Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Savage Peace, the Forgotten atrocity of WWII

24567…11

Comments

  • #32
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It was perhaps needless, but cold blooded murder is herding civilians into gas chambers and exterminating them... or starving them to death as they work in concentration camps.

    It's not flying a bomber under attack from anti aircraft fire and other air defences. No all those bombers made it back home that night.

    What did the Germans think after the Blitz, that the Brits weren't going to bomb their cities?

    So at least you admit that the British did commit cold blooded murder in India. Millions dead from starvation.


  • #33
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.-Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time and today has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?

    LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

    Quote from Robert McNamara from The Fog of War

    Winners shape history.


  • #34
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    neverever1 wrote: »
    So at least you admit that the British did commit cold blooded murder in India. Millions dead from starvation.

    At the time millions died in India, Britain itself was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, a desperate battle to keep the supply lines open with food, fuel, weapons and men between America, Canada and Britain.
    Supply lines vital to the eventual liberation of Europe.

    Other supply lines were needed to engage the Nazis and Italians in the Mediteranean.
    To supply Australia and hold off the Japanese.

    The blood in India is on the hands of the Germans and Japanese.

    Had Britain not been fighting a global world war, pushed to the very limits of its resources and capabilities, there would have been no famine in India.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #35
    Alizrian Crimson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 114 ✭✭Alizrian Crimson


    Google 'lost German girl 1945'. Her face haunts me.


  • #36
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    Quote from Robert McNamara from The Fog of War
    Winners shape history.

    Strange... you edited out the quote where Curtis LeMay said "All war is immoral", by doing so you make it appear as though he thought these actions were immortal in particular...

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    It wasn't genocide. The British did not want Indians to die. The Nazis wanted the Jews to die. Massive difference which seems to escape some people who cannot recognise true evil when it appears and seem to imagine it's possible to defeat countries like Germany and Japan whilst at the same time conducting oneself as a perfect gentleman.

    The ultimate people responsible for the Indian famine during World War Two were the nations that started it - Germany and Japan.
    The war is why the British attention, shipping and resources that would have prevented famine in India during the war were elsewhere.

    After the war, India was free, thanks to the efforts of Gandhi. Had a Jewish Gandhi tried a similar non violent approach against the Nazis he would have ended up in Belsen.
    That's the difference between civilisation and tyranny.

    Who are these quotes from?

    "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

    "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

    "Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting. We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."

    No, it's not Hitler. It's British hero Winston Churchill. He blamed the Indians for mass starvation because they "bred like rabbits".

    Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!


  • #38
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    neverever1 wrote: »
    Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!

    By equating the actions of the British with the actions of the Nazis, you diminish the scale of what the Nazis did.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #39
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    At the time millions died in India, Britain itself was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, a desperate battle to keep the supply lines open with food, fuel, weapons and men between America, Canada and Britain.
    Supply lines vital to the eventual liberation of Europe.

    Other supply lines were needed to engage the Nazis and Italians in the Mediteranean.
    To supply Australia and hold off the Japanese.

    The blood in India is on the hands of the Germans and Japanese.

    Had Britain not been fighting a global world war, pushed to the very limits of its resources and capabilities, there would have been no famine in India.

    So many times the British killed millions, caused misery, raped, slaughtered, destroyed whole nations yet it was never their fault in some people's views! Always someone else's fault.


  • #40
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Strange... you edited out the quote where Curtis LeMay said "All war is immoral", by doing so you make it appear as though he thought these actions were immortal in particular...

    I'm sorry I did not include the entire transcript of the documentary interview for you.

    But surely the quote - "But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" would make it clear that that is what is meant.......


  • #41
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    neverever1 wrote: »
    So many times the British killed millions, caused misery, raped, slaughtered, destroyed whole nations yet it was never their fault in some people's views! Always someone else's fault.

    I don't remember the British destroying any nations in World War Two except the ones that had it coming.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    By equating the actions of the British with the actions of the Nazis, you diminish the scale of what the Nazis did.

    As I've already said, the nazis could only dream of reaching such evils as the British inflicted!

    You missed the rest of my post, here ya go:

    Who are these quotes from?

    "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

    "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,"

    "Gandhi should not be released on the account of a mere threat of fasting. We should be rid of a bad man and an enemy of the Empire if he died."

    No, it's not Hitler. It's British hero Winston Churchill. He blamed the Indians for mass starvation because they "bred like rabbits".

    Millions starved to death but we have someone here defending the British genocide. Imagine if someone defending the nazis came along!


  • #43
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Certainly was taught in school. I know lots about it from secondary school. Its pretty common knowledge also I would have thought anyway.


  • #44
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I don't remember the British destroying any nations in World War Two except the ones that had it coming.

    You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.


  • #45
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    I think the attitude of many of the Anglophone countries galls many Europeans when it comes to the world wars. Undoubtedly all countries suffered enormous casualties, but for the British, American, and Australians the vast majority of these were military (the Blitz, Pearl Harbour, etc, aside). The war in Europe had a far greater impact on civilians.

    People in Europe saw the good, bad and ugly side of soldiers and occupying forces (Allied, Soviets, and Nazis). People in Britain and the US only heard the good - and have been celebrating that fact ever since.

    Don't forget the Filipinos and Chinese. Arguably suffered the worst of everyone in the war bar the jewish people. Japanese were brutal occupiers


  • #46
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    I'm sorry I did not include the entire transcript of the documentary interview for you.

    But surely the quote - "But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" would make it clear that that is what is meant.......

    I think if you read more of what he said, I think it is clear that Curtis LeMay did not think his actions were immoral. He seemed to be referring more to the 'court of public opinion'.
    Everything I have read of LeMay shows him to be entirely unapologetic or concerned about his actions during World War Two. That does not make his actions right - but it does mean I think he's a very bad choice if you're trying to quote him in that way.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #47
    Alizrian Crimson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 114 ✭✭Alizrian Crimson


    I know all that but I never knew the full suffering of the German people.


  • #48
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    neverever1 wrote: »
    So you're ok with the murder of thousands of civilians?

    Maybe it saved hundreds of thousands more by stopping the war. Total war comes with consequences for all. Everyone made mistakes. Lets not blame the side who didnt start the war. Play with fire and all


  • #49
    odyssey06
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,638 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    neverever1 wrote: »
    You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.

    Not in the slightest. That is why the victory of the Anglo-American alliance is something we should all be very relieved and thankful for. There was lots of blood thirst shown in 1939, 1940 and 1941. None of it by the Anglo-Americans, all of it by the Nazis, Italians and Japanese.
    It took the Blitz, the Battle of the Atlantic, Coventry, Pearl Harbor to awaken the thirst for retribution of the Anglo-Americans.
    But once their enemies laid down their arms, the British and Americans did not conduct a savage war of extermination against the former enemies, who now lay defenceless to their military.

    Britain maintained rationing for years after WW2 ended, because they had to divert food resources to Germany.
    The US initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild devastated European countries - including Germany and Italy.

    Those are not the actions of a blood thirsty people.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • #50
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    neverever1 wrote: »
    You're a blood thirsty advocate of genocide! You are the same as any nazi only on a different side.

    If the allies played nice while hitler didnt then it would have cost them the war. Hitler had no respect for civilian life in other countries so why have respect for his people who ,at least outside looking in, seemed to largely support his regime


  • #51
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Maybe it saved hundreds of thousands more by stopping the war. Total war comes with consequences for all. Everyone made mistakes. Lets not blame the side who didnt start the war. Play with fire and all

    It's amazing how some people can justify the murder of thousands of people. You can use your excuse for any genocide the world over, yeah it was bad but it could save other lives.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Alizrian Crimson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 114 ✭✭Alizrian Crimson


    "If the allies played nice while hitler didnt then it would have cost them the war. Hitler had no respect for civilian life in other countries so why have respect for his people who ,at least outside looking in, seemed to largely support his regime"

    Watch the doc. Watch the bit at the start where the old German woman describes her mother being brought to the rape camp by the good guys. See if you're still as cold.


  • #53
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    neverever1 wrote: »
    It's amazing how some people can justify the murder of thousands of people. You can use your excuse for any genocide the world over, yeah it was bad but it could save other lives.

    Not true
    If America had not bombed Japan then the war 100% continued in the east. This is all but certain
    Thousands upon thousands of chinese and filipinos and other occupied eastern countries would have lost more civilians than the death toll of the two nuclear bombs
    Sometimes it just is justified

    Rwandan genocide for instance was not justified in any way as it was simply mindless killing
    Genocides in middle eastern countries by american forces also not justified in my opinion, as the likelihood of those bombings ever stopping such sparsely populated amounts of terroritsts vs amount of collateral damage was not justifiable


  • #54
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Not in the slightest. That is why the victory of the Anglo-American alliance is something we should all be very relieved and thankful for. There was lots of blood thirst shown in 1939, 1940 and 1941. None of it by the Anglo-Americans, all of it by the Nazis, Italians and Japanese.
    It took the Blitz, the Battle of the Atlantic, Coventry, Pearl Harbor to awaken the thirst for retribution of the Anglo-Americans.
    But once their enemies laid down their arms, the British and Americans did not conduct a savage war of extermination against the former enemies, who now lay defenceless to their military.

    Britain maintained rationing for years after WW2 ended, because they had to divert food resources to Germany.
    The US initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild devastated European countries - including Germany and Italy.

    Those are not the actions of a blood thirsty people.

    Here's a list of the wars Britain were involved in just during the 20th century.

    Boxer Rebellion ended 1901
    Anglo-Aro War 1901–1902
    Second Boer War ended 1902
    World War I 1914–1918
    Easter Rising 1916
    Third Anglo Marri War 1917
    Third Afghan War 1919
    Irish War of Independence 1919–1921
    World War II 1939–1945
    Normandy landings 1945
    Malayan Emergency 1948–1960
    Korean War 1950–1953
    Mau Mau Uprising 1952–1960
    Vietnam War 1955–1975
    Cypriot Independence 1955–1959
    Suez Crisis 1956–1957
    Brunei Revolt 1962–1966
    Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 1962-1966
    Dhofar Rebellion 1962–1975
    Aden Emergency 1968–1998
    The Troubles 1968–1998
    Operation Banner 1969–2007
    Falklands War 1982
    Gulf War 1990–1991
    Yugoslav wars 1991–2001
    Bosnian War 1992–1995
    Kosovo War 1998–1999

    But of course it was never their fault. This is just the list of wars also, the amount of murders and mass genocide committed during this time makes the nazis look like choir boys. The Brits were blood thirsty to the core.


  • #55
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    wakka12 wrote: »
    If the allies played nice while hitler didnt then it would have cost them the war. Hitler had no respect for civilian life in other countries so why have respect for his people who ,at least outside looking in, seemed to largely support his regime

    If you believe that then you must think that Britain should have been bombed to smithereens many times over for the mass genocide they've committed in many countries?


  • #56
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    Is there anything to be said for another mass... genocide?


  • #57
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    neverever1 wrote: »
    If you believe that then you must think that Britain should have been bombed to smithereens many times over for the mass genocide they've committed in many countries?

    I would be in full support of any event such as that happening to the british empire,yes. they would have deserved anything they got


  • #58
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Not true
    If America had not bombed Japan then the war 100% continued in the east. This is all but certain
    Thousands upon thousands of chinese and filipinos and other occupied eastern countries would have lost more civilians than the death toll of the two nuclear bombs
    Sometimes it just is justified

    Rwandan genocide for instance was not justified in any way as it was simply mindless killing
    Genocides in middle eastern countries by american forces also not justified in my opinion, as the likelihood of those bombings ever stopping such sparsely populated amounts of terroritsts vs amount of collateral damage was not justifiable

    By that logic nuclear bombs should be dropped on America and Britain to stop the murder of civilians in the Middle East.


  • #59
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    wakka12 wrote: »
    I would be in full support of any event such as that happening to the british empire,yes. they would have deserved anything they got

    At least you're consistent.


  • #60
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    neverever1 wrote: »
    By that logic nuclear bombs should be dropped on America and Britain to stop the murder of civilians in the Middle East.

    Yeh well I would think it is fully justifiable for the governments of the occupied middle eastern nations to declare war on united states and britain actually


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭indioblack


    wakka12 wrote: »
    If the allies played nice while hitler didnt then it would have cost them the war. Hitler had no respect for civilian life in other countries so why have respect for his people who ,at least outside looking in, seemed to largely support his regime
    I agree. What I suspect, and find distasteful, is that there are posters who are using the deaths of people simply as a tool, a device, to vent their anti-British bile.
    I'd say these people claiming some sort of moral high ground have no interest in the Indians or those who died in Dresden - their deaths are basically useful in advancing their agenda.


Advertisement
Advertisement