<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> About the Hitler thing, what i meant was that when he ordered all those things to be done, he thought he was right. And what you think is right may seem, to others, as horrible as Hitler's actions seem to us now. I was in no way agreeing with what Hitler did, i was just stating that he wasn't trying to wipe out an entire religion simply because he didn't like them, he thought that they were holding Germany back, and wiping them out was the right thing to do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think you have ever read Mein Kampf, listened to Hitler's speeches, dug deeply into the logistics of the German war machine, or really done the sort of research to back up your statement. His hatred of the Jews and other 'undesirables' was literally pathological. An insane hatred that caused him to waste endless resources on killing and enslaving them which could have been spent much better helping the war effort. It's arguable that the wasted resources cost them the fight in Russia, and doomed Germany.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for the al-queda thing, i must have skipped a bit of the above posts. If you're talking about years from now, say 60 years (same as WW2 from now), and if they're no longer actively hating and attacking America, why not let them come to a memorial? As long as it's to show that they feel bad about the whole thing, there's no reason for them not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know how many times or ways I can re-say this: they are their to honor their <i>own</i> troops. Not <i>our</i> dead. The Japanese prime minister does not visit foreign dead shrines, only those of his own forces. If the Taliban are at the WTC 50 years from now to honor their dead, I'll be happy to fly a plane into them too.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Hitler thing: me = pwnt i guess, although it can be argued that his hatred was so blind that... well, i'm gonna leave that because i'm just getting annoying with that one i guess.
The "visiting the place" thing, i agree that the japanese thing seemed a bit.... strange, i mean, it doesn't look like he cared about anything or anyone really. But the German guy was either sincere or clever in the way of politics, and either way, it's good for his country.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Jan 6 2004, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Jan 6 2004, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hitler thing: me = pwnt i guess, although it can be argued that his hatred was so blind that... well, i'm gonna leave that because i'm just getting annoying with that one i guess.
The "visiting the place" thing, i agree that the japanese thing seemed a bit.... strange, i mean, it doesn't look like he cared about anything or anyone really. But the German guy was either sincere or clever in the way of politics, and either way, it's good for his country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed on all counts, with the small addition that I think the timing of the German invitation was 100% pure politics, designed to strengthen the relationships of Europe's two biggest bullies on the playground. I think he is truly sorry (consider that his father died in that war) and that he is also truly opportunistic.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Jan 6 2004, 02:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Jan 6 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah.... and firebombing thousands of completely innocent people, civilians, then atom bombing 2 major cities killing millions and causing radiation effects that are still showing today <i>isn't</i> murder. Justifiable? No, you were just on the winning side, so you think your countries actions were right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ***This is a little off topic, but I just could not let this go without clearing up a few points. If you want to discuss this more, PM me or start a new thread.***
You seem to have missed a number of extremely important facts concerning bombing Japanese cities... Whether with firebombs or with the two atomic bombs..
1) Firebombing occurred because it was the most effective. Standard bombs did not have the destructive potential that firebombs did on Japanese cities. THis was a war, not a trip to the park. The idea was to cause as much destruction as possible, not just kick them in the groin, but to kick them in the groin and then beat on them as they are curled up on the fetal postion on the ground. Also, during WW2, bombing was not exactly a refined process ( actually, I believe it was the first time large scale bombing took place ). To get just one target, you'd end up bombing miles around that target. Things were that inaccurrate. Aside from this... Tokyo, the most famous incident, occurred as a psychological attack on the Japanese population. The Japanese homeland had never been attacked prior to that ( in respects to WW2 ), and this was to prove that we could do it... And that we could do it when we wanted ( although, the price to accomplish the first bombing was high ). The bombing of Tokyo then could be comparable to Pearl Harbor. It demoralized the Japanese and improved the morale of our own troops.
2) The atomic bombs were done for a variety of reasons. The Japanese and Germans were both hard at work on their own atomic weapons... We were not the only ones. We just completed them first and proved it first. It was war time mind you... No one really knew how powerful atomic bombs were or could be... They just knew they were very powerful...
On top of this... There is the fact that if we had not bombed those 2 cities... and had Japan not surrendered... Then there would have been over a million more casualties because of a direct result. An invasion of Japan would not have been easy... It would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives on our side... and many more, civilian and military, on their side. So the dropping of the atomic bombs actually saved lives.
An interesting thing about the 2 cities, if i'm not mistaken, is that they were not bombed at all during the war prior to the atomic bombs. I believe this was done so that the effect of such weapons could be accurately quantified. The loss of life was regrettable... It almost always is, but it was necessary during WW2. It was necessary that we do it before either Germany or Japan ( although, Germany was not a factor by the bombings ).
Everyone is so quick to judge the US for dropping those 2 atomic bombs on Japan... But its not fair to do this. It actually holds no logic. They were the very first 2 atomic bombs. No one knew exactly how powerful and destructive they would be. We were not the only ones building them ( just the first to finish ). Not only that, but they were SMALL when compared to the weapons we have today. It easy for us to understand the destructive power of nuclear weapons... We've lived with them for our entire lives. During WW2, no one could really comprehend what they were leading us into. Now we have lived through the Cold War... Come close to nuclear armageddon way too many times... And have more knowledge about these weapons than we would like. It is not fair to fault the US for dropping the first 2 atomic bombs... It was not really a malicious act... It was an act of desperation. The invasion of Japan would have been far costlier...
*The Americans very well knew that a bomb is a bomb, and that it is designed to cause as much damage as possible. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and apoligizing for it is the same as designing a brandnew sword and stab a civilian in the chest, saying: oo sorry we did not know it would hurt you that bad. Test the damn thing before you use it ( oo, I forgot, you did) *Off course, WWII was a war (duh) but that does not justify at all the actions fighting parties undertake. They should at all times ( when reasonably possible) try to avoid civilian casualties. *There absolutely is no fact whatsoever that says the Japanbese would not have surrendered if the atomic bombs were not used. it is a hypothetical situation and therefore a subject of doubt. *Invading another country who could never ever have used a bomb on the US can by no means be called an act of despair. Japan had no airforce, nor did they have airfields between the japan mainland and the USA, nor did they have a plane who could cover the distance in one flight. The US bombed Japan. Japan did, especially at that moment, not threaten the US.
didnt read the entire thread, im just gonna comment on 2 of Monses posts about WW2, and just plain comment on WW2
The U.S. should never have used the A bomb on people like that. No matter what, its just plain crazy if you ask me. (edit: im talking about those who knew what kind of damage that bomb would do, and decided to use it anyway) Like 200,000 civilians died in those 2 attacks.
The US army was dropping leaflets saying "your governement surrendered" amid bombs on a city i dont remember. Many things the "liberators" did were as evil as what Hitler was doing, if you will. Maybe not put jews in gas chambers, but deliberatly bombing civilians in Dresden for the "fear factor" amongst other things.
The view that allied europe and the US were liberators, and good guys, must have sound a bit crazy to the cannon fodder that blacks were in that day, and still are and the jews that tried to run away from germany when it was still time but were viewed as indesirables by the US governement before WW2 and would accept no jewish refugees.
History often is written by the people who win wars, so of course the atrocities committed by the victors side are put aside and forgotten.
Do not mistake me for some Hitler apologist, he should have been fought. But there are some things that leaders do in our name that they should never have done, that are done using the liberating, or fighting for justice pretext to commit atrocities, and im my perspective, the nuclear attack was done for all the wrong reason. Axis europe was defeated, japan was on the verge of defeat. I honestly think the bomb was dropped not to save lives, but to put the fear of god into the rest of earths nations along the "see what happens when you **** with us" angle.
And the US governement is doing the same thing right now with this terrorist hysteria. Yes, those people who attacked the WTC must be found, judged and put away for all our sakes. But what that has to do with destroying civil liberties in the US and bombarding civilians in afghanistan and iraq, i do not know.
There is another guy that turned a national tragedy into a terrorist hunt, civil liberties hunt and manipulated his people to start WW2 . He was called Adolf Hitler.
edit: ill edit this because if id be me, id correct myself <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> It is not "the US governement" talking eating and sleeping war, it is mostly neo-conservatives, either democrats or republicans. Fortunatly for you and me, i think, you still have some democrats and republicans in the white house much against some of the things i talked about.
You know, applying 2003 morality to 1944-1945 while the world was at war really doesn't make sense.
You say that dropping the atomic bomb was bad and that attacking population centers is evil, but in 1945 attacking populations centers just wasn't bad. It was a perfectly valid military strategy for the time and had been for hundreds of years. The Army Air Corps and the RAF just replaced catapults and dead horses with aircraft and bombs.
*On-topic*
There's nothing stopping Germany from honoring their dead in a private ceremony. If they want a ceremony or memorial, that's fine. My two main points are this:
1. The entire thing smacks of politics, not honoring the dead. Chirac invited Schroder without saying anything to the US, England or Canada. The deal is more likely based on mutual opposition to the war in Iraq and the partnership to control the EU.
2. D-Day and the allied invasion of mainland Europe is an allied event. While I have no objection to Germany honoring their dead in a private ceremony like the Japanese PM, I do object to a non-allied nation (specifically Germany, since they were the Lex Luthor to our Superman) at an allied ceremony. It's no more appropriate than England coming to a 4th of July celebration or a ceremony at Yorktown or more recently, an Iraqi delegation to a Kuwaiti celebration of when the Iraqi's were driven out.
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Jan 7 2004, 09:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Jan 7 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know, applying 2003 morality to 1944-1945 while the world was at war really doesn't make sense.
You say that dropping the atomic bomb was bad and that attacking population centers is evil, but in 1945 attacking populations centers just wasn't bad. It was a perfectly valid military strategy for the time and had been for hundreds of years. The Army Air Corps and the RAF just replaced catapults and dead horses with aircraft and bombs.
*On-topic*
There's nothing stopping Germany from honoring their dead in a private ceremony. If they want a ceremony or memorial, that's fine. My two main points are this:
1. The entire thing smacks of politics, not honoring the dead. Chirac invited Schroder without saying anything to the US, England or Canada. The deal is more likely based on mutual opposition to the war in Iraq and the partnership to control the EU.
2. D-Day and the allied invasion of mainland Europe is an allied event. While I have no objection to Germany honoring their dead in a private ceremony like the Japanese PM, I do object to a non-allied nation (specifically Germany, since they were the Lex Luthor to our Superman) at an allied ceremony. It's no more appropriate than England coming to a 4th of July celebration or a ceremony at Yorktown or more recently, an Iraqi delegation to a Kuwaiti celebration of when the Iraqi's were driven out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For one thing, the new scientific discoveries allowed for much more large scale and deadlier indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The number of civilian deaths in any war had never even come close to the numbers of the Second World War. Besides that, the moralistic view of the WWII age does hardly differ from the view we have nowadays. For example, the protection of civilians during wartime was established in 1949. Attacking population centers was not a valid military strategy. Battles were held in open field, or the city walls were sieged. Attacking a city centre on foot or on horse is a good way to kill yourself; hostile environment, enemy knows the terrain better than you, etc. D-day was not simply an allied event. one: allied soldiers landed two: doing so, they liberated the french, which was the start of liberating Germany. three: most soldiers were gunned own by germans. Some krauts got gunned down by allies. Thus, it s not only an allied event.
Yeah i was getting off topic. Still gonna add this: it doesnt have to do with morality now vs then, i am talking about what the people who decided to throw the A-bomb knew that this bomb would do. And they knew it because they tested smaller bombs before and walked american soldiers into the nuclear shrooms to see what would happen to the guinea pigs.
On topic: I dont see why germans shouldnt be invited to commemoration of WW2, there were germans that were against Hitler, even inside the SS. The first people to be persecuted by Hitler and his gang were jews but also german socialists and communists, germans, you know. To judge in black and white is never good, there was french fascists who were with the nazis and such
I've held back on this one as long as possible, partially because I wanted to see how it developed, partially because I wanted the more obvious chattering out of the way. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
1) Its not the first time the Japanese PM has attended the shrines of his country's WW2 dead, he's also publically called them "heroes". It panders to the youth vote, having the shock element and the rise of the new right in Japanese youth, as well as some discontented elderly voters. I don't know if he honestly believes that the Japanese were right in WW2, and I don't care, it smacks too muchof a leader with dwindling support trying charisma and surprise instead of addressing the economic problems Japan is still clawing its way out of for me to take it seriously.
2) Schroeder and Chirac? Surely you can't be suggesting France and Germany are in bed with each other? Ok, I'm laughing too hard to keep that up. How surprised am I that they will walk over 60 years of history and the corpses of those that died, to snuggle even closer to each other? Surprised enough not to swallow my bile, thats how much.
<!--QuoteBegin--Urza+Jan 7 2004, 01:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Jan 7 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *There absolutely is no fact whatsoever that says the Japanbese would not have surrendered if the atomic bombs were not used. it is a hypothetical situation and therefore a subject of doubt. *Invading another country who could never ever have used a bomb on the US can by no means be called an act of despair. Japan had no airforce, nor did they have airfields between the japan mainland and the USA, nor did they have a plane who could cover the distance in one flight. The US bombed Japan. Japan did, especially at that moment, not threaten the US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry... Not true. Prior to the dropping of the a-bombs, Japan was preparing for the invasion. They knew it would be coming.... Then the a-bombs were dropped. Japan was given the option to surrender after the first... They didn't. So the 2nd was dropped. They were given the option of surrender again, or another city would be picked... They surrendered. There were some hard-liners in the military that did not want to surrender though... So they attempted a coupe... But it failed. Japan would NOT have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped.
Ummmm.... Japan started the war. The US finished it. The only reason they did not threaten the US when the mainland was bombed was because they were beaten back. Because the US military was going full steam ahead. Did the Allies in Europe stop at Germany's borders? Why should they not have attacked Japan? Japan had to surrender. The war had to be won. And it had to be won decisively. It was an act of desperation so that an invasion would not have to be done... Was it really that unclear?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Schroeder and Chirac? Surely you can't be suggesting France and Germany are in bed with each other? Ok, I'm laughing too hard to keep that up. How surprised am I that they will walk over 60 years of history and the corpses of those that died, to snuggle even closer to each other? Surprised enough not to swallow my bile, thats how much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From northern Europes point of view that's pretty much what it looks like. Germany and France share interests like the EU's constitution law and mutual defence that is not dependant of NATO. Both have problems to keep up with the economic regulations of the Europes Monetary Union and by walking over the corpses of WWII, as you apparently would call this unholy alliance, both have managed to avoid the consequenses set by themselves for the violations they have committed. I'd say France and Germany are closer than ever and this is only logical outcame because of the things listed above and the disagreements on trans-Atlantic relations with UK, Spain and Italy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Should we invite Al-Quaeda to the opening of the WTC memorial, and allow them to honor their dead soldiers? They died in a cause they believed was right, after all. How about we bring over the Japanese Prime Minister to the annual Pearl Harbor rememberance and have him honor the dead airman that died while drowning the US sailors in their beds in the USS Arizona? Should Nazi concentration camp guards get to attend holocaust rememberances - just doing their jobs, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, you're quite the dramatist... You are assuming that the Chancellor is a former Nazi and that the Prime Minister still plans Asian domination. These are different people. War is a conflict between ideas and men. Well, these ideas and men have changed. Would I allow a future, peaceful Iraqi leader/president to partake in a memorial of the Gulf War and War on Terrorism 60 years from now? I say 'yes'. Even if they are there to salute troops who fought against us? 'Yes'. Because those troops, though enemies, are men of family and fidelity to their country, and they are honored at least for that much. Why did I not use your Al-Quaeda example? Such an organization will never change its objectives (forseeably). They will always be bent on the hate and destruction that causes such wars. I wouldn't allow a Nazi to partake in the D-Day memorial, but I believe that the current time leaders who pay their respects to soldiers who died for their country and people (it's not just a job done because they were brain-washed, it was their order and duty) are doing the right thing.
France and Germany in bed together?? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Jan 8 2004, 02:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Jan 8 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry... Not true. Prior to the dropping of the a-bombs, Japan was preparing for the invasion. They knew it would be coming.... Then the a-bombs were dropped. Japan was given the option to surrender after the first... They didn't. So the 2nd was dropped. They were given the option of surrender again, or another city would be picked... They surrendered. There were some hard-liners in the military that did not want to surrender though... So they attempted a coupe... But it failed. Japan would NOT have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped.
Ummmm.... Japan started the war. The US finished it. The only reason they did not threaten the US when the mainland was bombed was because they were beaten back. Because the US military was going full steam ahead. Did the Allies in Europe stop at Germany's borders? Why should they not have attacked Japan? Japan had to surrender. The war had to be won. And it had to be won decisively. It was an act of desperation so that an invasion would not have to be done... Was it really that unclear? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) You did not give a clear answer to all my points 2) Japan was seeking peace negotiations before the dropping of the a-bombs. The declaration of war coming from Russia was just as much a striking blow to Japan as was the dropping of the bomb. Unconditional surrender was not an option due to the emperor being a god. read this: <a href='http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm</a> 3) Sure, Japan had to surrender, but in a diplomatic way or by invading (or bombing)?
This is getting pretty close to being side-tracked into an A-Bomb good/bad conversation. You might want to consider starting a new topic on this as it's a bit tertiary.
Edited for clarity: It may be a political gesture, certainly. I tend to look more directly at what's going on, though: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The ceremony marks the Allied campaign launched at dawn on June 6, 1944, to storm the Normandy beaches at the start of the campaign to drive Nazi forces from France.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The leader of the german people honors the Allied campaign. That means he honors the allied soldiers for their deeds. The vast majority of the german people is thankful for the efforts of the allied soldiers during the war, and what they suffered for liberating the german people from a regime that had warped and twisted from what it had been in '33. We don't view the Nazi regime with reverence. We are HAPPY that we lost the war, trust me. I don't care much about politics when I could rather discuss morality, and that is what this thread started with. Morally, this is a beatiful gesture towards Germany, one that truly warms my heart. As a german, I have from time to time been called 'Nazi' by people of other nationalities, something that greatly saddened me. This is like telling me "We know that you, the people of Germany, are not Nazis", something that I have noticed is not to be taken for granted. I am of course ashamed of what my forefathers did, and I am truly grateful for this gesture, politically motivated or not.
So practically all of Europe was attacked and decimated because Germany was protecting itself? The German soldiers that died at Normandy ( or else where ) do not deserve to be honored as the Allied soldiers do. It is an insult to those who died to free Europe. They were not defending their country... They were defending and attempting to propogate hatred and murder. For that, they should burn in hades.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
I completely disagree. HITLER, and most of the Nazi party higher ups, should burn. The individual soldier on the ground in the bunker in normandy, being attacked by thousands upon thousands of enemy soldiers, who in turn fought and died trying to keep themselves and buddies alive, deserve no less respect than any american, canadian, brit, or anyone else who died trying to fight thier way up that beach.
They don't deserve any respect from us... Let the Germans give them respect if they so choose. Giving them respect at the same time as the Allied soldiers is a dishonor to those Allied soldiers. Those Germany soldiers do not deserve respect for fighting for Hitler's regime... When you try to give them respect for fighting... Regardless of any secondary reasons you try to list... You are giving them respect for fighting FOR HITLER. That is the problem. That should not be done. They fought on the side of evil. They deserve no pity or respect from us for such acts.
othell, you assume every German soldier to fight in WW2 to be convinced of the national socialistic ideology - to "fight FOR HITLER", as you put it. Read a little of the front letters sent home by those soldiers and you'll soon realize that a few did indeed fight 'for Hitler', yet, a bigger portion fought 'for Germany' (consider that the Nazis propaganda, as one might add the best of its time, described the whole conflict as a defensive war), while the vast majority simply fought for fear of being killed in case of them deserting. Remember that the Third Reich sent concious objectors into the KZs. Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 10 2004, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 10 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember that the Third Reich sent concious objectors into the KZs. Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As you can see, a German soldier who didn't want to fight didn't have too many options. He could've defected to the enemy, but what guarantees did he have that they wouldn't torture or kill him? If you were a US soldier fighting in Vietnam and you believed the war was wrong, would you defect to the Vietcong?
"You are giving them respect for fighting FOR HITLER."
Its not like german leaders got a monopoly on racism and imperialism, Churchill said about arab and their countries something like "You dont ask a dog in a kennel if you can take over his land"
EDIT: again, dont mistake me for some Hitler apologist, but im kinda tired of hearing people present the actors of WW2 as "good vs evil" it just doesnt hold the road
I was waiting for Nem to post. It seems more plausible to fight for a country rather than for a man (or woman for that matter - Falklands). I would have found it hard to fight for Churchill, but he may have convinced me to fight for my country.
As an aside, if the ceremony had been for the winning side of WWI, would there be the same argument ? Are we letting the attrocities of facism and the horror of the A-bomb cloud the issues here ?
Something jolted my mind the other day when that advertisement showing Soviet soldiers holding Socom II games was posted in Off Topic (full story <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=58963' target='_blank'>here</a> ). Soviet soldiers fought against the Nazis, and indeed the USSR suffered the most damage and casualties of any of the countries that fought against Hitler.
But, and here's where it gets interesting, these Soviet soldiers were fighting under a terrible regime and a man who gave Hitler a run for his money in the evil stakes. Stalin, and the communist regime he lead, massacured tens of millions of Russians and brutally repressed the population. Indeed, compare Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in 1939 and there are few differances, except for ideology.
So should the soldiers who fought for the Soviets (and who, btw, also raped tens of thousands of German women during their drive into Germany) be honored and remembered? Though certainly they fought against Hitler, and without their aid the war would have gone a whole lot differantly, their hands were by no means clean and neither were the hands of their masters. Are these men (and some women), as deserving of our respect as Germany's fallen?
Concerning the 'rape'-argument you're introducing here, I'd argue that no army is devoid of its criminals. In so far, it would seem that the fallen Russians are as deserving as <i>any</i> soldier - which always seems to mean "safe for those that didn't deserve it".
Oh the rape side of things isn't really the central theme; rather it's that both the German and Russian soldiers of WWII fought under regimes that were incredibly brutal and lead by two of the nastiest men in history. However I fully accept your point that every army has it's criminals, and certainly whilst the mass rapes that occured in Germany were terrible, the Germans also inflicted similar crimes against the people of Russia.
To start, I'll say I only really skim-read this thread, so I guess I cant give a totally informed (in the way this thread is heading) opinion, but I will give my own. I think every soldier, from both sides, who fought and died for their country deserves every bit of respect from everyone. Sure, it might sound.. well, bad, I guess, that you respect those who fought against our own fathers and/or fathers fathers (Both my grandfathers, for me). But to be honest, a good number of them didnt want to be there, they didnt believe in Hitler's views or anything along those lines, they believed in their country and fighting for it, and even dying for, not for some single agnst-driven individual.
Also, on the note of the A-Bomb, I know this <i>will</i> spark some controversy, but I spent a good part of my final year at school studing the Manhatten Project in physics, and did a major assignment on it (which I got a decent 39/40 for, I just didnt outline the pre-history of the bomb enough in the exam segment :/ ). So I do know a fair bit behind it, what went on, and how it was all done. Einstein wrote a letter to the American president asking him not to use the weapon, saying something as devistating as that should never be used against any human. But, the president, and the military, decided to use it anyway. They had a new toy, and they wanted to use it. About it ending the war, and the Japanese wanting peace before this; It's all hearsay. Nobody knows if the Japanese would have, or wouldnt have, surrended. It cannot be said that bombing the two cities saved lives, or killed more, you just cant tell what <i>could've</i> happened, only what did. Also, for interests sake, the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than both the bombs combined.
<!--QuoteBegin--CrystalSnake+Jan 10 2004, 11:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Jan 10 2004, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 10 2004, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 10 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember that the Third Reich sent concious objectors into the KZs. Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As you can see, a German soldier who didn't want to fight didn't have too many options. He could've defected to the enemy, but what guarantees did he have that they wouldn't torture or kill him? If you were a US soldier fighting in Vietnam and you believed the war was wrong, would you defect to the Vietcong? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, a classic example of such 'options' would be on D-Day. You decided to surrender in the view of your fanatical German officer, and you were shot in the back without a moment's thought. Also you have to condier that 1 in 6 Axis riflemen were conscripts, stuck in "Ost" Battalions. These conscripts were of hugely varying nationality; Russians, Ukraines, even Indians. Funnily enough, I read that one Japanese soldier was captured by the Russians, forced to fight for them then captured by the Germans and ended up manning the line at Omaha Beach!
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you have ever read Mein Kampf, listened to Hitler's speeches, dug deeply into the logistics of the German war machine, or really done the sort of research to back up your statement. His hatred of the Jews and other 'undesirables' was literally pathological. An insane hatred that caused him to waste endless resources on killing and enslaving them which could have been spent much better helping the war effort. It's arguable that the wasted resources cost them the fight in Russia, and doomed Germany.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for the al-queda thing, i must have skipped a bit of the above posts. If you're talking about years from now, say 60 years (same as WW2 from now), and if they're no longer actively hating and attacking America, why not let them come to a memorial? As long as it's to show that they feel bad about the whole thing, there's no reason for them not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how many times or ways I can re-say this: they are their to honor their <i>own</i> troops. Not <i>our</i> dead. The Japanese prime minister does not visit foreign dead shrines, only those of his own forces. If the Taliban are at the WTC 50 years from now to honor their dead, I'll be happy to fly a plane into them too.
The "visiting the place" thing, i agree that the japanese thing seemed a bit.... strange, i mean, it doesn't look like he cared about anything or anyone really.
But the German guy was either sincere or clever in the way of politics, and either way, it's good for his country.
The "visiting the place" thing, i agree that the japanese thing seemed a bit.... strange, i mean, it doesn't look like he cared about anything or anyone really.
But the German guy was either sincere or clever in the way of politics, and either way, it's good for his country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed on all counts, with the small addition that I think the timing of the German invitation was 100% pure politics, designed to strengthen the relationships of Europe's two biggest bullies on the playground. I think he is truly sorry (consider that his father died in that war) and that he is also truly opportunistic.
***This is a little off topic, but I just could not let this go without clearing up a few points. If you want to discuss this more, PM me or start a new thread.***
You seem to have missed a number of extremely important facts concerning bombing Japanese cities... Whether with firebombs or with the two atomic bombs..
1) Firebombing occurred because it was the most effective. Standard bombs did not have the destructive potential that firebombs did on Japanese cities. THis was a war, not a trip to the park. The idea was to cause as much destruction as possible, not just kick them in the groin, but to kick them in the groin and then beat on them as they are curled up on the fetal postion on the ground. Also, during WW2, bombing was not exactly a refined process ( actually, I believe it was the first time large scale bombing took place ). To get just one target, you'd end up bombing miles around that target. Things were that inaccurrate. Aside from this... Tokyo, the most famous incident, occurred as a psychological attack on the Japanese population. The Japanese homeland had never been attacked prior to that ( in respects to WW2 ), and this was to prove that we could do it... And that we could do it when we wanted ( although, the price to accomplish the first bombing was high ). The bombing of Tokyo then could be comparable to Pearl Harbor. It demoralized the Japanese and improved the morale of our own troops.
2) The atomic bombs were done for a variety of reasons. The Japanese and Germans were both hard at work on their own atomic weapons... We were not the only ones. We just completed them first and proved it first. It was war time mind you... No one really knew how powerful atomic bombs were or could be... They just knew they were very powerful...
On top of this... There is the fact that if we had not bombed those 2 cities... and had Japan not surrendered... Then there would have been over a million more casualties because of a direct result. An invasion of Japan would not have been easy... It would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives on our side... and many more, civilian and military, on their side. So the dropping of the atomic bombs actually saved lives.
An interesting thing about the 2 cities, if i'm not mistaken, is that they were not bombed at all during the war prior to the atomic bombs. I believe this was done so that the effect of such weapons could be accurately quantified. The loss of life was regrettable... It almost always is, but it was necessary during WW2. It was necessary that we do it before either Germany or Japan ( although, Germany was not a factor by the bombings ).
Everyone is so quick to judge the US for dropping those 2 atomic bombs on Japan... But its not fair to do this. It actually holds no logic. They were the very first 2 atomic bombs. No one knew exactly how powerful and destructive they would be. We were not the only ones building them ( just the first to finish ). Not only that, but they were SMALL when compared to the weapons we have today. It easy for us to understand the destructive power of nuclear weapons... We've lived with them for our entire lives. During WW2, no one could really comprehend what they were leading us into. Now we have lived through the Cold War... Come close to nuclear armageddon way too many times... And have more knowledge about these weapons than we would like. It is not fair to fault the US for dropping the first 2 atomic bombs... It was not really a malicious act... It was an act of desperation. The invasion of Japan would have been far costlier...
*Off course, WWII was a war (duh) but that does not justify at all the actions fighting parties undertake. They should at all times ( when reasonably possible) try to avoid civilian casualties.
*There absolutely is no fact whatsoever that says the Japanbese would not have surrendered if the atomic bombs were not used. it is a hypothetical situation and therefore a subject of doubt.
*Invading another country who could never ever have used a bomb on the US can by no means be called an act of despair. Japan had no airforce, nor did they have airfields between the japan mainland and the USA, nor did they have a plane who could cover the distance in one flight. The US bombed Japan. Japan did, especially at that moment, not threaten the US.
The U.S. should never have used the A bomb on people like that. No matter what, its just plain crazy if you ask me. (edit: im talking about those who knew what kind of damage that bomb would do, and decided to use it anyway) Like 200,000 civilians died in those 2 attacks.
The US army was dropping leaflets saying "your governement surrendered" amid bombs on a city i dont remember. Many things the "liberators" did were as evil as what Hitler was doing, if you will. Maybe not put jews in gas chambers, but deliberatly bombing civilians in Dresden for the "fear factor" amongst other things.
The view that allied europe and the US were liberators, and good guys, must have sound a bit crazy to the cannon fodder that blacks were in that day, and still are and the jews that tried to run away from germany when it was still time but were viewed as indesirables by the US governement before WW2 and would accept no jewish refugees.
History often is written by the people who win wars, so of course the atrocities committed by the victors side are put aside and forgotten.
Do not mistake me for some Hitler apologist, he should have been fought. But there are some things that leaders do in our name that they should never have done, that are done using the liberating, or fighting for justice pretext to commit atrocities, and im my perspective, the nuclear attack was done for all the wrong reason. Axis europe was defeated, japan was on the verge of defeat. I honestly think the bomb was dropped not to save lives, but to put the fear of god into the rest of earths nations along the "see what happens when you **** with us" angle.
And the US governement is doing the same thing right now with this terrorist hysteria. Yes, those people who attacked the WTC must be found, judged and put away for all our sakes. But what that has to do with destroying civil liberties in the US and bombarding civilians in afghanistan and iraq, i do not know.
There is another guy that turned a national tragedy into a terrorist hunt, civil liberties hunt and manipulated his people to start WW2 . He was called Adolf Hitler.
edit: ill edit this because if id be me, id correct myself <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> It is not "the US governement" talking eating and sleeping war, it is mostly neo-conservatives, either democrats or republicans. Fortunatly for you and me, i think, you still have some democrats and republicans in the white house much against some of the things i talked about.
You say that dropping the atomic bomb was bad and that attacking population centers is evil, but in 1945 attacking populations centers just wasn't bad. It was a perfectly valid military strategy for the time and had been for hundreds of years. The Army Air Corps and the RAF just replaced catapults and dead horses with aircraft and bombs.
*On-topic*
There's nothing stopping Germany from honoring their dead in a private ceremony. If they want a ceremony or memorial, that's fine. My two main points are this:
1. The entire thing smacks of politics, not honoring the dead. Chirac invited Schroder without saying anything to the US, England or Canada. The deal is more likely based on mutual opposition to the war in Iraq and the partnership to control the EU.
2. D-Day and the allied invasion of mainland Europe is an allied event. While I have no objection to Germany honoring their dead in a private ceremony like the Japanese PM, I do object to a non-allied nation (specifically Germany, since they were the Lex Luthor to our Superman) at an allied ceremony. It's no more appropriate than England coming to a 4th of July celebration or a ceremony at Yorktown or more recently, an Iraqi delegation to a Kuwaiti celebration of when the Iraqi's were driven out.
You say that dropping the atomic bomb was bad and that attacking population centers is evil, but in 1945 attacking populations centers just wasn't bad. It was a perfectly valid military strategy for the time and had been for hundreds of years. The Army Air Corps and the RAF just replaced catapults and dead horses with aircraft and bombs.
*On-topic*
There's nothing stopping Germany from honoring their dead in a private ceremony. If they want a ceremony or memorial, that's fine. My two main points are this:
1. The entire thing smacks of politics, not honoring the dead. Chirac invited Schroder without saying anything to the US, England or Canada. The deal is more likely based on mutual opposition to the war in Iraq and the partnership to control the EU.
2. D-Day and the allied invasion of mainland Europe is an allied event. While I have no objection to Germany honoring their dead in a private ceremony like the Japanese PM, I do object to a non-allied nation (specifically Germany, since they were the Lex Luthor to our Superman) at an allied ceremony. It's no more appropriate than England coming to a 4th of July celebration or a ceremony at Yorktown or more recently, an Iraqi delegation to a Kuwaiti celebration of when the Iraqi's were driven out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one thing, the new scientific discoveries allowed for much more large scale and deadlier indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The number of civilian deaths in any war had never even come close to the numbers of the Second World War. Besides that, the moralistic view of the WWII age does hardly differ from the view we have nowadays. For example, the protection of civilians during wartime was established in 1949.
Attacking population centers was not a valid military strategy. Battles were held in open field, or the city walls were sieged. Attacking a city centre on foot or on horse is a good way to kill yourself; hostile environment, enemy knows the terrain better than you, etc.
D-day was not simply an allied event.
one: allied soldiers landed
two: doing so, they liberated the french, which was the start of liberating Germany.
three: most soldiers were gunned own by germans. Some krauts got gunned down by allies.
Thus, it s not only an allied event.
On topic: I dont see why germans shouldnt be invited to commemoration of WW2, there were germans that were against Hitler, even inside the SS. The first people to be persecuted by Hitler and his gang were jews but also german socialists and communists, germans, you know. To judge in black and white is never good, there was french fascists who were with the nazis and such
1) Its not the first time the Japanese PM has attended the shrines of his country's WW2 dead, he's also publically called them "heroes". It panders to the youth vote, having the shock element and the rise of the new right in Japanese youth, as well as some discontented elderly voters. I don't know if he honestly believes that the Japanese were right in WW2, and I don't care, it smacks too muchof a leader with dwindling support trying charisma and surprise instead of addressing the economic problems Japan is still clawing its way out of for me to take it seriously.
2) Schroeder and Chirac? Surely you can't be suggesting France and Germany are in bed with each other? Ok, I'm laughing too hard to keep that up.
How surprised am I that they will walk over 60 years of history and the corpses of those that died, to snuggle even closer to each other? Surprised enough not to swallow my bile, thats how much.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
*Invading another country who could never ever have used a bomb on the US can by no means be called an act of despair. Japan had no airforce, nor did they have airfields between the japan mainland and the USA, nor did they have a plane who could cover the distance in one flight. The US bombed Japan. Japan did, especially at that moment, not threaten the US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry... Not true. Prior to the dropping of the a-bombs, Japan was preparing for the invasion. They knew it would be coming.... Then the a-bombs were dropped. Japan was given the option to surrender after the first... They didn't. So the 2nd was dropped. They were given the option of surrender again, or another city would be picked... They surrendered. There were some hard-liners in the military that did not want to surrender though... So they attempted a coupe... But it failed. Japan would NOT have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped.
Ummmm.... Japan started the war. The US finished it. The only reason they did not threaten the US when the mainland was bombed was because they were beaten back. Because the US military was going full steam ahead. Did the Allies in Europe stop at Germany's borders? Why should they not have attacked Japan? Japan had to surrender. The war had to be won. And it had to be won decisively. It was an act of desperation so that an invasion would not have to be done... Was it really that unclear?
From northern Europes point of view that's pretty much what it looks like. Germany and France share interests like the EU's constitution law and mutual defence that is not dependant of NATO. Both have problems to keep up with the economic regulations of the Europes Monetary Union and by walking over the corpses of WWII, as you apparently would call this unholy alliance, both have managed to avoid the consequenses set by themselves for the violations they have committed. I'd say France and Germany are closer than ever and this is only logical outcame because of the things listed above and the disagreements on trans-Atlantic relations with UK, Spain and Italy.
Wow, you're quite the dramatist...
You are assuming that the Chancellor is a former Nazi and that the Prime Minister still plans Asian domination. These are different people. War is a conflict between ideas and men. Well, these ideas and men have changed.
Would I allow a future, peaceful Iraqi leader/president to partake in a memorial of the Gulf War and War on Terrorism 60 years from now? I say 'yes'. Even if they are there to salute troops who fought against us? 'Yes'. Because those troops, though enemies, are men of family and fidelity to their country, and they are honored at least for that much.
Why did I not use your Al-Quaeda example? Such an organization will never change its objectives (forseeably). They will always be bent on the hate and destruction that causes such wars. I wouldn't allow a Nazi to partake in the D-Day memorial, but I believe that the current time leaders who pay their respects to soldiers who died for their country and people (it's not just a job done because they were brain-washed, it was their order and duty) are doing the right thing.
France and Germany in bed together?? <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry... Not true. Prior to the dropping of the a-bombs, Japan was preparing for the invasion. They knew it would be coming.... Then the a-bombs were dropped. Japan was given the option to surrender after the first... They didn't. So the 2nd was dropped. They were given the option of surrender again, or another city would be picked... They surrendered. There were some hard-liners in the military that did not want to surrender though... So they attempted a coupe... But it failed. Japan would NOT have surrendered had the bombs not been dropped.
Ummmm.... Japan started the war. The US finished it. The only reason they did not threaten the US when the mainland was bombed was because they were beaten back. Because the US military was going full steam ahead. Did the Allies in Europe stop at Germany's borders? Why should they not have attacked Japan? Japan had to surrender. The war had to be won. And it had to be won decisively. It was an act of desperation so that an invasion would not have to be done... Was it really that unclear? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) You did not give a clear answer to all my points
2) Japan was seeking peace negotiations before the dropping of the a-bombs. The declaration of war coming from Russia was just as much a striking blow to Japan as was the dropping of the bomb. Unconditional surrender was not an option due to the emperor being a god.
read this: <a href='http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm</a>
3) Sure, Japan had to surrender, but in a diplomatic way or by invading (or bombing)?
It may be a political gesture, certainly. I tend to look more directly at what's going on, though:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The ceremony marks the Allied campaign launched at dawn on June 6, 1944, to storm the Normandy beaches at the start of the campaign to drive Nazi forces from France.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The leader of the german people honors the Allied campaign. That means he honors the allied soldiers for their deeds. The vast majority of the german people is thankful for the efforts of the allied soldiers during the war, and what they suffered for liberating the german people from a regime that had warped and twisted from what it had been in '33. We don't view the Nazi regime with reverence. We are HAPPY that we lost the war, trust me.
I don't care much about politics when I could rather discuss morality, and that is what this thread started with. Morally, this is a beatiful gesture towards Germany, one that truly warms my heart. As a german, I have from time to time been called 'Nazi' by people of other nationalities, something that greatly saddened me. This is like telling me "We know that you, the people of Germany, are not Nazis", something that I have noticed is not to be taken for granted. I am of course ashamed of what my forefathers did, and I am truly grateful for this gesture, politically motivated or not.
Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for.
Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As you can see, a German soldier who didn't want to fight didn't have too many options. He could've defected to the enemy, but what guarantees did he have that they wouldn't torture or kill him?
If you were a US soldier fighting in Vietnam and you believed the war was wrong, would you defect to the Vietcong?
Its not like german leaders got a monopoly on racism and imperialism, Churchill said about arab and their countries something like "You dont ask a dog in a kennel if you can take over his land"
EDIT: again, dont mistake me for some Hitler apologist, but im kinda tired of hearing people present the actors of WW2 as "good vs evil" it just doesnt hold the road
As an aside, if the ceremony had been for the winning side of WWI, would there be the same argument ? Are we letting the attrocities of facism and the horror of the A-bomb cloud the issues here ?
But, and here's where it gets interesting, these Soviet soldiers were fighting under a terrible regime and a man who gave Hitler a run for his money in the evil stakes. Stalin, and the communist regime he lead, massacured tens of millions of Russians and brutally repressed the population. Indeed, compare Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in 1939 and there are few differances, except for ideology.
So should the soldiers who fought for the Soviets (and who, btw, also raped tens of thousands of German women during their drive into Germany) be honored and remembered? Though certainly they fought against Hitler, and without their aid the war would have gone a whole lot differantly, their hands were by no means clean and neither were the hands of their masters. Are these men (and some women), as deserving of our respect as Germany's fallen?
Also, on the note of the A-Bomb, I know this <i>will</i> spark some controversy, but I spent a good part of my final year at school studing the Manhatten Project in physics, and did a major assignment on it (which I got a decent 39/40 for, I just didnt outline the pre-history of the bomb enough in the exam segment :/ ). So I do know a fair bit behind it, what went on, and how it was all done. Einstein wrote a letter to the American president asking him not to use the weapon, saying something as devistating as that should never be used against any human. But, the president, and the military, decided to use it anyway. They had a new toy, and they wanted to use it. About it ending the war, and the Japanese wanting peace before this; It's all hearsay. Nobody knows if the Japanese would have, or wouldnt have, surrended. It cannot be said that bombing the two cities saved lives, or killed more, you just cant tell what <i>could've</i> happened, only what did. Also, for interests sake, the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than both the bombs combined.
Declaring that every German soldier "should burn in hades" entitles a fair portion of antifascists, social democrats, hell, even denying jews pressed into military service for fear of the fate of their families, to this fate. Accept that no war is ever fought completely by people convinced of what they are to kill or die for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As you can see, a German soldier who didn't want to fight didn't have too many options. He could've defected to the enemy, but what guarantees did he have that they wouldn't torture or kill him?
If you were a US soldier fighting in Vietnam and you believed the war was wrong, would you defect to the Vietcong? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, a classic example of such 'options' would be on D-Day. You decided to surrender in the view of your fanatical German officer, and you were shot in the back without a moment's thought. Also you have to condier that 1 in 6 Axis riflemen were conscripts, stuck in "Ost" Battalions. These conscripts were of hugely varying nationality; Russians, Ukraines, even Indians. Funnily enough, I read that one Japanese soldier was captured by the Russians, forced to fight for them then captured by the Germans and ended up manning the line at Omaha Beach!