Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Poppies.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The Geneva convention was breached on both sides but when the war was over it's arm fell heavy on the defeated side and left the victors unscathed. It would be interesting to know how many of The Allies were tried after the war. None or next to none could be the answer. In 6 years of war?
I'm guessing not a high number
You can't indiscriminately and wantingly bomb undefended cities. Defended cities with a civilian population are legitimate targets if there is a legitimate military objective.
Over to the lawyers...
There are instances of allied war crimes that went unpunished, you win you're right, you lose you're in the dock.
To be fair, I think there were probably quite a few Nazi war crimes that also slipped though the net amid the general barbarity.
One of the reasons the prosecution at Nuremberg succeeded was the meticulous record keeping in the concentration camps. Ad hoc atrocities tend to be harder to prove and take much longer to do so (look at the former Yugoslavia).
The comparison JB came from the statement that murder can't be murder if endorsed by the state.
Blimey, I bet the British Legion wished they'd never bothered with poppy day now!
No you are mixing up legal or illegal with right or wrong. I don't care who won the war assuming I had the same moral perspective I would still say Nazi Germany was wrong. Morality and law are not the same thing - they may coincide or they may not.
The big mistake you are making though is picking out instances where the UK did things which may not have been morally right, or even legal under international law if it existed at the time, and arguing from that it makes the UK the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. Maybe if we'd executed 10million of them in gas chambers and then enslaved the rest for 1000 years we would have been but unless the state has brainwashed me I don't remember that happening.
If you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself - if threatened by Nazi Germany I'm glad we had a few bastards who didn't mind doing nasty things on our side.
Germany defeated = stable western democracy for 70 years.
Britain defeated = under the jackboot and people taken to death camps forever.
How ridiculous some people can get when they are debating theoreticals without bombs falling round their ears.
So are you being a hypocrite and just being really cool about the bombs falling about your ears?
Corith - where have you been?!
(Damn these stupid santas)
Good post. The Space Race exibit at the National Air and Space Musum in Washington Starts with a V2 and it still looks pretty high tech even now.
I'm just passing through on my way to The Guardian/Telegraph/Times, where I do most of my ranting these days
I see - I also post on the Guardian but by the time I've got there most angles have usually been covered
I bought the Guardian on Saturday for the first time in ages, I used to read it all the time, I began to have my doubts when they interviewed a railway worker in his "inner-city signal box".
I wanted a balanced account of the events of Marine A, B ,C etc.
Do you feel you got one?
Im also astonished about some of the comments here, especially those seeking to draw comparison between the actions of the Nazis and Allies during WWII. How can any of you make a moral judgement on the Allied actions such as Hamburg and Dresden from the comfort of your comfy seats in your safe closeted life that modern society affords you? A life which was protected by so many brave people who died in the 100;s of thousands?
Dresden was about taking the war to the enemy, foreshortening the war to save lives. Not just allied combatants but the many thousands which the allies knew were dying daily in the death camps. The attention of the attack was to hit the enemy where he would feel it the most, and in particular Dresden which was a large rail hub used to redistribute troops to the Russian Fronts. The scale of the attack was about 'Shock and Awe' as its called now, but in 1945 the allies couldn't fly a laser guided bomb down a chimney, they were lucky if the bombs landed within 3 miles.
Foreshortening the war was also about protecting the British public, don't forget the V1 & V2 rockets raining down on London.
I think you have to look at allied tactics and put yourselves in their shoes, consider the knowledge they had at the time, not to mention the perspective of colossal loss of life and wellbeing, certainly not through rose tinted glasses 68 years later.
My family are from Coventry and im well aware of the suffering the city faced, some would argue its never recovered, the soul was bombed out of the city forever. Maybe you should think about the motivation of a man like him to see an early end to the war, from someone who was lucky to live on one of the handful of houses which wasn't destroyed in his street by a landmine. Despite all this they kept working in Coventry, 16 hours days in bombed out factories to do what they could to win the war.
Missing the point. If Germany had won the war, Winston Churchill and many other allied leaders would have been on trial at Nuremburg, for things such as the carpet bombing of cities and the bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Being the victor in a conflict does not actually render your actions clean.
Are we back to "you can't make judgements from the comfort of your seats...but I can" again?
There is no judgement to be made, it's a simple observation, the Victors in conflict decide retrospectively who the war criminals are.
The actions are there to be judged, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki remain amongst the biggest acts of genocide.
Have a nice day.
I think you're referring to Sussex comment, and you're right, to say Britain declared war on Germany is slightly misleading, it was actually Britain and France that jointly declared war after the invasion of Poland.
The point was to point out that "acting in self defence" as someone had put it was not a clear cut statement. I don't see how pointing out a fact is a misreading? Seems JB is back to his normal self. It actually freaks me out when he's being nice
The nazis were held accountable for their breaches of what it was at the time. The allies didn't breach it. Although the Russians did, it wasn't easy to prosecute them and it was tried.
I'm sure I read that there are three soldiers on trial at the moment for breaching it in Afghanistan. I'm sure they're our soldiers. Maybe I'm wrong?
It's quite possible Churchill would have been put on trial, doesn't mean heshould have been. My question to you is - do you think there is a moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the UK in WW2?
Because when you talk about us declaring war on them you do seem to be implying the UK was the aggressor - not that any of us believe you are that stupid to believe that but why say it just to be obtuse?