|
Brainiac Five posted:So how hard does your dick get at the thought of someone screaming as they're slowly burned to death by thermite? Or of delayed-burst bombs, designed to kill firefighters and EMTs? It’s comforting to believe that things you consider immoral are also ineffective, and that only truly bad people would do such things. Perhaps they even derive sexual pleasure from their wicked acts. There is no need to fret about breaking a few eggs to make an omelette if the best omelettes are actually made from soya beans. In reality, the expedient and the ethical are not always so neatly allied. Sometimes people have to make value judgements. Not you, though. You can sleep like a baby, secure in the knowledge that everything is black and white and you hold the objectively correct position. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Feb 14, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:In order for a defensive measure to be necessary there has to be a credible threat to defend against. Heavy bombers with empty bomb bays and dropping propaganda leaflets are NOT a threat and would have been both a laughing stock, a source of nazi propaganda, and terrible for Allied morale (both civilians reading about it and air crews flying to Germany just to be shot at without offensive weapons). The purpose of the strategic bombing campaign was outlined as 1) winning the war and 2) shutting down German/Japanese military output. It unquestionably failed at both. The war continued until the capture of Berlin, and output increased or remained steady until the actual physical loss of access to resources. In the case of Japan, it was American submarines and aerial attacks against shipping which physically cut off access to resources, which in the end required occupying territory astride the shipping routes to finally chop them off. Even the idea that strategic bombing encouraged civilian discontent was, according to the interviews the USSBS conducted immediately the war, false for Germany (it is unanswerable for Japan because the bombing campaign began after the war was obviously lost). It actually stiffened German support for the Nazi government. Your assumption of ignorance on my part is certainly of a piece with how many people treat the expression of dissent. No one could really think that a wasteful sideshow, morally and militarily more or less equivalent to having the SAS kidnap random German civilians to torture and murder via submarine raids, is bad on both those grounds, they must not have seen the pictures of Dresden or Tokyo! They must be a liberal pansy, unable to make the wrenching, difficult decision of burning people to death in their beds! How pitiful you are, in this inability to handle disagreement. Also, the heavy bombers were an effective part of the operations to cut off Normandy immediately before Overlord. You got that one wrong, but in the revealing way where you admit the ineffectiveness of strategic bombing. How clumsy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The purpose of the strategic bombing campaign was outlined as 1) winning the war and 2) shutting down German/Japanese military output. It unquestionably failed at both. The war continued until the capture of Berlin, and output increased or remained steady until the actual physical loss of access to resources. In the case of Japan, it was American submarines and aerial attacks against shipping which physically cut off access to resources, which in the end required occupying territory astride the shipping routes to finally chop them off. Even the idea that strategic bombing encouraged civilian discontent was, according to the interviews the USSBS conducted immediately the war, false for Germany (it is unanswerable for Japan because the bombing campaign began after the war was obviously lost). It actually stiffened German support for the Nazi government. I did not say that the strategic bombing campaign fulfilled its overly ambitious goals, nor did any others. I actually said that the most important thing they accomplished was actually not one of their stated goals. And regarding Overlord what I admitted was the ineffectiveness of precision strategic bombing and use of bombers against fortified urban defenders. Someone disagreeing with you does not imply they are unable to handle dissent. Are you able to order the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in war, or imagine yourself in a position where you could decide something like that? Because I certainly cannot. e: Also if I remember correctly judging the economic impact from production numbers alone can be deceptive in the case of Germany as they were rather late in actually putting the economy on a proper total war footing. Compared to the Allies, Germany saw mostly only modest or marginal increases in production throughout the war. Though much of that has to do with there having been much more potential for expansion in military production in Britain, America and Russia. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I did not say that the strategic bombing campaign fulfilled its overly ambitious goals, nor did any others. I actually said that the most important thing they accomplished was actually not one of their stated goals. And regarding Overlord what I admitted was the ineffectiveness of precision strategic bombing and use of bombers against fortified urban defenders. So, it was an absurd sideshow of mass murder aimed at civilians. Both ineffectual and a war crime. Someone talking down to someone else and therefore insisting that their disagreement is due to ignorance is unable to handle dissent. Sorry that you lack self-awareness. There's nothing brave about deciding to have someone else commit mass-murder via airplane on your behalf. There's no physical or moral courage involved. Your question is, "can you imagine yourself as a worse person than you are today?" which is hardly profound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
After having all their cities bombed to rubble neither the Germans nor the Japanese started any more wars. They were not left with the impression that they'd gotten away with it. It did take extraordinary moral courage to level whole cities. It's like flipping the switch on death row. It's killing someone, it appears wrong on its face, but a person can take a moral leap of faith- if punishment is just, then the terrible act is right. To anyone who believes in moral judgment, this is a risk. To take the risk requires moral courage. At any rate, as long as strategic bombing was done in good faith, which it was, then it wasn't wrong. Starting World War Two was wrong, ending it was right, no matter how many of the perpetrators were killed in the process. It's not any different at all from what the police call an 'active shooter.' If someone is shooting up a school or a shopping mall there is no level of force against the perpetrator that is inappropriate or immoral. It's not wrong to kill him to stop him. If he surrenders then it's different. Did we level any German cities after they'd unconditionally surrendered? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, it was an absurd sideshow of mass murder aimed at civilians. Both ineffectual and a war crime. I'm not sure I called you ignorant or talked down to you. I very much disagreed with much of what you concluded though. I never said it was ineffectual in terms of not having had an imapct on the war, I agree that it was less effective at achieving its pre-war goals of winning a war on its own and destroying an enemy's economy and will to fight, and that during the war the achievements in these spheres were exaggerated. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I'm not sure I called you ignorant or talked down to you. I very much disagreed with much of what you concluded though. Okay, but your argument is that the most salient impact it had on the war had nothing to do with the actual bombardment, which renders the bombardments themselves militarily ineffectual war crimes, on the whole. Fairly comparable to Red Army war crimes, to be quite honest, both in the insistence on their essential morality and in the bald pretense that they were effective at anything other than a sating of bloodlust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:After having all their cities bombed to rubble neither the Germans nor the Japanese started any more wars. They were not left with the impression that they'd gotten away with it. Germany has not started any new wars mainly because of its integration into NATO and the EU and because it has so far remained a liberal democracy, two elements that are very good at disincentivizing wars. And also because for, like, 40 years, it was cut in half, and half of it was under Soviet control. As for Japan, Article 9 was forced upon it by the Americans. Article 9 is a very good provision, and the Japanese have naturally become very attached to it. hakimashou posted:It did take extraordinary moral courage to level whole cities. There's literally no "moral risk" if you've been able to rationalize it away. hakimashou posted:At any rate, as long as strategic bombing was done in good faith, which it was, then it wasn't wrong. Starting World War Two was wrong, ending it was right, no matter how many of the perpetrators were killed in the process. hakimashou posted:It's not any different at all from what the police call an 'active shooter.' If someone is shooting up a school or a shopping mall there is no level of force against the perpetrator that is inappropriate or immoral. It's not wrong to kill him to stop him. If he surrenders then it's different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
always seemed weird that speer got 20 years but donitz only got 10
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:always seemed weird that speer got 20 years but donitz only got 10 He had a yummy-sounding name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:always seemed weird that speer got 20 years but donitz only got 10 Allied admirals argued that they couldn't prosecute him for unrestricted submarine warfare when they had practiced it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
This thread is over right? Everyone agrees that Goebbels should have been hanged?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:An idiotic approach. Are you advocating the firebombing of major American urban centers in order to stop America from starting new wars? now we're getting somewhere!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This thread is over right? Everyone agrees that Goebbels should have been hanged? No, hanging Goebbels would be wrong. He should instead have been executed via inert gas asphyxiation or lethal injection (but not with the dumb drug cocktail the U.S. currently uses).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
It's more humane to let people die quickly while they are fully conscious. Hanging or firing squad imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's more humane to let people die quickly while they are fully conscious. Hanging or firing squad imo I bet you have a lot of experience with hanging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Goebbels should have been hung drawn and quartered
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
but instead of horses he should have been pulled apart by a Rabbi, a gypsy, a homosexual and a disabled person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's more humane to let people die quickly while they are fully conscious. Hanging or firing squad imo Okay, let the condemned choose from a list. But I’m going to take issue if inert gas asphyxiation isn’t an item on that list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Goebbels should have been hung drawn and quartered If we’re going for maximum brutality, scaphism is worse, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Okay, let the condemned choose from a list. Sounds ok. IGA sounds worse to me because you forget that you are dying but I can see why others might prefer it. It is totally painless after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I'm pretty sure you're telling yourself that because you're fantasizing about doing it, and you'd like to paint yourself as a courageous man. Yeah, hakimashou's posts are kinda unsettling because you can tell that he gets some sort of pleasure from the idea of leveling violent justice on people/groups who "deserve it." It should go without saying that every single citizen of a country is not equally guilty for its actions in wartime. While there's some degree of shared guilt in a situation where the guilty government in question was elected, even then not every citizen shares blame. Some random woman trying to raise her children in poverty in Japan is not responsible for Japan's actions during WW2, and there's no justice in incinerating her with fire bombs. Also, the idea that "good will" (which literally anyone can claim) justifies anything is completely insane and morally repulsive. I'm imagining some sort of comic book villain who kills people in order to free them from life's suffering, and then hakimashou talks about how morally courageous it is for him to be killing those people with good intentions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
When buddhism finally turns to violent fundamentalism we are all doomed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:When buddhism finally turns to violent fundamentalism we are all doomed. You might not be aware of it but that's already the case in several parts of Asia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You might not be aware of it but that's already the case in several parts of Asia. Do they kill everyone to release them from the suffering of existence Flowers For Algeria?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Millions of rapes, miles behind the lines, mostly in 1945. You have zero loving clue what you're talking about. You have any idea how loving difficult it was to herd the millions of men in the rear echelons of the Soviet Army, while ALSO commanding the front line formations of millions more, in a country severely depleted of manpower and with constant logistical problems that drew the attention of all the military talent, with an army drawing conscripts from dozens of disparate ethnicities speaking many different languages and at incredibly different levels of familiarity with the modern world? Hundreds of thousands of those conscripts were thrown from villages where they had not even seen a lightbulb in their lives to fight the greatest industrial war in history. And they were kept at the frontlines for months, if not years on end, with virtually no leave or rotation, unlike soldiers from Western Allied armies, subjected to constant stress, material destitution, and to a total, mind warping hatred of all things German for committing the worst genocide in human history. Meanwhile their commanders had the combined struggle of making their formations trudge forward against unceasing resistance, against incredible natural and man-made obstacles found in Prussia, AND of making sure they do not lose favour with Stalin and his political lackeys. With a situation like that, a humanitarian form of war becomes impossible, the root of the problem was systemic, and impossible to fix under wartime conditions with the resources and situation the SU was dealt. Blame could be laid on Soviet political leadership for making the Red Army less institutionally capable than it could have been, but that's it. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:now we're getting somewhere! Given what a neonazi shithole and general embarrassment Dresden has become, the only mistake was not flattening the burnt ashes some more with nukes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 10:15
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
hakimashou posted:Do they kill everyone to release them from the suffering of existence Flowers For Algeria? That's Donald Trump's job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Allied admirals argued that they couldn't prosecute him for unrestricted submarine warfare when they had practiced it themselves. It was Doenitz's lawyer that made the argument. He got Nimitz to write a memo that he had ordered unrestricted submarine warfare. The judges agreed not to consider it in the sentence. As I said before, he had the best lawyer there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You have any idea how loving difficult it was to herd the millions of men in the rear echelons of the Soviet Army, while ALSO commanding the front line formations of millions more, in a country severely depleted of manpower and with constant logistical problems that drew the attention of all the military talent, with an army drawing conscripts from dozens of disparate ethnicities speaking many different languages and at incredibly different levels of familiarity with the modern world? Hundreds of thousands of those conscripts were thrown from villages where they had not even seen a lightbulb in their lives to fight the greatest industrial war in history. And they were kept at the frontlines for months, if not years on end, with virtually no leave or rotation, unlike soldiers from Western Allied armies, subjected to constant stress, material destitution, and to a total, mind warping hatred of all things German for committing the worst genocide in human history. Meanwhile their commanders had the combined struggle of making their formations trudge forward against unceasing resistance, against incredible natural and man-made obstacles found in Prussia, AND of making sure they do not lose favour with Stalin and his political lackeys. So rape is okay, because the red army was tired? Putting aside how horrifying the argument is to make that German civilian women deserved to be raped because of that, how do you then justify the mass rape of liberated Russian and Polish women?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You have any idea how loving difficult it was to herd the millions of men in the rear echelons of the Soviet Army, while ALSO commanding the front line formations of millions more, in a country severely depleted of manpower and with constant logistical problems that drew the attention of all the military talent, with an army drawing conscripts from dozens of disparate ethnicities speaking many different languages and at incredibly different levels of familiarity with the modern world? Hundreds of thousands of those conscripts were thrown from villages where they had not even seen a lightbulb in their lives to fight the greatest industrial war in history. And they were kept at the frontlines for months, if not years on end, with virtually no leave or rotation, unlike soldiers from Western Allied armies, subjected to constant stress, material destitution, and to a total, mind warping hatred of all things German for committing the worst genocide in human history. Meanwhile their commanders had the combined struggle of making their formations trudge forward against unceasing resistance, against incredible natural and man-made obstacles found in Prussia, AND of making sure they do not lose favour with Stalin and his political lackeys. This is also factually incorrect, beyond the unbelievable gall of thinking being uneducated makes you a rapist. The patterns simply do not make sense with this criminally evil set of apologetics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
I think the point is that even if they wanted to stop the rape of Germans by the Red Army, the Russian commanders would not have been able to for a host of organisational and logistic reasons. Russian soldiers often had to steal boots and weapons from dead combatants as there were not enough. Your notions of a modern, well drilled, well organised army are simply not applicable to this situation. People resorted to cannibalism at Stalingrad, the war in the east was brutal, let us not forget that the Nazis, the SS, the Eintstatz commandos destroyed whole villages, cities and wiped out the jews in Eastern Europe, the movie Come and See is set in Bellorussia for example. The Russians inflicted on the Germans what had been done to them. That's not to say it was right, but the Nazis behaved appallingly in Eastern Europe (understatement of the century), and also the Russians were the first to liberate the Concentration camps as well. They witnessed and experienced the full depth of the Nazi depravity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:With a situation like that, a humanitarian form of war becomes impossible, the root of the problem was systemic, and impossible to fix under wartime conditions with the resources and situation the SU was dealt. Blame could be laid on Soviet political leadership for making the Red Army less institutionally capable than it could have been, but that's it. No army, no group of humans can accept widespread, routine rape without completely dehumanizing your opponent and everything about them. I understand that that happens in war. I could even consider an argument that it's a necessary part of war. But your argument goes further than that. You seem to think there should be no national meditation on that for the winning side. The total dehumanization and subjugation of a population that let the Nazis commit the acts they did was a horrifying war crime, but somehow an allied nation doing the exact same thing is just boys being boys. This is a kind of moral relativism that I just can't even process. It's sociopathic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I think the point is that even if they wanted to stop the rape of Germans by the Red Army, the Russian commanders would not have been able to for a host of organisational and logistic reasons. Well, no, funnily enough, they didn't inflict genocide on the Germans, nor would this justify crimes against German Jewish women, Polish women, and liberated Soviet slave laborers, all of which happened with the general indifference or active support of Soviet commanders. Also, the Red Army was quite willing to use the threat of summary execution to resolve traffic jams, and Chuikov regularly punched his staff in the face when they hosed up. The idea that the Red Army was uncontrollable, the officers supine, is apologetics for criminality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Well clearly it was uncontrollable because they raped a metric gently caress ton of women. I mean it's not like rape as a part of war has ever been out of fashion though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
It's not exactly news that the russians/communists are and always have been bad... When the two greatest machines of human evil, the Nazi Germans and the Soviet Russians collided, it was inevitable that many terrible things would happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Well clearly it was uncontrollable because they raped a metric gently caress ton of women. No, the evidence suggests that officers generally either actively supported rapes or were indifferent to them, and that the only efforts to counter it systematically were halfhearted ones involving editorial shifts in Pravda and scapegoating Ilya Ehrenburg. Furthermore, the actual frontoviki, the tankists and infantry, committed crimes at a much lower rate than rear-echelon troops or occupational forces, which complicates this idea of a revenge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Soldiers of every country rape if they can get away with it. This is part of war and has been since the dawn of human civilisation, and continues to be so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Soldiers of every country rape if they can get away with it. This is part of war and has been since the dawn of human civilisation, and continues to be so. This is pretty insanely sexist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's not exactly news that the russians/communists are and always have been bad... And yet somehow the British are A-OK in your book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:33
|
|