Clearly you another person who does not know his history.
So it goes . . .
- Thread starter LockyOK
- Start date
- Status
Clearly you another person who does not know his history.
And there were significant bombings and targeting of British towns and cities in WW1 from sea and air. Let's not make this a British thing. By todays standards bombing civilians is wrong, but when you are faced with total takeover the rules change.
Next we will be getting "the islams invented human bombs..."
Next we will be getting "the islams invented human bombs..."
Erm wat???
Was rounding up civilians of certain ethnic backgrounds and killing them compliant with the Geneva convention?
How about executing British Commandos who should have been treated as POWs?
You touch the surface, but let's see what he comes back with. Im wondering if it will be "the jew thing was made up"
Yes, it does.
You suggested that "Dresden is often used by Nazi apologists as a way of minimizing the crimes of the Nazis and Hitler". The firebombing of Dresden took place between February 13th and 15th 1945. The crimes of the Nazis and Hitler began in the 1930s.
Only a complete idiot (e.g. David Irving) or you would suggest that Dresden had anything to do with minimising the crimes of the Nazis and/or Hitler - perhaps you meant to use the term "complete idiots" rather than "Nazi apologists"
There is no need, I fully accept what you say is correct. In fact I would be surprised if this didn't happen. What I'm trying to show is that the difference is one of official, intentional and strategic planning from the top down, rather than before where it was either opportunistic or part of a deniability action, often with scapegoats. Sherman changed that by putting a veneer of acceptability and even necessity on it.
In many respects you are right, although I would argue the wars were philosophically about more than the drug trade, (although yes that was the fundamental) but I think one of the big problems is the definition of, in this case, "Official Sanction" (aren't these historical arguments always one of grey expressions and interpretation) There are plenty of cabinet papers from the government around that time actively encouraging and promoting methods and even the cajoling of Horse Guards and Admiralty to seek all means to bring about a positive outcome for the Western axis of powers.
Indeed, it was about trade power and ensuring China did not continue to treat the British Empire (and others) as vassals, which is what it began as, it was a show of power.
I'm not convinced that the two opium wars were effectively examples of Total War, they were punitive and had limited objectives, a Total War scenario would have attempted to occupy or annex large parts of China, even attempt to add it to the colonies as such.
Yes Sherman wrote it in orders and aims, but a verbal order issued in theatre carries no less significance and unpublicised backroom agreements are as valid, but that is just my opinion and you are of a different one. It's why there is no such thing as black and white history and why I love it so much
I agree, that it isn't a black and white situation, Sherman's actions were part of an evolutionary process, although I stand by the underlying difference and feel that it is an example where we can point and say, "here we see a culmination to acceptance", for want of a better term.
Churchill a Zionist????? Whoever said that needs to read up on Churchill when he was Colonial Secretary.
Yes, it does.
You suggested that "Dresden is often used by Nazi apologists as a way of minimizing the crimes of the Nazis and Hitler". The firebombing of Dresden took place between February 13th and 15th 1945. The crimes of the Nazis and Hitler began in the 1930s.
Only a complete idiot (e.g. David Irving) or you would suggest that Dresden had anything to do with minimising the crimes of the Nazis and/or Hitler - perhaps you meant to use the term "complete idiots" rather than "Nazi apologists"
You can't minimise stuff with a similar action. You have to judge them the same way. Having said that, I am still not clear on the point you seek to make here? I'm not aware any well read (or half well read) person would argue that both world wars were terrible events that witnessed changes in human values and actions you would never expect. But then we, luckily, have never had out lives facing into oblivion so who knows how we might act.
If you children are being held hostage and the only way to save them is wipe out 500 people from the hostage takes family, to which you have a big red button, what is your call?
I suggest that applies to you
True
The Jews in Germany and Austria possessed substantial private and industrial property that the Nazis. From 1934 to 1939 the Jews were allowed to emigrate with their some of their property being bought at less than 10% their values and with others being confiscated outright. The Jews in the Slav lands had their own property in gold and diamonds carried on their persons in secret pouches in their dresses or as dental fixtures. If these Jews were simply resettled somewhere it is very obvious they will demand their properties back or proper compensation for them. The solution to this embarrassing problem. Liquidate the Jews completely. Hitler wanted the Jews to be evacuated from Germany to stop them from contaminating Aryan blood. Göring and the Gauleiters simply deceived him into agreeing to their liquidation. I don't know the convincing reason they gave Hitler to get his consent. But their own reason was to rob Jews of their properties and wealth.
Last edited:
So Hitler was cajoled and ultimately conned into unintentionally ordering the work camps and the final solution of the death camps? He was a pawn in a conspiracy against him to eradicate the Jewish population (and the Poles, Disabled, Romany and so on)
REALLY!!!!
WW1 needed to happen ?
Tosh a complete and a statement of the highest TOSH. It could have been prevented easily. You could also argue that WW1 was the roots for WW2 due the inane conditions placed upon the Germans in defeat.
Hitler was 100% correct to exterminate Jews. Because look at the world today what they are doing. Everything under their control, Rothschild etc etc
The Jews, in Hitlers eyes were the source of all bad things, and wanted them eradicated, he thought they poisoning the country, Germany was left poor after World War I because the Allies drained Germany of a lot of their resources, money, cattle, land, rights, etc
The Jews, in Hitlers eyes were the source of all bad things, and wanted them eradicated, he thought they poisoning the country, Germany was left poor after World War I because the Allies drained Germany of a lot of their resources, money, cattle, land, rights, etc
Ok, the door is to your left...the chaps in the White coats are waiting with your medication.
Let's just stick with facts, you claimed Germany respected the Geneva convention, killing Jews, Gypsies and other civilians in countries you've invaded isn't compliant with the Geneva convention... Nor was executing British commandos. Your claim was false.
Oh dear.....
Housey, you were certianly right to anticipate the dubious response from this one...
- Status