Was he a war criminal?
This was the 1940s - laser guided bombs did not exist. Precision bombing was impossible.
No, he was great.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
"I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. It therefore seems to me that there is one and only one valid argument on which a case for giving up strategic bombing could be based, namely that it has already completed its task and that nothing now remains for the Armies to do except to occupy Germany against unorganized resistance."
"We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end. We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly."
"People talk a lot about picking out targets and bombing them, individual small targets – in the European climate? I’ve come to the conclusion that people who say that sort of thing not only have never been outside, but they’ve never looked out of a window."
"In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method."
no because he was never charged with or convicted of a war crime
also if the Germans didnt like it they should have surrendered
also if the Germans didnt like it why didnt they say anything after Warsaw, Rottterdam, Stalingrad etc
oh right
because as long as it happened to other people they didnt give a shit
If you cannot see that the deliberate targeting of civilians is immoral than I am quite sure that I am not going to be able to explain it you. It ought to be blindingly obvious.
Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not complicated.
>>691021
>Applying morality to a total war.
>>690992
>"It therefore seems to me that there is one and only one valid argument on which a case for giving up strategic bombing could be based, namely that it has already completed its task and that nothing now remains for the Armies to do except to occupy Germany against unorganized resistance."
The man didn't even consider the possibility that it would be a failure.
>>690927
The honours he was given were about the least possible within the British constitution. His own government considered him distasteful to the point of extreme insult in the form of faint praise.
Given the mixed and uneven development of normative concepts of war criminal, we may consider that he was publicly punished by his own state for his conduct of war: ie, that within the normative framework of his culture and time that he was a war criminal.
>>691033
I don't understand this. If someone murders your neighbour do you then have a right to go and murder their neighbour?
If someone murders your children does that then justify you mudering their children?
This is the morality of monkeys.
>>690954
still, there is a difference between bombing military targets and activly bombing civil population to break enemies moral
>>691058
It was not only to break morale, it was to divert resources from the war effort.
He dud not do anything wrong.
>>691059
>it was to divert resources
You mean people?
Bomber commands raids always started with HE bombs to break the water mains first.
>>691063
No, I mean people. Any resources put into clean-up or into air-defences or into the air-force are resources which were not put into fighting the ground war.
>>691056
It's more complicated than that when we're discussing military regimes on a national scale that are supported by the civilian population, especially when America was dragged into the war by an attack out of the fucking blue and Japanese people, by and large, were enthusiastic in their support of the war when they were on the winning side. The killing of children is unfortunate to say the least, but precision attacks literally weren't possible and public sentiment in Japan was not in favor of surrender. Far more children would have been killed by a conventional invasion, so yes, I'm glad they fucking nuked them. Moral considerations without pragmatism lead to worse state of affairs for everyone involved.
>>691059
resources were diverted mostly to prevent the bombing of german military targets.
Nazis didn't care so much about the death of their civil population
>>691021
>morality
>spooks
>shiggy
THE WHIRLWIND
>>691070
the Germans also happily cheered their men on while they obliterated huge swathes of eastern Europe and the USSR. Meanwhile most British people were horrified by Dresden and Harris, along with all of Bombrr Command were held in something of an official disdain for decades
inb4 le ebin eternal anglo memes
The deliberate mass killing of civilians is a war crime (4th geneva convention)
>>691081
>Caring about the geneva convention
>2016
Get on the right side of history.
>>691080
Opinion with no basis but,
I think it could be because the British have a deep ingrained superiority complex within their culture.
Probably built up with help from dealing with less technologically advanced tribes and being le biggest empire.
Mass killing isn't terribly polite.
You are only a War Criminal if you lose.
>>691142
>I think it could be because the British have a deep ingrained superiority complex within their culture.
No shit. All Anglo cultures do.
>>690927
Yes. USA lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan thanks to this fag.
Yes, but I still like his style.
>>691026
ignoring the ethicality of the bombing of civilian targets it did not achieve any of what it was supposed to do, it only strengthens the enemy's resolve
Ultimately, war means fighting, and fighting means killing. The means whereby are of less importance. Dead is dead, whether by a sniper's bullet or an H-bomb. Post-facto arguments regarding the criminality or otherwise of an action or actor are exercises in mental masturbation.
>>692167
There is a huge difference between killing military combatants and installations and killing civilian targets and infrastructure. Though you're probably braindead enough to think that there is literally nothing wrong with executing a medic.
>>690927
nope
>>690927
If the only strategic bombing that took place during World War 2 was carried out by the Luftwaffe, it would have been counted as part of the war-crimes addressed by the Nuremberg trials.
>>690927
no. he was on the winning side.
also: fuck the jerries. they brought it upon themselves. should have turned them all to ashes.
don't deal it out if you can't take it. we all learn that at around 6 years old. some of us forget, and get curbstomped.
fritz got curbstomped after he started some shit. fuck that guy.
>>692167
The Bomb was not as effective, dollar for dollar, at putting tons of explosives onto Germany and Japan.
It only became less expensive per ton of TNT-equivalent than conventional explosives in the mid-fifties, and that is when all sides started to consider the Bomb to be a special weapon; only after it really was a special weapon.
>>690927
Even Churchill himself considered him to be a sick motherfucker
Germans reaped what they sowed
and no one was ever tried for warcrimes for bombings
>>691010
this
>>690927
No. They sowed the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind.
>>692631
>no one was ever tried for warcrimes for bombings
I really wonder why
>>692617
Hardly, he made him a baron.
>>692640
No Germans were ever tried either.
>>692644
>he made him a baron.
because churchill was also a sick motherfucker
Just dropping a little bit of festive tinsel in this thread. No need to worry, please carry on with your discussion.
>>692646
Obviously
>>691070
>an attack out of the fucking blue
>America din du nuffin!
When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[1] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans (and of course Adolf Hitler), and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Afterward, he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.
Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.
>>692724
And what? The Japanese somehow had a right to import from America or from the Brits or Dutch? If we didn't want to sell them our shit, that's our decision and not a legitimate cause for war.
>>692824
Read between the lines, autismo.
Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[3]
>>692841
"untenable position". If your nation literally can't exist without taking resources from others, you are a meme state.
>>692841
I have a serious question, and I want you to answer honestly.
Were you expecting anyone to take your post seriously?
>>692841
So what you're effectively saying is that it's the Westerners' fault for daring to regulate their own exports and deciding they didn't want to export to Japan, as they had a perfect right to decide. If only Japan had been able to force open their borders and demand trade, robbing the American, Brits, and Dutch of any meaningful sovereignty, then they wouldn't have had to sneak attack the evil Americans!
>>692868
The discussion is about FDR, senpai; you're trying to shift the goalposts. FDR knowingly and intentionally took steps that he believed would lead Japan into attacking the US while at the same time feigning ignorance of that attack in order to ensure that it was as successful as possible. That's fucking treason by proxy.
>>692874
>>692868
>>692864
>>692855
>>692824
>>692855
Japan could back during the Tokugawa Shogunate. Did for about 200 years.
No industrial nation can survive without importing resources.
>>692868
>regulate their own exports
Deliberate attempts to halt a nation is an act of aggression.
If America didn't care about affairs in Asia why would they support China and embargo Japan? They picked a side before fighting.
>>692899
FDR put Japan in a position where either it finally had to play by the rules or risk military conflict with the US. This was after many years of appeasement.
But hey Nippon good boy dindu nuffin meme.
>>692912
>Deliberate attempts to halt a nation is an act of aggression.
What an utterly meaningless sentence.
>>690927
Has mustache's so he must be a criminal
>>690927
do it again bomber harris
>>692924
'In 1940 Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to embargo all imports into China, including war supplies purchased from the U.S. This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to estimate it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining and to support the existing plans to seize oil resources in the Dutch East Indies.'
They picked a side.
If America didn't want war, they wouldn't have picked a side.
>>692919
Japan won Korea and Taiwan fair and square.
'American president Theodore Roosevelt said that "Japan is the only nation in Asia that understands the principles and methods of Western civilization", and approved of the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 which ended the latter's independence.[13]'
>>692935
>Japan won Korea and Taiwan fair and square.
>'American president Theodore Roosevelt said that "Japan is the only nation in Asia that understands the principles and methods of Western civilization", and approved of the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 which ended the latter's independence.[13]'
What is the point of this post? Are you even sentient?
>>692947
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore.
>>692634
owned desu
>>692956
>if teddy roosevelt said japan a good boy in 1905, japan gets a blank check for rest of history
What a retard logic.
>>692935
>Japan won Korea and Taiwan fair and square.
wat
So Korea and Taiwan lost?
ETERNAL ANGLO KILLING INNOCENT ARYANS
>>690927
bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml
>At the same time, Britain's air force began to realise that its bombers were not able to find and hit specific war targets such as airfields or armament factories
>Consequently, in February 1942, Bomber Command was instructed to shift the focus onto the 'morale of the enemy civil population'. This new policy came to be called 'area bombing'.
>The aiming points thereafter, for bombing raids, were no longer military or industrial installations, but a church or other significant spot in the centre of industrial towns. And since fire was found to be the most effective means of destroying a town, the bombers now carried mainly incendiary bombs.
>Since the heavy bombers were running out of targets, towns were now put on the target lists that had little military or industrial importance. Some of them, like Würzburg or Pforzheim, were selected primarily because they were easy for the bombers to find and destroy. Because they had a medieval centre, they were expected to be particularly vulnerable to fire attack.
>It is significant that only a few weeks after the raid on Dresden, on 28 March 1945, Churchill tried to dissociate himself from the destruction, and drafted the previously cited memorandum in which he denounced the bombing of cities as 'mere acts of terror and wanton destruction'.
>>693020
>bbc.co.uk
>>693037
I smell anglo scum
>>692935
>an embargo (in response to invading another country) is an inexcusable act of aggression
>invading korea is a-okay because all's fair in love and war durrr
>>693057
Not a blockade, mind you, an embargo. The US wasn't cutting Japan off from all foreign resources, we just decided that until their actions met our approval, they couldn't have our stuff. Now, the normal reaction to having all of your major trading partners embargo you might be to realize you have to change your policies and at least make some attempts at doing so, but if you're an honorrabur samurai who can't bare to lose face and you want to start an unwinnable war, I guess that's 1941 Japan.
Point is, did Roosevelt "force Japan into war"? No. They could have changed their policies re China and Indochina and probably had the embargo lifted. War was NOT their only option.
>>692935
>If America didn't want war, they wouldn't have picked a side.
If America wanted war they would have actually started a war. That's kind of how that works.
>>693116
It wasn't a full blown act of war like a blockade, but it was more than an embargo. America froze Japanese assets on its soil, much like how the EU froze Russian assets a few years ago during Ukraine.
>>693133
Indeed. Clearly leaving Russsia no choice but to sneak-bomb Devonport.
>>692919
Nigger nobody is claiming that Japan wuz good samurai who dindu nuffin; they were in a decades-long period of violent expansion and had at this point subjugated a large chunk of Eastern asia.
People are claiming that FDR knowingly and intentionally took actions to embroil the US in a war with Japan (and, by extension, Germany) while systematically removing any mitigating factors. None of the Japanese brass (many of whom were educated in the US) that weren't political appointees wanted to go to war with America in the slightest because they knew that they would get BTFO but they had to choose between a slim chance of winning a war with the US or their entire economy shuddering to a halt. How do you think the US would react if Saudi Arabia said "lel fuck you no more oil for kafirs", just do nothing?
>>693675
>yfw the US doesn't import from the Saudis
Didnt Roosevelt have knowledge of Pearl Harbor before it happened?
>>693675
>How do you think the US would react if Saudi Arabia said "lel fuck you no more oil for kafirs", just do nothing?
Here read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
>>693675
>they had to choose between a slim chance of winning a war with the US or their entire economy shuddering to a halt.
Or they could just pull out of Indochina and stop their chimpout.
>>694778
>Or they could just pull out of Indochina and stop their chimpout.
Except that everyone knew that Indochina wasn't the actual issue and that FDR was pushing for war, which was the point. It was a no-win situation for Japan because they could either choose to kowtow to FDR until pulling their own fangs or go to war with the US.
>>694814
Except you are literally pulling shit out of your ass and prefacing fictional history with "everyone knew" isn't going to make it any more factual than it is.
>>690927
YES going out of your way to kill unarmed civilians
is a war crime, but history is written by the victor so most people don't really care.
>>690927
Isn't 'war crime' just a code word for "look, you lost now we're gonna make you pay because people are screaming about it".
>>690927
Yes.
Doesn't mean he wasn't very useful.
>>694778
Actually the Japanese TRIED to Negotiate for a normalization of economic relations. And the key issue wasn't the sale of oil, but the seizure of Japanese gold.
>>690927
It's not a war crime if you win.
>implying war is a fun thing where no civilians are hurt
No. This is why one should avoid war.
>>695234
>Japanese TRIED to Negotiate for a normalization of economic relations
I guess that means they are blameless then.
>but the seizure of Japanese gold
Japanese overseas assets were frozen, not seized.
>>692724
Wow. The poor Japanese. It's so sad that they were sanctioned for no reason whatsoever, except for some ill-defined racism on Roosevelt's part. Apparently.
>>695326
>I guess that means they are blameless then.
I guess, if you're really only capable of thinking in binaries. But that's on you, then.
>Japanese overseas assets were frozen, not seized.
When you freeze assets and aren't even willing to discuss the terms under which they're frozen, that's seizing them.
It's only a war crime if you lose, silly German
Poor Nipponjin dindu nuff!
Is a good boy!
>>693116
A big motivation for the incredible modernization and industrialization of Japan was in order to avoid western colonialism and intervention. They were not about to let themselves end up like China or so many others.
So it seems like a natural reaction upon discovering that evading western meddling was not possible. That's why they built that modern war machine, after all. Unfortunately for them they couldn't pull it off.
Mocking their social mores is ridiculous. The United States has no samurai but would not have countenanced that kind of interference in their matters or their sphere of influence either. No first-rate nation would. The ONLY difference is that the Japanese lost their gambit.
>>692676
hilarious
>>694834
fucking victor, always writing my history books.
what a cunt.
>>692918
He is anglo.
>>695746
Oh hi
>>690992
>I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier
He actually said it? Absolute madman
>>692874
ES&D nip.
>>692548
yes
>>693675
>How do you think the US would react if Saudi Arabia said "lel fuck you no more oil for kafirs", just do nothing?
Are you serious
