in raids over Germany - that the bomber crews knew full well what must be happening on the ground as they bombed, they themselves had lost friends and relatives to the German's campaign, as well as many many comrades in arms. At the time the general consensus was that the German population had largely welcomed and let Hitler come to power - very few ever spoke out against the treatment of Jews, nor during Germany's successes early in the war.
I know my Grandad told me that, by 1945, many felt it was time for payback, but that attitude rarely lasted past one mission - the smell of human flesh could be smelt even as high as where the bombers were, that some nights they'd look out from the rear of the plane and the whole horizon would be flames. But the crews had to balance that out with the knowledge that this time in 1945 was potentially the sole chance to end the war in Europe.
Personally, I think opinions on this kind of thing are best left to those who have ever actually been in conflicts, they're far more qualified. I'm not trying to excuse this, just saying that I don't think anyone can undestand truly that period of history unless they were there themselves, to me anything else seems little more than second guessing.
I think the Allied bombing had a purpose. That was to break the Germans resolve. If thousands of people had to die to acomplish that, then so be it.
Hindsight is wonderful. At the time, bombing was the best option, now, its seen as mass murder. I look at it from the Allies point of view, they knew their could only be one victor.
Hindsight is wonderful. At the time, bombing was the best option, now, its seen as mass murder. I look at it from the Allies point of view, they knew their could only be one victor.
I read this story in the paper version of the Guardian this morning and I don't think it has the same impact without the horrific accompanying photo of a huge pile of dead civilians - as bad as anything we've seen from Rwanda or Kosovo.
It seems to me that only when those responsible are death squads wielding machetes or nazis building gas chambers do we call it mass murder and genocide. When killing is done with bombs or missiles then it's clean, forgivable and ultimately it's...nothing. 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.
"If with evil you punish the evil I have done
Pray tell, what is the difference between you and me?"
Omar Khayyam
It seems to me that only when those responsible are death squads wielding machetes or nazis building gas chambers do we call it mass murder and genocide. When killing is done with bombs or missiles then it's clean, forgivable and ultimately it's...nothing. 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.
"If with evil you punish the evil I have done
Pray tell, what is the difference between you and me?"
Omar Khayyam
Oh, didn't you hear? Two wrongs make a right as of yesterday.
Not sure if that's the lesser of two evils, more "an eye for an eye", since the germans relentlessly bombed london themselves.
I remember Hitler said something like "If they will drop 100, 200, 300 bombs on our cities, we will drop 1000, 2000, 3000 on theirs. If they will attack our cities, then we will wipe theirs out" or something like that.
At the end of the day, yes, civilians were killed, but perhaps rather than whinging about how hard done to those german people were, they should meet up with survivors of the Blitz, who I'm certain had to endure just as much hardship.
However, if we're in the state of mind to say that the Germans should be apologising for what they did during the war (not only the Holocaust, but also the Blitz and other civilian attacks), then so too, really, should the allied forces apologise for their own attrocities.
Last thought though, more than 50 years on, and with modern Germany a strong economic and political ally, should we not be forgetting these past differences?
I remember Hitler said something like "If they will drop 100, 200, 300 bombs on our cities, we will drop 1000, 2000, 3000 on theirs. If they will attack our cities, then we will wipe theirs out" or something like that.
At the end of the day, yes, civilians were killed, but perhaps rather than whinging about how hard done to those german people were, they should meet up with survivors of the Blitz, who I'm certain had to endure just as much hardship.
However, if we're in the state of mind to say that the Germans should be apologising for what they did during the war (not only the Holocaust, but also the Blitz and other civilian attacks), then so too, really, should the allied forces apologise for their own attrocities.
Last thought though, more than 50 years on, and with modern Germany a strong economic and political ally, should we not be forgetting these past differences?
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: