Looking for an unethical event in history.

[Wildtree]

You are trying to claim something was a War Crime, without any evidence other than emotional claptrap. There is nothing to support your disgusting claim that civlilans were targetted by Bomber Command.

Coventry was not a War Crime, it was a victim of war as it was an industrial complex and important to Britains war effort. Just as Dresden was, and all the other cities that were important to the military infrastructure on both sides and got bombed.

How dare you compare Arthur Harris to Hitler? Not everybody is as bad as the sick cunts that murdered millions of Jews and others. Provide some evidence, as all I have seen is revisionist crap so far.

You ignore the international laws, because it's just convenient for your own claim.
Targeting civilians, which nothing else areal bombing is, was already a crime by international law back when WW2 started. Watch the linked video, and see for yourself. After only 3 mins in the vid you should know it..
Harris strategies and methods have been controversial and criticized by Brits themselves. And he himself claimed that if he had to make the decision, he'd do the same thing again and bomb Dresden the same way again.
How do I compare him to Hitler? Hitler was in absolute power, he was in charge and has the full responsibility for the murders committed by his regime. He targeted ethnic groups and tried to eliminate them.... Here's the similarity. Harris too wouldn't have hesitated to target and eliminate an ethnic group. Only difference, he was not in the same power position to make such decision without having to answer to others.

[flam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a68hXZ5ZZqc

in brief... we dried a lake and the governor of California declared an extermination order for men women and children. ( I live in the area and this is not being taught in schools in the area)

[Deleted]

You are trying to claim something was a War Crime, without any evidence other than emotional claptrap. There is nothing to support your disgusting claim that civlilans were targetted by Bomber Command.

Coventry was not a War Crime, it was a victim of war as it was an industrial complex and important to Britains war effort. Just as Dresden was, and all the other cities that were important to the military infrastructure on both sides and got bombed.

How dare you compare Arthur Harris to Hitler? Not everybody is as bad as the sick cunts that murdered millions of Jews and others. Provide some evidence, as all I have seen is revisionist crap so far.

- - - Updated - - -



That it was criticised isn't disputed, that it was a war crime is.

Watch the BBC documentation and look in the mirror you are the only revisionist here.

[Poopymonster]

That was unexpected.

[imabanana]

That it was criticised isn't disputed, that it was a war crime is.

Criticized because it blindly targeted anything, including (and sometimes mostly) civilians, which is by definition a war crime.

R. H. S. Crossman wrote a short text about Dresden bombings, including a description of the bombings and its following days in Esquire Magazine. Well, OK, he does not talk about war crimes, but crimes against humanity from his point of view, and I also agree with this, especially when reading things like this :

Most of those who remained below ground were to die painlessly, their bodies first brilliantly tinted bright orange and blue, and then, as the heat grew intense, either totally incinerated or melted into a thick liquid sometimes three or four feet deep. But there were others who, when the bombing stopped, rushed upstairs. Some of them stopped to collect their belongings before escaping, and they were caught by the second raid. But some 10,000 fled to the great open space of the Grosse Garten, the magnificent royal park of Dresden, nearly one and a half square miles in all.

Here they were caught by the second raid, which started without an air-raid warning, at 1:22 a.m. Far heavier than the first -- there were twice as many bombers with a far heavier load of incendiaries -- its target markers had been deliberately placed in order to spread the fires into the black rectangle which was all the airmen could see of the Grosse Garten. Within minutes the fire storm was raging across the grass, ripping up some trees and littering the branches of others with clothes, bicycles and dismembered limbs that remained hanging for days afterward.

Only thing I don't really agree with is to held him only responsible for this. He mostly simply followed orders, we don't really know who pushed him to execute hundreds of thousands of civilians (some say it was Churchill direct orders, haven't found any reliable source on that).

So no. His actions were criticized, and there were/are still lots of people who consider these war crimes, and/or crimes against humanity. But since these were on the "winner" side, he got a statue, not a trial.

[Deleted]

Only thing I don't really agree with is to held him only responsible for this. He mostly simply followed orders, we don't really know who pushed him to execute hundreds of thousands of civilians (some say it was Churchill direct orders, haven't found any reliable source on that).

So no. His actions were criticized, and there were/are still lots of people who consider these war crimes, and/or crimes against humanity. But since these were on the "winner" side, he got a statue, not a trial.

They just weazel out they did x and maybe y too but without Trial no Warcrimes. Hey its not genocide if nobody catches you..
War crimes are not crimes by trial but documentation alone is enough.

Retribution or Justice is another totally unrelated point and even if authority would be taken into consideration we talk about the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of RAF Bomber Command compareable maybe to the Authority of Hermann Göring or something.

[Kaleredar]

Pick any date in time, examine what was happening to not-rich, not-white people at that time.

Pretty safe to assume that whatever it is will be "unethical"

[Kalis]

You ignore the international laws, because it's just convenient for your own claim.
Targeting civilians, which nothing else areal bombing is, was already a crime by international law back when WW2 started. Watch the linked video, and see for yourself. After only 3 mins in the vid you should know it..
Harris strategies and methods have been controversial and criticized by Brits themselves. And he himself claimed that if he had to make the decision, he'd do the same thing again and bomb Dresden the same way again.
How do I compare him to Hitler? Hitler was in absolute power, he was in charge and has the full responsibility for the murders committed by his regime. He targeted ethnic groups and tried to eliminate them.... Here's the similarity. Harris too wouldn't have hesitated to target and eliminate an ethnic group. Only difference, he was not in the same power position to make such decision without having to answer to others.

International conventions on use of bomber aircraft weren't in place during the second world war.

Targetting civilians? Conjecture, they bombed legitimate military targets based on the evidence that they had at the time.

Your claim that he wanted to wipe out an ethnic group and would have done so if he had the ability is conjecture.

To make the claim that Arthur Harris was a war criminal requires concrete evidence, not conjecture, and smacks of trying to make yourself feel better about the atrocities committed by you ancestors by having a 'villain' on the other side.

[Deleted]

The allies didn't stand trial as there was nothing done that was even comparable to the crimes committed by the Nazis.

Lets take a crystal clear example.

Albert Kesselring was charges for the Ardeatine massacre 335 Italian prisoners was killed. Nobody have to stand trial for the Katyn massacre there 20 000 Polish prisoners was killed, the later was done by USSR....

[Kalis]

Lets take a crystal clear example.

Albert Kesselring was charges for the Ardeatine massacre 335 Italian prisoners was killed. Nobody have to stand trial for the Katyn massacre there 20 000 Polish prisoners was killed, the later was done by USSR....

I was talking about British, US, Canadian, etc. allies, not the Russians. I should have made that clearer.

[Deleted]

International conventions on use of bomber aircraft weren't in place during the second world war.

Targetting civilians? Conjecture, they bombed legitimate military targets based on the evidence that they had at the time.

Your claim that he wanted to wipe out an ethnic group and would have done so if he had the ability is conjecture.

To make the claim that Arthur Harris was a war criminal requires concrete evidence, not conjecture, and smacks of trying to make yourself feel better about the atrocities committed by you ancestors by having a 'villain' on the other side.

Sure because that would make the Holocaust sooo much better. Just don't underwrite Treatys declare rural Towns as legitimate targets because they burn well /profit
Arthur Harris was a War Criminal who targeted civilians on a large scale the point was Terror admitted by Churchill himself in top secret communication Files it was not by strategic necessarity but to impress Stalin.

Does it make you feel better if you can call some Massmurder hero? Pointing at Himmler wont make attrocitys any better.

[Salech]

Edison vs Tesla thing, i find that Edison is the most unethical person in the history of humankind.

[Kalis]

Sure because that would make the Holocaust sooo much better. Just don't underwrite Treatys declare rural Towns as legitimate targets because they burn well /profit
Arthur Harris was a War Criminal who targeted civilians on a large scale the point was Terror admitted by Churchill himself in top secret communication Files it was not by strategic necessarity but to impress Stalin.

Does it make you feel better if you can call some Massmurder hero? Pointing at Himmler wont make attrocitys any better.

Did those rural towns have any legitimate targets? If you answer no, then you're either lying or lack the knowledge to debate on this subject.

Was it a strategic neccessity? Debatable, but irrelevant as they were legitimate targets and therefore fair game.

He was a hero, he shortened the duration of the war and helped us win it. Falsely claiming that he was a war criminal to ease some collective guilt about Germanys conduct in the war doesn't stop him being a hero.

The whole, Himmler did worse crap that you keep spouting is irrelevant, compare like with like - was Goerring charged with war crimes for bombing Coventry and the like? Nope. So why should a man that followed the tactics of the day be regarded as one, if the people that instigated that type of warfare weren't? Because he was more successful at it?

Precise targetted bombing was a failure, so they carpet bombed in order to destroy their targets.

[Deleted]

I was talking about British, US, Canadian, etc. allies, not the Russians. I should have made that clearer.

Fine... then its a unethical event that the allies who jointly judge with USSR did not want to take up USSR war crime....


Karl Dönitz found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, Ernest King (US) waging unrestricted submarine warfare agents Japan.

Karl Dönitz found guilty for not repeal "shoot commandos prisoner" order (no commandos where executed during Dönitz command) George S. Patton (US) "no snipers shall be taken prisoner" hint/insinuation

[Deleted]

Did those rural towns have any legitimate targets? If you answer no, then you're either lying or lack the knowledge to debate on this subject.

Was it a strategic neccessity? Debatable, but irrelevant as they were legitimate targets and therefore fair game.

He was a hero, he shortened the duration of the war and helped us win it. Falsely claiming that he was a war criminal to ease some collective guilt about Germanys conduct in the war doesn't stop him being a hero.

The whole, Himmler did worse crap that you keep spouting is irrelevant, compare like with like - was Goerring charged with war crimes for bombing Coventry and the like? Nope. So why should a man that followed the tactics of the day be regarded as one, if the people that instigated that type of warfare weren't? Because he was more successful at it?

Precise targetted bombing was a failure, so they carpet bombed in order to destroy their targets.

You are spouting crap about collective guilt easing and Nazi Magazines to claim that people who disagree with you are somehow biased. To accuse People of blashemy because they don't agree with your Hero worshipping whitewashing agenda is your problem.

You think it is not relevant if the living quarters of Rural Towns were of strategic interest? Your non sequitur's about Warcrimes of Nazis are hilarious.

Forced Labour would shorten the War too does that make it just? That the Enemy might have started it first is no fucking excuse if you want to drag your Hero down to the Level of the likes of Göring feel free to do it but i will hold him to higher standards.

[Kalis]

You are spouting crap about collective guilt easing and Nazi Magazines to claim that people disagree with you are somehow biased. To accuse People of blashemy because they don't agree with your Hero worshipping whitewashing agenda is your problem.

You think it is not relevant if the living quarters of Rural Towns were of strategic interest? Your non sequitur's about Warcrimes of Nazis are hilarious.

Forced Labour would shorten the War too does that make it just? That the Enemy might have started it first is no fucking excuse if you want to drag your Hero down to the Level of the likes of Göring feel free to do it but i will hold him to higher standards.

More arguments based on ignorance of the subject that I have already answered.

Nobody has provided proof that civilians were deliberately targetted, so no war crime was committed.

The only person with an agenda is you, and your attempts to place the likes of Harris on a par with the scum that your country willingly elected into power and allowed to wage a war against civilian populations without any legitimate military reason.

You linked a video that didn't actually back up your claims and have yet to show any evidence of war crimes. Keep defaming a hero in order to ease your guilt though, it is amusing the lengths that some people will go to in order to make the hideous crimes that their relatives committed more palpatable to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine... then its a unethical event that the allies who jointly judge with USSR did not want to take up USSR war crime....

I wouldn't disagree with that.

Karl Dönitz found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, Ernest King (US) waging unrestricted submarine warfare agents Japan.

Karl Dönitz found guilty for not repeal "shoot commandos prisoner" order (no commandos where executed during Dönitz command) George S. Patton (US) "no snipers shall be taken prisoner" hint/insinuation

He was one of the ones that was 'stitched up' by the war crimes tribunal if I recall correctly. I only really know him from a documentary that I watched on whether Rommel would have been indicted if he'd survived the war.

Naval warfare in the Second World War doesn't hold a huge interest for me tbh - infantry (especially North Africa) and airforce campaigns are where my interest lies.