The morality of bombing civilians The morality of bombing civilians - Page 10

starting strength gym
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 101

Thread: The morality of bombing civilians

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    530

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    I know full well that the US military are capable of annihilating any opposition. My point was that they aren't doing so. The 'political hand wringing' is exactly what I'm on about. I leave military tactics to those who a best placed to understand the battle and fighting requirements -if they determine that civilian losses are unescessary then I have to accept that to be the case, but that should not rule out the option of doing so if it shortens, or otherwise limits the number of US military casualties.

    I'm not entirely sure you are disagreeing with me in substance? It's seems you are using your knowledge of the battlefield to explain what is possible without causing unecessary civilian carnage ? I wouldn't presume to argue against you on that front. My point here is that it is moral to bomb civilians to dust if that's what it takes to ensure a swift victory-this is absolutely what MAD is in effect. If it is immoral to target civilians then the nuclear deterrent is no longer a useful deterrent because it would never be used by the US. That would be quite concerning.
    I suppose my argument, especially with regard to civilian targeting and avoiding MAD scenarios with near-peers, is to only use force when we must, use it earlier rather than dithering, annihilate our enemies, and then redeploy back to sea before the fires have burned out. If a nation harbors our enemies, then they can deal with the loss of infrastructure and the inevitable civilian casualties, but we must have done our utmost to prevent the loss of both. It must be objectively obvious so that our allies and adversaries know with whom the blame for the aftermath lies.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    I suppose my argument, especially with regard to civilian targeting and avoiding MAD scenarios with near-peers, is to only use force when we must, use it earlier rather than dithering, annihilate our enemies, and then redeploy back to sea before the fires have burned out. If a nation harbors our enemies, then they can deal with the loss of infrastructure and the inevitable civilian casualties, but we must have done our utmost to prevent the loss of both. It must be objectively obvious so that our allies and adversaries know with whom the blame for the aftermath lies.
    As I said, I'm not advocating that it's nescessary to kill every civilian, only that it is moral to do so. History can judge that action as it pleases, the lesson the enemy must learn-and all future enemies and allies alike-is that you do not shirk, shrink or surrender and will do whatever it takes to destroy any enemy immediately and with as much brutality as it takes. If the US/West had acted against Iran when it issued its fatwahs against Salman Rushdie instead of telling book shops who stocked his book that they were advised not to sell it, then the rise of in the confidence of Islamic fundamentalism would have been stopped in its tracks. The big stick is only effective if an enemy percieves it will be used.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesepuff View Post
    Contrast that with the Axis powers who went out of their way to kill civilians, especially in China, Poland and the Soviet Union.

    I submit that "our version" of morality was pretty solid.
    Speaking about the first half of the 20th c. and the British empire, both because I'm a Brit and seeing as we were very enthusiastic about starting WWII, our version of morality was certainly no better.

    Before the wars, we put men, women and children into concentration camps and murdered them by their thousands (2nd Boer War).

    Amritsar massacre, 1919. A thousand protesters murdered, another thousand wounded.

    During the war, in 1943, we intentionally starved some 3 to 4 million Bengalis to death. Churchill had this to say about it: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

    In '47 we carved up India, during the course of a working lunch, which led to inevitable sectarian violence and murder of a up to a million.

    Kenya, 1950's, concentration camps. Tens of thousands dead.

    Let us not pretend our hands are clean.

    The most horrific thing about it all, is how the "Greatest Generation" victoriously came home, doffed their armour and sheathed their swords - and as the era's cultural caretakers, became the worst kinds of complacent company men, lazily overseeing the slow-motion car crash of West over the next several decades. We now skid towards a post-everything, meaningless, materialistic & totalitarian nightmare future because they thought economic productivity was the only thing worth giving a shit about.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    971

    Default

    It took another 20 years before WW2 broke out as a continuation of WW1, so hardly enthusiastic. Certainly you can use the word 'enthusiasm' for the First World War, but that enthusiasm began with the Austrians and the Kaiser. There was no rush to war by the British generally, but there were some in the cabinet that certainly were enthusiastic, such as Churchill (who never saw a war he didn't like).

    I disagree that it was 'productivity' that has brought us to the current impasse, rather it's a lack of confidence in reason and its efficacy in dealing with existential reality, crossed with a damning belief in the virtue of altruism (duty, self-sacrifice, selflessness).

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    822

    Default

    The world was not a very nice place in 1935.
    It is easy to "forget", or never actually realize how bad.
    Consider the four great empires of the time. Soviet Union, The Third Reich, The Empire of Japan and the British Empire.

    Churchill deemed the Germans the greatest threat, and though unwillingly, sacrificed the British Empire to prevent the "thousand year Reich".

    I find your disdain for the British leaders and people between 1935 and 1945, vexing.
    - Hitler didn't win so it was never a problem.
    - Here's what's was so very wrong with Winston.
    Yikes! Where do I start?

    You don't even mention the legitimate criticisms of Churchill.

    Churchill was flawed, had weakness, and wasn't like able. But he was the greatest leader of the war. And he was largely responsible for the fact than 2019 is not a lot more like 1935.

    There was a price to be paid, and he paid it. Of course, in hindsight, we have a more complete picture and can easily conjure better strategies. Especially since our adversary has no such advantage. This is much like arguing that you could have led the French to victory at Waterloo making you better than Napoleon.

    The legacy of the British Empire is democracies across the globe. Let's nitpick some more.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Good God, man. It's kind of jaw-dropping that you would call something like 4 million starved-to-death Bengalis nit-picking. Especially considering Hitler's notoriety for killing 6-million Jews during the same period of time.

    If I may ask, why exactly are you so vexed by my criticism of British leaders and their decisions? I see no contradiction in feeling enormously proud of my grandfather's expression of the Anglo-Saxon warrior spirit and his generation's brave, heroic actions in the war - while at the same time admitting the grim truth that his generation were lied to by their leaders. There's no contradiction in saying Hitler as a dictator was callously evil for murdering civilians, and also acknowledging Allied powers were equally callously evil in their actions.

    Anyway, good old Churchill. Our sozzled saviour. Well, yes, Churchill was a narcissistic alcoholic who needlessly got us killed, bankrupted us and gave away our Empire. The media and the education system still sells us the image of Churchill as flawed hero who naughtily enjoyed a bottle of fine Champagne with breakfast every morning, while rest of us plebs ate our rations in darkened bomb shelters, but ultimately he saved the world. Right?

    Churchill is certainly open to deeper criticism, though. Once you look at his connections, the reason for Britain attacking Germany in 1939 becomes much more clear.

    "Churchill deemed the Germans the greatest threat, and though unwillingly, sacrificed the British Empire to prevent the "thousand year Reich". Well, no. He didn't. At least until he was persuaded to adopt that position by groups of very influential people.

    You must remember, Churchill flip-flopped both politically and ideologically, even before WW1, crossing the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals and back again. Objectively, he was a shitty politician and had no firm morals as an MP. After lavishly partying away his fortune, bankrupting himself and nearly losing Chartwell house, he could be bought by anyone with a fat enough wallet. Up to a point, he was publicly against the "Jewish Marxists" in Russia, writing this in the Sunday Herald in 1920 (scanned image of his newspaper article):
    https://ia801304.us.archive.org/5/it...0Churchill.jpg

    A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

    By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

    SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

    And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

    The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

    International Jews.

    In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus–Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

    Terrorist Jews.

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

    The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

    “Protector of the Jews.”

    Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate. to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.

    A Home for the Jews.

    Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.

    Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    22

    Default

    (continued)

    So, why then would Churchill suddenly do a full 180-degree turn in the 1930's, and begin fervently calling for war against a political power, Hitler and the NSDAP, whose openly advertised aims was to combat and stop "Communism and international Jewry" in Germany and Europe (Hitler's own words in Mein Kampf - not mine) i.e - the very same enemies Churchill himself had identified between the wars?

    This might explain it, and this is where it gets interesting. From 1930-1939, Churchill became associated with the pressure group and slush fund "The Focus" - a conglomeration of trade unionists, etc. but principally it organised by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England whose chairman was Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Churchill's funding came from lots of interesting sources, such as the Czech government in Prague and Time/Life Corporation of America. When the American stock market crashed in '37-'38, Churchill lost everything literally overnight was financially rescued by the Austro-Jewish City of London banker Sir Henry Strakosch, who set up the central banks of South America and India, which then miraculously bought up all of Churchill's debts.

    You can dismiss all that as flat-out conspiracy theory if you wish (along with Epstein's hyoid bone) but it's easy to research and it historically checks out.

    In short, The Focus financially "encouraged" the bankrupt, corrupt yet brilliantly gifted writer and orator to make his 1930's speeches in which he suddenly called for war with Hitler and warned the world about the rising danger of Nazi Germany. Before his relationship to the group, his views were precisely the opposite. You could also argue that Churchill's big military blunder and defeat in Norway, 1940, was more significant as a PR disaster for the dithering Chamberlain and actually helped in removing him, leaving Churchill as the only man capable of assuming the role of Prime Minister.

    It's also unfashionable to question the events leading up to Hitler's invasion of Poland. The official party line is something about Hitler's evil imperialism, and the violent expansion of German territories and Lebensraum in the East. Not so much is made of Poland annexing Cieszyn Silesia from Czechoslovakia in '38, despite it only having a minority ethnic-Polish population. This invasion wasn't touched by or agreed upon in the Munich Agreement, and Britain and France were happy to turn a blind eye to it. Then in March '38, Germany took the remaining part of Czechoslovakia, a region full of Ethnic-Germans with their own Sudeten-German political party. An event which was, of course, later deemed a serious transgression and and constituted a betrayal. The expulsion of 3 million ethnic-German civilians from Czechoslovakia, and their massacre by Red Army soldiers, is another improper thing to talk about.

    The Polish government was going through similarly ultra-nationalistic phase in the 30's, and the ethnic-Germans living in the regions of the former Prussian provinces had increasingly become the victims of persecution and violence by the Polish authorities. That is to say, to begin with, the authorities conveniently pretended to ignore it - and by September '39, the language used by the Polish state-owned press became so foolishly belligerent towards the ethnic-German population that they might as well have been officially condoning the violence.

    I have a German relation who grew up in a town near the Polish border, joined the Hitler Youth and was sent to fight on the Eastern Front before getting wounded, captured, luckily got transferred West and ended up as a POW in Scotland. He was not a fanatical, anti-Semitic, racially pure Nazi by any means, but spoke about the injustices endured by the German people after WW1, the growing threat posed to them by Communism, and said the persecution of ethnic-Germans in Poland was common knowledge at the time, but it got no international attention in the press. Christmas dinner table talk was always fun when he and my English grandfather got together over a bottle of whiskey.

    I find it appalling how the ghost of Hitler, and 1940's German National Socialism, is still wheeled out by both the Progressive Left and the Conservative Centre-Right, as if the idealogy poses any sort of legitimate threat to anyone today, precisely at times when they want to quell the spirit of rising nationalism among the public. Prominent voices in the Centre-Right are currently arguing for free speech (a cornerstone of liberal values) to be restricted, ideally by big tech companies at an algorithmic level before content is published online, in order to limit the discussion of certain topics and curtail the spread of certain ideas. You can get an automatic YouTube strike if you even talk about "demographic change" in your video.

    There is no "free market place of ideas". Those who wield the money-power, and political-power, get to decide what is permitted speech and what isn't. The reality of your liberal democracy is a lie, and it's in place only to placate us by conning us into believing we have political agency at the polling booth when we're asked to choose between team blue and team red - two sides of the same ideological coin.

    The people who helped to maneuver Trump into position, and who have also ensured the Centre-Right Conservatives will win the next general election over here, recognize that national consciousness is indeed rising in the West, albeit in fits and spurts. They feel the increase in public angst and Trump's campaign was essentially run on a rule-of-law message which truly spoke to them. Borders. Immigration. Security. Industry. America-first nationalism. Obviously, on the whole, Trump hasn't made good on those promises, in fact quite the opposite, and it doesn't really matter at this point.

    There's a reason the DNC will never allow types like Tulsi Gabbard to ascend in 2020. Ron Paul types can be useful in absorbing the potentially dangerous energy of voters who are dissatisfied with the fake Left/Right paradigm. Their angst can be safely redirected away from any truly revolutionary and radical ideas, and into the harmless, real-world political dead-end that is Libertarianism.

    After our latest terror attack in London this past week, which has occurred just before the next election, Boris Johnson was quick to establish a similar, tough talking-point in the media about harsher punishments for terrorists who threaten our way of life. By the same token, he has quietly stated he wishes to scrap any artificial limit on immigration, because our economy needs to continue to import immigrants en masse as cheap, low-skilled labour to sustain levels of productivity. Which is the only thing that matters to the Centre-Right. The Progressive Left also want open borders and increase levels of immigration, but their reasoning is that we are morally obliged to feed and house the developing world because of our colonial past, and white guilt, and the holocaust. What's the difference in real terms?

    Given our foreign policy decisions in recent decades, I cannot believe Hitler is still utilized as the poster-child of evil tyranny, menacingly dangling 24/7 just above our beloved democratic values, ready to steal our freedoms at any minute. It's disgusting because, since WW2, the public have been completely apathetic about letting banks, multi-nationals and politicians continue to drag us into more needless wars, leaving millions dead and causing massive suffering - and for what?

    Then they told us Iraq needed to be invaded because Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When that fell flat, they had to pivot and the narrative became an ideological war, under the banner of freedom and democracy, to end Saddam's reign of evil. Saddam was a murderer and Abu Ghraib was "not a nice place", but in 2019 homosexuality is still illegal in Iraq. Hardly a shining example of democracy in the Middle East. Clinton's creepy, phlegmy, Neocon cackle still echoes in Libya where we maneuvered to oust Gaddafi and ruin the most developed country in Africa with the highest GDP - but why? Who knows, but at least they now have a chance to enjoy the West's democratic values, and stuff. Then there was Syria, and Yemen, and Morsi in Egypt. Next is Iran.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    22

    Default

    (continued)

    "The legacy of the British Empire is democracies across the globe." Rubbish! Churchill killed off the British Empire. What has replaced it is a globalist managerial state. A system of anarcho-tyranny which is unwilling, and actually physically unable, to protect its own people from increasing violence, cultural disintegration and artificially created social problems, yet will move heaven and earth, in an instant, in order to smash anyone suspected of the slightest thoughtcrime on social media or in the workplace. This is your democracy.

    A system which ceaselessly develops its military-industrial complex, and will dust off its breathtakingly devastating and ruthlessly efficient war machine and can lay waste to any foreign nation you care to mention at the drop of a hat. Yet when an already known Islamic terrorist goes nuts with a knife in our capital city, members of the public are forced to arm themselves with Narwhal tusks to subdue the threat.

    A system whose corporate media spins the the public outrage in the aftermath of said "incident" (everyone knows what they really mean when they hear that an "incident is taking place" in a major European city) into a celebration of the murdered victim's belief in diversity, and multiculturalism, and liberal values. We're reassured these terrorist attacks are simply the new normal, and nothing can divide us. Our war-time Blitz spirit and stiff upper-lips will get us through. The BBC reporter, live on the scene, actually said how "Londoners will go home, put the kettle on and move on from this". The victim's blood was still warm on the pavement. The public are strongly dissuaded from making any associations between the demographic change in the last 50 years and certain rates of crime.

    Locke's liberal ideas, if anything, paved, then greased, the way for this nightmare to become a reality. If we're all self-interested, atomized individuals, and everyone is equal, then how can you logically argue against your own culture's traditional ideals and norms being eventually replaced in the face of mass immigration? What IS European culture, anyway? What IS English race and identity, or indeed Japanese race and identity? Japan may have the lowest levels of crime, and highest levels of ethno-centrism and racial homogeneity, but that's probably bad, and racist and quite evil. And just what IS a nation or a border? This kind of big-brained, logical and rational liberal thought has created a the perfect environment for the cultural Marxist Left to pathologise everything that is normal and good about the West, and now there's nothing you can do about it in the voting booth, or anywhere else.

    We need to stop being so squeamish about historical inquiry in general. Historical inquiry should not be political. It's about the facts. It's about a lot of dead bodies. In the West, I think we need to undermine the moral paradigm that makes the Third Reich the absolute centre of evil in human history, and the ultimate guilt we can never purge from our soul. Then we can see history clearly. The Left is not burderned by Communism, in the way the Right is burdened by the Hitler. When the Left wants to talk about Medicare for All, for example, they are not forced to enter a difficult dialogue and apologise for the death camps, or the gulags, or the Holodomor. They are allowed to pursue their agenda guilt-free. We need to examine history, bring morality to bear and recognise what an absolute catastrophe the whole period, not just WW2, was.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    822

    Default

    You make a lot of interesting points. This will require several re-readings for anything resembling clarity.

    The 1943 famine.
    Lack of shipping (thanks to u-boat attacks), higher demand for war related goods drove people to the cities (better pay), drove up food prices, drove people off the farms and into cities and military service.
    Not exactly concentration camps and gas chambers, but do colonial polices have some blame here... sure.

    Libya's GDP was about a fifth of the Union of South Africa at the time, and less than half of Egypt's GDP.
    But you make a fair point.

    I find two fateful decision in WW2 vexing.
    Why did Churchill not accept Hitler's offer of peace, with the promise that the British Empire would remain?
    - Could the British Empire have expanded to "other European" colonies?
    - Japan would challenge but would have their hands full with the US they just bombed.

    Why did Hitler declare war on the US in 1941?
    - Hitler didn't want the US in the war.
    - Japan didn't let him know this was going to happen.
    - There was no reason to think the US would have gone to war with Germany without Hitler's declaration.
    - Hitler's above offer, would have more traction once the US was focused on Japan.

    Were there, and are there sinister forces with big money and undue influence. Yep.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    822

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jackson View Post
    If I may ask, why exactly are you so vexed by my criticism of British leaders and their decisions? I see no contradiction in feeling enormously proud of my grandfather's expression of the Anglo-Saxon warrior spirit and his generation's brave, heroic actions in the war - while at the same time admitting the grim truth that his generation were lied to by their leaders. There's no contradiction in saying Hitler as a dictator was callously evil for murdering civilians, and also acknowledging Allied powers were equally callously evil in their actions.
    Please accept my apology. I thought I recognized a pattern similar to the US rejecting first Civil War leaders, then Revolutionary War leaders based on ever more stringent political correctness standards.
    I especially agree with your point about looking at history with your eyes wide open.

    I would have loved to hear some of those conversations of your relatives who "were involved". I once got to spend an hour with a German from the 6th army who was wounded and sent to Germany just before Stalingrad. He insisted on showing me the wound in his ass. I found his perspective very interesting.

    Given your broader views and observations, I was clearly mistaken. I am sorry. My comment was not appropriate.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •