Can the bombing of cities be considered as "Warcrimes..

[Caldric]

And one last thing, Japan and Germany could have turned the bombing off at anytime, it was in their power to bring it all to an end. Surrender after summer 1944 was the way out, there would have been no Nagasaki, no Hamburg, no Dresden, no Hiroshima, the rape of Prussia and Eastern Germany and the sporadic crimes committed against the Germans in the West would not have happened. It was all up to this handful of criminals to stop the misery they caused their people. The saviors of these nations became the bane and destroyer of their own people. Surrender that was already going to happen could have stopped it all, it was not Hitler or Tojo cared one damn bit about their people, only self-preservation both were cowards.

[Scott Smith]

Yeah, those damn Germans. They are something else, aren't they?

Yes they are, just consider the list of German aggression leading up to the war. And their allies also, Japan and Italy.

The Italians using mustard gas on the Ethiopians and invading Greece, and the Japs and their Reign of Terror in China and the Phillipines--ah, but those damn Germans... They were hard to keep down from 1871-1945. But we done it!

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

Even the Communists of the Cold War were only a straw enemy by comparison with the Germans, as the conflict was really good for business and Communist World Revolution was never a serious threat, even if the Russians had been stupid enough to use their nukes (and thus being destroyed with overkill).

[Roberto]

Even the Communists of the Cold War were only a straw enemy by comparison with the Germans, as the conflict was really good for business and Communist World Revolution was never a serious threat, even if the Russians had been stupid enough to use their nukes (and thus being destroyed with overkill).

Why, and I thought the US helped West Germany get on its feet with the Marshall Plan, introduced a currency reform in the western zones of occupation and encouraged first the constitution of the German Federal Republic and then its rearmament to meet the Soviet threat.

A lot of benevolence for and confidence placed in what they saw as their real enemy, if you ask me.

Especially considering that it was all to the detriment of a mere "straw enemy".

Against whom those stupid Yanks wasted thousands of men and billions of dollars in armament in Korea and Vietnam, while the real enemy was growing strong and fat under their protection.

[Roberto]

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

All very nice, but where in these diatribes do we find arguments in favor of an American effort to destroy Germany or "keep it down" between 1919 and 1941?

And where - other than in the minds of folks like Mr. Morgenthau, whose "Germany is Our Problem" - approach was dismissed at an early stage - do we find evidence to an intention to keep Germany "down" even after the Nazi government had been removed?

[Scott Smith]

If the civilian inhabitants of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted as Germans or Japanese, then why did the air raids stop as soon as the German and Japanese governments had surrendered?

Ouch that is a good question, I suppose that puts an end to much of the idea of "destroying thy enemy to the man" which appears as to what Scott is implying. I think it was the Germans in the East that were doing that not the Western Allies, hell not even the USSR went as far.

Also I think it shows a moral that the Leaders of the Third Reich did not have, "mercy".

Well, the question is basically moot since the Germans did not win the war. "International Jewry" never surrendered or made peace with Germany. No War--No Holocaust, for sure, but would the Germans have deported the Jews from their lands after the war or just killed them?

If one holds the Dawidowiczean view that the war was basically just about the Jews, then the latter, I suppose. But in reality, the Jews are only a footnote of the war--a big footnote to them, of course.

Oh and one thing that has always bothered me, if there was some Conspiracy by the Jews to bring the United States into the conflict, could you even for one moment blame them?

I think this was what was the most fallacious about Nazi thinking. The USA wanted in-on the war because of their Anglophilic natures (or at least of the Eastern liberal elites, since the Heartland was Isolationist) and because of the obvious business opportunities that would end the Depression. Plus, Interventionists had long wanted an Imperialist foreign policy. Franklin Roosevelt was an Interventionalist not of the traditional Theodore Roosevelt school but of the Woodrow Wilson school, i.e., a Liberal Interventionist.

Of course, who could blame the Jews for wanting to fight the Nazis/Germans themselves? But as Charles Lindbergh noted, this was not in the interest of American Jews--unless world-Jewry somehow constitutes a nation like the Germans or the Japanese.

[Roberto]

Well, the question is basically moot since the Germans did not win the war. "International Jewry" never surrendered or made peace with Germany.

How could it possibly, given that it is an entity only in the minds of anti-Semitic paranoids?

No War--No Holocaust, for sure,

In the sense that becomes apparent from Goebbels' diary entry of 27.03.1942, right?

but would the Germans have deported the Jews from their lands after the war or just killed them?

Well, a "territorial solution" consisting in shoving all Jews to Siberia (Stalin's way of handling such matters) might have been an option in the event of victory.

On the other hand, is it reasonable to assume that, having discovered how easily the "bacillus" could be done away with in such a way as to never again bother any part of humanity, the Nazis would not have stuck with the procedure adopted so far?

If one holds the Dawidowiczean view that the war was basically just about the Jews, then the latter, I suppose.

What exactly does Dawidowicz write in this respect, Mr. Smith?

But in reality, the Jews are only a footnote of the war--a big footnote to them, of course.

Well, I'd say that five to six million people murdered (rather than killed in the course of military actions) are a rather big footnote to anyone, except to Jew-hating morons who see the Führer as their idol.

[Scott Smith]

Even the Communists of the Cold War were only a straw enemy by comparison with the Germans, as the conflict was really good for business and Communist World Revolution was never a serious threat, even if the Russians had been stupid enough to use their nukes (and thus being destroyed with overkill).

Why, and I thought the US helped West Germany get on its feet with the Marshall Plan, introduced a currency reform in the western zones of occupation and encouraged first the constitution of the German Federal Republic and then its rearmament to meet the Soviet threat.

The Red Russians were never seen as irrationally as the Germans, especially Nazis. There were two Red Scares, 1919-1920, and 1949-1954, neither of which even came close to leading to World War. Even Truman's policy in Korea has to be termed as armed-appeasement because the Korean War was not going to lead to conflict with Red China and Red Russia. There would have never been rules-of-engagement against Hitler and the Germans.

A lot of benevolence for and confidence placed in what they saw as their real enemy, if you ask me.

Germany was defeated unconditionally in 1945, and German nationalism has never been a threat since--not until 1989, at least, when the Berlin Wall came down. I think that is why the Germans are so obsessed about not acting like "Germans" today. There were many cynics about German reunification everywhere, and today the Germans are even reluctant to fly their unaesthetic flag with the yellow streak in it. Heaven forbid that some skinhead might fly a red-white-black banner with an Iron Cross.

Especially considering that it was all to the detriment of a mere "straw enemy".

In the words of Malcolm X, both "Hitler and Stalin put pressure on the White Man." But only Hitler was a real threat, not because Germany could take over the world but because Germany was a "Western" nation. I never said this Germanophobic fear was rational.

Against whom those stupid Yanks wasted thousands of men and billions of dollars in armament in Korea and Vietnam, while the real enemy was growing strong and fat under their protection.

It was foolish of the Americans to fight the Reds in Korea and Vietnam if they weren't willing to do so in East Berlin or Moscow. But it is all over now, and at least there was no nuclear exchange--another thing that we could have blamed Hitler and the Nazis for, I suppose.

[Scott Smith]

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

All very nice, but where in these diatribes do we find arguments in favor of an American effort to destroy Germany or "keep it down" between 1919 and 1941?

And where - other than in the minds of folks like Mr. Morgenthau, whose "Germany is Our Problem" - approach was dismissed at an early stage - do we find evidence to an intention to keep Germany "down" even after the Nazi government had been removed?

The U.S. wisely went back to Isolationism from 1919-1937. But the Anglophile-plutocracy had their way again after that because FDR was Constitutionally unable to end the Depression without war.

[Roberto]

The Red Russians were never seen as irrationally as the Germans, especially Nazis.

Says Smith. Who cares what the fellow thinks?

There would have never been rules-of-engagement against Hitler and the Germans.

Could that have been related to the fact that

i) their aggressions were far more flagrant and extensive and
ii) they had no nuclear weapons ?

I think that is why the Germans are so obsessed about not acting like "Germans" today.

What exactly is "acting like 'Germans'" supposed to look like to the Führer's faithful follower?

There were many cynics about German reunification everywhere, and today the Germans are even reluctant to fly their unaesthetic flag with the yellow streak in it.

In what "Revisionist" comic book did Smith read that?

In the words of Malcolm X, both "Hitler and Stalin put pressure on the White Man." But only Hitler was a real threat, not because Germany could take over the world but because Germany was a "Western" nation.

Thus showing what horrors "western" man (and not only the "eastern" barbarians) is capable of. The darker side of western culture, raising the question how much it is really worth. An interesting viewpoint, for a change.

I never said this Germanophobic fear was rational.

To the extent that it existed at all, it could well be explained as the fear of "own own darker self", see above.

But it is all over now, and at least there was no nuclear exchange--another thing that we could have blamed Hitler and the Nazis for, I suppose.

By the rationale of those who blame Adolf's wars of aggression on the Versailles Treaty, that would be arguable indeed.

[Scott Smith]

Deleted duplicate post...

[Roberto]

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

All very nice, but where in these diatribes do we find arguments in favor of an American effort to destroy Germany or "keep it down" between 1919 and 1941?

And where - other than in the minds of folks like Mr. Morgenthau, whose "Germany is Our Problem" - approach was dismissed at an early stage - do we find evidence to an intention to keep Germany "down" even after the Nazi government had been removed?

The U.S. wisely went back to Isolationism from 1919-1937 and did not ratify the Versailles treaty or Wilson's League of Nations. But the Anglophile-plutocracy had their way again after that because FDR was Constitutionally unable to end the Depression without war.

And how does that relate to my questions?

[Scott Smith]

Edited duplicate post when server crashed.

[Scott Smith]

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

All very nice, but where in these diatribes do we find arguments in favor of an American effort to destroy Germany or "keep it down" between 1919 and 1941?

And where - other than in the minds of folks like Mr. Morgenthau, whose "Germany is Our Problem" - approach was dismissed at an early stage - do we find evidence to an intention to keep Germany "down" even after the Nazi government had been removed?

The U.S. wisely went back to Isolationism from 1919-1937 and did not ratify the Versailles treaty or Wilson's League of Nations. But the Anglophile-plutocracy had their way again after that because FDR was Constitutionally unable to end the Depression without war.

And how does that relate to my questions?

You obviously misunderstood my thesis to begin with.

[Roberto]

Sorry but I find the idea of the United States trying to keep the Germans down from 1871-1945 a bit far fetched. Actually Germany was a major economic partner to the US, and trade was becoming more and more important. Which is one of the reasons there was a separate peace with Germany in 1920. Why economically destroy a nation that is important to your trade economy, also it was the United States that poured huge amounts of money into Germany during the 20's to try and stabilize the economy. The only people at fault for Germany in 1945 are the Nazi and those ignorant Germans who gave them power.

It wasn't the American goal before 1917, but it was the French goal after 1871; and German nationalism, particularly the Kaiser's silly naval arms race, brought the British into everlasting Teutonic-containment mode.

The USA was isolationist until 1898, when it embarked upon an Imperialist foreign policy, and then by 1917 in favor of cerebral Anglo-Interventionism to "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and protect its loans made to the Allied cause from default when Germany won.

After 1945, that same philosophy of Global-Interventionism is still dominant in American foreign relations and is used for neo-imperialism, i.e., to expand financial markets as the World's Policeman or to "make the world safe for Democracy-Capitalism." Yes, 1871-1945 was a Famous Victory.

All very nice, but where in these diatribes do we find arguments in favor of an American effort to destroy Germany or "keep it down" between 1919 and 1941?

And where - other than in the minds of folks like Mr. Morgenthau, whose "Germany is Our Problem" - approach was dismissed at an early stage - do we find evidence to an intention to keep Germany "down" even after the Nazi government had been removed?

The U.S. wisely went back to Isolationism from 1919-1937 and did not ratify the Versailles treaty or Wilson's League of Nations. But the Anglophile-plutocracy had their way again after that because FDR was Constitutionally unable to end the Depression without war.

And how does that relate to my questions?

You obviously misunderstood my thesis to begin with.

Well, if I expected anything worth understanding to come from Smith, I would now humbly ask him to explain his "thesis" once again for me to understand it correctly.

As I don't, I'll just tell him what he can do with it.

[Hans]

Scott, Scott, Scott! Your note on Dawidowicz and Auschwitz was not only completely irrelevant, but even worse, it would have also destroyed the thread!

I thought we had made an arrangement?! :roll:

Note that the problem is not the topic "Dawidowicz and Auschwitz", I have moved the posts into a new thread, the problem is that this thread is about the bombing of cities. Imagine what a new (or old) user must believe when he wants to read more about if the bombing of cities was a War Crime and what he finds after a few posts is the clash about the death toll of Auschwitz! And you know what debate follows if you make this statement about Dawidowicz.