German atrocities in WWII, systematic or just like everyone else?

[Serb]

I have no idea.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Serb

Silly, it's day here, and I'm on my job. Do you think Russians drink at 13 o'clock?

Too easy.

[Saras]

The french drink at 12:00, wine at lunch. Russians start at 08:00.

[Ned]

Well McNamarra is still alive an kicking, and he admits he is a war criminal for having participated in the LeMay's command. Perhaps we ought to arrest him instead of that 86 year old German.

People love to talk about Kissinger, the war criminal. We still have a major war criminal figure from WWII (and perhaps Vietnam) on the loose here in the US.

Shawn, that link reinforces the my prior view that Secretary of State Byrne is the primary person behind the use of the bomb. Truman deferred to him. I find the following to be "pursuasive" on the issue:

"Truman's appointment secretary diverted Szilard and several of his associates to Spartanburg, South Carolina, to see James Byrnes. There was confusion about this diversion since at the time Byrnes had no position in government.

At this meeting the scientists spoke of their objections to the deployment of the bomb and were told by Byrnes that their concerns about an arms race with Russia were unfounded because General Groves had said Russia had no uranium. Szilard believed this to be highly unlikely. He expressed to Byrnes his concern that there was no governmental policy or study to deal with how the problems that would follow the bomb's deployment would be met.

Byrnes expressed to the group what I feel is the real reason the bomb was deployed. Byrnes expressed his concern about Russia taking over Poland, Hungary and Rumania. Byrnes stated to the group how he felt the deployment of the bomb would render the Russians easier to handle in Europe! Days later Byrnes would be appointed Secretary of State.

Szilard later said, in regard to his thoughts on the deployment of the bomb: "By and large, governments are guided by considerations of expediency rather than by moral considerations. And this, I think, is a universal law of how governments act. Prior to the war I had the illusion that up to a point the American Government was different. This illusion was gone after Hiroshima."

"Perhaps you remember that in 1939 President Roosevelt warned the belligerents against using bombs against the inhabited cities, and this I thought was perfectly fitting and natural."

"Then, during the war, without any explanation, we began to use incendiary bombs against the cities of Japan. This was disturbing to me and it was disturbing many of my friends."

So, in light of the above, I definitely feel that we became the first nation to deploy weapons of mass destruction without any concern for military targets but against the civilian population of Japan, simply as a means of attempting to control the Russians.

I think it is significant that Japan did not surrender, even after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. They did surrender when Jimmy Dolittle filled the skies over Tokyo with B-29's, which dropped absolutely nothing."

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/26/gaddy.htm

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
The french drink at 12:00, wine at lunch. Russians start at 08:00.

At 08:00 we drink tea.

[Saras]

50% of it is vodka

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ermmmm, I don't think so. You are more versed with English than that... stuff you posted. That was not Churchill.

Feel free to check it. I gave you the date when he said this and the number of pages where he saying this about Stalin.

Now let's see what Truman thought about this imbecile (Stalin). In letters to his wife, Truman wrote:

"I like Stalin. He is straightforward. Knows what he wants and will compromise when he can't get it"

Robert H. Ferrell, ed., Dear Bess: the Letters from Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959, New-York: Norton, 1983 (pages 520-522).

Another quote:

"A common everyday citizen (in Russia) has about as much say about his government as a stock holder in the Standard Oil of New Jersey has about his Company. But I don't care what they do. They evidently like their government or they wouldn't die for it. I like ours so let's get along."

"I can deal with Stalin. He is honest- but smart as hell."
Robert H. Ferrell, ed., Off the record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, New York: Penguin, 1980, (pages44, 53)

Another dude was wrong about Stalin being an imbecile, right doctor Sandman?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
50% of it is vodka

Never mix vodka with anything... except beer.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc


Molly, found an interesting link concerning the usefullness of precision daylight raids. http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/lifeline/chanlast.html This provides a link that the B29's were attempting some precision bombing with some success, look at the section on the bombing of the dockyards in Singapore. However, in deference to Molly, they also indicate how much "collateral damage", or "oops, I killed a bunch of civilians" occured with those raids.

Yes, I think I mentioned the assault on the King George Dry Dock facilities in an earlier post. I think the British vetoed further raids on it because they were eager to have it relatively intact at war's end.

It was the only notable success in terms of 'daylight precision bombing', but as I think we've seen in this thread, it's easy to describe something in those terms, but when a hit constitutes something within 3 miles of the target, that doesn't gel with my understanding of 'precise'.

Did the Allies kill civilians? Yes, as part of a philosophy that had existed since just after the First World War, as expounded first by Giulio Douhet. The question should be, did area or strategic bombing at the time of the Second World War form the moral equivalent of the death camps, the activities of the Einstazgruppen or Japan's infamous Unit 731?

I believe it was looked at as legitimate warfare by both sides- rather like armies looting cities that did not surrender, in earlier times.

I do not believe that either side viewed experimentation on P.O.W.s or civilians as 'legitimate' nor did they view the cannibalization of P.O.W.s as legitimate, hence the flurry of Japanese orders banning the practice.

[Mr. Harley]

Molly, the daytime raids on oil facilities against the Nazis were also successful. The exception that proves the rule. Oh, and I was posting the link because of your earlier statement concerning Singapore, in support of it. The number of bombs/raids/casualities resulting from daytime raids, and their results, throws their efficacy into grave doubt. It was the secondary affects that were so powerful.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Molly, the daytime raids on oil facilities against the Nazis were also successful. The exception that proves the rule. Oh, and I was posting the link because of your earlier statement concerning Singapore, in support of it. The number of bombs/raids/casualities resulting from daytime raids, and their results, throws their efficacy into grave doubt. It was the secondary affects that were so powerful.

I'd be interested to know your opinion of the neutron bomb.

When it was mooted abroad, quite a lot of armchair commentators described it as 'immoral' because it would leave infrastructure intact and kill people.

How this was more or less immoral than area or strategic bombing defeats me- perhaps because it's intent was so much more plain?

[Mr. Harley]

Molly, I have always been something of a heretic. I watched them cart my oldest younger sister away just before her fourth birthday, a "statistic" of flammable children's clothing (she survived, her total surgeries now exceed 60). I was a 4th grader, and I called the ambulance - my mother couldn't, after putting my sister out they could see bones in her hands, she had no time to grab a towel. To this day burning meat can turn my stomach, thinking about it makes me queasy.

I have always stated I see NO difference between being firebombed and nuked, in fact I think I'd rather be nuked, though that's probably an emotional reaction to knowing the torture a serious burn victim goes through. I don't have the numbers but at least the people at ground zero die immediately (the number of burn victims around ground zero, heck, this is silly, I'll pass on either thank you).

The argument over the "morality" of the allied war effort, especially the Americans, goes based on the treaties they had signed and their own announced definition of what was "moral" in a war, a sad concept if you stop and think about it. By their own announced war aims, if their leaders decided to abandon "morality" under the pressures of war, then it is understandable, though "right" versus "wrong" becomes very confused. However, if it was done for racist reasons, dehumaninzing the enemy, then it was a very dangerous path that should be historically documented, so future generations realize how terribly easy it is to demonize the opponent and then compromise your soul.

Want something even sadder? Bush's trumped up war against Iraq, due to modern precision bombs, may have the lowest number of collateral civilian deaths of any war on that scale to date. However, I find that war totally suspect on ethical grounds, even if it was the most "humanely" fought war, reference civilians, ever engaged in on that scale. Talk about irony!

[East Street Trader]

Ned

The firestorm raid on Dresden was carried out by 773 RAF bombers and 527 USAAF bombers.

[Mr. Harley]

East Street Trader, Ned already brought up an interesting point. Many of us quoting Dresden as a war crime are doing off a single source, I cannot remember the author's name, Ned posted it. Like many people with very polarizing books, he has gotten much of the attention. When Ned brought it up, and when I believe it was Molly brought up the optics factory (which I had forgotten about, I had actually read about it years ago, but I'm like most people - war crime stuck in my memory, optics factory didn't) I realized I had been reading what boiled down to a single source, or people quoting the single source. Sloppy, and easy to do as that was a book I read as a teenager, and it made a big impression. That's why it's so damn important for good, interesting histories to get written, and then taught.

[Hurricane]

I found the alleged Churchill quote here: http://www.vkpb.ru/princip_en.html

But in the comments, I find this:

"The author applies to Churchill for support of his conception. I would like to note that the eulogy on Stalin cited in the article does not belong to Churchill by any means. Something similar was said by I, Doicher, a well-known English Trotskyite. However, in any case naturally the question arises: Is it tactful to apply to bourgeois sources unscrupulously in the appraisal of the leaders, the prominent figures of our party and state?"