|
Horseshoe theory posted:Then again, Julius Streicher was convicted and executed for his propaganda. Yeah, Streicher was an 'alternative' media mogul/propagandist and they hanged his rear end. He was also a Gauleiter though I think, but I have no idea what crimes he committed in that role. That Bannon scumbag is the Julius Streicher of the Drumpfenreich for real.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:lol no, firebombs and nukes are not ok They were ok in Ww2 to beat Germany and Japan. Nothing was not ok in that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Really? Nothing? Japanese internment camps? The French Moroccan troops raping and murdering their way across Italy? Soviet occupation of Austria and Germany? Japanese internment camps wasn't killing Japanese people/destroying Japanese stuff (ie: beating them in the war) so I'd say it was probably wrong. We shouldn't have locked Americans up like that. Soviet Occupation of Austria and Germany was the price the Germans and Austrians paid for their crimes. I can think of worse things of the top of my head pretty easy, like the Austrian/German occupation of the Soviet Union. But everything up to and including just completely wiping out Germany and Japan were justified in WW2. They started the war, and they committed and would have gone on committing the worst crimes in human history if they weren't stopped. At what point do you people think the Allies should have stopped what they were doing to Germany/Japan and started telling the Axis' victims "sorry, we could do more, even save your life, just by killing more of the people who are doing this to you, but we have decided not to, that you should die instead?" Why do you people think Japanese lives were worth more than Chinese and American lives? Why do you think German and Austrian lives were worth more than Eastern European or Jewish lives? Or the lives of soldiers from all the countries fighting the 3rd Reich? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Uhhh hold up there Dr. Strangelove. What's justified in war is doing things to end the war that are proportional actions. 100,000 German women getting raped by Red Army troops in pacified areas behind the frontlines doesn't further that goal. I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. We probably should have gone to war against them after WW2. At any rate, trying to confuse the issue from Allied fire/nuclear bombing to soviet rapists is a different argument altogether. What we were justified in doing was killing as many Germans and Japanese as possible, and destroying as much of the material basis for their war effort as possible, until they surrendered unconditionally. It was what we actually did, it was good, and it lead to good outcomes for Japan and Germany as well as the rest of the world. Both countries were rebuilt peaceful, free, and prosperous. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Well good, but you don't have to say anything nice about them in order to be still wrong. FWIW I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% justified and less destructive than some conventional bombing raids. But there's a difference between destroying industry and causing collateral damage in an era before laser- or GPS-guided bombs existed and just dunking on civilian areas. We dunked on civilian areas deliberately though, since we believed that those areas were vital for the enemy's production of weapons. If they didnt have houses, they wouldnt be as productive, was the plan.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Who said they were? Hell is wrong with you? Firebombing Germany and Japan were OK. Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was OK. Dude who said they weren't was wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you are human loving garbage Says the guy saying we shouldn't have fought the Nazis and the Japanese...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you really are sick, you know that? Don't try to twist words, you're nowhere near smart enough. Burning cities to the ground to see if we could turn fire into a hurricane just wasn't justified. The Germans and Japanese were responsible for the deaths of more than sixty million people spangly. Would you have preferred it was seventy? eighty? ninety? A hundred million people? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You are literally apologizing for, and handwaving away the single largest mass rape event in recorded human history. Explain how you come to the conclusion that the rape of 2 million women, including children, near and past the end of the war justifiably prevented German aggression. I couldn't possibly come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The funny thing is I didn't even argue against killing civilians employed in vital industries or using incendiaries or nukes or the almost certain fact that 9 out of 10 bombs dropped from B-17/B-29 formations that were spread out across miles from 20,000 feet up hit civilians instead of an actual target. I'm just asking there be some minimal link that could be deduced between "win war" and "do this thing" before causing collateral damage. "LOL literally anything goes get hosed Axis" isn't deductive in the slightest. Intentionally specifically bombing granny out of her home just means she'll die for no reason because any state on a total war footing will prioritize food, medical care, and shelter to people who are actually useful. The stated aim was to destroy the homes of people contributing to the war effort, consume Germany's resources, and to decrease the German people's morale and willingness to continue fighting. It was called "de-housing." quote:The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I don't think anyone aside from a bunch of dumbass white Americans thinks that speech is uniquely harmless (or at least not harmful enough that it should be treated as a crime in certain cases). The US has radical ideas about freedom of speech, same with guns.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Yeah, we know what the strategy was. Practically every WWII historian agrees it was a lovely strategy that didn't work at all. The entire strategic bombing plan was a mishmash of theory cooked up in the 1920's that was a waste of resources, men and civilian lives by every possible measure. I specifically asked you to explain how you thought Dresden was a successful campaign because it's probably the most glaring example of this. Despite killing 25,000 civilians and razing the entire city center, it ended up becoming a huge propaganda coup for Germany. Goebbels (back on topic!) spun it into a rallying cry that, if anything, extended the war. There's certainly a lot of valid criticism of its utility in retrospect. But it wasn't wrong for the allies to try, it wasn't morally wrong for them to do because they did it in good faith. Its like the use of deadly force to stop violent crimes that are in progress. Say that someone is shooting up a school or a shopping mall or something, any force against that person is justified to stop him. It's completely different from shooting someone who is in custody, or who has surrendered. The German and Japanese peoples had spent years prosecuting their war of horror on the rest of the human race. Making them stop was the only thing that mattered until they stopped. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
After having all their cities bombed to rubble neither the Germans nor the Japanese started any more wars. They were not left with the impression that they'd gotten away with it. It did take extraordinary moral courage to level whole cities. It's like flipping the switch on death row. It's killing someone, it appears wrong on its face, but a person can take a moral leap of faith- if punishment is just, then the terrible act is right. To anyone who believes in moral judgment, this is a risk. To take the risk requires moral courage. At any rate, as long as strategic bombing was done in good faith, which it was, then it wasn't wrong. Starting World War Two was wrong, ending it was right, no matter how many of the perpetrators were killed in the process. It's not any different at all from what the police call an 'active shooter.' If someone is shooting up a school or a shopping mall there is no level of force against the perpetrator that is inappropriate or immoral. It's not wrong to kill him to stop him. If he surrenders then it's different. Did we level any German cities after they'd unconditionally surrendered? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
When buddhism finally turns to violent fundamentalism we are all doomed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You might not be aware of it but that's already the case in several parts of Asia. Do they kill everyone to release them from the suffering of existence Flowers For Algeria?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
It's not exactly news that the russians/communists are and always have been bad... When the two greatest machines of human evil, the Nazi Germans and the Soviet Russians collided, it was inevitable that many terrible things would happen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 06:29
|
|