Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
you were there to stop communist expansion through Asia.
That worked out well didn't it.
Has any war to stop communism, islamic terror, self determination of colonised countries or just plain anti westernism actually achieved it's aims. I struggle to come up with any, certainly since WWII.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
And that's to say nothing of Vietnam, which is swept under the rug. And the Korean War, for which we are still seeing ramifications today, is largely just ignored completely.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
You'll be telling me that the US beat the Nazis, not the Soviets, next.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
You'll be telling me that the US beat the Nazis, not the Soviets, next.
Yes I think you'll finding that Band of Brothers actually ended the war and not the battle of Stalingrad.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
You're certainly right about the Brits and the Canadians.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
You're certainly right about the Brits and the Canadians.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
But war crimes (and we can debate whether or not this was one) are not a you get one we get one exchange. It's the same with what the Japanese did to the Chinese not excusing the carpet fire bombings of Japanese cities, and the same as what Viet Cong were doing does not exclude what the US did.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
You're certainly right about the Brits and the Canadians.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
But war crimes (and we can debate whether or not this was one) are not a you get one we get one exchange. It's the same with what the Japanese did to the Chinese not excusing the carpet fire bombings of Japanese cities, and the same as what Viet Cong were doing does not exclude what the US did.
But if you start a war of terror as the Nazis did there is little room for complaint if terror comes back at you.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
You're certainly right about the Brits and the Canadians.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
But war crimes (and we can debate whether or not this was one) are not a you get one we get one exchange. It's the same with what the Viet Cong were doing versus what the US did. One does not excuse the other.
Bombing cities like Dresden which was transport hub and produced military equipment was not a war crime. Less people 25k died in Dresden that Hamburg.
Bomber Harris may have been wrong about bombing winning the war but the campaign took vital aircraft, anti aircraft guns and troops away from the eastern and later western front and hugely reduced German military industrial output.
It also gave the British public a morale boost and was seen as taking the fight to the Nazis and as mass observation showed was hugely supported by the public at the time.
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June
Don't best yourself up to much about American war criminals SD. The Vietcong/ North Vietnamese were quite adept at murdering civilians and American/ allied prisoners.
Yeah but that doesn't make it Ok. There is also the question of what we were doing there in the first place.
And in Fog of War the war crimes described during the fire bombing of Japan are horrendous, and as we know the terrible acts carried out by the allies during that war have been overlooked by history.
I would dispute that.
Oh can I ask why?
I just realized I should have added "in the US" to the end of that sentence because it may be that things are taught and remembered completely differently elsewhere. But here, the firebombing of Dresden is really only taught through Slaughterhouse V, and the firebombing of Japan is pretty much glossed over. And in schools it seems the dropping of the atomic bomb is treated as an inevitability and bolstered as "a message to the Russians" instead of being treated with the skepticism it deserves.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
Sure.
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
It's great that those kinds of discussions occur. As you say history is written by the winners, but it's good that those things are at least acknowledged.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
Lots of German and British input to Manhattan too. Wasn't just yanks.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
We don't remember it that way .
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
You're certainly right about the Brits and the Canadians.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
But war crimes (and we can debate whether or not this was one) are not a you get one we get one exchange. It's the same with what the Japanese did to the Chinese not excusing the carpet fire bombings of Japanese cities, and the same as what Viet Cong were doing does not exclude what the US did.
But if you start a war of terror as the Nazis did there is little room for complaint if terror comes back at you.
Right and I'm not saying the Nazis would have a case to bring before The Hague, but the point of having Geneva Accords (and I know they didn't exist at the time) is to say "this is a line we will not cross no matter what." And a big part of the drive for the Geneva convention was the terrible things the Nazis did. But the argument I'm trying to put forward is that war crimes are not justification for war crimes.
Something I want to add for clarity, I am not morally equating what the Nazis did, particularly the Holocaust, with what the Allies did. I am just saying one does not necessarily justify the other. I hope that was clear.
Allied governments never sanctioned war crimes. I know individuals did but it certainly wasn't wholescale.
I agree that while British and American troops committed crimes it wasn't sanctioned or approved as it was by the Nazis or Soviets
Things weren't really approved or sanctioned on the Nazi/Soviet either tbh....certainly not on the Nazi side anyway. The 1997 BBC series `The Nazis: A Warning From History' gives a detailed account of the `organised chaos' system that the Nazi regime ran for security at home and in occupied territories and their war advancement. There was no fixed objective/aim but the system itself gave elements of freedom to individuals to act with vicious impunity. Hitler gave very few direct orders to his Generals, besides occupy this or that area etc, then leaving them to their own devices what they did to maintain order. This philosophy, or lack of, was simply passed down the chain of command. Brutal dis-attached thug, after brutal dis-attached thug, did things, without being directly instructed, just to `please' their respective bosses further up the chain. This wasn't a conscious decision by the Nazis leadership. They didn't intentionally set out to have this system of management. It simply developed like that cos they didn't have anything else set up. Hitler wasn't one for bureaucracy and was more than happy to let things just `happen'....as long as they were things that pleased him of course. Anyway, on a side note for anyone interested in WW2 and/or the Nazis in general, I can't recommend `The Nazis: A Warning From History' enough. A stunningly detailed account from the BBC. They really do do this kind of history the best.
Which brings me to `The Vietnam War' series from the BBC. I meant to comment on this last month but forgot. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I've read a few books on the subject and seem numerous documentaries over the years cos as I get older I'm finding myself more interested in modern war history. I'm also finding that the political side of these conflicts is often more damning/enthralling than the actual armed conflict itself. `The Vietnam War' has got it all, everything. Its the classiest, most detailed, authentic, subjective account of the whole sorry affair I've seen. Powerful, poignant and deeply shocking. If there is anyone on this forum that was still teetering on the edge of watching it but hadn't got around to it yet, don't even hesitate. Each of the four parts is 90 minutes long.....and its exactly the kind of series that as one episode finishes (on iPlayer of course), you check your watch to see how much of the next episode you can possibly squeeze in before the Sandman grabs you. Compulsive viewing.
I think the point is that the Nazi and Soviet armies used torture, murder, rape and other war crimes deliberately and with forethought.
They may not have been directly ordered by Hitler (although we're getting in David Irving territory there) but regular and repeated war crimes were not only condoned but encouraged in a way that wasn't the case with the UK and US forces.
The final solution was planned and approved at the highest level and was carried out in some part by the German Army. Mass killings as retaliation against resistance group attacks were policy, special units existed inside the army to kills Jews and communists.
The lack of control arguement is false. Both sides knew and approved of what was happening ie the Kalin (spelling) massacre of Polish officers, the creation of ghettos.
I think the point is that the Nazi and Soviet armies used torture, murder, rape and other war crimes deliberately and with forethought.
They may not have been directly ordered by Hitler (although we're getting in David Irving territory there) but regular and repeated war crimes were not only condoned but encouraged in a way that wasn't the case with the UK and US forces.
The final solution was planned and approved at the highest level and was carried out in some part by the German Army. Mass killings as retaliation against resistance group attacks were policy, special units existed inside the army to kills Jews and communists.
The lack of control arguement is false. Both sides knew and approved of what was happening ie the Kalin (spelling) massacre of Polish officers, the creation of ghettos.
I read a book earlier this year about the fall of Berlin in 1945 - the book starts at the point the Russians had pushed the Germans back to the German border. The raping of civilian German females (child, adult and OAP) by the Russians as they advanced, can only be described as being on an industrial scale, and with the wholehearted approval of their leaders.
Whilst it is fact that the German's behaviour in Russia was equally appalling, it doesn't mean it's right to return the compliment.
Without a shadow of doubt, such scenes were not seen as the British advanced across Germany.
Just to re-ignite this thread and, as an escape from the football, I am lucky enough to be halfway through a tour of the Northern I Corps sector with a group of US Veterans, so far we have focused of Hue (Tet Offensive) Dong Ha, been up into the DMZ, Keh Sanh, the Rock and Razorback.
We have trips left to Hill 881, Hamburger Hill, the A Shau Valley and De Nang before I leave them on the 26 March to come home.
Its been just amazing, at each spot they have shared their stories and what an emotional trip so far, from remembering fallen buddies to coming to terms with some of the sights they saw through to tracing a child who a couple of 101 Airborne medics treated after an NVA attack on a village who is now in her 50's.
We have delivered a fair bit of aid to the mountain people and the vets have also helped fund a new school. The welcome from the locals, wherever we have been has been fantastic. It is without doubt the most impressive reconciliation I have seen following a war.
If I had one critisism it would be the official ruling party narrative that is pushed in the museums and from local tour guides. Sadly it just does not stand historic or academic scrutiny, thankfully there is enough factual stuff on the internet that means in time, the truth will out. The vets when they see or hear this remain dignified and smile politely as they know different, they were here.
Anyway wont bore you with too many holiday pics but I am glad I made the trip on the back of the TV series and privilaged to be able to give my time to the vets who have returned, its looking like it will be an annual trip bringing different guys each time.
Watched the final two episodes last night and I have to say there were a few tears shed. What a TV Series! Everyone should be made to watch this if only to learn from the mistakes that were made . Sadly that won’t be the case .
I’ve just downloaded the Ken Burns series he made a few years ago on The America civil war . It’s available on catchup on SKY.
Searched out the American Civil War documentary on Netflix. Also a really fascinating series. No contemporary moving images or colour photos (obviously) but it's a remarkable testimony to the skill used in making the programme that you don't feel deprived of those important tools. Some of the talking heads, Shelby Foote and Barbara Fields, in particular, were exceptional.
There have been a number of wonderful WW2 documentary series over the years. One episode that has particularly stuck in my mind was where a very well spoken upper class British officer, complete with handle bar moustache, who was present during the liberation of Belsen was interviewed. Evidently one of the SS guards tried to hide in amongst the inmates but was spotted and turned over to this officer. He took him round the back of the nearest hut to give him a few slaps....or so you would have thought. In fact, he shot him stone dead! No one ever came after him for an act that he openly admitted on camera. Fantastic instant justice IMHO. In war the gloves come off!
There have been a number of wonderful WW2 documentary series over the years. One episode that has particularly stuck in my mind was where a very well spoken upper class British officer, complete with handle bar moustache, who was present during the liberation of Belsen was interviewed. Evidently one of the SS guards tried to hide in amongst the inmates but was spotted and turned over to this officer. He took him round the back of the nearest hut to give him a few slaps....or so you would have thought. In fact, he shot him stone dead! No one ever came after him for an act that he openly admitted on camera. Fantastic instant justice IMHO. In war the gloves come off!
My grandfather was there when Belsen was liberated. He was happy to talk about laughs and friends he had during the time he served but never really spoke much to me about the real shit stuff. He told my uncle the one thing that he never forgot was the smell and that he could taste it years later.
Comments
War crimes by the USSR are mentioned in all current UK histories on the topic for example. Rapes by US troops in Europe too.
The British impact on the famines in India are also openly discussed. Although not generally well known they are not overlooked by historians.
The bombing of Dresden is often discussed in the UK (not a war crime in my view) as is whether dropping the Atomic bomb was justified (I think it was and not just to show the Russians.)
These and other events are diiscussed and there are differing views but they are not overlooked by serious historians in the UK and will often feature on TV documentries on main stream UK TV.
Yes, history is written by the winners and much that happened in the name of British colonialism has been discussed only more recently.
Has any war to stop communism, islamic terror, self determination of colonised countries or just plain anti westernism actually achieved it's aims. I struggle to come up with any, certainly since WWII.
The only instance where we have maybe a little of that is the dropping of the atomic bomb. It feels like that has become more questioned in recent times. But at school it was always taught as a logical conclusions/saving American lives by preventing an invasion of Japan/sending a message to the Russians are the only things discussed.
And that's not to say those arguments aren't rooted in merit, it's just to say that the alternatives are never discussed. The Manhattan Project is seen as this great feat of American ingenuity (which it is) and not something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Oppenheimer and Truman are given free passes in my opinion. It was only relatively recently that I learned there was a group of scientists working on the Manhattan Project who lobbied heavily to either not drop the bomb and or to drop it offshore first as ways of threats to prevent having to use it.
And that's to say nothing of Vietnam, which is swept under the rug. And the Korean War, for which we are still seeing ramifications today, is largely just ignored completely.
Was bombing Hiroshima with the A bomb worse than bombing Tokyo with high explosives?
Was Dresden worse than Hamburg?
Were either justified against the Nazis?
Next you'll be telling me that Matt Damon wasn't really on the beach at Normandy and that there were loads of British and Canadian and French soldiers there.
However, only 177 French Commandos landed on 6th June.
Try asking the Londoners who suffered the indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks if Dresden was justified.
Bomber Harris may have been wrong about bombing winning the war but the campaign took vital aircraft, anti aircraft guns and troops away from the eastern and later western front and hugely reduced German military industrial output.
It also gave the British public a morale boost and was seen as taking the fight to the Nazis and as mass observation showed was hugely supported by the public at the time.
They showed the wind and reaped the whirlwind
I agree that while British and American troops committed crimes it wasn't sanctioned or approved as it was by the Nazis or Soviets
This wasn't a conscious decision by the Nazis leadership. They didn't intentionally set out to have this system of management. It simply developed like that cos they didn't have anything else set up. Hitler wasn't one for bureaucracy and was more than happy to let things just `happen'....as long as they were things that pleased him of course.
Anyway, on a side note for anyone interested in WW2 and/or the Nazis in general, I can't recommend `The Nazis: A Warning From History' enough. A stunningly detailed account from the BBC. They really do do this kind of history the best.
Which brings me to `The Vietnam War' series from the BBC. I meant to comment on this last month but forgot. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I've read a few books on the subject and seem numerous documentaries over the years cos as I get older I'm finding myself more interested in modern war history. I'm also finding that the political side of these conflicts is often more damning/enthralling than the actual armed conflict itself.
`The Vietnam War' has got it all, everything. Its the classiest, most detailed, authentic, subjective account of the whole sorry affair I've seen. Powerful, poignant and deeply shocking.
If there is anyone on this forum that was still teetering on the edge of watching it but hadn't got around to it yet, don't even hesitate. Each of the four parts is 90 minutes long.....and its exactly the kind of series that as one episode finishes (on iPlayer of course), you check your watch to see how much of the next episode you can possibly squeeze in before the Sandman grabs you. Compulsive viewing.
They may not have been directly ordered by Hitler (although we're getting in David Irving territory there) but regular and repeated war crimes were not only condoned but encouraged in a way that wasn't the case with the UK and US forces.
The final solution was planned and approved at the highest level and was carried out in some part by the German Army. Mass killings as retaliation against resistance group attacks were policy, special units existed inside the army to kills Jews and communists.
The lack of control arguement is false. Both sides knew and approved of what was happening ie the Kalin (spelling) massacre of Polish officers, the creation of ghettos.
Whilst it is fact that the German's behaviour in Russia was equally appalling, it doesn't mean it's right to return the compliment.
Without a shadow of doubt, such scenes were not seen as the British advanced across Germany.
We have trips left to Hill 881, Hamburger Hill, the A Shau Valley and De Nang before I leave them on the 26 March to come home.
Its been just amazing, at each spot they have shared their stories and what an emotional trip so far, from remembering fallen buddies to coming to terms with some of the sights they saw through to tracing a child who a couple of 101 Airborne medics treated after an NVA attack on a village who is now in her 50's.
We have delivered a fair bit of aid to the mountain people and the vets have also helped fund a new school. The welcome from the locals, wherever we have been has been fantastic. It is without doubt the most impressive reconciliation I have seen following a war.
If I had one critisism it would be the official ruling party narrative that is pushed in the museums and from local tour guides. Sadly it just does not stand historic or academic scrutiny, thankfully there is enough factual stuff on the internet that means in time, the truth will out. The vets when they see or hear this remain dignified and smile politely as they know different, they were here.
Anyway wont bore you with too many holiday pics but I am glad I made the trip on the back of the TV series and privilaged to be able to give my time to the vets who have returned, its looking like it will be an annual trip bringing different guys each time.
One episode that has particularly stuck in my mind was where a very well spoken upper class British officer, complete with handle bar moustache, who was present during the liberation of Belsen was interviewed.
Evidently one of the SS guards tried to hide in amongst the inmates but was spotted and turned over to this officer.
He took him round the back of the nearest hut to give him a few slaps....or so you would have thought.
In fact, he shot him stone dead!
No one ever came after him for an act that he openly admitted on camera.
Fantastic instant justice IMHO.
In war the gloves come off!