The Empire is finished, no foreign lands to seize....

[Evil Genius]

Further to Sid W's analysis, which I agree with, there is one other aspect to the UK's role in WWII which needs to be pointed out.

Which was that Hitler never actually wanted to invade Britain, rather he hoped desperately to avoid it.

If you look at everything he ever said or did, he was motivated by racism. The Germans ("Ayrans") were top dogs, whose destiny was to rule a 1,000 year Reich on the European continent, with expansion to the East providing "Lebensraum" for an expanding German population.

The Slavs and Eastern Europeans were "Untermensch" who were to provide slave labour for the Reich, while the Jews and Roma etc were only fit for extermination.

Within this world view, as white Anglo-Saxons, he saw the British as next to the Germans in the hierarchy - hadn't they carved out an Empire all round the world to prove it?

And since he had no overseas ambitions for Germany, his "deal" was that if they kept out of the war, he would allow them to keep their overseas Empire, while he got on with carving out an empire of his own on the Continent. Which would also offer the obvious advantage of not having to fight on two fronts, while he got on with what was always his overriding priority - to attack Poland, Ukraine and (esp) Russia.

In this, he was encouraged by Appeasers (eg Lord Halifax), Fascists (eg Mosley), and naive members of the political establishment (eg Chamberlain) in the UK, to believe that he could make a deal. In addition, he never believed that the UK would go to the aid of Poland, after blithely abandoning Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even as late as 1940, when the world saw how easily France and Western Europe had crumbled, he continued to hope that a weak and isolated UK would finally "see sense" and sue for peace.

Which was, for instance, he never seriously tried to mount a sea invasion (he was happy to believe Goering when he claimed that the Luftwaffe alone would bring Britain to its knees within weeks), and also explains Hess's desperate flight to Britain in 1941, as he (Hess) still felt there was a chance of "an honourable peace" between UK and Germany.

And make no mistake, with the carnage of WWI still fresh in British minds a mere 20 years later, there were many, many people in the UK who were desperate to avoid another war at any cost. Which explains why Churchill, who had been seen as a dangerous, war-mongering outsider throughout the 1930's, didn't get to become PM until May 1940 i.e. 8 months after the war had begun: many people were still hoping it could be settled without all-out conflict.

So all in all, it was touch and go whether Britain would fight, with every reason for believing that without the intervention of Churchill personally, the UK could easily have sued for peace with Hitler. Which could very easily have seen Operation Barbarossa succeed and the whole of Europe subjugated and enslaved, with European Jewry completely destroyed.

All of which explains why no-one on the Continent and beyond is tearing down the numerous Churchill monuments and memorials; on the contrary, he is widely revered even yet.

As for Ireland, people might like to consider that he was always a committed Home Ruler, with no sympathy for Ulster Unionism....

[Evil Genius]

But when you state 'Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy'. You are entering very dicey territory. You are dehumanising and entire people. Once you do that you should gave no problem fire bombing or using chemical and or biological weapons or whatever you want outside of the Geneva convention.
          I'm sure that first line is in every terrorists handbook btw.

You miss the point entirely.

Which is that even if there were huge civilian casualties in Germany from the Allied bombing campaign etc, Britain made a distinction between fighting the Nazi's and fighting the "entire [German] people".

The proof of this is to be found by contrasting the behaviour of the Nazi's towards the local populations in Poland, Ukraine and Russia when they occupied those countries in 1941/42; and that of UK/USA when they occupied Germany in 1945.

Or look at the USSR's treatment of the people in the countries they occupied/controlled after 1945.

Meanwhile, on the specific question of the aerial bombing campaign (Dresden etc), no legal expert has ever seriously considered prosecuting UK/USA over this, not because we were the winners, but actually because such activity did not come within the strict legal definition of what constitutes a "war crime".

For example, one requirement is that the perpetrators should have carried out their activities at no risk to themselves (eg soldiers rounding up civilians and murdering them).

Here are the casualty figures for RAF Bomber Command during WWII:

Killed in action or died while prisoners of war 47,268
Killed in flying or ground accidents 8,195
Killed in ground-battle action 37
Total fatal casualties to aircrew 55,500
Prisoners of war, including many wounded 9,838
Wounded in aircraft which returned from operations 4,200
Wounded in flying or ground accidents in U. K. 4,203
Total wounded, other than prisoners of war 8,403
Total aircrew casualties 73,741
http://www.rafinfo.org.uk/BCWW2Losses/BC-RoH-casstats.htm

Considering just under 120,000 aircrew served in Bomber Command during the war, this means 46% died, with another 15% wounded or captured.

So whatever else you think of them, they were phenomenally courageous in carrying out their duties, and this sacrifice alone provides a valid defence to any possible "War Crimes" charge.

[J70]

a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy

I suppose a couple of issues i have with this logic. A pedantic point really but, who decides who or what was the most evil regime in the history of mankind? How do they quantify all of this?
      There has been some pretty bad regimes going of the top of my head in terms of sheer scale Mongol empire, Stalin and Soviet Union, the Nazi's, British empire, Mao and Pol Pot. All bad bast@rds in my eyes.

   But when you state 'Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy'. You are entering very dicey territory. You are dehumanising and entire people. Once you do that you should gave no problem fire bombing or using chemical and or biological weapons or whatever you want outside of the Geneva convention.
          I'm sure that first line is in every terrorists handbook btw.

Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.

From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.

[grounded]

You miss the point entirely.

No, i dont think i do. Its always the same argument when it comes to Dresden or any similar action by the British whether it was in either of the ww's, Kenya, India, South Africa, Malaysia or even here
       ' desperate times required desperate actions'
       Call a spade a spade. Firebombing Dresden was a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's or the Soviets(allies) carried out worse actions, Or that the allied airmen(who were carrying out orders) had high casualty rates(They were certainly brave men that is not in doubt).
       History is written by the winners and that is why there was never any or there will never be any  prosecution of that act.
       

[grounded]

a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy

I suppose a couple of issues i have with this logic. A pedantic point really but, who decides who or what was the most evil regime in the history of mankind? How do they quantify all of this?
      There has been some pretty bad regimes going of the top of my head in terms of sheer scale Mongol empire, Stalin and Soviet Union, the Nazi's, British empire, Mao and Pol Pot. All bad bast@rds in my eyes.

   But when you state 'Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy'. You are entering very dicey territory. You are dehumanising and entire people. Once you do that you should gave no problem fire bombing or using chemical and or biological weapons or whatever you want outside of the Geneva convention.
          I'm sure that first line is in every terrorists handbook btw.

Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.

From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.

So, was it ok to firebomb Dresden?
     The justification of Dresden basically boils down to: they were bad bast@rds and they got what they deserved.
       Thats fair enough, the Nazis were some of the worst examples of humanity that ever existed. In the eyes of the allied military top strategists the allied firebombing campaign in Germany had one specific goal namely the demoralisation of the German civilian population.
        Perhaps in the context of ww2 and the Allied fight for survival the argument for such an action could be made. Perhaps war crimes were necessary for the defeat of Nazi Germany?
       
       

     

[Main Street]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Hmm... I'm sure the millions who died in the imposed famine of West Bengal during war time would appreciate your fine words about Britain  and Churchill's war cabinet's decisions, stripped the grain warehouses of every grain of rice, decisions made for the greater good,  ie. the preservation of their control over their empire.

Well if it's any consolation to you, the Empire didn't last very long, and also, I wasn't making a point in defence of the British Empire.

I note you didn't actually argue the point I made, but sure I'm well used to people doing that.

I did argue one of your 'facts' I even put it in bold, but you missed it by a country mile in your rush to present the readers digest version of WW2 in europe.
Perhaps you havent the foggiest notion about what was done to India as a country and a people during WW2 by Churchill's "clean and moral hands", perhaps Indian lives don't matter as much to you. 
The debate is about Churchill the patriot of England and the empire, who not only was inherently racist but a sadistic cruel one  especially when it came to places like India
The central theme of Churchill's career had been, in his own words, 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'. By the end of his life it was clear that this had not been achieved.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815 much of his ambition re WW2 was to save the Empire.
But don't fret for Winston's statues, his ideological descendents, the English racists Tommy Robinson et al  are on duty to protect and serve.

[Eamonnca1]

Well the Germans flattened Coventry long before the Brits ever got near Dresden. Germany was the aggressor, not Britain. Again, war is a very dirty business, a World War is a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy. There was nothing inevitable about victory. The war would not have been won without bombing from the air. It was all out war.

I don't think you can compare it to the Siege of Drogheda at all, you can compare Drogheda to what the Nazis did all across eastern Europe alright. You can probably compare Dresden to the atomic bombs in a way. The argument for the atomic bombs was that they shocked Japan so much that they brought about an earlier surrender than would otherwise have occurred. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with that argument - I would probably tend against it because the civilian toll was so great and the nature of the weapon used was so shocking and destructive - but I can see the argument and how many people might consider it valid.

So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?

[J70]

a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy

I suppose a couple of issues i have with this logic. A pedantic point really but, who decides who or what was the most evil regime in the history of mankind? How do they quantify all of this?
      There has been some pretty bad regimes going of the top of my head in terms of sheer scale Mongol empire, Stalin and Soviet Union, the Nazi's, British empire, Mao and Pol Pot. All bad bast@rds in my eyes.

   But when you state 'Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy'. You are entering very dicey territory. You are dehumanising and entire people. Once you do that you should gave no problem fire bombing or using chemical and or biological weapons or whatever you want outside of the Geneva convention.
          I'm sure that first line is in every terrorists handbook btw.

Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.

From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.

So, was it ok to firebomb Dresden?
   

Under the circumstances, I don't personally have an issue with it.  The historians can fight it out. No matter what I say, I'm sure you have a counter argument.

But I'm not arguing that the Allies conducted the war immaculately or that some of their decisions can't be second-guessed afterwards. Dresden was one of a number of cities firebombed by both sides. The writing was on the wall for the Germans by that time (same as the Japanese when Tokyo was firebombed the following month), and they still would not countenance surrender.

[J70]

Well the Germans flattened Coventry long before the Brits ever got near Dresden. Germany was the aggressor, not Britain. Again, war is a very dirty business, a World War is a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy. There was nothing inevitable about victory. The war would not have been won without bombing from the air. It was all out war.

I don't think you can compare it to the Siege of Drogheda at all, you can compare Drogheda to what the Nazis did all across eastern Europe alright. You can probably compare Dresden to the atomic bombs in a way. The argument for the atomic bombs was that they shocked Japan so much that they brought about an earlier surrender than would otherwise have occurred. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with that argument - I would probably tend against it because the civilian toll was so great and the nature of the weapon used was so shocking and destructive - but I can see the argument and how many people might consider it valid.

So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?

Only difference I see, in the perspective of the time, is in the result. The Tokyo firebombing was as destructive. But even then, it took the second bombing and the threat of another to bring about the Japanese surrender.

[sid waddell]

Well the Germans flattened Coventry long before the Brits ever got near Dresden. Germany was the aggressor, not Britain. Again, war is a very dirty business, a World War is a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy. There was nothing inevitable about victory. The war would not have been won without bombing from the air. It was all out war.

I don't think you can compare it to the Siege of Drogheda at all, you can compare Drogheda to what the Nazis did all across eastern Europe alright. You can probably compare Dresden to the atomic bombs in a way. The argument for the atomic bombs was that they shocked Japan so much that they brought about an earlier surrender than would otherwise have occurred. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with that argument - I would probably tend against it because the civilian toll was so great and the nature of the weapon used was so shocking and destructive - but I can see the argument and how many people might consider it valid.

So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?

My belief is that they had to. Should any air bombing at all have been part of the war effort in your view?

Hiroshima killed nearly 150k, Nagasaki nearly another 100k. Dresden is estimated to have had a death toll of around 25k.

By any stretch of the imagination, whether by casualties or by the means used, Dresden does not compare to the atomic bombs.

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Hmm... I'm sure the millions who died in the imposed famine of West Bengal during war time would appreciate your fine words about Britain  and Churchill's war cabinet's decisions, stripped the grain warehouses of every grain of rice, decisions made for the greater good,  ie. the preservation of their control over their empire.

Well if it's any consolation to you, the Empire didn't last very long, and also, I wasn't making a point in defence of the British Empire.

I note you didn't actually argue the point I made, but sure I'm well used to people doing that.

I did argue one of your 'facts' I even put it in bold, but you missed it by a country mile in your rush to present the readers digest version of WW2 in europe.
Perhaps you havent the foggiest notion about what was done to India as a country and a people during WW2 by Churchill's "clean and moral hands", perhaps Indian lives don't matter as much to you. 
The debate is about Churchill the patriot of England and the empire, who not only was inherently racist but a sadistic cruel one  especially when it came to places like India
The central theme of Churchill's career had been, in his own words, 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'. By the end of his life it was clear that this had not been achieved.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815 much of his ambition re WW2 was to save the Empire.
But don't fret for Winston's statues, his ideological descendents, the English racists Tommy Robinson et al  are on duty to protect and serve.

The problem with such anti-Britishness, especially on an Irish forum, is that the mere upholding of historical fact leads to totally ridiculous stuff like comparing people to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who is racist, fascist sc**bag who I utterly abhor - were I in England I'd be firmly on the left of the Labour party. God knows I've written enough stuff supporting Corbyn, his policies and most of his worldview over the last few years.

You also must have missed my previous posts where I mention the British Empire and what I think of it.

The famine in Bengal was a tragedy of the highest order, but it was not deliberate, was not a genocide (neither was the Irish famine), and was caused mainly by a combination of actual food shortages due to bad harvests, cack handed incompetence at a local level, and the Japanese invasion of Burma.

The causes of it are actually extremely complex. But in fake history, people can just shout "Churchill did it".

What is not fake history is that Britain behaved in the most morally just manner of the major Allied powers in World War II and of them, did indeed stand alone against the Nazis when others were collaborating and standing idly by.

No amount of subject changing bleating can change that fact. And Britain can justifiably be proud of that fact.

[Rossfan]

Was Hess on an official peace mission to try and get the Brits to stand aside while Hitler invaded Russia?

[J70]

Was Hess on an official peace mission to try and get the Brits to stand aside while Hitler invaded Russia?

Don't think its every been established definitively whether it was with the foreknowledge or authorization of Hitler.

Obviously Hitler moved decisively and brutally in the aftermath as it was neither.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

A very interesting article arguing that it was not in fact the atomic bombs that caused Japan's surrender.  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[J70]

A very interesting article arguing that it was not in fact the atomic bombs that caused Japan's surrender.  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Interesting argument indeed.

However, surely some research must have been done back in the day on the thinking of those in power in Japan?

Assuming the author's opinion is correct, did every single one of those involved toe the line and, forever more, falsely promote the decisiveness of the atomic bombings?

Has there been any revisionism in Japan?