British Imperialism

[degsy]

War Crimes though.
Rightly or wrongly, in the first instance, aka, just after the war has been won/lost, the 'losers' don't decide what is a war crime.
The prevailing moral climate of the time...and maybe a need to demonise the 'losers' to justify the cost to the 'winners' civilian population's 'sensibilities'
75yrs on and those 'sensibilities' have evolved.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

War Crimes though.
Rightly or wrongly, in the first instance, aka, just after the war has been won/lost, the 'losers' don't decide what is a war crime.
The prevailing moral climate of the time...and maybe a need to demonise the 'losers' to justify the cost to the 'winners' civilian population's 'sensibilities'
75yrs on and those 'sensibilities' have evolved.

Yep. It's amazing (and tragically sad) how little a human sole weighs when it's all being counted in the aftermath.

 

[Billy Dean]

More USAF planes took part in the bombing of Dresden than RAF.

Then I assume you'd also record the London and Coventry bombings as war crimes too.

At the time though, bombings were just another theatre of war. I think a very good case could be made against them being crimes when they were committed.

My point still remains that it is not possible to judge the past using the morals of today.

If civilians are intentionally targeted then it's a war crime whether it's in Japan, Germany, London, Coventry, Timbuktu or wherever

 

[The Legend of Southall]

If civilians are intentionally targeted then it's a war crime whether it's in Japan, Germany, London, Coventry, Timbuktu or wherever

Correct. But that's not how things have always been. At different points in history, civilians have been seen as fair game. To call those people barbaric for thinking that way at that time is simplistic and virtuoso. It's the same as thinking people were stupid for not knowing what gravity is.

People, throughout time, have pretty much been the same. They have had the same sense of right and wrong as we have now. Slavers only did what they did because they considered Africans (replace with an enslaved population throughout history) as inferior. The rich have always exploited the poor because they believed (still believe, Daily Mail is proof) they were feckless.

Civilians were bombed in the second world war because everyone believed it would shatter morale and bring defeat to the other side.

To understand the past, you have to see it through their eyes.

 

[Billy Dean]

Correct. But that's not how things have always been. At different points in history, civilians have been seen as fair game. To call those people barbaric for thinking that way at that time is simplistic and virtuoso. It's the same as thinking people were stupid for not knowing what gravity is.

People, throughout time, have pretty much been the same. They have had the same sense of right and wrong as we have now. Slavers only did what they did because they considered Africans (replace with an enslaved population throughout history) as inferior. The rich have always exploited the poor because they believed (still believe, Daily Mail is proof) they were feckless.

Civilians were bombed in the second world war because everyone believed it would shatter morale and bring defeat to the other side.

To understand the past, you have to see it through their eyes.

Yes but you can use that rationale to explain Nazi Germany too.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Yes but you can use that rationale to explain Nazi Germany too.

You can if you want to understand how entire population can eventually play a part in genocide. Your average German was absolutely convinced the Jews were the cause of their hardships and the that Germany deserved to be a Great Power on the world stage. Invading Poland and Austria was just redressing a great injustice to them

Propaganda was/still is a powerful tool.

Fascism and the nationalism that leads to it are very dangerous. And almost certainly why we all look back on those times with morals we have now.

History is a lesson we can learn from.

 

[PhilM]

Dresden was undoubtedly a war crime.

I respectively disagree. Before I start, that's not me saying that the result was not regrettable and there certainly were many mistakes and questionable decisions.

It's also certainly an emotive subject, however I do feel that the balance of emotion sometimes clouds the reasons for the attack in the context of the time.

I think when you consider the intelligence, the objectives and the final result (minus the civilian deaths) and it can be argued it was a legitimate target...

... within the construct of 'total war'. The main points being it did have relatively significant war industries and it was a transport hub for the armies from the East.

Additionally, you need to consider the total tonnage of bombs dropped was significantly lower than other cities of comparable size (population and industries).

The real catalyst was that Dresden had a lower number of deep-level protection per population than other cities combined with an issue that is often unknown.

The pathfinders (bombers who dropped markers) were tasked at marking a part of the old city because of their proximity to the targets and lack of flak.

For me, that's the real questionable decision as this meant the fires started in older and more densely populated areas rather than directly at the key armaments.

This did impact on the main transport hub, but less so on the armaments; the argument being that the safety of the bomber force had to considered.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to disregard the atrocious number of deaths and the idea of incendiary and carpet bombing itself is questionable at best.

Nevertheless, I personally feel that Dresden gets an unfair level of criticism because of its time in the war and the general movement towards questioning Harris.

Was it a legitimate target? Yes. Were people or the industries the primary target? Armament industries and transport. Was Dresden defended? Yes.

For me, the real war crime is that we allowed this horrid war to begin in the first place, including aerial bombing of metropolitan areas. Dresden is a martyr for it.

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

When I was doing my apprenticeship the Tech Colleges changed over from Imperial to Metric at the start of year 4 in a 4 year course.
Threw me off completely, with ft Ibs I always had a grasp of the relationships and thus had an idea what the answer would look like. Newtons? Not a 'kin clue.
Why they didn't phase it in from year one I'll never know...probably the cost and mither of producing two sets of exams.

I had a similar experience when I joined the MN. In 1967 I started learning about Ship Stability in Imperial Units. By the time I took my first exams in 1971 it had all changed to Metric. It's a lot easier working in Metric, although the actual ship measurements were obviously still in Imperial. So a fair bit of jumping between the two systems until all ships were being measured in Metric. When they started changing the charts from Fathoms to Metres there was always a problem of running aground if you didn't check which system was in use, for example if you were looking at the depth on a chart and you thought it was 5 fathoms (30 feet) and it was actually 5 metres (16ft 5in) and the ship was drawing 20 feet then you could end up high and dry.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Was it at the time though? What about Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Also.

 

[degsy]

I had a similar experience when I joined the MN. In 1967 I started learning about Ship Stability in Imperial Units. By the time I took my first exams in 1971 it had all changed to Metric. It's a lot easier working in Metric, although the actual ship measurements were obviously still in Imperial. So a fair bit of jumping between the two systems until all ships were being measured in Metric. When they started changing the charts from Fathoms to Metres there was always a problem of running aground if you didn't check which system was in use, for example if you were looking at the depth on a chart and you thought it was 5 fathoms (30 feet) and it was actually 5 metres (16ft 5in) and the ship was drawing 20 feet then you could end up high and dry.

Left hand down a bit No1
Left hand down a bit it is Sir.

 

[everton fan number one]

You can if you want to understand how entire population can eventually play a part in genocide. Your average German was absolutely convinced the Jews were the cause of their hardships and the that Germany deserved to be a Great Power on the world stage. Invading Poland and Austria was just redressing a great injustice to them

Propaganda was/still is a powerful tool.

Fascism and the nationalism that leads to it are very dangerous. And almost certainly why we all look back on those times with morals we have now.

History is a lesson we can learn from.

Doubt it mate.

Actually it was a bunch of broke farmer pissed at WW1 who voted Hitler in, and not by a majority.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Doubt it mate.

Actually it was a bunch of broke farmer pissed at WW1 who voted Hitler in, and not by a majority.

I probably should of worded that 'average Nazi supporting German'

It's difficult to know how popular the Nazi's were, because they had stopped elections and removed dissenters. It's also difficult to asses just how effective propaganda was at the time.

 

[everton fan number one]

I probably should of worded that 'average Nazi supporting German'

It's difficult to know how popular the Nazi's were, because they had stopped elections and removed dissenters. It's also difficult to asses just how effective propaganda was at the time.

They were no doubt popular once in power. But that's the power of propaganda and war, not the general "morality of the time".

 

[Papa Shango]

I probably should of worded that 'average Nazi supporting German'

It's difficult to know how popular the Nazi's were, because they had stopped elections and removed dissenters. It's also difficult to asses just how effective propaganda was at the time.

It's just as effective now, its why the population always vote for a government who couldn't give a toss about them and the only time a labour government gets in is if the media like them (ie they are more like Torys.)

Social media is rife with it.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

I probably should of worded that 'average Nazi supporting German'

It's difficult to know how popular the Nazi's were, because they had stopped elections and removed dissenters. It's also difficult to asses just how effective propaganda was at the time.

This. I imagine that the mentality of the general population was more a case of keep my head down, they're not after me. Which seemed to be the case in the dictatorships in Latin América later in the 20th century. And probably in general.