Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Revisionist History-OT

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Revisionist History-OT Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 9:07:05 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.



Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-topics/3805:the-plan-that-never-was-churchill-the-anthrax-bomb-1982-02-01


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/4/2016 9:42:46 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 121
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 10:03:50 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux

I dont see a problem comparing ancient times with modern ones. Society and weapons are more sophisticated but people stayed the same.

What did the Romans do after the first (or second) phonician war or the first (or second or third) macedonian war? They didnt crucify everyone or such. They reduced their enemies ability to fight and trade and therefore eliminated them as a threat and a major power. And they made them pay reparations.

Perhaps they went too easy or too hard on Carthage or Macedonia but it was always the other side who wanted a rerun, for obvious reasons.

I fail to see how history can be used as a justification. It has happend before so it is accepted practice? Concentration camps in North Korea are not morally acceptable just because it has done before by Germans, Japanese and Russians (and more on different scales).




(in reply to robinsa)
Post #: 122
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 10:36:11 PM   
robinsa


Posts: 183
Joined: 7/24/2013
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
However....... I read above how cruel the firebombing and atomic bombs were. Which is true.... and horrible way to die. But we also need to see human nature. They always will fight each other. And look at acient times of warfare, or Napoleonic times. Now in these times the civilians suffered too. Not as much as in WW2, but for sure there was plunder of territories. So civilians would starve. Millions starved in the 30 year war too. And as for methods of killing, is being hacked to pieces by swords less cruel then blown apart by a bomb ? So war was always cruel from the beginning of times. Or burning down villages in the middleages perhaps with some people stil inside the houses? That is litterally "fire bombing" in a more primitive form. Only the scale and areas affected of cause changed with technology.

I am not sure how comparing this to ancient times can help us understand or justify this.

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 123
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 10:40:04 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.



Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-topics/3805:the-plan-that-never-was-churchill-the-anthrax-bomb-1982-02-01



https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/churchills-1919-war-office-memorandum.html

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 124
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 10:44:40 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.



Interesting - can you give a source?

warspite1

No - because like much of the nonsense around Sir Winston Churchill, it is sensationalist rubbish. But there you go.....needless to say Robert Harris is a trendy lefty for whom sticking the boot into WSC probably gives him a major thrill - even though he's spinning lies and half-truths to do so.

http://www.julianlewis.net/essays-and-topics/3805:the-plan-that-never-was-churchill-the-anthrax-bomb-1982-02-01



https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/churchills-1919-war-office-memorandum.html

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."


warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.

Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.

In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/4/2016 11:57:24 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 125
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/4/2016 11:27:22 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: robinsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

The Soviets did not want the war to end before their enterance into the Asian land war, and the United States... Well come to your own conclusions. My thought is they wanted to use the atomic bomb to test, and then demonstrate to the Soviets, the destructive power of the weapon.



This is a classic misconception. As if Stalin was doing a Mussolinesque move: when he joined the war when France was in her death throes (Germany's gonna swallow everything! I must do something and do it now ).

It IS the other way around. FDR basically harassed () him big time so that Uncle Joe unleashed his hordes. Stalin managed to find excuses to not attack Japan until the Tehran Conference in 1943 IIRC. Then he promised he would unleash his hordes (once the nazis were finished). Which he did.

What is the misconception? As far as I know it is a known fact that the Japanese had contacted the Soviets to get some sort of negotiated peace and the soviets stalled.

If I recall correctly the soviets even proposed that they would invade Hokkaido and make it part of the Soviet union, something the US could not accept.


The "misconception" was right there before your very eyes ie in bold letters

So the Japanese wanted peace and the USSR was supposed to obey a sneaky enemy (Khalkhin Gol, Pearl Harbor)?

The point here is that the US and USSR were allies and the point - yet again- is that the Roosevelt administration harassed Stalin big time, until the latter agreed to attack the aforementioned sneaky enemy.

The sentence in bold letters is er deceiving... It hides the fact that the US ASKED the Soviets to attack the Japanese... That's why it's a classic misconception I guess. After the war, the Cold War... let's bury these facts. Needless to say it's revisionist history.

Best regards

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to robinsa)
Post #: 126
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 12:23:04 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.



The circumstances are much less serious in 1919. What were his thoughts decades later when the stakes were inconceivably greater than the prolonged resistance of some tribal groups?

quote:

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.


If he's willing to gas some tribesmen who've nowhere near the resources of a modern nation state, what would he do when faced with the Nazi war machine?

quote:


Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.


I confess no great deal of familiarity with the claims in question beyond Churchill's approval for chemical weapons in the instance I quoted. I don't proscribe your view, that the claims can be dismissed as groundless when you spend time considering his history regarding chemical weapons.

I did like the Archangel movie with Danial Craig though.

quote:


In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.



That's a fair point. I just think it's important to take into consideration the measure he proposes in 1919.

This is the Empire against tribal groups: as mismatched a fight as it can get. Yet Churchill is willing to utilize chemical weapons.

Two decades later and the fight is no longer as mismatched and the Empire is in real threat. Would Churchill really notconsider the possibility?

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 4/5/2016 12:25:24 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 127
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 12:32:05 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		This may be also not totally on topic re. Anthrax, but I thought of this German raid in the back of my head, and found this:

"Secrecy shrouded the affair at Bari. The public was eventually told of the devastating raid at Bari but the presence of mustard gas was not divulged. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was particularly adamant that the role mustard gas played in the tragedy remain a secret. He believed that publicizing the fiasco would hand the Germans a propaganda victory. This secrecy may have caused additional deaths because if the word of the presence of mustard agent had been disseminated, more victims, especially civilians, may have sought proper treatment."

Source:
http://mcm.dhhq.health.mil/cb_exposures/ww2/ww2mustard.aspx

Here a short video from the Bari raid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NonWxm4aYHc



< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/5/2016 12:38:34 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 128
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 6:17:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure, other than the usual muck-spreading/guilt by association tactic, why you have quoted this on its own in a conversation about whether Churchill wanted to use Anthrax as an offensive weapon against the Germans.



The circumstances are much less serious in 1919. What were his thoughts decades later when the stakes were inconceivably greater than the prolonged resistance of some tribal groups?

quote:

This comment, even allowing for it being written in 1919 hardly puts Churchill up for humanitarian of the year, but it adds nothing to the argument as to whether Churchill "came pretty close" to ordering Anthrax dropped on Germany towards the end of the war - which of course he didn't - and, moreover, does not undo the lies and half-truths of the BBC article that falsely makes out he did.


If he's willing to gas some tribesmen who've nowhere near the resources of a modern nation state, what would he do when faced with the Nazi war machine?

quote:


Even Harris, later on, had the good grace to admit he shouldn't have said some of the things he did.


I confess no great deal of familiarity with the claims in question beyond Churchill's approval for chemical weapons in the instance I quoted. I don't proscribe your view, that the claims can be dismissed as groundless when you spend time considering his history regarding chemical weapons.

I did like the Archangel movie with Danial Craig though.

quote:


In 1919, given the experiences Churchill has gone through (and also the education) would I like to think I would have had a more Christian, a more humane view? Yes of course. I'm sure we would all like to believe that. But of course we cannot guarantee that and to try and suggest that amongst his contemporaries at home and abroad, Churchill's view was unique at the time, would be wrong in the extreme. They were less enlightened times - and if we are honest - were to stay as such the world over, for many many years to come.



That's a fair point. I just think it's important to take into consideration the measure he proposes in 1919.

This is the Empire against tribal groups: as mismatched a fight as it can get. Yet Churchill is willing to utilize chemical weapons.

Two decades later and the fight is no longer as mismatched and the Empire is in real threat. Would Churchill really notconsider the possibility?
warspite1

Well lets be honest, in some peoples eyes WSC is second only to Hitler in terms of being the great satan, and to others still, like David Irving, WSC is of course the cause of WWII.

Trying to reason with such people is pointless. Providing a source to show this outlandish claim was nonsense (unlike the claimant who has provided no such evidence to support the original "claim" itself) is apparently pointless. WSC (by today's standards very unpleasantly) writes of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes in 1919 and that, apparently, "proves" WSC would have ordered the offensive use of biological weapons against Germany 30-odd years later - and what was it? "came pretty close". .

But there comes a point at which one just has to hold their hands in the air and walk away because its all too frustrating for words. As all good conspiracy theorists know, its easy to start up any old rubbish with the odd sentence here and the odd paragraph there - they don't of course have to prove anything, just make a load of unsubstantiated claims, add 2 + 2 and get 5 and, if all else fails, just wilfully mis-inform - like Harris did.

If it makes you feel better, if it helps you sleep nights then just carry on believing every conspiracy theory out there (or at least the ones regarding WSC).


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/5/2016 7:25:03 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 129
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 7:52:05 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline 		I actually read the link provided by Warspite and to be honest I am shocked.

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should always have all the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe [Stalin] and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits.

W.S.C."

He didnt get his will in the end:

"I am not at all convinced by this negative report. But clearly I cannot make head against the parsons and the warriors at the same time.

The matter should be kept under review and brought up again when things get worse.

W.S.C"

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.


To my eyes that is a genocidal agenda. Churchill was expecting to "square" Stalin with his plans?!

If this was the poltical will behind the bombing campaign i see my opinion the firebombing of german cities where the outcome of a military logic (we have the bombers, so lets use them and lets use them effectivly) challenged to a point I guess I am wrong.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 130
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 8:15:33 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux

I actually read the link provided by Warspite and to be honest I am shocked.

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should always have all the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe [Stalin] and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits.

W.S.C."

He didnt get his will in the end:

"I am not at all convinced by this negative report. But clearly I cannot make head against the parsons and the warriors at the same time.

The matter should be kept under review and brought up again when things get worse.

W.S.C"

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.


To my eyes that is a genocidal agenda. Churchill was expecting to "square" Stalin with his plans?!

If this was the poltical will behind the bombing campaign i see my opinion the firebombing of german cities where the outcome of a military logic (we have the bombers, so lets use them and lets use them effectivly) challenged to a point I guess I am wrong.
warspite1

Perhaps if you read the article properly, perhaps if you were not so disingenuous as to miss out vital paragraphs and have those included made out of context, then you would be less shocked. But why ruin a good WSC conspiracy theory with facts?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 131
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 8:42:57 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: postfux

Even if the first memo is about "constant medical attention" , to hit in a "murderous place" can hardly be wrong understood. How should constant medical attention be provided in this scenario? Neither doctors nor hospitals work well in the envisioned environment. I also more than question there would have been the capacity to treat the expected number of gas victims ("most of the population") even without the hospitals beeing "drenched" in poison gas along with the rest of the city.

warspite1

That would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

So let's just fill in a few blanks that you conveniently left out

1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.

You seem to have missed that one and started at point 6.... why was that?

You also seem to have missed the point that this minute was written in July 1944 pre the V.2. At this time Churchill was being warned by his technical experts that the V.2 rocket was going to kill 4,000 civilians per rocket.

With that background Churchill looked at the possibility of using poison gas to stop the Germans from making and launching these weapons.

Or what are you saying? If the Germans had developed a rocket that would kill 4,000 at a time, the British should have done nothing? Really? 4,000 at a time? That would have been war winning power.



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/5/2016 8:49:31 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 132
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/5/2016 10:49:20 PM   
postfux

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline 		1. Please elaborate on "funny" given the quote you are providing. How many victims of poison gas could be treated at once in Britain today? And how many in Germany in July 44?

2. I was directly quoting Churchill, from a link provided some postings earlier for everyone to read and obviously shortened. Nothing misleading here. Everybody was free to read how W.S.C. started from "life or death for us" in point 1 to reduce this to a "serious nuicance" in point 6, were he was pretty detailed on what he thought should trigger "drenching" the cities in poison gas. Nothing misleading here.

3. You are misquoting, sir

"His own book on British scientific intelligence in the Second World War had stressed how greatly the "experts" had erred in overestimating the size of the V.2 rocket (not the V.I flying bomb referred to by Harris on the BBC), with each being thought capable by some of inflicting up to 4,000 casualties (according to the Ministry of Home Security in 1943), and with the size of the warhead still being thought – at the time of the Churchill initiative of July 1944 dramatised by Newsnight – to be between three and seven times as great as it really was."

Please try to keep the standard you set for others.

4. Germany a deadly threat in July 44? With a war winning super secret weapon in the pipeline? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. If they would have shortened the war by a year it would not have lasted long.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 133
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/6/2016 6:51:37 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Okay let me try one more time to make you understand.

What started this particular topic off? The line from Revthought:

quote:

Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany.


The poster was asked to quote a source for this, and not surprisingly so as it is a pretty big claim – not just that WSC came close to ordering it but also that he was even considering it in the first place.

Nothing was forthcoming and this was not surprising given that it was rubbish.

I provided a link to show how some people can think this claim is true i.e. the sensationalist and inaccurate documentary that purposely misled by quoting selected extracts from different minutes and then putting things together to make it look like WSC wanted to drop Anthrax bombs on Germany in an offensive strike.

Mind_messing then added a well-known Churchill quote from 1919 in which WSC advocated the use of gas in Mesopotamia against “uncivilised tribes”. The idea of course being that if such a view is held about the use of gas in 1919, then it adds fuel to the idea that 25 years later, WSC would have considered using chemical weapons. Not sure they follow necessarily but that is a matter of opinion and we can agree to disagree. From my side, at best, it does not paint WSC in a good light by the standards of today but is a useful quote for WSC detractors as they can use this to claim he was anything from an Anthrax bomber to Jack the Ripper.

However, you then said you read the article and decided that you were sufficiently outraged to post your view. So what did the article say and what did you say? Why were you so outraged?

Well interestingly in posting you did exactly what the original TV program did; you wilfully mis-led by picking out only the selected parts of texts that you needed in order to give the story the twist you wanted. Please note postfux that in so doing you are not making something real, you are just spreading a lie.

So what has got you all excited about this article? Well it seems that you have read the article as stating that WSC did not want to use Anthrax on Germany – he wanted to use Mustard gas. You then set about copying out selected points from the article to support that “fact”. There was just one problem. It’s cobblers.

quote:

The article is about the fact that it is unfair to bring Churchill in connection with anthrax...

...because he wanted to use gas.


Okay how about some context. “because he wanted to use gas”. Do you provide some background or some context for that? No of course not. Why would you? By stating what you have it sounds like WSC is looking to use gas as an offensive weapon then, faster than you can say “war criminal” you rattle off selected extracts

quote:

Here is what he thought about using gas against germany, a question that was brought up above:

" 6. If the bombardment of London really became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should always have all the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe [Stalin] and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits.


So what was wrong with what you quoted? Well for one thing you started with points 6 and 7. What happened to points 1-5? And point 1 in particular given that it is that that governs all other points? Did they tell a story that perhaps didn’t fit your “WSC is a filthy warmonger” fabrication? You made a bit of a mistake in keeping the reference to the bombardment of London in place – although again, because you have not provided the context of when and under what circumstances this comment was made – you probably thought the quotes remain hideous enough as they are.

You finish off with three more comments, the last of which I have no idea what you are talking about. The penultimate one refers to WSC “squaring things with Stalin” (which of course is something that you would expect the two Allies to do for so big an operation) but which you have added an exclamation mark too. I have no idea what you read into that but you clearly feel it’s really important - ohhh another smoking gun boys!

The third paragraph from the end was the doozy. Your moral outrage oozes from every pore as you quote “constant medical attention”, “murderous place” and “drenched” in poison.

I tried in my subsequent posts to point out that you had got the context wrong and that you had mis-quoted, but of course you do not want to read that because you are too “shocked” and in such a state of high dudgeon at the callousness of the murderous WSC.

In response you provided 4 points.
quote:

1. Please elaborate on "funny" given the quote you are providing. How many victims of poison gas could be treated at once in Britain today? And how many in Germany in July 44?


Funny? It’s not funny. Like I said, it would have been funny if it wasn’t so tragic. What are you asking that for? What has that question got to do with anything? I mean anything?

1940
Hitler: Listen Goering, I need you to flatten London.
Goering: I am sorry Mein Fuhrer. I have checked the hospital situation for London and environs, and it appears that their emergency services could not cope with a sustained bombing campaign.
Hitler: Oh okay. Thanks for checking anyway. Fancy a pint?

1945
President Truman: Say Tibbets, whatcha doin over the next few days - I need you to drop a big fat juicy atomic bomb
Tibbets: Sorry Mr Pres, my peeps tell me that the number of serious burns units in Hiroshima and environs could not cope with such a bomb
President Truman: Oh okay, Thanks for checking. I'll get Oppenheimer to cancel Manhattan. Fancy a pint?

I mean seriously, what does that question have to do with anything?

quote:

2. I was directly quoting Churchill, from a link provided some postings earlier for everyone to read and obviously shortened. Nothing misleading here. Everybody was free to read how W.S.C. started from "life or death for us" in point 1 to reduce this to a "serious nuicance" in point 6, were he was pretty detailed on what he thought should trigger "drenching" the cities in poison gas. Nothing misleading here.


Yes, you "obviously shortened" by removing the context You were quoting selected passages to make your false “case”. You have made it sound (I refer to your opening paragraph) as though WSC wanted to use gas on Germany. How does that sound? Well that sounds like he wanted to use gas offensively. That is how you have made it sound. Even if you were to then admit (which you appear not to want to do) that he wanted to use gas only defensively, you still do not tell the reader that it was in "last resort" territory. I quoted the background to WSC’s remarks in the previous post. “Everybody was free to read….” So why not quote the background in your post? – moreover and far more to the point – if you read that and know WSC’s view, then why are you proclaiming such indignation at what was an extreme precaution?

quote:

3. You are misquoting, sir

"His own book on British scientific intelligence in the Second World War had stressed how greatly the "experts" had erred in overestimating the size of the V.2 rocket (not the V.I flying bomb referred to by Harris on the BBC), with each being thought capable by some of inflicting up to 4,000 casualties (according to the Ministry of Home Security in 1943), and with the size of the warhead still being thought – at the time of the Churchill initiative of July 1944 dramatised by Newsnight – to be between three and seven times as great as it really was."

Please try to keep the standard you set for others.


In quoting that statement you have just made my point for me!! Listen, let me explain it as simply as I can. In 1944 London is being bombed by the V1 rockets. That is something of a nasty surprise (my eldest brother was evacuated out of London because of them). However, the Allies are aware that this is just the start and that there is a newer, more deadly weapon on its way. AS YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED Allied scientists believed that this second weapon was something else altogether and was capable of killing 4,000 at a time in 1943 – and still thought to be between 3 and 7 times greater than it actually was in July 1944 when Churchill wrote the piece in question.

Remember we have the power of hindsight, you sit there in your comfortable 21st century home and pontificate on what leaders (who have a world of life or death responsibility on their shoulders) should or shouldn’t do. But in July 1944 Churchill did not know for certain what was coming down the tracks and could only go on what he had been told. Effectively what you are saying – over and above the obfuscation - is that even though, at this stage in the war, Britain is faced potentially with a weapon that will kill and maim in their thousands (and if it’s that effective, could be used to disrupt the ports of Dover, Portmouth, Southampton etc) Churchill has no right to look at all the options? You cry into your beer about German civilians – but British and other Allied civilians don’t matter? Nice.

quote:

4. Germany a deadly threat in July 44? With a war winning super secret weapon in the pipeline? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. If they would have shortened the war by a year it would not have lasted long.


More guff. WE KNOW exactly what the German “wonder weapons” were capable (or not capable) of. In the summer of 1944 Churchill did not. He only had what his “experts” could guess at. Unlike you, sitting in your Ivory Tower, Churchill did not have the luxury of hindsight, WSC could not afford to get it wrong. Bottom line, WSC did not want to use gas against Germany, but wanted to have all options available pending how things developed. The V.2 was nowhere near as bad as feared – and voila, no gas was used against Germany. Or what are you saying? That gas was not used only because Churchill the warmonger, desperate to kill millions, was strapped into a strait jacket by the cabinet

King George: No! naughty Churchill, you must not use gas on Germany".
Churchill: Want too!
King George: I said no!
Churchill: Pleeeeeeease.... just a little gas?
King George: If you don't stop with this nonsense we won't let you out to play.
Churchill: Not fair. Its not its not its not.


As for your last sentence (underlined) sorry but that is a laugh or cry moment……



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/7/2016 6:36:06 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 134
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/6/2016 6:43:28 PM   
bobdina

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline 		Excellent rebuttal .

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 135
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/6/2016 10:29:04 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bobdina

Excellent rebuttal .

Indeed.

_____________________________



(in reply to bobdina)
Post #: 136
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/7/2016 1:05:55 AM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline 		Churchill should be required reading but I doubt today's "Special Snowflakes" could handle the shock. I have read where his book The River War has been banned in England but I don't know if that is true. I do know that certain passages are now considered "hate speech".

The River War is an amazing read and I am fortunate to have one of the earlier editions that did not suffer from later heavy editing.

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 137
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/7/2016 10:46:59 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline 		It did make the decision to post only part of the memo because of the length and the fact the full text was readily available in this threat.

I even thought about the possibility of beeing challenged on this but must admit I never had this thought because of the starting statement. The omission of churchills opinion that poison gas is not a deadly weapon is a much more heinous crime than leaving out the deadly threat to Britain in point 1.

In my eyes the ending stattements of point 6 and 7 pretty much reflect his position on the use of poison gas including when it should be used and to which effect. Because of the inclusion of "constant medical attention" I was also of the opinion that the exclusion of poison gas not beeing deadly weapon is alright and specifically refered to this topic.

Not posting the whole memo was a mistake. Not because I think it was misleading in any way but because it can be used as an angle for a personal attack. That I get called a liar by the man who clearly misquoted and made a big point about the 4000 caualities/ missile at the time of the memo and didnt have the character to at least admit the mistake is telling, but not about me.

This character assissanation is even more absurd when you read my opinions on strategic bombing posted in this threat exactly before the poison gas was brought up (a thing that was completly new to me).

But back to misquoting. You changed your line of arguing to a perceived threat of 4000 civilist/ missile at the time of the memo to a warhead 3-7 times as big as he really was. That would be 738kg Amatol x 3-7. Pretty impressive. A war winning super weapon? Hardly. The british Grand Slam carried 4144 kg Hexogen. Churchill made the perhaps fitting description of a "serious nuisance" (please refer to the complete text for full context) - surely to the war effort and not to the people directly effected. I am not blind to the needless suffering this weapon brought.

The threat posed by Germany in July 44 with the beachhead expanding and Bagration kicking of viewed ex ante? I was always under the impression the Allied planers were suprised by German resiliance and not the sudden collapse of the Reich.

The V2 to my knowledge was built in bomb save shelters and was not fired from the german population centers so I fail to see how drenching german cities in poison gas could be considered helpfull.

Disclaimer: I am neither an expert on military hardware (data from wikipedia) or allied planing in the last stages of the war so if you know better please correct me and feel free to insult me as an ignorant fool but not as a revisionist liar.

Back to the memo. I still cant change my oponion about this. I dont see it as a wish for an assessment of threats and options but as a demand to back Churchills plans, expressed partly in a bullyish way like calling potential oponents "psalm-singing uniformed defeatist" (please read the full text in the link provided above for context).

Another telling thing is the disappointment he expressed when he was turned down. That doesnt make the impression he was very open minded about the outcome of his proposal. (again link above)

Warspite, you can be proud of your country and its constitution and tradition that brought forward a military leadership which turned down the wish of their most powerfull politian after years of total warfare, the country still beeing under constant attack. That would not have been thinkable in every country especially under totalitarian rule. You can also choose to follow the great leader in unblinking loyality.

How would you have voted on the memo?

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 138
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/7/2016 6:39:32 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		On topic perhaps a bit more for the orig topic (about a-bombs)

"Visiting the Site of the First Atomic Bomb at Gunpoint:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mka8lbEZXY&nohtml5=False



< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/7/2016 6:40:39 PM >

(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 139
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/7/2016 7:29:16 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Well I said I would try one more time and, having done so, I would not ordinarily make any further comment. However as you have raised some additional points I will answer these.

First and foremost I am very disappointed that you feel that I have made a personal attack on you. I fail to see where I have personally attacked you.

This is a grown up forum and from time to time – particularly where there are contentious subjects under discussion, it is to be expected that debate can get heated, and arguments put forth robustly. Have a look at some of the exchanges between myself and mind_messing in the past! That does not always follow of course. I am pretty much diametrically opposed to robinsa’s position on this thread for example, but he conducts himself in a way such that while I do not share his views, I fully recognise his right to state them.

So why – while not personally attacking you – has my response been “robust”? Well quite simply because you have been disingenuous in your response. I am not taking about a matter of opinion, I am talking about distorting the facts just as Robert Harris did in the sensationalist TV documentary. Additionally you also continue to insist on using hindsight in your arguments which is frustrating as hell, and you have made absolutely no allowance for the situation at the time.

So for the final time I will respond to you on this subject.

quote:

It did make the decision to post only part of the memo because of the length and the fact the full text was readily available in this threat.


Okay, that is your story (and I think you were being disingenuous) but frankly, now you have confirmed you are aware of Point 1 and you still believe WSC wanted to use gas, it is kind of moot.

quote:

I even thought about the possibility of beeing challenged on this but must admit I never had this thought because of the starting statement. The omission of churchills opinion that poison gas is not a deadly weapon is a much more heinous crime than leaving out the deadly threat to Britain in point 1.


Given that gas is unsatisfactory because of wind conditions and because the populace can be provided with gas masks to nullify it, I would suggest it’s probably less deadly than being hit by a V2 .

quote:

In my eyes the ending stattements of point 6 and 7 pretty much reflect his position on the use of poison gas including when it should be used and to which effect.


And that is the point, it doesn’t. You have lost the context, you have lost the conditions, all you have done is made WSC sound like you want him to. No restrictions, no caveats, just an insane old warmonger wanting to murder as many people as possible.

Its not rocket science. Look at this sentence.

"If a man were to kill my family I would have no qualms in saying "I want to kill that man". Now, if you take away the part in bold, my actions are seen in a completely different light. Why do you not understand that?

quote:

Not posting the whole memo was a mistake. Not because I think it was misleading in any way


Correct and incorrect – in that order
quote:


but because it can be used as an angle for a personal attack

quote:

This character assissanation

quote:

insult me as an ignorant fool

quote:

That I get called a liar


Re the first two points, I have done nothing of the sort. You may want to grow up on that front. Re the third point I have not called you a fool, but I do think your views are mis-guided. Re the final point, yes I accused you of spreading the lie that Robert Harris helped create by doing the things that he did i.e. mis-quoting and quoting out of context. I do not apologise for that.

quote:

But back to misquoting. You changed your line of arguing to a perceived threat of 4000 civilist/ missile at the time of the memo to a warhead 3-7 times as big as he really was. That would be 738kg Amatol x 3-7. Pretty impressive. A war winning super weapon? Hardly. The british Grand Slam carried 4144 kg Hexogen.


quote:

The threat posed by Germany in July 44 with the beachhead expanding and Bagration kicking of viewed ex ante?


I don’t fully understand your point in the second paragraph but I think I get the jist. You have made two big issues here – and I have been at fault in encouraging you in both. Firstly you have latched onto the size of the V.2 and whether Churchill would have thought the estimates were 4,000 dead per bomb or a number smaller than that. Secondly you have latched on to my “war winning” comment – although see below.

This part of your argument is where you fail to understand that the use of hindsight in these discussions is totally pointless. The actual numbers here are pretty immaterial. Why? Because they are guess work, and in the same way that scientists and technical “experts” got things wrong on the low side, they also got things wrong on the high side. What is “known” is that this new weapon is big and its powerful and it’s going to hurt. Now, how big? How accurate? How many can be launched? What range? well, no one can say for certain, but is WSC going to gamble or press for a course of action that he thinks is right (as any responsible leader does)?

You yourself admitted that

quote:

I was always under the impression the Allied planers were suprised by German resiliance and not the sudden collapse of the Reich.


Quite. How many times during the war had the German surprised the Allies? So as I outlined before, let’s re-cap on the real life situation that faces WSC. No hindsight, no hyperbole, just facts and advice that WSC was receiving.

As you say, D-Day and Bagration have happened. However, the Allies have not yet made the breakout in France, Caen a day-1 target has still not been taken, the Russians are making huge progress but what if they run out of steam? the British Army (not sure about the US) is literally running out of men, divisions are being merged to maintain others in the field, despite the Germans being beaten they then put the V.1 into play and London is under the blitz once more and this is to be followed by a bigger, more deadly weapon and who knows what else? This is where the questions above come in. In this scenario WSC as leader of the UK, needs to ensure he does not drop the ball. If he does and the Allies suffer a reverse and/or civilian casualties rocket, there will only be one person to blame. As I’ve said, real life, real lives, real decisions to be made, real contingencies to be explored.

quote:

The V2 to my knowledge was built in bomb save shelters and was not fired from the german population centers so I fail to see how drenching german cities in poison gas could be considered helpfull.


And Churchill’s military leaders were in agreement with you and, ultimately, so was WSC.

quote:

Back to the memo. I still cant change my oponion about this. I dont see it as a wish for an assessment of threats and options but as a demand to back Churchills plans


Demand? I won’t insult you by asking if you know how a democracy works, but this wasn’t Nazi Germany.

quote:

expressed partly in a bullyish way like calling potential oponents "psalm-singing uniformed defeatist" (please read the full text in the link provided above for context).


quote:

Another telling thing is the disappointment he expressed when he was turned down. That doesnt make the impression he was very open minded about the outcome of his proposal.


Why do you think that WSC is considered the right man for the job in the dark days of May 1940? Within a few weeks, we (Commonwealth) were at war, on our own, and still proving how unprepared we were in many ways for that war after 9 months. It took someone with drive, energy, guts and yes, at times a downright unpleasant character to get the job done. Churchill, as we know, suffered fools badly and was frustrated with some of the people he had to deal with. Bullying? Yes I suspect it goes with the job. Often things don’t just come to people, they have to be fought for. Churchill was no doubt no different here than he was about other matters.

Disappointed? Well yes, like almost all people who get into positions of power, he happened to think he was right and did not like to be disagreed with. Its life.

quote:

Warspite, you can be proud of your country


Thank-you, yes for the most part I am.

quote:

…and its constitution


No, for the simple reason that we don’t have one.

quote:

and tradition that brought forward a military leadership which turned down the wish of their most powerfull politian after years of total warfare, the country still beeing under constant attack. That would not have been thinkable in every country especially under totalitarian rule. You can also choose to follow the great leader in unblinking loyality.


Except you have mis-read this completely. Yes, the minute shows that WSC wanted to explore this option – AND I REPEAT ONCE AGAIN POINT 1 AS THE GOVERNING CONDITION. What actually happened? The Americans broke out to the West and Caen was taken leading to the dash across France in the Autumn (whereupon the Germans once again surprised the Allies). The Soviets didn’t stall. The V.2 began landing in September and was nowhere near as bad as originally feared. So what happened to the gas? What did WSC do next? You say he wanted to use gas? So where are the cabinet papers showing him bringing the subject up again? Where in the memoirs of the military leaders such as Lord Alan Brooke is mention made of Churchill clamouring for the use of gas? You insist this wasn’t a case of exploring the options but a man hell bent on using gas for no good reason? Okay, so where is your proof? Why are you so desperate to attack a man's reputation based on one dodgy dossier?

quote:

How would you have voted on the memo?


I would like to think I would have done as WSC did. I put forward my ideas and, as Prime Minister, expected to be listened to, while at the same time listening to my professional advisors. If my professional advisors told me that the use of gas was impractical in stopping the problem I was trying to solve I would like to think I would listen. Being an insufferable old bugger, and the Prime Minister, I would ensure that I would make my displeasure at being overruled known.

But fact is, just like WSC, I would not have wanted to use gas in the first place, so the fact I didn’t have to would have been a welcome relief.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/8/2016 8:04:43 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 140
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 9:50:00 AM   
postfux

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 8/18/2015
Status: offline 		I bring this up again one last time but not to continue the downward spiral but to clarify things and perhaps even find some common ground.

I absolutely share your opinion of Churchill beeing the right man at the right time at the right place. He stood up against Hitler at a time when it was not easy and when there were other options and thereby contributed greatly to the downfall of the Third Reich. This is an outstanding historic achievement that puts him among histories greatest and cant be taken away from him.

Like every historic figure it does not put him beyond criticism. You yourself also hint at an unpleasent streak of character. One that was checked in this special case thanks to your countries military leadership.

Me making an unfounded and premature Churchill smear? Please reread my post, especially the last line. The shock I expressed clearly did result from the fact the memo did NOT fit into my expectations. In no way I wanted to put water on the mills of revisionist and relativists, people that annoy me big time (perhaps partly because I have "lost" a great grandmother to the Nazi euthanasia program and no family member to allied warfare).

I must add that I ABSOLUTELY dont share what seems to be your opinion about the legitimacy of the use of poison gas. I guess you said more than you wanted in the heat of the action or that I misunderstood you.

Allow me to add a last line that I see a difference in beeing attacked about the facts my opinions are based on (I can stomach that) or about the perceived motives and intentionts my opinions are brought forth.

Anyway, its springtime. I am off to the garden and will be back in autumn.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 141
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 10:03:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		You'll be back in the autumn? Sounds like a bloody big garden! Enjoy

Sadly its wet and miserable here so the grass goes uncut for another week......It'll be a jungle by the time I get to it .

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to postfux)
Post #: 142
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 12:55:11 PM   
aspqrz02

 

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

This has come up before, and the idea that we are using today's values to judge historic actions. But it should be okay to judge historic actions with historic values, and the historic values were certainly a respect for the protection of non-combatants in war.

There was outrage in WWI, regarding German treatment of Belgium citizens (perceived Guerrilla fighters). The treatment of Boer civilian populations by the British in the Anglo-Boer war was regarded as a moral wrong. There was moral outrage at the sinking of the Lusitania, killing many civilians, American civilians, moral outrage, even though she was a valid target and carrying war munitions. Didn't stop the moral outrage of killing civilians.

From the 1907 Hague convention.

quote:

Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2]


While these clauses relate to land and naval bombardment, the moral understanding of the appropriate behavior of bombarding (aerial or otherwise) is absolutely there.


It is possible that you do not understand the significance of the wording of these articles ... I would commend to you the commentaries on the Hague and Geneva Conventions available on the ICRC website as well as the US Army FM on the US interpretation of the Laws of Land Warfare (also available online).

The clauses in question do not, necessarily, mean what most laypersons assume they mean and, indeed, the commentaries I mention make that most clear.

Clause 25. "Undefended" is the key here. All German (and British) cities were 'defended' ... this was taken to mean that they had active and/or passive local and or national air defence systems. Even a single AA gun or Barrage Balloon anywhere in the vicinity was enough ... heck, the stationing of any Fighters of any sort anywhere within a couple of hundred klicks was regarded as enough.

This was acknowledged as a problem in the inter-war period and all major powers tried to come to some agreement of how to update laws clearly unsuited for the new technology to some that were ... and they failed, miserably. They could come to no mutually acceptable agreement.

That self-same problem remains. The recent(ish) decision by the International Court over the legality of the use of Atomic Weapons made a similar decision ... it said that first use was probably not acceptable, but follow on use was ... and, of course, the US and USSR do not accept the judgement (and, afaik, neither do the other nuclear powers), so the decision is like fairy floss, nice, but ultimately of no nutritional value.

Clause 26 has the same sort of problem ... "Except in cases of assault" ... or, to put it another way, you do NOT have to give warning if doing so would give away your plans in such a way as to increase your casualties, even if not doing so would cause increased civilian casualties.

Reality bites. Air attacks are, in that definitive sense, "assaults" ... and no warning need be given.

In fact, the only case(s) where such warnings would normally be given would be in sieges ... where you would warn the besieged that you were going to attack at some undefined time and would, perforce, be unable to direct the attack so as to ensure no civilian casualties would be caused ... putting the onus on the defenders.

Which is fine, as far as it goes, but the Hague Convention then allows as how the besieger may FIRE ON CIVILIANS ATTEMPTING TO LEAVE A BESIEGED PLACE, and, indeed, kill them, even if they are unarmed, because that would be placing a military advantage in the hands of the besieged military forces (that is, allowing them to hold out longer by ridding themselves of useless mouths to feed, provide medical aid for, and protected shelter for) ... so, in fact, the provision is not at all what most uninformed people assume is the purpose of the Hague Conventions.

Article 27. "As far as is possible" ... don't you recognise weasel words typical of lawyers? With the level of accuracy available to Bombers in WW2, or even today, you cannot come even close to guaranteeing no 'collateral damage' ... all you are required to do is, really, state 'I am attacking that factory producing military equipment over there ... it is really sad that 95% of my bombing will be so inaccurate that it will miss by up to several miles and even sadder that the factory is surrounded by worker housing etc. which will inevitably be collateral damage."

The key for understanding the Hague and Geneva Conventions is that they are meant to *reduce* the inherent nastiness of war ... NOT eliminate it.

They generally do a good job of that, even if after the fact (as with Nuremberg), but reality has little to do with what most uninformed bleeding hearts believe.

The Postwar conventions have not been universally adopted, especially by the US, and, if you read their actual wording closely, again are so full of weasel words, exceptions, exclusions and all sorts of wriggle room as to be completely unfit for the purpose said uninformed bleeding hearts often assume they have.

Sherman had it spot on ...

quote:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices today than any of you to secure peace.


Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 143
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 5:17:23 PM   
bobdina

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline 		Outstanding post.

(in reply to aspqrz02)
Post #: 144
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 7:07:30 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I'm the publisher of a magazine devoted primarily to Georgia history. Recently, I've come across writers and historians who show evolving thought in how to measure the morality of people in the distant past. I think this line of reasoning is growing rapidly in American higher education and will will be asserted more vigorously in coming years.

This new insight into measuring morality is to do so by modern standards. Thus, the slave owner of 1860 or 1750 or 1300 was evil because today we know that slavery was evil. The same line of thought would apply to other moral issues - the treatment of women, the treatment of prisoners, the causes of war, etc.

The people who espouse this viewpoint are militant and highly opinionated. On the issue of slavery, for instance, they hold that anybody who doesn't agree with them is a racist. Thus, if you suggest that it's more accurate to measure the people of 1860 by the morality of that era, you are deemed racist.

That sounds extreme to many of us, but it's the developing academic viewpoint. I think it will soon come to dominate American education and historial interpretation and presentation.

I work with a historian and writer in California who has deep roots in ante bellum Georgia. He is the finest writer/historian I've ever worked with. I admire and respect him and we have a strong professional working relationship. He is a good man with the best intentions. Several months ago he told me why he agreed with this developing line of thought. It was novel to me, so I gave it much thought and eventually wrote him back in detail.

I find that it works better to measure morality be the morays of the time. Thus, in 1860, it was basically universally agreed that it was wrong to mistreat a slave. The law of the southern states encoded prohibitions against mistreating them. But it was not universally agreed that owning humans as chattel property was wrong. Many people (abolitionists) felt that it was and societal views on the issue were evolving, and the evolution seemed to be gaining momentum. But slavery had been in existence since the dawn of time and it was possible for well-meaning (if misguided) individuals to believe it was permissible.

To measure a slave owner in 1860 by 2016 standards yields extreme results. My California friend holds that all slave owners and officers and leaders of the Confederacy were evil: Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, etc. To write about them in anything but condemning terms is wrong. To honor them is racist.

To me that's an immature view of history and an impossible way to take the measure of those who lived in the past.

I gave him an example that I think shows that measuring a man by the times in which he lived yields more accurate results. Adolph Hitler is correctly viewed as evil whether by the standards of 1940 or 2016. Throughout history it has been deemed immoral to kill indiscriminatly and without just cause. So we are on solid ground to say that he was an evil man worthy of disdain, and we do so by applying the morality of 1940 rather than 2016 (though in this case both eras would yield the same result).

Taking measure of a man by the morality of his time should nearly always yield a better evaluation than trying to reach back decades or centuries using or knowledge today.

By the same token, a doctor of 1780 who believed in "bleeding" patients can't be said to be "stupid." He might have been very smart. We can, however, say that he was ignorant by our standards today. Similarly, the slave owner of 1860 wasn't evil by the standards of that day, but he was clearly ignorant (on the issue) by our standards today.

On the topic of slavery, I should add that we today recognize that slavery was impossibly immoral. Giving manking absolute power over "chattel property" was a power that mankind could not wield. Some slave owners were kind or noble or attentive to every need of their "property." And some slaves loved their owners and were loyal to them. But many slave owners were cruel in punishment and in sexual subjugation (rape; there can be no such thing as consent between master and slave). We know that slavey was an evil and that the sooner it was eliminated the better. But many southern leaders of 1860 were too close to the issue (too close to the time when slavery was almost universally permitted) to understand. We're still paying for that ignorance today.

(in reply to bobdina)
Post #: 145
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 7:17:43 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		You are giving too much professional credit to your historian colleague.  With his attitude he is just a journeyman "historian".

Far too many people give credit to people with a paper qualification.

Alfred

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 146
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 7:25:07 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Alfed, I wish that was the case. He's no journeyman. He has a MA in history from UMass, has been widely published, and has recently published a new and very highly regarded book on the Civil War. He is an up and coming writer/historian. As a storyteller, I think he's on a par with Stephen Ambrose (who could flat out write stories that keep a reader riveted).

In explaining his position, he referred me to various blogs and articles by American historians. And in the year since we went through this exercise, I've seen similar thoughts expressed in newspaper articles and commentary by some historians (and some politicians, too).

So I think this movement is developing apace in American academia.

So we see this burgeoning movement to do away with statues honoring Confederate soldiers and leaders. More than half the population are still scratching its head over this. But the movement is gaining strength in the general population and it dominates political thought, education and the media on the left. So in Georgia today there is a movement to blast the Confederate memorial off the side of Stone Mountain. And if you disagree with that, you are deemed racist.

It kind of reminds me of the "white privilege" political and society argument made commonly these days. I first heard of this 25 years ago while teaching at a local college. Now it is widely presented and is cropping up commonly in Democrat Party meetings on the local level. I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of that argument - just that it's a relatively recent evolution that has exploded in political discourse in the past year or two.


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 147
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/9/2016 7:56:49 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Still doesn't change the fat he is a journeyman "historian".

As a subject, history is essentially story telling of past events to a current audience, in a manner which is understandable to the current audience.  All historians have a bias.  The great historians, even with their bias, are able to weave a telling which transcends their time.  Burckhardt and Gibbs (? he of the rise and fall of Rome fame) are great historians notwithstanding their bias. The journeymen have no impact on future historians because their bias pollutes their work to the point that it is unreliable.  IOW a journeyman historian might be highly regarded during their lifetime by others who share the same biases but subsequently are discarded as merely being fashionable for their time period.

That your colleague has an MA and has been published means very little.  There is a lot of mediocrity in academia nowadays and it survives because it exists within a bubble of mediocrity from fellow colleagues.

As a lawyer you would be aware of judges who were feted in their time for their judgements but who nowadays are considered to just be wrong.  Then there are judgements which have been overturned purely because of fashionable views but the logic of the original judgement remains irrefutable.  The great historians, even with their bias, take into account the logic of the time period they cover. 
The journeymen just go with the fashion and fail to deal with the logic of the time period.  In a sense the journeymen are indulging in the "historical" equivalent of passing retrospective legislation to make something illegal which was not illegal.  I don't know any legal practioners who are in favour of retrospective legislation.

Alfred 

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 148
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/10/2016 12:07:03 AM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Still doesn't change the fat he is a journeyman "historian".

As a subject, history is essentially story telling of past events to a current audience, in a manner which is understandable to the current audience.  All historians have a bias.  The great historians, even with their bias, are able to weave a telling which transcends their time.  Burckhardt and Gibbs (? he of the rise and fall of Rome fame) are great historians notwithstanding their bias. The journeymen have no impact on future historians because their bias pollutes their work to the point that it is unreliable.  IOW a journeyman historian might be highly regarded during their lifetime by others who share the same biases but subsequently are discarded as merely being fashionable for their time period.

That your colleague has an MA and has been published means very little.  There is a lot of mediocrity in academia nowadays and it survives because it exists within a bubble of mediocrity from fellow colleagues.

As a lawyer you would be aware of judges who were feted in their time for their judgements but who nowadays are considered to just be wrong.  Then there are judgements which have been overturned purely because of fashionable views but the logic of the original judgement remains irrefutable.  The great historians, even with their bias, take into account the logic of the time period they cover. 
The journeymen just go with the fashion and fail to deal with the logic of the time period.  In a sense the journeymen are indulging in the "historical" equivalent of passing retrospective legislation to make something illegal which was not illegal.  I don't know any legal practioners who are in favour of retrospective legislation.

Alfred 


Alfred is totally correct in my opinion. Take this example from Caesars campaign in Gaul:

quote:

When battling foreign enemies, Caesar was ruthless. Besieging rebels in what is now the Dordogne part of France, he waited until their water supply ran out and then cut off the hands of all the survivors.


By today's standards this would be considered a War Crime and impossibly cruel (he only had their right hands removed btw), but in Caesars day it was a mercy (as opposed to killing all the males outright) and also served as an example to those who thought to resist. Caesar thought it would save lives on BOTH sides, that was why he did it. He deviated from the norm of the day of killing all the males as selling the rest into slavery.

It is ridiculous and incredibly pompous for someone who intends to present a historical view in a manner that neglects the historical context and norms. The Romans were a civilizing force in the world, as were the English, to consider them barbarians or war criminals is downright negligent.

< Message edited by desicat -- 4/10/2016 12:10:03 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 149
RE: Revisionist History-OT - 4/10/2016 12:34:56 AM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

To measure a slave owner in 1860 by 2016 standards yields extreme results. My California friend holds that all slave owners and officers and leaders of the Confederacy were evil: Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, etc. To write about them in anything but condemning terms is wrong. To honor them is racist.


Some of those southern gentlemen were the noblest and most honorable men alive in that era. To read their memoirs and try to grasp the emotional struggles that they had to endure; forced to choose between State and Country, loyalty to comrades in arms and family or to personal principle, and yes - their beliefs in God.

In those days Honor meant something (to honorable men and the general public perception), many of today's PC politicians would not have been able to show their faces in public. A lot can be said for the virtues of dueling, yet again, without applying today's standards of course.

To erase the history of the Confederacy from the public record would ease the conscience of a few, yet the cultural degradation and moral chasm it would leave would further accelerate today's rapid descent into cultural relativism or nothingness. Only the accepted norms will be tolerated, leaving on future stagnation and decadence.

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Revisionist History-OT Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.016