"Frans, I think you're comparing two things that can not be compared. England and France regimes were not as bad as Germany nazi regime, England and France had nothing to gain declaring war on Germany, they were worried with Pangermanism and acted complying with their pacts when Germany attacked unjustifiedly Poland and the Western allies did not indulge in a state sponsored mass genocide so there's a moral issue here."
The state sponsored mass genocide was still one of the Nazi's dirty little plans at the time war was declared, so it shouldn't been included in the reasoning behind it.
""Well, as the Russians happen to be free these days that's something we'll never know isn't it?"
What has that got to do with anything whatsoever?"
It means that even if the Nazi's had won the war that wouldn't automatically mean they would still remain in power today.
"I've already adjudicated Frans versus iron ivan Keith.
Now, the score board for Old Bear versus Frans – Old bear kicks Frans all over the place, I'm afraid…
Well done Old Bear.
--
Tim"
What a dedication ;o)
">I only said a crime is a crime
Thus, on the basis that a 'crime is a crime',
you are saying that bombing a defending city
is equal to exterminating unarmed people, "
For some strange reason you, and some others, very persistently don't want to read what I'm actually writing. "a crime is a crime" only means that the severity of a crime doesn't distract from the fact it is a crime. I have already stated, quite often and quite clearly, that I don‘t think British war crimes equalled those of the Nazi's.
"Something tells me that if allies had put
occupied German civilians in death camps
while the IIIrd Reich armed forces had only
bombed allied cities, you wouldn't say so."
Something tells me that insinuating I'm a Nazi worshipper/apologiser/whatever seems to become the favourite, if pathetic, method of countering my arguments.
">and you can't use one to excuse
>the other
Who is trying to find exccuses ?"
Actually the British were after WW2.
">especially if you hadn't even knowledge
>of that other crime when you were committing
>yours.
Thus allies didn't know from 1943 on that the
IIIrd Reich was committing crimes against humanity ?
Interesting…though erroneous, by every current
history standards."
If you had read/understood my earlier posts you would have known that the crime referred to was the "final solution", which the British had no knowledge of at the time they decided to target major population centres for strategic bombing, but post-war did use as the major excuse for doing so.
">I never implied the British were as
>evil as the Nazi's were, I only said
>their slate wasn't clean either.
Actually, before 1933, no one's slate was
cleaner than Germany's IMHO.
After that date, Germany slate became more
and more grittier in comparison, and after
1941, there wasn't even a slate worth to
mention any longer."
If you know that then you should also know that you can't put all the evil the Nazi's did in the shoes of the German people.
">First the Germans didn't rule Adolf Hitler,
>he ruled them.
FIST, weren't we supposed to talk about
governments actions ?
If not, your points about French and British
"interest" in declaring war to the IIIrd
Reich in 1939 suddenly falls apart.
Do you realize this ?"
You stated the Germans ruled Adolf Hitler, which they didn't, hence my response.
">And he only came into being because of a
>situation the Germans were hardly alone
>responsible for.
True, the allies should have reacted as soon
as the IIIrd Reich militarily reoccupied the
left bank of the Rhine."
No, those allies shouldn't have created a situation that would foster the rising of someone like Adolf Hitler in the first place.
"They had learned that lesson in 1945, and
occupied your country for more than 50 years.
Looks like this time, Germans felt "responsible"
enough not to elect any Adolf Hitler again."
Who occupied my country for more than 50 years?
"This said, you should remember that 63% of
November 1932 voters thought the Versailles
"Diktat" wasn't a reason sufficient enough to
vote for the NSDAP."
I sure do, it's one of the reasons I think you can't blame every German of being a Nazi.
">And a politicians "interest" is to either gain or
>preserve power.
Guess Hitler wasn't your everyday kind of
politician.
Politicians must get re-elected, do you
see the difference ?"
I wasn't talking about Hitler (he was a dictator, not a politician).
">Unfortunately many arsonists were also firemen,
>and the percentage of criminals amongst policemen
>often surpasses the average for the rest of the >population.
Does it mean that firemen and policemen
stopping fires and crimes are wrong ?"
No, it means that you shouldn't take everything at face value.
" >Apart from that your whole comparison is flawed
>anyway due to the small detail that war isn't,
>per definition, a crime.
Per definition, there ARE war crimes.
Open a book and read Katyn's accounts.
Attacking countries without declaring war
to them is a war crime too : Poland, USSR"
What has the fact that war isn't per definition a crime to do with the fact that the Soviet Union invaded Poland without a declaration of war and brutally executed 22,000 Poles in some Russian forest afterwards?
">So you don't think that two powers with large
>parts of the world, and the economic benefits
>associated with them, under their colonialist
>boots had any "interest" in preserving the
>"Status Quo"?
I'm glad to learn that freeing colonized
people from the imperialist boot was one
among Hitler's motives.
Did you say "flawed comparison" ?"
I never stated that Hitler was planning that, why do you keep insinuating I'm a Nazi apologiser?
">So moral reasoning clearly wasn't the reason,
>it was the excuse.
No, it wasn't, simply because GB
and France declared war on Germany due to the
fact that Poland had been invaded, while Hitler
had told them at Munich that Germany had no
further territorial claim to make in Europe.
Moral grounds were not used as an excuse, at any
time.
Later developpments (where the "Versailles Diktat"
had nothing to do with) proved that even moral
grounds were at stake."
If only the integrity of Poland's borders were the reason why did they declare war on Germany only?
And why did they then end this war with half of Poland still occupied by a bloodthirsty dictator?
">>If the US had bombed these cities first, then
>>Japan had bombed Washington and NY back, would
>>you say that Japan was as much guilty of war
>>crimes than the US ?"
>They would both be guilty of war crimes,
>the severity of these crimes depending
>on the amount of killing inflicted
No, the severity of these "crimes" would depend
on who was guilty for starting them.
In case of Japan and Germany, the guilt
was on their side."
So if a state starts a war against another state this other state is then free to commit war crimes to its liking?
">Losers generally don't write history.
In a democratic modern society, they can
everyday."
Sorry, I was talking about the version of history fed to the general public, not the version they never get to see.
"And you're trying to, though very poorly IMHO"
No, I'm actually only pointing out some flaws in popular history in the hope that people will start using their head instead of taking it at face value.
"Thank god marcpa has come in to spell me in the struggle against Panzerfrans. It just goes to show that in every conflict you need Allies (no, I know you won't get that one, Frans, but most of the others will)."
Having to rely on stamping on heads and kicking but due to a general lack of solid argumentation, combined with an unwillingness to answer even the simplest of questions, surely indicates a dire need for some Allies (and in your case ANY help is welcome I guess):o)
There are times I long back to the comfort of the black and white world I grew up in, the world you still live in, unfortunately my conscience won't allow returning to it.
Greetings, Frans.
is excited to paint something new.
