The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Germany went to war and killed millions on innocent people, including genocide, and in your posts you don't blame Germany, you blame the Treaty of Versailles (and I'm aware that other nations have waged war over the years too, but here we're just discussing WW1 & 2).

I can't get my head round that. Justilfying or defending what happened led to me thinking of you as a modern day Nazi.

It's one thing to say that looking back you can see how the treaty was so restrictive that Germany would become unstable, but to actually say that the cause of the war was the treaty rather than evil people is ridiculous, and if people were taught that at school you can see how it could lead to radical movement.

erm, blaming Nazi Germany for the killing of millions of innocent people is one thing I completely I agree on (as much as I hope you agree the Allies did the same), but the conditions for the outburst of WW2 were caused by a series of long and short term causes, which can't simply be tagged under "Germany", and this is not just me saying this..

You have to bear in mind that after the horrors of WW1, nobody was really too keen in the start of a new war, and the German public opinion had mixed reactions at first regarding the invasion of Poland. It was started in a clever(ish) way though, with the annexing of Austria and "peaceful" invasion of Czechoslovakia as a claim for the lost territories of the Empire, and the escalation to the proper conflict was skillfully fed to the people by the propaganda.

It's not like every German was a Nazi and wanted to conquer the world, that's a somewhat naive view me thinks..

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I strongly, strongly suggest you read the whole thread before posting and warming up arguments that have been discussed ad infitintum and throwing around insults. So far you did not provide anything that has not been said before.

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

erm, blaming Nazi Germany for the killing of millions of innocent people is one thing I completely I agree on (as much as I hope you agree the Allies did the same)

The allies certainly killed millions of innocent people. The differences are in justification. When bombing enemy civilians you may be trying to encourage the enemy to chance their tactics, or weaken their resolve. Or they may be casualties among military targets. None of it is nice, but if you are fighting to ultimately defend your country it can be understandable. There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The danger of writing history is that you need to be careful not to follow at all costs the doctrine of "we won, we're the good ones".

Don't ever forget that if they won the war, they would be the good ones and the Allies would be the baddies..

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. While over the centuries there has been truth in the saying that the victors write the history, you should not give up on finding the truth. If they had won the war, they would still have been the baddies (as you put it), we just might not know they were.

The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

It's not like every German was a Nazi and wanted to conquer the world, that's a somewhat naive view me thinks..

No of course they weren't. It was your view that the war was not Germany's fault (the country, not every individual) that I am shocked by.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

I'm sorry but that's a bit lazy: you get in a conversation while it's been running for a while and start blurting out sentences and calling people names just because you don't understand, how should one take this?

The allies certainly killed millions of innocent people. The differences are in justification. When bombing enemy civilians you may be trying to encourage the enemy to chance their tactics, or weaken their resolve. Or they may be casualties among military targets. None of it is nice, but if you are fighting to ultimately defend your country it can be understandable. There is no such way to defend the holocaust.

so you are shocked about what I said, whereas justifying the killing of innocents to stop a war is acceptable?! Double standards anyone?!?! How can you even begin to think that and consider yourself mature enough for this conversation?!?! I am shocked, seriously shocked.

Ah and FYI, check out how the Geneva convention was changed in 1949 regarding civilians...

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. While over the centuries there has been truth in the saying that the victors write the history, you should not give up on finding the truth. If they had won the war, they would still have been the baddies (as you put it), we just might not know they were.

Yeah, well good luck with that. And yes, if they won the war, on an absolute principle they would have been the baddies, but you reckon they would have said this or were aware of being the baddies?! Nobody thinks of themselves as the baddies.. I'm still shocked about your partial acceptance of the killing of civilians, how do you classify the invasion of Iraq after 9/11? Was the killing of all those civilians justified?

The Romans took over Europe, they won - they were not the goodies.
The Brits took over half the world - they were not the goodies.
The Crusaders went on a killing spree under the name of god - they were not the goodies.

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

No of course they weren't. It was your view that the war was not Germany's fault (the country, not every individual) that I am shocked by.

excuse me, what's a country made of, land only? It's the majority of people of a country that decide for the fate of it.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

It's just too long a thread to read it all, then go back and start again, quoting bits that jump out at you. No doubt this has all been discussed a million times before, and no one here will say anything that hasn't been said before, so if you don't want to read the same thing again, don't read the thread.

lol, wtf?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

your analysis is pointless. History is not a court, it's a chronicle. Historical analysis on the other hand is a form of judgement, but it can be bent and adapted to the different perspectives.

Yes, we all see that you do that.

[MD_Titus]

Hais triggaaar

I'd leave stern's comments alone and ignore them, it's like nailing a jellyfish to water. And makes about as much sense.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Sorry chaps, just thought I'd say hello again.

[blackmme]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Oh no.

It's all kicked off again.

Sorry chaps, just thought I'd say hello again.

If they could just get the patch released we would have something else to talk about!

Regards Mike

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Yes, we all see that you do that.

well I'm sorry but my logic is pretty simple: I look at the dates, numbers, statistics before and after (up to at least two years in each direction), which are incontrovertible facts, then draw my personal conclusions, which I expose with no national sentiment, but keeping into account other's (if present).

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

Hais triggaaar

I'd leave stern's comments alone and ignore them, it's like nailing a jellyfish to water. And makes about as much sense.

so you too think that killing enemy innocent civilians is fine? Nice, I'm starting to delineate what sort of mentality goes on here among a certain bunch of people.

Un-frigging-believable