And I will agree with you on that also. They deserved to die anyhow and wheather they died then or by a tribunal who gives a %*#@
Moral objections on warfare.
- Thread starter GT
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
A
Anonymous
Guest
And of course this is why the "line" is so blurry.
I will agree that it is blurry however there is a difference between killing known criminals and just killing civilians and prisoners.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, of course I agree. I certainly could see pulling the trigger on any German concentration camp gaurds. But then what about the SS troops stationed nearby? Or regular army barracks'd within a mile or two? Or townspeople within a mile or two even?
The point is, once there is any discretion, where is the line? Who says where the line is?
For myself, it's drawn at immeadiate pertrators caught red-handed. They get no mercy - they have no rights. Everyone else is entitled to some kind of "due process".
=S=
Lunatic
The point is, once there is any discretion, where is the line? Who says where the line is?
For myself, it's drawn at immeadiate pertrators caught red-handed. They get no mercy - they have no rights. Everyone else is entitled to some kind of "due process".
=S=
Lunatic
What about the townspeople a mile or 2 away. I dont care whether they are German, Polish, French, British, American or Russian. It is not even a question. There is a distinct line drawn there. You dont kill civilians. The line is very clear, if you can not see it then you are nothing more then a monster yourself.
I will agree with you though if cought red handed, they should be punished immediatly.
I will agree with you though if cought red handed, they should be punished immediatly.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
it's ok if the civilian's got a weapon and you think they're about to start, or already are shooting at you though yeah?? i'm not making a point i'm just asking..........
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Whe the local towns people were ignoring the obvious evil perpetrated by their government, I could see troops on the spot not treating them very well. I would not condone going so far as to shoot them, but I might certianly treat them with an utter lack of respect and compassion. I might not worry too much if they were hungry or cold, or try to hard to get them medical attention for anything but the most grevious of maladies. I would certainly take any food, clothing, or medicine they might have to give to the surviving prisoners, and would march them through the camp so they could never deny what had happened there. I'd burn any business that profited in any way from supporting such a camp, such as supplying food to the gaurds, to the ground.
=S=
Lunatic
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Yes thats what I said above and besides if they are doing so, they are no combatants.
RG_Lunatic said:
I agree with you on most points however this is where I disagree. Yes I believe that food, medicine, and and supplies should be given to the prisoner but not all of it. Why should an innocent child in the town suffer for what they had no control over. If you allow that or condone that then you are nothing more then the scum who committed the crimes. When you say the local town people ignore what the government as done. What do you expect them to do. 250 old women, men, and children too young to wear a uniform (cuz mind you basically every able bodied man was wearing a uniform and fighting on the front, dont deny this I know this is true) Do you expect those 250 women, and children to storm a camp and fight soldiers who are armed with machine guns? Sorry RG but you would not have done anything either so dont try and make yourself out as a hero who would have. And lastly burning down someones store? Come on that is completely wrong. If that store owner had refused to give food to the guards and so forth they would have found themselves shot or worse in the camp themselves. Yes RG you too would have fed the guards.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm saying the towns people would only get food after the former prisoners had all been fed. If someone had to go hungry (not starve) then it would be the townspeople.
I'm not saying it would be entirely "fair", but that's the breaks. Had the bad guys won the war, those towns people would have prospered as a result. And you can bet they would have happily accepted their ill-gotten gains.
=S=
Lunatic
I'm not saying it would be entirely "fair", but that's the breaks. Had the bad guys won the war, those towns people would have prospered as a result. And you can bet they would have happily accepted their ill-gotten gains.
=S=
Lunatic
RG_Lunatic said:
And you are saying you would not have? Basically you would have defied everything and fought the government and been the hero right?
A
Anonymous
Guest
No, you are missing the point.
I am simply saying that, if the decision were mine in such a situation, the former prisoners needs would come first. If the choice is between a former prisoner eating or a townsperson, the townsperson would go hungry. Simple as that.
As for what I'd have done in Germany, I'd have either left the country or been imprisoned and probably killed back in the mid 30's.
=S=
Lunatic
I am simply saying that, if the decision were mine in such a situation, the former prisoners needs would come first. If the choice is between a former prisoner eating or a townsperson, the townsperson would go hungry. Simple as that.
As for what I'd have done in Germany, I'd have either left the country or been imprisoned and probably killed back in the mid 30's.
=S=
Lunatic
RG_Lunatic said:
If by leave the country you mean in the 30's that I can believe and understand. But please come back down to reality here, do you really think the whole population of Germany could have immigrated. No I dont think so, where would they have gone?
As for being imprisoned and killed, again come down to reality and dont try and be a hero. You know you would not have. Even as a soldier who risks his life everyday I would not have done something that foolish and gotten myself killed. Come back down to earth RG.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Umm... I don't think I'd have had much choice about it. They'd have slapped a gold star on my coat and shipped me to to a camp.
But, even if not for that, I'd have been amoung the opposition to the Nazi party in the early 30's, and for that I'd probably have been imprisoned or killed by the mid-30's. I speak out against injustice where and when I see it - not after its entrenched.
=S=
Lunatic
Well in that case you are correct but if you had been on the German side I dont think you would have done a thing.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i mean think about it, you're just coming out of a huge economical depression, things are real bad, but then suddenly a man comes along promising work and a car, a real chance in life, hell if i was in that posistion i'd proberly vote for him too............
A
Anonymous
Guest
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Even if he is a proponent of racism and has published a book explaining his position w.r.t. the "inferior" races? Hmmm.... I thought you Brits had more spine than that!
=S=
Lunatic
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yeah, we'd vote for the other guy, after all, the Brits are supposed to love an underdog! 
Well, from what I read here i am learning this forum has got some potential beasts, not too different from the ones they allegedly loathe so much.
RG:
I am afraid you do not have any right to accuse Hitler of being rascist and of "classifiyng" races.
Your country -millions of white of its inhabitants involved- still did consider black people inferior when WW2 was still being waged. Or are you going to deny this fact?
Did black people in the USA had the same rights the white creatures had well after world war 2?
Have you ever heard of the civil rights movement of the mid-late 50s in the USA?
Just like the nazis did with jews, the USA segregated black people in a not too different fashion.
Black people in the USA continue to fight for their civil rights to be recognized well after world war two had been terminated.
RG:
I am afraid you do not have any right to accuse Hitler of being rascist and of "classifiyng" races.
Your country -millions of white of its inhabitants involved- still did consider black people inferior when WW2 was still being waged. Or are you going to deny this fact?
Did black people in the USA had the same rights the white creatures had well after world war 2?
Have you ever heard of the civil rights movement of the mid-late 50s in the USA?
Just like the nazis did with jews, the USA segregated black people in a not too different fashion.
Black people in the USA continue to fight for their civil rights to be recognized well after world war two had been terminated.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Udet said:
Sure I do, because he did. Not only did he classify them, but he advocated violence against them and later instituted violence against them.
Udet said:
Not at all. However, many people have stood up against such beliefs which is how change is brought about. More change is still needed.
Udet said:
You are joking right? America did not round up the blacks with the intention of externimating them.
Udet said:
Yes, and people with character, such as my parents, openly supported their stuggle even though it was not in their own personal best interests to do so.
=S=
Lunatic
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I am not excusing racism in what ever form it takes but to try and compare events in USA with Nazi Germanys campaign against the Jewish/Gypsy/Homosexual mentally ill population is streaching things a bit Udet after all this was state organised slaughter on a huge scale.
- Status
