Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Allied war crimes during World War II

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>
Author
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Allied war crimes during World War II
    Posted: 29-Apr-2013 at 09:43
Originally posted by red clay

Criminality?  Germany committed the most heinous crimes concieved by man .  On an industrial scale.  You are trying to justify all that was done by saying, that in reponse to your invading the whole of Western Europe, North Africa and Russia, committing millions to death camps, fomenting the deaths of roughly 50 million people, it was okay, because the Allies in fighting back, did nasty things.
 
Beorna, I've heard it all before.  Protestations being shouted down an empty hallway.
 
 

Can you please shown me here or everywhere else, where I justify german crimes? Can you show me where I try to mitigate German crimes by showing those of allies?

I posted some references and some of the crimes committed by western allies. Do you have something to say about it? Is it wrong, is it correct? What do you think about it? germans are often blamed for claiming they didn't know. Do you want to claim, you didn't know, too?

I did not open these thread. Do participants in these thread from former allied countries ever tried to participate here with facts to show these atrocities didn't happen or did they help to discover crimes?

No, the usual comment is, "they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind". Wow, what a scientific explanation!

If you show me a thread about german war crimes, I would participate with facts, I would bring examples how the Wehrmacht was involved, how SS and EGr were involved etc. That is the difference. It seems you have a lot to do to account for the past.
Back to Top
bogbrush View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-May-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote bogbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2013 at 10:59
 It seems you have a lot to do to account for the past.
 
 
I don't know about Clay, but someone has a lot to account for.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by bogbrush - 29-Apr-2013 at 11:01
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2013 at 11:20
Originally posted by bogbrush

 It seems you have a lot to do to account for the past.
 
 
I don't know about Clay, but someone has a lot to account for.

It only shows, that you don't know what you are talking about. Is "someone" germans or me? Both have accounted for the past, more than the (most) other nations and not only WWII. I like people in England, so I don't like to say it, but a lot of English should perhaps first care about their colonial history, before they blame others. I have written a book in which I wrote several chapters about the Nazi era and WWII, including the murder and expulsion of jews. So don't claim such nonsense, before you havn't add his something essential here.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2013 at 12:04
Everyone calm down...take a breather.


Keep it civil...so far no harm no foul. Good honest interactions and viewpoints being exchanged.

Don't make me intervene. Bottom line.
Because everyone can bet their assets; I will do just that...if required.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2013 at 21:41
Beorn, in re your: "And that is the same for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had offered peace negotiations and were therefor in contact with moscow. That the bombings have saved lifes is a cheap excuse."

First of all, regarding your second sentence, you wouldn't think saving Allied lives was a 'cheap excuse' if you had been an Allied commander. A commander's first obligation is to accomplish his mission. His second is to safeguard his men. Safeguarding enemy civilians is further down on the mission list.

Now, regarding 'peace negotiations'. Please cite me the cable whereby the representatives of the Imperial Japanese Government offered to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. There was nothing else to negotiate. And, regarding Moscow, they had a non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese and were preparing to break it, which they did on August 9th, which gave them a foothold in Manchuria and Korea, and two Japanese islands. Now, can you provide any evidence that the Soviets were trying to convince the Americans to call off the war with Japan, and not moving Soviet forces into the Far East?   
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2013 at 05:01
Originally posted by lirelou

Beorn, in re your: "And that is the same for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had offered peace negotiations and were therefor in contact with moscow. That the bombings have saved lifes is a cheap excuse."

First of all, regarding your second sentence, you wouldn't think saving Allied lives was a 'cheap excuse' if you had been an Allied commander. A commander's first obligation is to accomplish his mission. His second is to safeguard his men. Safeguarding enemy civilians is further down on the mission list.

Now, regarding 'peace negotiations'. Please cite me the cable whereby the representatives of the Imperial Japanese Government offered to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. There was nothing else to negotiate. And, regarding Moscow, they had a non-Aggression Pact with the Japanese and were preparing to break it, which they did on August 9th, which gave them a foothold in Manchuria and Korea, and two Japanese islands. Now, can you provide any evidence that the Soviets were trying to convince the Americans to call off the war with Japan, and not moving Soviet forces into the Far East?   

On july 9th the japanese ambassador in moscow, sato naotake, asked for peace negotiations.
On july 18th Stalin informed the president of the USA, that he had recieved a note of Hirohito tenno by Sato. This note offered that prince Konoje asked to travel to Moscow for negotiations about a capitulation.
Stalin asked Truman, how they or if they at all shall give an answer. Truman refuted any negotiations.
The crucial point of the Japanese demands were, that the tenno was not prosecuted as war criminal and would neither imprisoned, nor replaced. You have to keep in mind, that the tenno was divine. That's as if somebody would ask the USA to surrender unconditionally and to abandon their christian religion. The USA refuted such conditions, untill, the nukes were dropped.

Surprisingly accepted the USA the wishes of the Japanese government after the nuking.


Edited by beorna - 01-May-2013 at 05:18
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 19-Jul-2013
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
  Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2013 at 18:46

According to Casablanca agreement, the surrender of Axis countries shall bee unconditional. There was no chance that allied countries will negotiate, at t his stage, peace with criminal government of Japan (or Germany)

in August 1945 USA accepted unconditional surrender of Japan and it was Allied good will that Emperor Hirohito was left as a nominal ruler of Japan. 



Edited by Goral - 14-Aug-2013 at 18:51
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2013 at 19:16
Originally posted by Goral

According to Casablanca agreement, the surrender of Axis countries shall bee unconditional. There was no chance that allied countries will negotiate, at t his stage, peace with criminal government of Japan (or Germany)

in August 1945 USA accepted unconditional surrender of Japan and it was Allied good will that Emperor Hirohito was left as a nominal ruler of Japan. 



It wasn't "good will" at all, but practicality.  It was the only way to pacify the Japanese population, who would have fought to the last man, woman and child had the Emperor be removed from his position.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2013 at 23:40
Mountain Man, in re: "It was the only way to pacify the Japanese population, who would have fought to the last man, woman and child had the Emperor be removed from his position."

Well, the evidence is that they would not have fought to the last man. Despite their attempts to obtain a guarantee that the Allies would leave the Emperor in power, no such guarantees were given. In the end, once the bombing resumed, the Japanese capitulated not knowing what would happen to the Emperor. Note the last paragraph of these excerpts from Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan,                  noting the mixed reaction among the Japanese populace. The idea that they would fight to the last man, woman, and child was an ideal. Once the military fractured, and it did, they no longer had the power to coerce such conduct. And not even the Emperor himself would have sanctioned it. My take is that he was more concerned with the survival of the Japanese people.

Early that morning (August 10), the (Japanese) Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government[90]—that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power

The Allied response was written by James F. Byrnes and approved by the British, Chinese, and Soviet governments, although the Soviets agreed only reluctantly. The Allies sent their response (via the Swiss Political Affairs Department) to Japan's qualified acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 12. On the status of the emperor it said:
From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.[91]

The Japanese cabinet considered the Allied response, and Suzuki argued that they must reject it and insist on an explicit guarantee for the imperial system. Anami returned to his position that there be no occupation of Japan. Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the emperor's will that Japan surrender. In a meeting with the emperor, Yonai spoke of his concerns about growing civil unrest:

I think the term is inappropriate, but the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war are, in a sense, divine gifts. This way we don't have to say that we have quit the war because of domestic circumstances.[94]

That day, Hirohito informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (national polity) could not be preserved. The emperor simply replied "of course."[95][96]

Public reaction to the Emperor's speech varied–many Japanese simply listened to it, then went on with their lives as best they could, while some Army and Navy officers chose suicide over surrender. At a base north of Nagasaki, some Japanese Army officers, enraged at the prospect of surrender, pulled some 16 captured American airmen out of the base prison and hacked them to death with swords. A large, weeping crowd gathered in front of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, with their cries sometimes interrupted by the sound of gunshots as military officers present committed suicide.[131]
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 19-Jul-2013
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
  Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2013 at 01:44
Japaneee desire was to negotiate, not to surrender

The Japanese Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Sato) to the 
Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Togo)

Moscow, July 30, 1945--10:31 p.m.

Secret 
Urgent

1484. Re my telegram No. 1476, item 6.

Worried by the delay in reply from the Soviet side, I met with Lozovsky on the 30th at 5 p.m. and again conveyed our wishes. The following conversation took place:

Sato: I have come to receive your reply concerning our request for assistance by the Government of the Soviet Union to end the war which was presented to your Government on the 25th. Although it was arranged that we should be notified as soon as the reply war ready, since it is now Monday I have come to inquire about your reply.

Lozovsky: Since both Stalin, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, and Molotov, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, are now in Berlin, the reply will necessarily take several days to arrive. I regret to say that the reply cannot be delivered yet.

Sato: I fully understand the circumstances. However, the three countries --Great Britain, the United States, and China--issued a joint declaration against Japan on the 26th, pressing unconditional surrender on Japan. Unconditional surrender is, after all, out of the question for the Japanese Government. Our view remains the same as was stated on the 13th, at our meeting before that last. If is is possible to avoid such a formula, however, Japan desires to end the war, with an extremely conciliatory attitude, so long as Japan is guaranteed the nation's honor and existence. For this purpose we asked the Soviet Government for assistance. I hope that Marshal Stalin, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, will give special consideration to this point. Although it has not been possible to receive your reply, I shall be happy if you will notify Commissar Molotov that I have come to see the Acting People's Commissar in order to receive the reply.

Lozovsky: I shall do my best to convey Your Excellency's request to Molotov today by all means.

Sato: I shall be much obliged if you will kindly do so. The Japanese Government has decided to send the Emperor's most trusted Prince Konoye as special envoy to Moscow. As I explained at previous meetings, the envoy will discuss a wide range of subjects as to how the Japanese Government should work to re-establish peace in the Far East and will seek you Government's assistance. I shall also appreciate it if you will inform Mr. Molotov that my understanding is that Prince Konoye will be empowered to discuss a wide range of subjects with the Soviet Government. Also, the Japanese Government understands that various reservations and stipulations will be made by the Soviet Union in connection with the Japanese Government's request for assistance.

Lozovsky: I shall arrange as you request immediately.

Sato: The point which I am concerned about is the possibility that the tripartite joint declaration may obstruct the assistance from the Soviet Government which is desired by the Japanese Government. However, since the top leaders of the Soviet Government are now in Berlin, I hope that they will give appropriate consideration to the removal of such obstructions.

Lozovsky: I promise again to convey your request.

Source: Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), Conference of Berlin 1945, vol. 1, 872-883; vol. 2, 1248-1269 and 1291-1298.



Edited by Goral - 15-Aug-2013 at 01:45
Back to Top
LeDogg View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-Feb-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote LeDogg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 11:56
I don't see allies commiting any war crimes with the exeption of soviets (who i dont consider being ally at all) Bombing runs by Brittish and Americans are not even closely related to mass executions, torture, slave labor and deportations that were Nazi war crimes. These bombing runs would have never happened if the Germany or Japanese empire would surrender so it is considered a military action and not war crime. Now with the Soviet union its different however. Soviets started their reign of terror long before Hitler came to power and are responsible of over 20 million deaths by mass executions, torture, mass deportations and slave labor (as far as i understand these 4 accounts are considered crimes against humanity). But since the Soviets were on the victor's side they got away with it. Even at modern day Russian federation denies  it, while it should investigate it and publish documents related to it and in the end make formal apology to the countries they oppressed.
1 example would be Ukraine and what they did with them. In 1 year they systematically exterminated 7 million civilians by starvation. Since soviets were confiscating all the food and grain supply and exported it for money. 7 million people starved to death. if that is not a crime against humanity then i dont know what is!
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 14:59
Originally posted by LeDogg

I don't see allies commiting any war crimes ....

Maybe you open your eyes and read the thread from the beginning.

Originally posted by LeDogg

.........with the exeption of soviets (who i dont consider being ally at all)

That sounded very different during the war. The soviets were your allies, allthough they attacked Finland, invaded bessarabia, the baltic states and together with Hitler Poland.

Originally posted by LeDogg

Bombing runs by Brittish and Americans are not even closely related to mass executions, torture, slave labor and deportations that were Nazi war crimes.

This is the common crude logic here by several members. So committing smaller or fewer crimes than somebody else, is making one innocent? Is that how law is practiced in your countries, "Mr. judge I am innocent, cos I just killed my neighnour's wife, while he killed my wife and my son"?

Originally posted by LeDogg

These bombing runs would have never happened if the Germany or Japanese empire would surrender so it is considered a military action and not war crime.

Maybe you should think twice before you write it down! So the unwillingness of an enemy is the justification to kill his civilians? So the London Blitz, the baedecker Blitz or the V-weapons were ok, because britain refused to surrender, too?

Originally posted by LeDogg

Now with the Soviet union its different however. Soviets started their reign of terror long before Hitler came to power and are responsible of over 20 million deaths by mass executions, torture, mass deportations and slave labor (as far as i understand these 4 accounts are considered crimes against humanity). But since the Soviets were on the victor's side they got away with it. Even at modern day Russian federation denies  it, while it should investigate it and publish documents related to it and in the end make formal apology to the countries they oppressed.

I think there is very different data about the people who died or were killed in the gulag or in other places. It is at least a figure in the millions.
it is interesting, that you mention mass deportations as crimes against humanity. The big four, together with mainly Poland and the CSR agreed in the expulsion of around 14 million germans. In your first sentence you wrote you see no allied crime. It seems you don't want to see.


Originally posted by LeDogg

1 example would be Ukraine and what they did with them. In 1 year they systematically exterminated 7 million civilians by starvation. Since soviets were confiscating all the food and grain supply and exported it for money. 7 million people starved to death. if that is not a crime against humanity then i dont know what is!

Snyder in his book bloodlands estimated 3.3 million Ukrainians as victims of the Holodomor. That is still a large number, but far away from some fantastic figures of some Ukrainian nationalists or communist-haters. The reasons for the starvation are manyfold. The holodomor started with the attempt of a collectivation of the agricultural sector. The class of the "kulaks" was the target. The truth was, that those kulaks were already destroyed as class during the times of lenian. In 1933 every free farmer became a kulak. And during the holodomor more and more became targets of soviet repression.
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 17:44
Originally posted by lirelou

Mountain Man, in re: "It was the only way to pacify the Japanese population, who would have fought to the last man, woman and child had the Emperor be removed from his position."

Well, the evidence is that they would not have fought to the last man. ]


And yet the Allies conservatively predicted one-half million casualties if they had to invade the Japanese Home Islands.

The United States Military is still issuing Purple Hearts originally created for that invasion.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2014 at 19:14
Originally posted by red clay

To some, war is seen as an engine of progress.  Take a look at the tech. advancements  made in WW I and II.
 
You are speaking of total war.  There are no morals in total war, no principles, just death and suffering.  The victor is sometime hard to distinguish from the loser. If in fact there is such a thing as a "victor" in total war.
 
Unless some  global disaster interupts, the way the pattern is running, warfare will eventually give way to sports. 
I realize that looking at the world condition as it stands, doesn't seem likely.  Economics will steer it that way.  War is expensive and becoming more so.  With national economies all tied together, it will eventually become financial suicide for one country to wage war against another.  However national pride and the drive to compete, will still be there and will need an outlet.
 
                      
I agree with Red.
 
But in warfare, there is often a very fine line between justifiable "collateral damage" and war crimes.
 
My definition of War Crimes would be unjustifiable acts committed upon civilians or unarmed prisoners. For example, rape can not be justified under any circumstances, torture can not be justified.
 
It seems to me that War Crimes are now being investigated, and the offender/s punished far more quickly than ever before.
 
As a side note-I don't believe the psychological humiliation of prisoners, such as at Abu Ghraib, to be War Crimes. 
Back to Top
LeDogg View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 08-Feb-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote LeDogg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 03:34
In total war mass bombing is not considered as a war crime. Non of the germans were judged by bombing London or any other city. That was purely justifiable military action no matter how you might feel about it. Mass exterminating people up close and personal because they are from another race or nationality is however, called war crime. Without daily allied bombing runs we would probably all speak German right now so in a way you should be thankful. Yes we are all sorry for the people that died in bombings, but lets not forget that they started this war. Hitler alone couldn't have conquered all the land he did and kill all the people he did.
As a sidenote. You(or me) might have misinterpret mass deportation as war crime. It is actually tied with a slave labor. You are not allowed to transport massive ammounts of people from foreign countries to your country as a slave. That is 1 act of crimes against humanity.
Most of you people also fail to see is the difference between modern day and a day back then when total war was upon world.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 05:04
Originally posted by LeDogg

In total war mass bombing is not considered as a war crime. Non of the germans were judged by bombing London or any other city. That was purely justifiable military action no matter how you might feel about it. Mass exterminating people up close and personal because they are from another race or nationality is however, called war crime. Without daily allied bombing runs we would probably all speak German right now so in a way you should be thankful. Yes we are all sorry for the people that died in bombings, but lets not forget that they started this war. Hitler alone couldn't have conquered all the land he did and kill all the people he did.
As a sidenote. You(or me) might have misinterpret mass deportation as war crime. It is actually tied with a slave labor. You are not allowed to transport massive ammounts of people from foreign countries to your country as a slave. That is 1 act of crimes against humanity.
Most of you people also fail to see is the difference between modern day and a day back then when total war was upon world.
I certainly won't argue with that.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 05:19
Originally posted by LeDogg

In total war mass bombing is not considered as a war crime.

Show me the definition of a total war in international laws! The deliberately killing of civilians, as main goal, just for the sake of terror, is not backed by the HC.

Originally posted by LeDogg

Non of the germans were judged by bombing London or any other city. That was purely justifiable military action no matter how you might feel about it.

Indeed one German general was sentenced for the bombing of a city. The German ace Erich hartmann was sentenced even for his air victories. But you are right, german general in majority were not sentenced for the German bombings. If you read my postings, you can see, that I am against carpet bombing, even if it is directed against industrial and military tagets. During the attack on Coventry 568 people died. But even the British historian Norman Longmate wrote in his book, The Bombers, p.94, that the military and industrial targets were hit with great accuracy. The problem was the mixed structure of the city, with industries inside the living areas. That is absolutely different to the deliberately destruction of lifes like in Hamburg, with 35,000 deads during a single raid! Nobody complains about attacks on military or industry, but e.g. the Ford factories in Cologne weren't destroyed till 1945, because it belonged to Ford. It was in the end destroyed by german artillery!


Originally posted by LeDogg

Mass exterminating people up close and personal because they are from another race or nationality is however, called war crime.

Here I absolutely agree. The extermination of other people is a war crime, it is a crime at all, not only during wars. But if you look above, guys like the Nick above, support the killing of civilians, cos every child becomes a soldier or a mother. Can you tell me, why the Nazis weren't then allowed to kill millions of Russians or Poles or French civilians? Can you tell me why somebody should feed POWs, when the food could be used for the own population or the own soldiers? Murder is murder. There is no good murder (usually the own murders) and bad murders (usually those of the others)!

Originally posted by LeDogg

Without daily allied bombing runs we would probably all speak German right now so in a way you should be thankful. Yes we are all sorry for the people that died in bombings, but lets not forget that they started this war. Hitler alone couldn't have conquered all the land he did and kill all the people he did.

And the British empire orr the USA became great by what? Gifts or conquest? And BTW Britain declared war on Germany. By your own crude logic, it is their fault, that Britain was bombed.

Originally posted by LeDogg

As a sidenote. You(or me) might have misinterpret mass deportation as war crime. It is actually tied with a slave labor. You are not allowed to transport massive ammounts of people from foreign countries to your country as a slave. That is 1 act of crimes against humanity.

Ah, here as well a good mass deportion and a bad mass deportation? Millions of Germans were not only expelled, raped, robbed and murdered, a great number was as well deportated into the gulag.

Originally posted by LeDogg

Most of you people also fail to see is the difference between modern day and a day back then when total war was upon world.

You only excuse your crimes by a total war, not those of the Germans or the Russians. Isn't that interesting?


Edited by beorna - 09-Feb-2014 at 05:21
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 05:33
Originally posted by bogbrush

 It seems you have a lot to do to account for the past.
  
I don't know about Clay, but someone has a lot to account for.
 
 
Should the sins of the father be visited upon the son? I think not, and personally, I find the continual rehashing of the two World Wars not only boring, but distasteful.
 
Do you think that the German or Japanese people will soon forget the crimes that their ancestors were charged with, or the fact that they were defeated.
 
Do you really think that our opposition in various conflicts will soon forget the crimes committed upon them....don't forget My Lai!
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 05:43
Originally posted by LeDogg

I don't see allies commiting any war crimes with the exeption of soviets (who i dont consider being ally at all)
 
Well......
 
1. You have a "head in the sand" attitude. Of course there were war crimes committed by the Allies during WWII, the Brits, Yanks, Aussies, who ever you like. But perhaps they weren't on the same scale of brutality as those committed by some others;
 
2. Sorry mate, the Soviets were allies during WWII, like it or not. That the Soviet troops were responsible for atrocities against the German Civilian population is undeniable.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2014 at 06:25
Originally posted by toyomotor

Originally posted by LeDogg

I don't see allies commiting any war crimes with the exeption of soviets (who i dont consider being ally at all)
 
Well......
 
1. You have a "head in the sand" attitude. Of course there were war crimes committed by the Allies during WWII, the Brits, Yanks, Aussies, who ever you like. But perhaps they weren't on the same scale of brutality as those committed by some others;
 
2. Sorry mate, the Soviets were allies during WWII, like it or not. That the Soviet troops were responsible for atrocities against the German Civilian population is undeniable.

good to see some rationality. The question here is simply, did the allies commit war crimes. The answer is, yes! The question is not, were the allies as bad as the Nazis or the Germans. Such question can only be answered with, no!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.