Russian, Ukrainian & FSU Information & Manosphere Discussion Forums
General Discussion => General Chat => Topic started by: Slumba on July 03, 2018, 11:10:34 AM
-
https://aussiesta.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/winning-the-battle-of-stalingrad-with-biological-warfare/
Admittedly a "conspiracy theory" but thought-provoking. Stalin had used chemical warfare previously, after all...
-
https://aussiesta.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/winning-the-battle-of-stalingrad-with-biological-warfare/
Admittedly a "conspiracy theory" but thought-provoking. Stalin had used chemical warfare previously, after all...
Did Stalin use chemical weapons against the Germans during the battle of Stalingrad? Probably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion
Did Hitler violate the agreement he had with Stalin and invade a country he didn't belong in? Obviously so.
Don't invade other countries which don't belong to you and bad things won't happen to your soldiers.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
Who did such a heinous thing?
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
Who did such a heinous thing?
:biggrin:
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
just a very rough calculation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed. WWII 50 million?? 130,000 was just a drop in the bucket. about 0.25% ???
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
just a very rough calculation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed. WWII 50 million?? 130,000 was just a drop in the bucket. about 0.25% ???
It’s hard not to admire the audacity of attempting to justify your country’s nuclear bomb drops into civilian areas just to see if their new toys worked.
But, this toll was the result of two strikes, on one nation, whereas the larger figure you cite was the result of total war over a 6 year period in many countries.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
just a very rough calculation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed. WWII 50 million?? 130,000 was just a drop in the bucket. about 0.25% ???
I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
just a very rough calculation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed. WWII 50 million?? 130,000 was just a drop in the bucket. about 0.25% ???
I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.
glorify? Have you ever fought in a war? there is no glory in war.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
just a very rough calculation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 130,000 killed. WWII 50 million?? 130,000 was just a drop in the bucket. about 0.25% ???
I had wondered if anyone was going to try and glorify it. It was a truly horrific thing to do and had a non allied country dropped them on the west, the portrayal would be night and day.
More horrific would have been the casualties involved with invading Japan to bring the war to an end. He didn’t glorify anything, that’s just you trying to re-interpret reality so you can bad-mouth the USA. Not today please.
-
Worth remembering that it was an era where dropping nuclear bombs on innocent civilians was considered acceptable.
Your argument would be better if:
1) The USSR hadn't signed the Geneva Protocol on chemical and bio weapons in the 1920s, which specifically prohibited the weapons' use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (search for Russia)
2) It wasn't "whataboutism".
3) I can do whataboutism, too: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/untold-story-vengeful-japanese-attack-doolittle-raid-180955001/
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.
Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.
War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.
We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.
Carry on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
I should have been more succinct, in that what I should have pointed out is that I was dealing with the narrow question of whether Stalingrad was defended by using CBW agents. I wasn't intending to get into "what are the limits of morality in war" which is a separate discussion.
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
I should have been more succinct, in that what I should have pointed out is that I was dealing with the narrow question of whether Stalingrad was defended by using CBW agents. I wasn't intending to get into "what are the limits of morality in war" which is a separate discussion.
Fair enough but I was only giving some context as to what was considered acceptable at that time.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.
Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.
War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.
We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.
Carry on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/
And I agree, war is hell and the Japs did some pretty horrific things.....which they have since apologised for. All forgotten absolutely not but acknowledged none the less. But my point wasn’t about the Japs, it’s the US attitude even today.
Just read this thread and none of you put the hand up and admit it was horrific. Instead murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children is still justified to this day because of Jap scientists and Japan attacking a military target during war.
Not sure you’ll ever really get my point but then again, that’s kinda the point I was making. The Brits carried out many a barbaric act over time, many of them truly horrific. Was it nessesary? Perhaps considering it got the job done but we can all admit today that murdering civilians to win a war is never justified.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
It’s a normal reaction when Russians talk about sending couple million German civilians to Siberia and starving them to death. I’ve heard some Russians real proud that hundreds of thousands of German babies born in Germany at the end of WWII have Russian paternity due to a million German women being raped in Berlin and surrounding areas, some victory party.
Eisenhower starved at least a million German soldiers at wars end. Then there are the horrific firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, a more horrific way to die if there ever was as opposed to an instant death.
War is hell and to be blunt the Japanese brought it upon themselves when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japanese soldiers committed some horrific atrocities against the Chinese and Japanese scientists conducted horrific medical experiments.
We didn’t fight to lose back then and the damn media was totally controlled by the government.
Carry on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/review-of-gruesome-harvest-the-allied-attempt-to-exterminate-germany-after-1945′/amp/
And I agree, war is hell and the Japs did some pretty horrific things.....which they have since apologised for. All forgotten absolutely not but acknowledged none the less. But my point wasn’t about the Japs, it’s the US attitude even today.
Just read this thread and none of you put the hand up and admit it was horrific. Instead murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children is still justified to this day because of Jap scientists and Japan attacking a military target during war.
Not sure you’ll ever really get my point but then again, that’s kinda the point I was making. The Brits carried out many a barbaric act over time, many of them truly horrific. Was it nessesary? Perhaps considering it got the job done but we can all admit today that murdering civilians to win a war is never justified.
Yes we killed some Japanese civilians in order to quickly end a brutal war. For a guy who isn’t normally PC you’re being remarkably sensitive about this.
You neglected to mention the primary reason the decision was made to do it, which was to reduce casualties. You act as if that wasn’t done and the alternative, a full-scale invasion would have been better.
Conservative estimates are that 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died in an invasion. Far more than two cities would have been left shouldering. A tough decision but one ultimately of mercy.
The 800 lb. gorilla you are ignoring is the Japanese soldier did not like to surrender. They were fanatical in their belief of superiority. We made the right choice. We ended that war quickly.
I notice you were silent about how German civilians were treated thus proving my point. They deserved it, right? Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-have-happened-if-the-US-had-decided-to-invade-Japan-with-full-military-might-instead-of-dropping-atomic-bombs-on-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
Can you give a link to support this statement?
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
An insensitive dolt? :ROFL:
Forgive me but this is a discussion forum and a bit like the world series, the rest of the world doesn't celebrate your national day.
If discussions about the war on a forum offend you on your special day, then maybe the real world isn't for you?
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
Can you give a link to support this statement?
There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended. "
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians.
If they were working in factories that produced military goods and staples to support the Japanese war effort are they still considered "innocent"?
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians.
If they were working in factories that produced military goods and staples to support the Japanese war effort are they still considered "innocent"?
I believe workers are different from front line troops but bombing factories which produce vital supplies during war time is fare game. Yes it's collateral but for me, it's totally different than dropping nukes on heavily populated zones for the shock factor.
Wiping out a city because some of the population worked in the supply line is going too far, it has to be more focused if you want to keep the moral high ground.
At least that's my opinion.
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
Can you give a link to support this statement?
There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended. "
Crimes and Mercies by James Bacque was my source.
https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Mercies-German-Civilians-Occupation/dp/0889225672
Also for my opinion that Eisenhower deliberately starved German POW’s by the same author is Other Losses.
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652
-
Amazon review about the highly controversial “Other Losses”. You won’t see any of this in an American High School text book.
Other Losses caused an international scandal when first published in 1989 by revealing that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower’s policies caused the death of some 1,000,000 German captives in American and French internment camps through disease, starvation and exposure from 1944 to 1949, as a direct result of the policies of the western Allies, who, with the Soviets, ruled as the Military Occupation Government over partitioned Germany from May 1945 until 1949.
An attempted book-length disputation of Other Losses, was published in 1992, featuring essays by British, American and German revisionist historians (Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts Against Falsehood, edited by Ambrose & Günter). However, that same year Bacque flew to Moscow to examine the newly-opened KGB archives, where he found meticulously and exhaustively documented new proof that almost one million German POWs had indeed died in those Western camps.
-
This one is the standard bearer for what happened to German civilians who didn’t escape the Iron Curtain. A neighbor lady of mine 80+ years old but strong and mentally sharp told me a tale of her as a little girl escaping the Czech Republic before advancing Soviet troops with only the clothes on her back and a small suitcase.
https://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Revenge-Cleansing-European-Germans/dp/1403973083
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
Can you give a link to support this statement?
There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended. "
Crimes and Mercies by James Bacque was my source.
https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Mercies-German-Civilians-Occupation/dp/0889225672
Also for my opinion that Eisenhower deliberately starved German POW’s by the same author is Other Losses.
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652
I don't see any problem there! Do you?
-
The discussion is rather tactless on Independence Day in the United States.
Why, are you really that precious?
No, I am just not an insensitive dolt.
Credible estimates are that a total of about 9.5 million Germans were deliberately starved after the war ended.
Can you give a link to support this statement?
There are many. try searching "Germans deliberately starved after the war ended. "
Crimes and Mercies by James Bacque was my source.
https://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Mercies-German-Civilians-Occupation/dp/0889225672
Also for my opinion that Eisenhower deliberately starved German POW’s by the same author is Other Losses.
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652
I don't see any problem there! Do you?
If it was OK for Eisenhower to deliberately starve German POWs (assuming that is what you are referring to) then the Holocaust is similarly unremarkable...
-
If it was OK for Eisenhower to deliberately starve German POWs (assuming that is what you are referring to) then the Holocaust is similarly unremarkable...
I'm not so sure about that. However I do know that thousands of German prisoners
in Holland were not immediately repatriated but were kept against their will to remove
the literally millions of land mines the Germans planted on the Dutch west coat to protect
from allied invasion. Over 2000 died in the process.
See the movie "Land of Mines" I watched in on the flight home from Russia last September.
-
Who did such a heinous thing?
Everyone who was able to do so, did so.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
Everyone involved in the war who had airplanes intentionally bombed civilians.
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
Everyone involved in the war who had airplanes intentionally bombed civilians.
Yep. They’re just jealous our bombs were more effective. :nod:
-
Many in the Japanese military did not want to surrender despite the dropping of the A-bombs. They wanted to fight to the death and to the last man. Victory or death was the Fascist motto.
Imagine giving Hitler the nuclear option. He would gladly wipe out Allied cities off the face of the Earth. And reconfigure the human gene pool more to his party's doctrine. >:(
-
If it was OK for Eisenhower to deliberately starve German POWs (assuming that is what you are referring to) then the Holocaust is similarly unremarkable...
I'm not so sure about that. However I do know that thousands of German prisoners
in Holland were not immediately repatriated but were kept against their will to remove
the literally millions of land mines the Germans planted on the Dutch west coat to protect
from allied invasion. Over 2000 died in the process.
See the movie "Land of Mines" I watched in on the flight home from Russia last September.
Are you back in the game Shakey or was it more of a social trip?
-
My point is whether or not it was the best way to end a war, it’s still incomprehensible to think it was morally right, to nuke innocent civilians. It’s not an attack on the US it’s a statement of fact. If an unfriendly country to the west even discussed doing similar these days, it would be viewed much differently.....another fact.
My second point is that rather than acknowledge the atrocity it’s always defended or justified. This isn’t a normal reaction.
Carry on.
Everyone involved in the war who had airplanes intentionally bombed civilians.
Yep. They’re just jealous our bombs were more effective. :nod:
I’m not sure jealous is the word? I accept the moral compass was on a different path during those tough years but it was true then and still true today - with great power comes great responsibility!
The only thing that waters it down, is that I think it was Spider-Man who said it!! :chuckle:
-
Are you back in the game Shakey or was it more of a social trip?
Naw - never again. I've discovered "renting" is much cheaper than "owning" in the long run.
Just checking in on my remaining business interests, visiting old friends, playing
in the Night Flight Open golf tournament and any and all "monkey business" associated
with that.
:evilgrin0002:
-
If it was OK for Eisenhower to deliberately starve German POWs (assuming that is what you are referring to) then the Holocaust is similarly unremarkable...
I'm not so sure about that. However I do know that thousands of German prisoners
in Holland were not immediately repatriated but were kept against their will to remove
the literally millions of land mines the Germans planted on the Dutch west coat to protect
from allied invasion. Over 2000 died in the process.
See the movie "Land of Mines" I watched in on the flight home from Russia last September.
Thats so typicly dutch. You can leave, but only after you have cleaned up your sh*t.