WalterS wrote:nny wrote:
and in another you accuse Ireland of being selfish / greedy (without following up my questions of how they were being selfish or greedy and profiting from the war) for not helping defeat the Germans in the Atlantic.
Actually, I quoted a passage from Nicolas Monserrat's novel "The Cruel Sea" in which the author, a former RN officer, makes some strong statements about Irish neutrality and the practical effects it had on the RN's efforts to prosecute the U-Boat war. I posed questions raised by Mr Monserrat's writing but did not actively advocate a position
From reading your posts I don't really believe you wish to exonerate anyone of warcrimes, I have read balanced posts of yours where Soviets were on the short end of the stick, but your post to me was designed to be insulting, not informative. As for your post where you did not 'advocate a position', this is what you followed "Mr Monserrats" opinion with (IE the opinion that the Irish 'hid' behind Neutrality to profit from the war" :
"The Cruel Sea" is a novel, not a work of history. Mr Monsarrat served in the Royal Navy during the war and these sentiments, perhaps, reflect his own personal views. Nevertheless his indictment of Ireland is a strong one. We know that Sweden hid behind her neutrality and profited handsomely. Perhaps Ireland is in the same category?
Maybe I'm just stupid, but that seems to indicate you are advocating the position that "Ireland profited handsomely" from WWII.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=86613
One where you barely conceal your outrage at the Rotterdam attack, but vehemently deny that Dresden was 'terrorism from the air'.
This is demonstrably false. On the subject of Rotterdam I supported British historian Middlebrook's view that the Rotterdam raid itself was not "terrorism," but an unfortunate act of war.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 419#666419[/quote]
No not at all, I would not persume to suggest that you were presenting your own ideas, I am saying that you are presenting contradictory ideas. In the same ilk of suggesting that Ireland was being 'greedy' in not helping the English during the battle of the atlantic in one breath, and in the next breath saying that the worst navy of WWII was the German navy (
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83203) I am saying you are holding two contradictory ideas to be true at the same time. If you wished to discuss options the "Allies" had to defeat the Germans faster, surely Irish naval bases were low on that list, but that is not what you wished to discuss.
as for the raid on Rotterdam, which to your credit you do not define as terrorism, you make the following statement :
So, while the Nazi invasion of The Netherlands was, indeed, a "Crime Against the Peace" and could be said to be one giant act of terrorism against a small country, the actual Luftwaffe raid on Rotterdam appears to have been an unfortunate act of war.
These attitudes are far less forgiving than your attitudes on Dresden, which can be fully explored at this post :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &postorder
but include (with regards to post war study on the effectiveness of 'morale' bombing),
The fact that the objective was not achieved does not in any way demean the effort. One can argue about the effectiveness of the bombing campaign, but it is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible to equate it with terrorism.
But you also say in another post :
The Allies used every resource at their disposal to crush your vaunted Landser and the horrific, evil, corrupt government he fought for. If that meant filling the skies with planes and bombing the crap out of German cities, the Allies did it.
Its seems strange to me to claim that one bombing was not 'terrorism per se' but that the other bombing was "dishonest and morally reprehensible to equate it with terrorism." Rotterdam occurred in 1940 when the war was anything but decided, killed 800 civilians and occurred when the Wehrmacht was literally on the cities doorsteps. Dresden occurred in 1945, when EVERY logical person knew the war was over, Dresden was packed with refugees, killed as many as 35,000 civilians and while being undeniably a military target, the moral effects of bombing FAR outweighed the gains (as evident by the numerous conversations undertaken since including this one). Churchill even equated it with terrorism in one of his pre-draft speeches. (Hastings : Bomber Command).
Not at all. What I am suggesting, and what is supported by the historical record, is that the German Army from its senior leadership on down was deeply involved in the Nazi extermination policies in the East.
Why even mention it at all? Either the Soviets behaved according to the Geneva / Hague conventions or they didn't. That they didnt' sign one of the documents is no excuse in this day and age. If you wish to say that the soldiers of the 6th army got what they deserved, then just come out and say it, don't tip toe around the issue, then we can get into a discussion about whether every soldier in the sixth army was guilty of war crimes. I have never seen the transcripts of the trials of these soldiers (which is required by the Geneva conventions), but maybe I haven't been looking in the right places? I understand that many Stalin apologists wish to portray these soldiers as murderers (which is why I have not felt the need to respond in kind to those posts) but being an American I would feel better knowing that these soldiers were guilty of being something other than German after Stalingrad was all said and done.