Maybe the aliens can get off their butts and beam us plans for an economical fusion reactor along with the wormhole machine, instead of just judging us from afar. *Borat voice* Assholes aliens. — Marchesk

I think they would, but they're worried about American liberal imperialism crossing the galaxies liberating everyone like freakin Liberation Incorporated.

I'm pretty sure I got this part right. Hitler hoped for a truce so didn't want to attack civilian targets. There were civilian deaths of course but as collateral damage and I think only a few bombing runs went (purposefully?) wrong. The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular. — Benkei

You will always annoy me with your return to this argument, which, at least to my ears, asserts some sort of moral equivalence between the axis and allied forces by pointing out that the British bombing of Berlin was a war crime of sufficient magnitude that we need to evaluate it outside the context of the greater events occurring at the time and therefore condemn it.

Maybe Hitler had some immediate strategic purpose for avoiding civilian casualties in his bombing raids, but it certainly wasn't because of his love of humanity or his respect for international law. I can't imagine an argument can be made that had he defeated Britain he would have kindly admitted his fallen foes into the egalitarian society he ultimately envisioned. That is to say, had Hitler won, Britain would have seen plenty of civilian casualties.

What made Hitler the monster he was was his systematic and cold-blooded murder of non-enemy civilians, many of whom resided in his own nation. He didn't care about the law of his own nation that prohibited murder, but I'm to believe he was worried about some other international law, as if legal advisors guided his decisions?

My point being that whatever Churchill did in response to a genocidal maniac who murdered over 10 million people and relentlessly tried to overtake his British homeland in a quest to literally dominate the world with his brand of insanity, I forgive him. Maybe you'd have maintained your composure better than Churchill, but I don't see that necessarily as a virtue.

There's a few important lessons to learn from the Battle of Britain, reading moral equivalence in this isn't one and that's really not my intention. It's a rather specific and small part of WWII that obviously doesn't translate to the Holocaust at all.

The points I think to learn is that we weren't heroes, or if we were, more anti-heroes. I don't forgive Churchill for wilfully targeting innocents; I do prefer Churchill over Hitler though.

Second is that targeting civilians hasn't been effective in breaking moral. If you're going to do it, it apparently takes a nuke. But that's problematic for other reasons so really : don't target civilians.

As all Kurt Vonnegut fans know, Germans swashed their munitions manufacturing in among civilians and POWs. The only way to beat them was to bomb civilians.

The points I think to learn is that we weren't heroes, or if we were, more anti-heroes. I don't forgive Churchill for wilfully targeting innocents; I do prefer Churchill over Hitler though.

Second is that targeting civilians hasn't been effective in breaking moral. If you're going to do it, it apparently takes a nuke. But that's problematic for other reasons so really : don't target civilians. — Benkei

A hero needn't be perfect. I'm not looking for a messiah, just someone to free the innocent who have been damned to torture, abuse, and death.

I wasn't in Churchill's head, so I can't say whether his bombings were designed as much to break morale as much as it was to exact revenge. You may not consider revenge the holiest of concepts, but it's understandable, forgivable, and can be argued even as ethical, assuming how you wish to interpret Kantian retributivism. When someone hits you back after an unprovoked attack, asking him "whatever did I do to deserve this" really doesn't gain you much sympathy.

It's well documented why Bomber Command did what they did and what they expected it to be the consequences. No need to read minds.

As did and does every country. Which is why precision bombing is a thing instead of carpet bombing.

did and does every country. Which is why precision bombing is a thing instead of carpet bombing — Benkei

That requires technology they didnt have.

Nice to have a history discussion.

What is true that Hitler wasn't a proponent of strategic bombing and didn't put the effort on long range bombers. Hitler's army was focused on the land force, obviously because of the geography of the country. This can be seen from the total lack of four-engine long bombers in the Luftwaffe. What is notable that in 1935 the American B-17 (12 700 built) flew for the first time, the Liberator in 1939 (with over 18 000 built) and even the heavy Lancaster bomber flew in 1941 (7 000+ built).

Germany relied on medium bombers, which there weren't so many. Most produced bomber was the Ju-88 with 15 000 bombers, yet it was a medium range twin engined medium-bomber. Now the German equivalent long range bomber that was twin engined the Heinkel He-177 Greif, first flown in late 1939, that had a production line of just 1 000 aircraft, while the Amerikabomber Me-264 was cancelled with just three prototypes made (first flight in 1942). The German long range bomber program simply failed. And after having attacked Russia basically Germany had it's hands full: the Luftwaffe was needed in everything and obviously the air war lead to a situation that Germany had to focus on fighter aircraft (nearly 34 000 Me-109 and over 20 000 Fw-190 fighters built). When the Western allies were only in contact with the axis in Africa, it is understandable that the air war took center stage. A bit different if there wouldn't be the English channel, but the panzers could invade Britain through a land route. Hence the focus of bombers isn't just a choice of following blindly Douhet's strategy.



Yet if Hitler thought so at the start of the Battle of Britain, we should not that he did have other thoughts later, but simply not the capability. In a similar fashion one might note that Hitler didn't use the vast amount of chemical weapons at his disposal, as he thought the allies would have similar amounts, which they actually didn't have. If we forget the use of one very infamous pesticide.

That Germany ever carpet bombed in the UK indiscriminately before the British did - and I'm now even certain they did so in retaliation after Churchill did. — Benkei

Yeah, once the other side has done it, that makes it justifiable. Yet a weapon system like the V2, successful in hitting a target as large as London is hardly a weapon of pinpoint accuracy. And when you call them reprisal weapons you hardly take humanity into consideration.

You've contradicted what the book review said about how inaccurate the targeting of the bombs was. In cities like Sheffield civilian areas were in amongst the industrial areas, it would have been impossible to target that accurately. Anyway I said that it wasn't helpful comparing who did or didn't do this or that. One would have to start getting history books out.

Where's the contradiction? There's a difference between targeting a legitimate target and accepting collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians.

That's why bombers flew relatively low and were dependent on intelligence as well. They did better than many "modern" air forces considering the means they had at their disposal. Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too.

That's why bombers flew relatively low and were dependent on intelligence as well. They did better than many "modern" air forces considering the means they had at their disposal. — Benkei

I'm mainly just confused about why you would make such shit up. No, they didnt do as well contemporary bombers. They 1940s technology and they flew in the dark.

Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei

No, he most certainly wasn't. :lol:

So the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg are funny to you? Good to know where you stand I suppose.

the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg are funny to you? Good to know where you stand I suppose. — Benkei

The most intensive bombing of Dresden was by the USA, not the British.

The Americans committed war crimes too, that's true. But that doesn't alleviate British guilt.

↪Where's the contradiction? There's a difference between targeting a legitimate target and accepting collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians.

Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction, someone says there is little accuracy in the targeting of bombs and another says the bombs are only aimed at certain targets, which can't be done if there is little accuracy in the targeting of the bombs.

Again it's debatable whether Churchill can be labelled a war criminal. War is war, particular strategies in real time are complicated with many factors being considered. The real criminal in any war is usually the one who starts it, or insights it in the first place.

Again it's debatable whether Churchill can be labelled a war criminal. — Punshhh

Not to me it is. You must be either English or American to have confusing morals about purposefully targeting civilians.

As I said, we fought for the right reasons but still committed war crimes.

Maybe it would be a topic for another thread, but I dont see how you could say any treaties would have been in force during ww2. It wasnt a gentlemanly disagreement. It was all out slugfest.

And without treaties, all you have is jungle. From my angle, it's incredibly naive not to recognize that.

That simply isn't true.

For starters, all sides did take prisoners of war. Even if treated most inhumanely (especially by the Japanese and the Russians by the Germans), enemy soldiers were still prisoners of war. Not terrorists or unlawful combatants, capable to dealt like spies. Shot the next morning after interrogation.

In the German case the tactics have to be understood from it's ideological base. Russians and Poles were untermenschen while British, (white) Americans or Nordic people were not considered as so (if a slightly inferior race). Norwegians and Finns (the so-call Nordic race) so lightly that Germans were permitted to marry them. And this is directly seen in the actions of the Wehrmacht and just how the fighting and the war was different in the Eastern front as in the West.

Just to give an example, when my country brokered an armistice with the Soviet Union and had then to fight the Germans (who just weeks ago had helped to repell the Soviet attack), suddenly the Finnish civilian population of Northern Finland found itself under a new enemy. And how did the German forces react? Basically they made a fighting withdrawal to Norway and burned down every town, blew the bridges and mined everything. And the population? The rather small population of Lapland were let to take refuge in Sweden, sometimes even with the Germans assisting the move to the Swedish border. The later depictions of SS troops shooting Sami people simply isn't true.

In short we have to acknowledge those actions that indeed were war crimes, but should not use a large paint brush and declare everyone a war criminal.

Why don't you look up the date of the Geneva Conventions, read them, and come back to me?

Why don't you look up the date of the Geneva Conventions, read them, and come back to me? — Benkei

"The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War"

Ok I'm back. WTF do you want? :halo:

:cool:

Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei

Churchill was a creature of 19th century British imperialism (and culture). As such he may have met the standard of being a "war criminal" even while sleeping. But to suggest that a man fighting to the death in defense of his life, country, and freedom is a war criminal because he fought for those things is absurd.

A man shoots you, that's murder. You shoot the man trying to shoot you, that's self-defense. Churchill, it seems to me, was ultimately a realist who understood certainly better than most just exactly what was happening, what he was doing, and why.

Moreover, for there to be a crime, there has to be criminal intent. Nazi intentions were criminal - if they weren't then nothing is criminal. What was the Allies's criminal intent?

which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions.

The end doesn't justify the means. The criminal intent was to target civilians instead of military targets.

and while you're at it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

The end doesn't justify the means. The criminal intent was to target civilians instead of military targets. — Benkei

In a civil, and presumably a moral, setting. Part of the framing of that war was uncivil and immoral. It's up to you to argue the requirement that it be a tea-party in a pigsty. Not whether it's desirable or nice or whether it is or is not a choice, but the requirement.

If you negotiate to protect civilians and then crowd civilians around your munitions manufacture, then you're just using the treaty for strategic purposes. That's bad faith.

Nope, these rules have been established for quite some time and laid down specifically for situations of war. In civil "settings" human rights treaties are the norm.