Udet- Germany really did not intend to Invade UK ever.

[lesofprimus]

Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.

The death by fire of thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent German women and children throughout the cities firebombed by the Allies....

 

[schwarzpanzer]

- Which was first attempted, by Germany, on British cities.

Because Britain succeeded where Germany failed does not make them evil.

It's like if you kick a dog - it may not be vicious, but it'll probably bite you.

That's a thing about the British; you can goad, prod and poke some, but when they retaliate, they retaliate!

 

[Hop]

Where does Great Britain´s action in Mers-el-Kebir belong then? Just dirt? Crime? Or a mix between dirt and crime?

In a war in which tens of millions of civilians were killed, attacking a fleet of warships, after giving them many hours warning, doesn't exactly come high up the list of dirt, let alone crimes.

It´d appear things flow in the opposite direction here: you are trying to justify and paliate British felonies carried out during the war.

Not at all. I just object to the legitimisation of the Nazis by glibly saying all politicians are dirty.

(i) you do not know who was the other very aggressive state in Europe and

Of course I do. However, the British, French, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes etc had far more to fear from Germany than Russia. You might not think Germany was that bad, they knew it was.

also you ignore what are the crimes for which both Churchill and Mr. Eisenhower get an appointment with the hangman -I am not interested at all in debating those crimes; since your reponse is so tough I will assume you know what those crimes are-.

No, I'd really like to know.

The Soviet Union had a very aggressive agenda for the continent and for the world as well.

Well, there were two points about the Soviets.

Like the Nazis, they sought to build a utopia. However, the Soviet utopia was based on class, and included the majority of the population. The Nazi utopia was based on race, and included a minority of the population of Europe. In countries that attempt to build utopia by force, it's not healthy to be in the wrong group, and under the Nazis, far more were in the wrong group.

You can see the effects of this in Poland. Germany ran it for a little over 5 years, and murdered over 5 million of the population. The Soviets ran it for nearly 50 years, and killed far, far less.

Secondly, the Soviets might have talked a good world domination plan, but they were far happier using subterfuge than open war to achieve their aims. Germany chose war, and that's far more destructive.

That the soviet union had expansionism planned for both Europe and the rest of the world?

They might have had plans, but I don't recall them using open war nearly as much. They only really moved when they had treaties with Germany to cover their back.

Much easier, richer pickings elsewhere?

Like suggesting Germany could not deal with England?

I seem to remember they didn't quite manage that.

Or perhaps suggesting the German military feared British military?

Depends what you mean by "military". If you mean army, no, if you mean armed forces, yes. Their navy was in terror of the RN, Goering knew that the RAF was the most formidable foe the Germans faced.

Don't forget, war with Britain meant automatic blockade, which meant reduced access to oil, rubber, many metals, etc. Reduced food imports, too, that had been so damaging to Germany in WW1.

Ought to double check the record of the British Army against the Heer throughtout the war, and you might discover, that with a few exceptions, the German soldiers and commanders cleanly surpassed their British counterparts.

Check the records of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, while you're at it. Britain was not a land power, and had a weak army, but it had a far stronger navy than Germany, and an equally powerful air force. And most of all, there was nothing the Germans could do to defeat Britain, as events proved.

Yes, a very bizarre and selective choice of enemies is what the western powers did. If you want to continue living in denial that is just great.

From your perspective. But then your perspective is that Hitler was no worse than Churchill, so why not have a Nazi Britain? For people in the real world, the Nazis were by far the greatest menace to western democracy.

If you really want to convince people that think, the world owes England because of its contribution to the destruction of a regime "that sought enslavement of all non-aryan races" I can assure you a very tough task which I do not believe you are going to achieve.

I have no idea what circles you move in, but you'll find that is the prevailing opinion in the first world, at least. You won't even find many Germans who think otherwise.

Some people here might recall one time when I wrote that the foreign policiy of Great Britain was like autumn leaves blown by the wind?

One moment they follow the direction of the wind, to immediately switch the opposite way when the wind changes its blow?

Well, here it is Mr. Hop: thank you very much for posting Mr. Chamberlain´s speech.

It tells me you agree 100% with me

Not at all. Britain recognised that certain parts of the Versailles treaty were unjust, and had no objection to them being changed. It had no obkection to a greater Germany including German areas of Europe.

But as soon as Hitler went beyond that, and started to take over non German territories, Britain stood up to him.

Didn´t I tell politicians are dirty, filthy people?

Chamberlain was possibly naive. But Churchill summed him up nicely in parliament a few days after his death:

"It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned."

Chamberlain dirty? No, he bent over backwards to avoid another war. That he was wrong to trust Hitler might make him foolish, but it doesn't make him dirty.

Then, if Hitler lied to Chamberlain, my idea is simply confirmed. Hitler was a politician, therefore a very dirty individual.

There you go again. All dirt is not the same, like all crimes are not the same.

What about Great Britain´s posture towards the Soviet Union eh?

What about it? Britain stood up to the SU in the early days, and would have again in the 30s and 40s. But Hitler came along, and he was seen as a far greater menace. It's just part of the tragedy of the Nazis that they enabled the spread of communism, by being so much worse the western democracies had to focus on Germany, instead of the SU.

If Germany had been a respectable state, even a fascist one along the lines of Italy, then a united front against communism would have been possible.

You know of Churchill´s offerings made to Stalin as the war progressed?

Of course. They were our allies. Not from choice, but from necessity.

Churchill warned of the dangers of communism before the war, he warned again after the war. But faced with the lesser, more distant danger of communism, and the immediate threat of Nazism, as Churchill said on the Nazi invasion of the SU:

"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"

Did the people of England, a free people, knew what their leaders were doing in support of a totalitarian state which would have loved to have all their liberties supressed and have all those that might oppose them either exterminated or sent to a certain death to some forced labor camp?

Yes.

You are approaching this from a position that the communists were worse than the Nazis, and saying what Britain did doesn't make sense. With that view, it doesn't, and no doubt if you'd been in charge, things would have been different.

But from the British point of view, where the Nazis were much worse than the communists, it makes perfect sense. Then, you ally with the lesser evil to defeat the greater. Not because you support communism, but because you have a common enemy.

Also Mr. Hop, do you know what the bolsheviks would have done to the British people if they had come close to the chance of implementing their regime in England?

Nothing to compare with what the Germans planned (deportation of all males of working age, liquidation of large numbers of people)

May I know of your standard to define which regime was the so called "lesser evil"?

Common sense?

So very bully against one bad regime, but very friendly towards another which was by far more brutal?

Communism was far more brutal than Nazism? Again, only by your viewpoint.

Britain was "friendly" to communism out of necessity, to defeat Nazism. Not before, and not after. And it was Nazi Germany that enabled the great expansion of communism, with their deals before the war, and their attacks on the non-communist countries of Europe during the war.

Mers-el-Kebir...giving them notice of some terms which include the threat to destroy the fleet? Same thing against the Richelieu in Dakar by the way.

No Mr. Hop, no. That was a vulgar ambush.

An ambush doesn't usually gives terms to avoid it, and 10 hours notice.

The problem at Mers el Kebir is that the French Admiral, Gensoul, didn't report all the options he was given back to the French government. He was given 3 options by the British, join the British fleet, sail with reduced crews to a British port where his ships would be interned, or sail with reduced crews to a French port in the Caribbean or to the US. He certainly didn't report the last option, and told the French government he'd been told to join the British or scuttle his ships.

Or maybe, repeat maybe, it was one Great Britain´s latest displays of raw and flat gunship diplomacy:

"See Mister, I am here to deliver the terms of my government to which you are to abide by. In case of refusal, I have to inform you my battleships are visible from your window to ensure performance of these terms."

Perhaps. But the British and French governments had a treaty, that neither would seek a seperate peace with Germany. Britain agreed to release France from that treaty if the French fleet was sent to British ports. When the French went ahead and broke that treaty, and installed a pro German government, it put Britain in a very risky position.

This "superb out of this planet" British intelligence which cracked enigma codes, Luftwaffe plans, U-boat deployments, Heer preparations in the eastern front eh?

Could not they know of a German intention to grab the French powerful battleships and battlecruisers?

It's hard, often impossible, to prove a negative. If you find orders to sieze the ships, you can know it's going to happen. If you don't find such orders, is it because they don't exist, or because you haven't found them? And if they don't exist, does that mean they will not exist next week, or the week after?

They knew Hitler made no claims at all to the French fleet and colonial territories in Africa.

And they were supposed to trust the Germans not to try to sieze the fleet later? You might have trusted the Germans, you might believe Hitler was just another politician, the British did not.

So when it serves your interest British intelligence was the ultimate cookie, but when it does not it is amusing to realize British intelligence is not even mentioned.

British intelligence was very good, probably about the best during the war years, but it was far from perfect.

Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.
The death by fire of thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent German women and children throughout the cities firebombed by the Allies....

And those violate what law?

 

[gaussianum]

Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.

The difference between nazi and allied atrocities, is that the nazi ones were subject to prosecution and trial, whereas the allied one aren't even recognized as such.

Of course, they are outside the scope of any law (such a law would be atrocious)

I think this the crucial imbalance of justice, that still needs to be addressed. But it will take a long time before things are settled.

Sorry for straying this a bit off-topic.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yep and he had been since 1936 and the Rhineland which where followed by Austria and the Sudentenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939 by which point Britain and France had enough of Hitler's dealings and the war started as a result of Hitler's aggressions not of Britain and France (theirs was a reactionary move not and aggressive move).

Nope disagree somewhat with what you just said.

The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land.

As for Poland, there were lands in Poland that belonged to Germany and should have been given back, however invading Poland was wrong and an act of war.

Now I completly agree with you on the rest of Czechoslovakia. That was an act of war.

The purpose here could in fact be one more illustrative, and I believe there will be some who will agree on this:

(1) Germany was not the sole aggressor in the continent from the offset.

(2) Germany, although conscious war in the west could happen, did not intend to wage war against England much less invade it.

(3) The western powers made a selective -and very bizarre- choice of enemies in September 1939.

(4) Unlike the official history that rolled across the earth after the war -still being taught in classrooms in the same fashion today-, the events in Europe in 1939 were the consequences of world powers trying to preserve and/or expand their interests. Period here.

(5) Hitler was not necessarily worse than Churchill.

1) Your right the Soviets were an aggressor also, however Hitler was the leading aggressor.

2) Who cares if he did not intend to, he started WW2 and intended on invading eneogh other countries.

4) Does not change the fact that Hitler wanted to extermenate whole races of people. That can not covered up and never will be. Period!

5) How was Churchill worse. Did he gas people in chambers? Did he starve them in camps? Think about it.

Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.

The difference between nazi and allied atrocities, is that the nazi ones were subject to prosecution and trial, whereas the allied one aren't even recognized as such.


Of course, they are outside the scope of any law (such a law would be atrocious)

I think this the crucial imbalance of justice, that still needs to be addressed. But it will take a long time before things are settled.

Sorry for straying this a bit off-topic.

Yes autrocities were committed by both sides. The difference is the allies did not try and wipe whole races off the planet!

How can you consider the fire bombings as attrocities when the Germans were firebombing London as well? Is it okay for the Germans to firebomb cities and not for the allies to do so? Think about what you said.

The A-Bomb as an attrocities? Give me a break. The bombing actually saved lives. Besides if Germany or Japan had gotten the bomb first, what makes you think they would not have used it?

 

[Jabberwocky]

My opinion is that the mass bombing, on either side, were atrocious, but most were not considered 'atrocities' in the legal sense of the word at the time. The Hauge convention only prohibited bombardmens against undefended targets. Under current internation law, all the mass bombings of WW2 would be considered international war crimes.

I think its really a case of the Allies giving better than they got. Germany certainly lead the way though, even before the nominal start of WW2 with the bombing of Guernecia in 1937. Mass bombing was a standard German tactic, even in the opening Blitzkrieg of 1939-1940. The bombng of Wielun was the first offensive German move against Poland, followed up by later bombing of Frampol and Warsaw. The bombing of Rotterdam and the Blitz against England show that Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing.

For the West, strategic airpower was their dominant striking arm against Germany for 4 years. The RAF and USAAF assembled the largest strategic air fleets in history. It was the MASS bombing, the size and effect of it, that shocks us so much today. Any bombing of that type is horrifying, the Allies could just do it bigger and better than their German counterparts.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

DerAdler:

The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land.

As for Poland, there were lands in Poland that belonged to Germany and should have been given back, however invading Poland was wrong and an act of war.

Now I completly agree with you on the rest of Czechoslovakia. That was an act of war.

I completely agree. Apart from the bit about Poland - only I'd have waited 'till Stalin invaded.

1) Your right the Soviets were an aggressor also, however Hitler was the leading aggressor.

2) Who cares if he did not intend to, he started WW2 and intended on invading eneogh other countries.

4) Does not change the fact that Hitler wanted to extermenate whole races of people. That can not covered up and never will be. Period!

I'm in agreement again.

5) How was Churchill worse. Did he gas people in chambers? Did he starve them in camps? Think about it.

He actually ordered the gassing of British Sailors. Also he may have had something to do with concentration camps? - but I doubt it.

Agree with everything else DerAdler, well said.


Jabberwocky:

the Blitz against England show that Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing.

That and the British bombing Germany was accidental IMHO, fate eh?

Germany had no compunctions against area bombing and/or terror bombing.

That is true. Why take the chance.

the Allies could just do it bigger and better than their German counterparts.

Germany had no heavy bombers, or the numbers.

A big part for my gran who was bombed was that the war front was effectively in her ( the enemies) sky, not in North Africa etc.

 

[Hop]

That and the British bombing Germany was accidental IMHO, fate eh?

There was nothing accidental about British bombing of Germany, any more than German bombing of Britain was accidental. Both sides refrained from attacking each other early in the war, after the German invasion of the west in May 1940 (and heavy bombing attacks in France, Belgium and Holland) the British began bombing what they thought were strictly military targets in Germany with small numbers of aircraft, and the Germans, after finishing bombing France, Belgium and Holland, did the same to Britain.

(because of the inaccuracy of bombing, the strict military targets each side thought they were bombing were rarely hit, and small numbers of bombs fell fairly randomly)

However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.

The Rheinland was, has been and allways will be German land. Germany had a right to take it back. The Sudetenland was Germany land and Germany had a right to take it back. My wifes Grandmother is from the Sudetenland. She allways will look at it as German land.

Yes. That's what Chamberlain was refering to when he said:

"The Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, the severance of Sudetenland-all these things shocked and affronted public opinion throughout the world. Yet, however much we might take exception to the methods which were adopted in each of those cases, there was something to be said, whether on account of racial affinity or of just claims too long resisted-there was something to be said for the necessity of a change in the existing situation. "

What Udet doesn't seem to understand is that not opposing those German moves, but opposing German moves to take over the non German areas of Czechoslovakia and Poland, is not a change in policy. It's the continuation of the same policy, that German areas should be allowed to join Germany, but Germany has no right to try to take non German areas. The seizure of the remnants of Czechoslovakia was the first German step beyond taking back what rightfully belonged to Germany, and so it was opposed.

Atrocities were commited by all sides. Fire-bombing, in my opinion qualifies as such. Just as the A-bomb.

War is an atrocity. About 1% of the casualties of WW2 were German civilians killed by allied bombing. Possibly another 1% were Japanese civilians killed by allied bombing.

In fact, about 1 in 4 German civilians who died was killed by allied bombing, meaning far more were killed by conventional warfare. I suspect more German civilians would have died if the allies had fought their way through an intact Germany, against a largely intact German army, than in the bombing.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The seizure of the remnants of Czechoslovakia was the first German step beyond taking back what rightfully belonged to Germany, and so it was opposed.

I agree.

 

[gaussianum]

Yes atrocities were committed by both sides. The difference is the allies did not try and wipe whole races off the planet!

That's laughable. You should consider talking to some Native Americans, to see how common genocides really are.

How can you consider the fire bombings as atrocities when the Germans were firebombing London as well? Is it okay for the Germans to firebomb cities and not for the allies to do so? Think about what you said.

Perhaps you should read my post again. Where did I write that it was OK for the germans to fiebomb cities?

The A-Bomb as an attrocities? Give me a break. The bombing actually saved lives. Besides if Germany or Japan had gotten the bomb first, what makes you think they would not have used it?

LOL

It saved american troops' lives, and destroyed innocent civilians' lives. I guess one innocent japanese's life (or even 10 japanese ones) isn't worth as much as one american soldier's life, right?

Not that it's the soldier's job to engage the enemy in combat, or is it?

If we're going to spare soldiers from combat, what the hell is the point in having them in the first place?

What's the point of being a civilian then?

You should really check out some pics. of dead japanese from the A-bomb. Do you know what radiation and the blast itself do to people? Do you have any idea?

This article has just one photograph. I have seen much worse.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~lovenson/Theeffects.html

One of the nasty effects of 60 years of allied propaganda, is that there are still people who believe in it.

But it's not too late to see the truth about it.

Best Regards

 

[gaussianum]

However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.

That's not at all what I've read. The bombing of London was a direct retaliation to the bombing of Berlin, which was a British initiative. Don't know about the other cities, though.

In fact, about 1 in 4 German civilians who died was killed by allied bombing, meaning far more were killed by conventional warfare. I suspect more German civilians would have died if the allies had fought their way through an intact Germany, against a largely intact German army, than in the bombing.

I think it's rather hypothetical. I find it difficult to extrapolate, and reach the same conclusion.

Best regards

 

[Twitch]

While Mr. Hitler was a really bad, bad man he didn't exist in vacuum and there was enough sabre rattling from the likes of GB and her imperialist attitude along with Russia and their commie crapola. In the Pacific the US was just about poking the Japs with a stick and then wondered why they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Nothing that contributed to the commencement of hostilities was clear cut or simple. We can't say it was all Hitler's fault or all Hirohito's fault. The atmosphere in which they existed and reacted was propagated by many other players with their own goals and agendas. This has nothing to do with genocide which was a separate issue apart from expansionism to improve economic standards.

All the other countries had sometimes less than innocent reasons for foreign policy actions that benifitted them in the long run. It was too complex to categorically state that only Hitler is to blame for all things leading to war.

 

[gaussianum]

Well said, Twitch.

 

[Jabberwocky]

However, Germany took a deliberate decision in September 1940 to try to break British will to resist by mass bombing, and that's what started the city bombing between Britain and Germany. Not an accident, not a mistake, but a change in policy brought about because the Luftwaffe was failing in it's strategy of defeating the RAF in a head on battle.

That's not at all what I've read. The bombing of London was a direct retaliation to the bombing of Berlin, which was a British initiative. Don't know about the other cities, though.

No, the German airforce pursued an intentional and deliberate campaign of night-time area and fire bombing British cities from Septemeber 1940 through May 1941 which was specifically designed to interupt the British war effort by destroying its civilian morale through dehousing and inflicting maximum damage on industrial targets.

The bombing of London was indeed retaliation for British bombing of Berlin, which was in turn a retaliation for accidental German bombing of London. The order for the attacks was aimed at 'disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major English cities'. It wasn't so much retaliation raids as a deliberate switch from daylight bombing of military facilities, to area bombing of military/industrial and population centres. It was a tacit admission that the daylight bombing campaign had failed, much like the British switch to night bombing was.

The Luftwaffe sent more than 200 bombers over London every night for 66 nights straight, with a single pause of one night in November. London suffered raids of over 400 bombers, Bristol and Birmingham from raids of over 200 bombers. The raids were expanded to other British cities; Manchester, Livepool, Coventry, Cardiff, Southampton and over 20 others up to May, 1941 when German attention focused on the Balkans and then Russia.

 

[gaussianum]

Jabberwocky,

Did the british know that the first german bombing of London was accidental?

Best regards

 

[Hop]

That's not at all what I've read. The bombing of London was a direct retaliation to the bombing of Berlin, which was a British initiative. Don't know about the other cities, though.

Until May 940 there was no bombing in Western Europe. From that date, both sides bombed each other. However, the vast majority of those raids were small and targeted at precise targets. For example, the British would send 6 bombers to attack a German oil refinery, the Germans would send 10 to attack a British port. (the only real exception to this was Rotterdam, where the Germans sent a fairly large number of aircraft, but it was still largely a military target)

Of course, bombing was inaccurate, and many of the bombs intended for oil refineries and ports and other military targets ended up hitting residential areas, but at that time, that was not the intent.

The accidental bombing of London was part of the same pattern, althought the Germans had already increased the number of attacks greatly. The aircraft that bombed London were supposed to be bombing the oil terminal at Thameshaven, on the outskirts of London. London had already been hit by bombers targetting the RAF base at Croydon, which is a London suburb.

The RAF responded, but not with mass atacks on Berlin. They responded with atacks on military targets in and around Berlin. Of the 80 or so aircraft sent, most were allocated to Tempelhof airfield, some to Siemens, some to Bucker, in fact there were about a dozen seperate military target for them to hit. They were not ordered to bomb residential areas, and indeed they were ordered not to bomb anything unless they could identify their particular military target. Few actually bombed, many did not find Berlin, a large number found Berlin but coul not identify their targets, and brought their bombs back.

The German strategy of mass raids had been detailed by Jodl as early as June:

"Together with propaganda and periodic terror attacks, announced as reprisals, this increasing weakening of the basis of food supply will paralyze and finally break the will of the people to resist, and thereby force its government to capitulate."

That the Germans claimed thei huge escalation of bombing, from attacking military targets to area bombing cities, was as a reprisal for British bombing is not suprising. But the reality is, throughout August the Luftwaffe had been doing far more bombing than the British already, before the "reprisals" started. In August, just over 1,000 British civilians were killed, the RAF killed about 1,000 German civilians in the whole of 1940 (and 1939, as they didn't drop any bombs on Germany in 1939)

This policy of small scale attacks, aimed at, though not often hitting, precise militiary targets, continued until September, when the Luftwaffe began an all out attack, using hundreds of bombers a day, against London. That moved on to other British cities. The aim was to defeat Britain by pressure on civilian morale.

The first British raid that adopted similar methods, of attacking a city with large numbers of bombers, rather than a precise target with a small number of bombers, was operation Abigail against Mannheim on December 16, 1940. By that time, the Luftwaffe had already killed about 20,000 civilians in Britain.

 

[Hop]

Did the british know that the first german bombing of London was accidental?

Part of the problem is that both sides thought their own bombers were hitting the target, and that the enemy was deliberately bombing at random. Neither side appreciated that most of their own bombs were going astray.

But the point is, the British response to the bombing of London was to do exactly what the aircraft that bombed London had been trying to do; attack precise military targets in and around the enemy capital.

The Germans had been trying to hit Thames Haven (and Croydon), the British tried to hit Tempelhof.

 

[gaussianum]

Thanks Hop, very good information.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That's laughable. You should consider talking to some Native Americans, to see how common genocides really are.

We are talking about WW2 here not the 1800s. Neither British nor US policy during WW2 was the mass genocide of people, nor was it the law. Dont change the subject.

Perhaps you should read my post again. Where did I write that it was OK for the germans to fiebomb cities?

Maybe you should make your post more understandable then and say that firebombings of all sides was were attrocities because the Germans firebombed England, the British and the US firebombed Germany. It happened on both sides. Its war!

LOL

It saved american troops' lives, and destroyed innocent civilians' lives. I guess one innocent japanese's life (or even 10 japanese ones) isn't worth as much as one american soldier's life, right?

If I were a US soldier in WW2 hell yes my life would have been worth more. Do you know how many Japanese lives it spared also? Probabably Millions, they would have fought to the last, the women and children as well.

Not that it's the soldier's job to engage the enemy in combat, or is it?

Dont tell me what the job of a soldier is. I am a soldier and have been to combat.

You should really check out some pics. of dead japanese from the A-bomb. Do you know what radiation and the blast itself do to people? Do you have any idea?

Ive seen many pics, I am not an uneducated fool.

This article has just one photograph. I have seen much worse.

I have seen death up close and personal, I think I have seen worse than that picture.

One of the nasty effects of 60 years of allied propaganda, is that there are still people who believe in it.

And let me take you are Fascist Propaganda spreader huh. This forum is starting to fill with much of it.

I dont listen to propaganda, I learn history and facts!

But it's not too late to see the truth about it.

Best Regards

And it is not too late for you to find your way out the door. Just because someone disagrees with you, you dont have to talk down to them. I am not a 15 year old kid with a high school education!

 

[evangilder]

Anyone who thinks the A-bomb did not save a lot of Japanese lives needs to brush up on their history. Sure, it killed a lot of people, but there would have been much more had the allies had to invade. It has been stated that it could have been the end of the Japanese people and culture. The estimates of dead on the first part of the invasion alone was a half a million allied troops and over 3 million Japanese!