I didn’t call Churchill a war criminal either. It was an answer to a hypothetical question about whether the Nazis would class him as a war criminal. They would have. It is a fact not my opinion.
I don't disagree with a word you are saying.
But you have joined in with Mart who is calling Churchill a war criminal. And as you know that is my point. I said Dresden is regrettable. And so is the dropping of atomic bombs whatever the reason as they were aimed at civilians.
Civilians were aimed at from the start. It was totally wrong. But after Germany aiming at killing civilians for so long it seemed to become acceptable. Dresden was levelled by us. Then America spent the next 2 days bombing the infrastructure. This killed thousands trying to escape.
As I said many regrettable moments happened during WW2. We need to never forget. There are laws so history can't be changed. It is easy for someone not involved to blame people involved. But what about Roosevelt's involvement? There was an agreement between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. The Russians murdered a countless amount of civilians. But the Germans murdered a countless amount of Russian civilians. Does one make the other right? Of course not.
But neither does calling one leader a war criminal and not mentioning the others. And this is what Mart has done. He has worded it as though we were the worse. Do you think it is right?
Do you agree with the Nazis or are you using them to make a point?
They murdered 6 million Jews. They murdered civilians right through Europe. They murdered countless amounts in Russia. Yet you seem to have a massive point to make about what happened with the UK and only want to use that point only. If I didn't know better I would think you were German and hated the British for not letting Germany take over Europe for good. Then try and take over the rest of the world.
Scary thought.
Do you agree with the Nazis or are you using them to make a point?
They murdered 6 million Jews. They murdered civilians right through Europe. They murdered countless amounts in Russia. Yet you seem to have a massive point to make about what happened with the UK and only want to use that point only. If I didn't know better I would think you were German and hated the British for not letting Germany take over Europe for good. Then try and take over the rest of the world.
Scary thought.
I fully agree with the rest.
But I detest it when someone goes off on one about Churchill being a war criminal. You couldn't even imagine being a citizen being bombed every night let alone one of those in the forces. Imagine the pressure on Churchill constantly sending thousands of our troops to their deaths to try and defeat Germany. Or to start the rebuilding of each city bombed.
Like I said there is plenty of regret. But to call it out as over zealous German commanders but Churchill as a war criminal is going well below the belt.
I noticed there were no replies to this link.
Oradour-sur-Glane 10 June 1944 (a war-crime in France)
This was in 1944. It was murdering in full sight and not dropping bombs where you couldn't see the death you were causing. Then you have the concentration camps. How about what Russia did? Ourselves and America knew so were not wanting to be far behind them in the capture of Berlin.
Nothing should be forgotten what happened. But for the sake of harmony we need to learn our history, learn from our mistakes then move on. What gets me the most is the Holocaust deniers. It happened. It should never be forgotten or repeated. Germany should be praised for the way they deal with it. It is illegal around a lot of the world. But Germany is very strict on the matter. Then we have nutters like David Irvine
Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support
If Mart used the over zealous remark about the Holocaust or questioned the truth and the German government found out he would be straight in court and would be looking at a prison sentence.
My mad posts?I’ve stopped reading most of your mad posts. The question was simply about Churchill and whether he would have been tried by the Nazis. Anything else you are on about has nothing to do with the question or the answer.
Explain yourself for once.As for the last part, it just proves your insanity.
If that is the case why do you only call Churchill out on being a war criminal? What about Roosevelt? Because America bombed those escaping what had happened.I said that the Nazis would have had a show trial against Churchill and covered their own crimes with excuses such as: over zealous commanders. I did not say that German crimes were ok because of over zealous commanders.
I think you are having comprehension problems.
Or are totally nuts. Which is it?
If that is the case why do you only call Churchill out on being a war criminal? What about Roosevelt? Because America bombed those escaping what had happened.
Sorry I forgot. Roosevelt wasn't English.
And Churchill died over 50 years ago. But it doesn't stop Mart from wanting him to be considered a war criminal.Considering that Roosevelt died before the end of the war I think the Nazis might have had trouble putting him on trial.
If we spent the defence budget on climate change technology we’d have a solution by the end of the year
Only that’s not what he said.And Churchill died over 50 years ago. But it doesn't stop Mart from wanting him to be considered a war criminal.
I don't disagree with a word you are saying.
But you have joined in with Mart who is calling Churchill a war criminal. And as you know that is my point. I said Dresden is regrettable. And so is the dropping of atomic bombs whatever the reason as they were aimed at civilians.
Civilians were aimed at from the start. It was totally wrong. But after Germany aiming at killing civilians for so long it seemed to become acceptable. Dresden was levelled by us. Then America spent the next 2 days bombing the infrastructure. This killed thousands trying to escape.
As I said many regrettable moments happened during WW2. We need to never forget. There are laws so history can't be changed. It is easy for someone not involved to blame people involved. But what about Roosevelt's involvement? There was an agreement between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. The Russians murdered a countless amount of civilians. But the Germans murdered a countless amount of Russian civilians. Does one make the other right? Of course not.
But neither does calling one leader a war criminal and not mentioning the others. And this is what Mart has done. He has worded it as though we were the worse. Do you think it is right?
Yes we’d be nuked by North Korea
Explain yourself for once.
Maybe so and it’s all a balance and it’s a bit rich me saying this and that knowing I’ll never be in a position where I have to make the choices we’re talking about.Yes we’d be nuked by North Korea
If that is the case why do you only call Churchill out on being a war criminal? What about Roosevelt? Because America bombed those escaping what had happened.
Sorry I forgot. Roosevelt wasn't English.
If you can find him using those words obviously I don’t agree with it. However he did say that in the event of us losing Churchill would have been tried as one by the Nazis. To be honest, I don’t see why that’s worthy of debate-we can assume that Allied leaders would have been arrested or executed and that Jewish ones had been listed in the event of an invasion.
But he didn’t call the man himself a war criminal. Bomber Harris on the other hand, who orchestrated Dresden, isn’t so clean. There was no strategic value to Dresden and the war was almost over. At best it’s gratuitous and at worst a crime.
Correct.Only that’s not what he said.
I said it was justified?I haven’t called Churchill out. I said the Nazis classed him as a war criminal. Which they did.
Which means the Nazis were calling him out not me.
The subject was Churchill not Roosevelt.
Going further on this tangent, I think bombing civilians is counted as a war crime. At least it is when Assad does it.
You and Grendel say it was justified against Germany because of German war crimes including bombing civilians.
You are enraged because the ISIS bride says that the Manchester bombing of innocents was justified because of coalition bombing of innocents in Syria.
The hypocrisy is evident.
The Queen and ex RAF Bomber command fliers being present at the reconsecrating of the Frauenkirche was a late acknowledgment of what is considered by many people an unnecessary bombing of civilians including refugees.
It was well received in Germany, because, although you have something against Germans like many others in Brexit Britain, they are humans. Despite all badness done by the Nazis, we all live in a different time.
Awaits raging rant from Astute accusing me of sticking up for Germans. A bit like the Nazis would have reacted to someone saying Jews are humans too.
Shows where we are.
Maybe if I did the same and always had a go at the UK and defended Germany you would agree with me like you do Mart.Maybe if I started taking LSD and Crack, this thread would start to make more sense.
Gerbils.
You do spouit some absolute bollocks.Maybe if I did the same and always had a go at the UK and defended Germany you would agree with me like you do Mart.
On one post yes. But I suppose we can forget the rest.Someone askedif the Nazis would have tried Churchill as a war criminal. The answer is yes and probably the bombing of civilians would have been one of the charges.
That is it. Not complicated really.
On one post yes. But I suppose we can forget the rest.
Gerbils.
I'm surprised we haven't got round to discussing the fact that Rees Mogg and McDonnell both own some Black Russian Gerbils, so are clearly in the pay of Putin.I assume you mean Geobbels
Correct.
He said that the Germans who started a war to take over Europe then murdered and killed many, many millions would have found Churchill guilty of bombing civilians and found themselves innocent of all charges.
Then the usual suspects turn up to defend everything that he says.
...because the Nazis obviously wouldn’t prosecute themselves. In fact if they’d won then the death camps would have been a state secret (like the Katyn massacre and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were for the Soviets). The victors get to write history.
If the Nazis win their propaganda goes unchallenged and Hitler would clearly have gone after Churchill and Stalin. It was either him or Goebbels who called him the ‘gravedigger of Europe’. I fail to see how this makes martcov a Nazi sympathiser, genuinely.
Maybe if I started taking LSD and Crack, this thread would start to make more sense.
Gerbils.
Me too. I just answered a question with a historical fact that I know from history lessons. For what it is worth, I did A Level in modern history.
That makes me a super Nazi following Astute‘s crazed logic.
I said it was justified?
Would you like to point out where I have said that?
Of course not as I haven't. But it is a lie that looks good in a comment against someone who finds what you are saying very distasteful.
...because the Nazis obviously wouldn’t prosecute themselves. In fact if they’d won then the death camps would have been a state secret (like the Katyn massacre and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were for the Soviets). The victors get to write history.
If the Nazis win their propaganda goes unchallenged and Hitler would clearly have gone after Churchill and Stalin. It was either him or Goebbels who called him the ‘gravedigger of Europe’. I fail to see how this makes martcov a Nazi sympathiser, genuinely.
You openly condemned Allied Forces military action and compared Churchill to Asaad
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?