World War II

[Flick7]

This will be where you can talk about WWII.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

[The Nihilist]

how great do you think it was to be fighting in a war with moral clarity? i mean, the guys who signed up were basically applying for the job to kill hitler.

 

[Douger]

And make the world safe for communism. And Frenchmen

 

[jayem]

The Nazi's had to be destroyed. Along with Japanese militarism. Remember, Hitler declared war on us. He wanted to develop long range bombers, missiles, and other weapons. If he'd had his way in Europe, we'd be next.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200611/ai_n17194588

 

[platzapS]

how great do you think it was to be fighting in a war with moral clarity? i mean, the guys who signed up were basically applying for the job to kill hitler.

I am certain that the Allies were on the right side of the conflict, but even in WWII there was hardly moral clarity. The Allies prosecuted some of the highest war criminals at Nuremburg, but eagerly accepted Axis scientists who directed atrocious experimentation. We bombed Dresden, destroying historical art and relics along with tens of thousands of civilians, for questionable military gains. For a few years after the war ended, Allied-occupied Germany was highly restricted in trade and development, causing pointless suffering of German children who had no part in the war:

[quote="Morgenthau Plan", Wikipedia]In 1945 the German Red Cross was dissolved, and the International Red Cross and other international relief agencies were kept from helping ethnic Germans through strict controls on supplies and on travel. The few agencies permitted to operate within Germany, such as the indigenous Caritas Verband, were not allowed to use imported supplies. When the Vatican attempted to transmit food supplies from Chile to German infants, the U.S. State Department forbade it.[/quote]

General Eisenhower is heavily criticized--perhaps too harshly--for the treatment of German POWs:
[quote="Eisenhower and German POWs", Wiki]
The U.S. used over 500,000 German POWs in Germany in Military Labor Service Units. Great Britain used 225,000 Germans as “reparations labor”. In addition to the 200,000 Germans held by French forces (and 70,000 held by France in Algeria), France demanded 1,700,000 POWs for use as “enforced labor”. In July 1945 they were promised 1,300,000 POWs by the SHAEF. The number of actually delivered prisoners is debated, as is the number of surviving POWs eventually released by the French. General George S. Patton commented in his diary “I’m also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (in particular, to France) where many will be starved to death.” He also noted “It is amusing to recall that we fought the revolution in defense of the rights of man and the civil war to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles”.[/quote]

How should we judge Finland--a democratic nation that allied with Nazi Germany in order to fight off advancing Soviet Russia? Things aren't as clear-cut as they seem in movies, or even the history books in school.

I am convinced that the Allies helped saved humanity from tyranny by defeating the Axis powers. However, war can turn even the best men into monsters.

 

[Douger]

One of the big dilemas for me is the way that so much of the virtue of the allied side rests on the fact that the Nazis carried out the Holocaust.
My problem with that is, that the Holocaust was a result of the war, not a cause of it, and that no one even knew about it until the war was nearly over.

So I don't feel it can be used to retroactively justify the different wrongs the allies commited, the greatest one being (IMO) handing over eastern Europe to the Soviets.

Overall, I do agree that at least the British and Americans were in the right, but any net gains for the good of mankind are difficult to measure.

 

[susanann]

Hitler is the perfect example of what a bad childhood can bring about. He gets hated on far too much and is nothing but a scapegoat because the millions that are truly responsible didn't own up. The fact that people in the 21st cenutury still use individuals as scapegoats for the actions of a society just shows that such tragedy can easily happen again, and the actors will go about their lives once it is all over. And one man or woman, or a few men and women, will be held accountable.

It actually happened with the Iraq War. It's amusing, in a not-really amusing sort of way, that 3/4 of the country supported the war (even though sensible people like Ritter were saying it was built on a shaky foundation, and millions protested it worldwide), yet act as if the "Neo-con" agenda was to blame. Perhaps they would have more leeway if they didn't re-elect Bush in 2004.

Bush is one-man, influenced by a small cabal, and neither could have waged their war without the American people endorsing it directly and through representatives. If the American people were truly not responsible, The Democrat Party would have been relegated to the dustbin of history for enabling the war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, leaving the Republican Party and its supporters exposed as the ultimate problem, but of course that isn't how it worked out.

 

[Douger]

Hitler is the perfect example of what a bad childhood can bring about. He gets hated on far too much and is nothing but a scapegoat because the millions that are truly responsible didn't own up. The fact that people in the 21st cenutury still use individuals as scapegoats for the actions of a society just shows that such tragedy can easily happen again, and the actors will go about their lives once it is all over. And one man or woman, or a few men and women, will be held accountable.

It actually happened with the Iraq War. It's amusing, in a not-really amusing sort of way, that 3/4 of the country supported the war (even though sensible people like Ritter were saying it was built on a shaky foundation, and millions protested it worldwide), yet act as if the "Neo-con" agenda was to blame. Perhaps they would have more leeway if they didn't re-elect Bush in 2004.

Bush is one-man, influenced by a small cabal, and neither could have waged their war without the American people endorsing it directly and through representatives. If the American people were truly not responsible, The Democrat Party would have been relegated to the dustbin of history for enabling the war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, leaving the Republican Party and its supporters exposed as the ultimate problem, but of course that isn't how it worked out.

I fully agree with you. If it hadn't been for Hitler, there simply would have been another man just as bad.
The fault for Germany's actions lies with the German people that bought the lies, voted bad men into power and then marched off to start the wars that would ultimately ruin so many countries including their own and kill so many millions.

Like you said, it's a very similar situation in America, but at least this time, the majority of the people were howling before things got nearly as bad as WWII

 

[free_esprit]

He gets hated on far too much and is nothing but a scapegoat because the millions that are truly responsible didn't own up. The fact that people in the 21st cenutury still use individuals as scapegoats for the actions of a society just shows that such tragedy can easily happen again, and the actors will go about their lives once it is all over. And one man or woman, or a few men and women, will be held accountable.

I agree with that too.
If Hitler hadnt had all the support and acceptance from his people, he wouldnt have managed to do all he did. There was little to no opposition to the regime and their atrocities. What was happening on the death camps was more or less known, through people that had managed to escape, and still they decided to turn their heads away.


The holocaust and genocides are examples of the barbaric passions that still lie within western civilization. That that happened on 20th century Europe is shameful, and unique, there had bever been an INDUSTRY of human slaughter before.
It was also shameful and vicious the dropping of the nuclear bombs by the US. There was no need for that. It only caused the death of millions of innocent civilians.

World War II represents the degrading and decline of western morality.

I think the only posistive thing about it, was the destruction of fascism.

 

[WorldIsMine]

The statement 'Nazis are dangerous lunatics and should be put out of power' is not necessarily equivalent with 'therefore the American government should steal a bunch of money and run the whole operation'. The notion that a government military could ever be used for something productive is to completely ignore the economic, political and historical reality not only behind WW2 but behind war in general. War exists for and because of governments. WW2, specifically, was heavily influenced by trade barriers.

 

[platzapS]

The statement 'Nazis are dangerous lunatics and should be put out of power' is not necessarily equivalent with 'therefore the American government should steal a bunch of money and run the whole operation'. The notion that a government military could ever be used for something productive is to completely ignore the economic, political and historical reality not only behind WW2 but behind war in general. War exists for and because of governments. WW2, specifically, was heavily influenced by trade barriers.

Car crashes exist because of cars.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Car crashes exist because of cars.

Nobody is forced to buy a car, much less drive it.

 

[platzapS]

/

 

[platzapS]

Nobody is forced to buy a car, much less drive it.

No one is forced to live in the United States. There are 150 other countries to live in, including Somalia, which has no government.

 

[WorldIsMine]

No one is forced to live in the United States.

What rational reason could there be to assume that an arbitrary oligarchy which has only been consented to by a small portion of the population has a legitemit authority to over an arbitrarily denoted territory to command this and forbid that, to take this and that, and to decide all conflicts (including conflicts between itself and residents) itself?
The State is a totally retarded concept. No one would ever agree to anything of the sort. And the fact is no one ever has. No State has ever been consensual on the part of the majority of the inhabitants, and all these arguments you are making have been refuted by political philosophers - even mainstream political philosophers - for well over a hundred years. The fact that you are unaware of this demonstrates one of the absurdities of the religious quality of 'government' - people have such vociferous opinions, not out of understanding, but out of ignorance.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No one is forced to live in the United States. There are 150 other countries to live in, including Somalia, which has no government.

I'm starting to think there should be an analog to Godwin's Law for variations of the "no one is forcing you (anyone) to live here" "argument".

 

[WorldIsMine]

I'm starting to think there should be an analog to Godwin's Law for variations of the "no one is forcing you (anyone) to live here" "argument".

"If you don't vote, you can't complain" is another favourite one. What if I reject democracy?

 

[Cooch]

I agree with that too.
If Hitler hadnt had all the support and acceptance from his people, he wouldnt have managed to do all he did. There was little to no opposition to the regime and their atrocities. What was happening on the death camps was more or less known, through people that had managed to escape, and still they decided to turn their heads away.[quote/]

The nazis never won a popular election. What they did very well was manipulate people into believing that they were in need and that Germany was threatened by enemies, both of which the Nazis promised to combat.... even when they, themselves, were causing most of the uproar. It is true that there was not great resistance, but if you are just you will admit that by the time the majority of Germans really knew what was going on, they were in grave danger if they spoke out. No one claims that this fully excuses them, but a little understanding helps.

It was also shameful and vicious the dropping of the nuclear bombs by the US. There was no need for that. It only caused the death of millions of innocent civilians.

There is little solid evidence to support this claim, and much in support of the argument that by so doing, the US saved millions more lives than the atomic weapons destroyed. Again, if justice matters to you you will consider the lives of bothy the Allied servicemen, and the Japanese of all descriptions who would have died in an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. IJf you doubt that such an invasiuon would have been extremely costly, you need to examine the battle of Okinawa. This occurred just weeks before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as was the best evidence available to the Allies of the Japanese will to continue the fight.
The claim that the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombing of Hiroshima is spurious and has no support in either the signals they were sending or their own preparations for the defense of their islands.

World War II represents the degrading and decline of western morality.

.

It is sad that you place so little value on the willingness of good men to put their lives at risk for what they believed was right. As my own father said when he volunteered, "There was something bad happening in the world, and it wasn't going to be stopped by staying at home."

As someone else said, "Greater love hath no man......."

Lest we Forget............. Peter.