Atom Bomb On Japan

[karlos]

Spidge, you are talking as if you were a british officer back in the 40's -sure you feel like one- but war was over half a century ago. Now we can see what was right and what was not. Calling nazi anyone that criticises the allies actions is bad taste at least.
If you think that killing thousand of german civilians is worth the lifes of british soldiers then you are using the same logic that the nazis did when killing french or soviet civilians as a reprisal for partisan actions.
Germany was a dictatorship. The common people lived their lives and did not dare to oppose a regime that would have them killed or jailed. Some of them did, anyway, and paid. The bombs killed them all indiscriminatelly. Would you also justify it if those civilians had been machinegunned in a stadium? Of course the bomber is a very clean and nice weapon, you don't see their faces.
Don't you dare to call me revisionist again. My grandfather fougth against spanish's fascists and was jailed for it. By the way, those fascists were helped by London to a great extent. Just have the courage to see things as they were, reallity was more complex than those Hollywood movies from the 60's. And maybe you are right and I found the wrong forum, as I see you are not analyzing WWII but just remembering how good your guys were.

[spidge]

[quote name='karlos' date='Nov 9 2005, 07:22 PM' post='18604']

Spidge, you are talking as if you were a british officer back in the 40's -sure you feel like one

There you go, placing tags on me because I have a point of view differing from what you believe. Your distinct dislike of the British is evident and has clouded your mind. I am not British, I was not born until the 50's and I have never aspired to be in the armed services. Your depiction of me is therefore quite meaningless and somewhat idiotic.

-but war was over half a century ago.

Irrelevant!

Now we can see what was right and what was not.

"You" can see what you want to see with the benefit of hindsight and yet have no idea of the mood of the time.

Calling nazi anyone that criticises the allies actions is bad taste at least.

I did not say you were a Nazi however the Neo Nazi movement of today is trying to shift blame and deny the holocaust and make the allies out to be the instigators of much that was initiated by the Nazi regime.

If you think that killing thousand of german civilians is worth the lifes of british soldiers then you are using the same logic that the nazis did when killing french or soviet civilians as a reprisal for partisan actions.

This analogy is ridiculous as you have already had your answer to this from Angie.

Germany was a dictatorship. The common people lived their lives and did not dare to oppose a regime that would have them killed or jailed. Some of them did, anyway, and paid.

The German people supported Hitler in the early days because of his rhetoric and promises and as you said only a few questioned the regime.

The bombs killed them all indiscriminatelly. Would you also justify it if those civilians had been machinegunned in a stadium? Of course the bomber is a very clean and nice weapon, you don't see their faces.

Answered in the previous post.

Don't you dare to call me revisionist again.

Or what...........???? Your name is not Barnes by any chance!

My grandfather fougth against spanish's fascists and was jailed for it. By the way, those fascists were helped by London to a great extent.

Irrelevant to this discussion..........You are welcome to start a new thread.

Just have the courage to see things as they were, reallity was more complex than those Hollywood movies from the 60's.

I understand reality and have the ability to differenciate between Fact, Fiction & a person with a chip on his shoulder who cannot see the forest for the trees.

And maybe you are right and I found the wrong forum, as I see you are not analyzing WWII but just remembering how good your guys were.

If you expected to have your ideology and perceived dislike of the British people accepted without question .........You probably did.

Hasta luego!

[karlos]

Spidge, the only one who doesn't accept different points of view is you. Insults and decalifications are no good arguments, by the way. You still haven't said why it is justifiable to deliberately kill unarmed civilians as an strategic goal. I suppose in the end it's up to each one ethic, you got yours, I got mine. I have no special dislike for the british or any other of the allies, but I am not certainly blind by national pride as you seem to be, even being australian. Maybe you got your chip in the shoulder, too. I never denied Holocaust, it's you who mentioned the subject. Nazis evilness has nothing to do with the subject of killing civilian population. The "they were worse" justification is very naive, to say the least.
Que te aproveche.

[jimbotosome]

(angie999 @ Nov 8 2005, 08:15 AM) [post=41309]None of the allied bombing of cities in WWII was a war crime. Neither was the German bombing of Britain. The reason is that it was bombardment of defended enemy cities and as such permitted under the Hague Convention 1907.
[/b]

That's a good point Angie. The rational for such and agreement would be that you war against nations not just militaries. Militaries exist for the sole purpose of representing that nation's interest in situations of conflict. The power for that military comes from the people at some level. All people may not agree with the goal but it represents them whether they like it or not. When one nation loses, it is stripped of its sovereignty, not just of the military but every citizen of that nation.

There is no perfect act of justice in war. Intent is the only gauge of guilt or innocence. You can't right something without wronging something else. The objective is to right the most while wronging the least. This is far easier to do in retrospect without the emotions of the day.

In the analogy of shooting the partisans for their actions, if you know which partisans participated or collaborated then you might say it was justified. But if you brought war to a people that had no quarrel with you, how you compound your egregious actions is of little relevance. If someone walks up to another person hits them, if the person hit defends himself and in the punch thrown, the instigator ducks and his family member as a bystander is accidentally hit by the responding punch, the one that instigated the fight is one that really bears the ultimate responsibility. It was his disregard for the results of his actions that caused his family member to become a victim. It was not the intent of the first victim to strike a bystander. Even if a melee breaks out and others join the “injustice-o-fest” the instigator still bears the responsibility. I think this is axiomatic.

[karlos]

"In the analogy of shooting the partisans for their actions, if you know which partisans participated or collaborated then you might say it was justified."
I agree. That's why civilian bombing is unjustifiable, it kills undiscriminatelly.
I understand your point, but in your analogy you say "It was not the intent of the first victim to strike a bystander", but in the civilian bombings in WWII, the air forces did target civilian people, they went for them so to speak. All sides, again.
Another point you raise is that the one who starts the fight is responsible for all that happens to its side. I don't agree, if only because it's not always easy to determine who begins wars.

[karlos]

Angie: the Hague Convention of 1923 (Articles 22, 23) -note it is after 1907-made indiscriminate urban bombing illegal. This view is confirmed by the speech of the British Prime Minister before the House of Commons in 1938 in which he said that any such bombing was an "undoubted violation of international law." Shortly after, the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution affirming that such bombing was illegal.

[jimbotosome]

(spidge @ Nov 9 2005, 08:28 AM) [post=41365]The German people supported Hitler in the early days because of his rhetoric and promises and as you said only a few questioned the regime.
[/b]

That's about as succinct as you can be Geoff. That sums up WWII (and most wars). It is up to citizens to insist on governing themselves rather than giving power to any individual to do as he sees fit. As Lord Acton said "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". How did he get the power? Who quit fighting the good fight and surrended power to a single man? The citizens, even those that did not want to give power to a dictator suffer (in whatever way) are not victims of the enemy but victims of their own countrymen who betrayed them.

[jimbotosome]

(karlos @ Nov 9 2005, 10:03 AM) [post=41372]That's why civilian bombing is unjustifiable, it kills undiscriminatelly.
I understand your point, but in your analogy you say "It was not the intent of the first victim to strike a bystander", but in the civilian bombings in WWII, the air forces did target civilian people, they went for them so to speak. All sides, again. [/b]

Well, I think you are really splitting hairs here because the objective for targeting civilians was capitulation of the nation not just some lust of power. It might be a misguided strategy but it was not evil intent.

(karlos @ Nov 9 2005, 10:03 AM) [post=41372]Another point you raise is that the one who starts the fight is responsible for all that happens to its side. I don't agree, if only because it's not always easy to determine who begins wars.
[/b]

This is confusing to me. The person who starts the fight is responsible for all that happens to its side, is responsible regardless of whether or not who started it can be determined by someone else. Finding out who started it in retrospect is a matter of academic inquest and does not change the fact that the "real" instigator is responsible. To the allies, WWII was started by Germany. So the bombing of the towns was seen as retaliatory and collateral. In short, whether or not Germany really started WWII, the intent of the bombing was to stop them, not to indiscriminately kill citizens. At least that's my take on it.

[jimbotosome]

(karlos @ Nov 9 2005, 10:17 AM) [post=41373]Angie: the Hague Convention of 1923 (Articles 22, 23) -note it is after 1907-made indiscriminate urban bombing illegal. This view is confirmed by the speech of the British Prime Minister before the House of Commons in 1938 in which he said that any such bombing was an "undoubted violation of international law." Shortly after, the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution affirming that such bombing was illegal.
[/b]

I know this isn't written to me but I did want to comment on something you said that seems like an inconsistancy. You claim that not all citizens are responsible for the war and therefore it was not justified to bomb them. Along that line, if the Hague Convention had said "alls fair in war" then it could be argued that those citizens didn't agree to that but their leaders did as well. People don't take it serious who governs them or how they are to be governed and as a result they are destined to some degree of slavery. The fact that so many are socialists should tell you that. If you hate socialists and want to hurt them, then give them their way. That's the cruelest thing you could do.

I like Churchill's comment:

"It is the inherent vice of capitalism that some share unequally in its blessing, it is the inherent virtue of socialism that all share in its misery."

[spidge]

[quote name='karlos' date='Nov 10 2005, 01:26 AM' post='18614']

Spidge, the only one who doesn't accept different points of view is you.

That is not true Karlos.

I accept your right to offer different points of view however you became recalcitrant when I chose not to accept them.

Insults and decalifications are no good arguments, by the way.

Your insults in particular to the British and the allies in general without reference to the similar acts of the Axis was returned in kind. As an educated person, you could have toned down your charges with softer language instead of taking the high moral ground.

You still haven't said why it is justifiable to deliberately kill unarmed civilians as an strategic goal.

Yes I did, however you chose not to accept my response. I am of the opinion that in the conflict that was WW2, and 65 years ago not today, that the enclosure of war production and troop movements within populous cities promulgated to a degree that decision to bomb. Horrific as it was I still feel the intention was to effectively disable their ability to continue the war. The ignorance of the collateral damage caused by the bombings were not evident in real time like on CNN. As you say by bombing the carnage was not openly evident as the terror is not seen on the faces.

With respect to your analogy, shooting a stadium full of people is ridiculous as you know that would not have happened. Granted that deaths occurred in similar numbers however the intent was not to blatantly murder women and children however it did result accordingly.

I suppose in the end it's up to each one ethic, you got yours, I got mine

I disagree as my ethics I believe in 2005 would be very similar to yours. Discussing WW2 we are not looking at 2005 we are discussing 1939-1945 and the decisions made to ensure that a regime(s) were not allowed to flourish. I abhor the violence, death, destruction and human misery of war however when they have to be fought, they have to be fought to win.

I have no special dislike for the british or any other of the allies, but I am not certainly blind by national pride as you seem to be, even being australian.

I am a proud Australian yes, as I assume you would be to Spain. If you see me as blinded so be it, however I have the right to have a different opinion to yours. Those opinions have not been tainted by or come from Hollywood movies as you so wrongly espouse but from a lifetime of analysis of material from many areas. You have formed your own opinions from analysis of material from Historians who have formed their own opinions and so on.

I never denied Holocaust, it's you who mentioned the subject.

I did not say "you" were denying the Holocaust. I said you were like the movements who are trying to alter history 65 years down the road. A reference to you saying "the vast majority" of Germans were common people which is not historically correct. The vast majority of Germans allowed Hitler and subsequently the Nazi regime to flourish.

Nazis evilness has nothing to do with the subject of killing civilian population.

Here I am afraid we disagree. The "vast majority" of the population supported Hitler into power and were responsible for the devastation (rightly or wrongly) that was eventually required to defeat their regime.

The "they were worse" justification is very naive, to say the least.

I didn't say that at all. You read between the lines and formed another opinion. See it happens all the time.


Hable con usted pronto!