What historically-considered war atrocities do you think were justified?

Sep 2012
8,639
India
#61
Cruelty shown to unarmed POWs surely must count as an atrocity. A typical example is probably the killing of several SS personnel in France by the US Army personnel in or around Normandy soon after D-Day.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,432
Stockport Cheshire UK
#62
Cruelty shown to unarmed POWs surely must count as an atrocity. A typical example is probably the killing of several SS personnel in France by the US Army personnel in or around Normandy soon after D-Day.
Not only a atrocity but a war crime, though it must be noted that the German's were the undisputed masters of this act, they murdered around 3.0 million Soviet POW's in the first years of their invasion of the Soviet Union. All that film of the masses of Soviets captured in the early campaigns becomes very bleak when you realised that within months all of them would die, either murdered by their guards, left in the open to freeze to death, or just simply left to starve.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,180
South of the barcodes
#63
My, my! All this angst!! It's simple.
You start a war, you kill the people you consider the enemy, you take it up a notch and butcher civilians and wontonly destroy everything physical then you're a war criminal because the atrocities are the crime.
The people you attacked come after you with a vengence. What they do to you is not an atrocity. Even if they crucified every one of the attackers on the road back to the capital, it is not an atrocity. It's redemption. That's how sacred it is. It is a sacred act against the profane existence of the attacker.
An historical example? WW II is mentioned lots. What happened to the Axis powers should be considered a stroke of luck on their part. For what they did they literally gaily danced away in history. The dance pass they held even had free drinks and food included. That's how lucky they were. We call that "****-luck" today.
That is an utterly ridiculous statement.

You dont fight evil by becoming evil.

How do you judge retaliation for a start, is government force allowed to retaliate with punishment crucifiction and rape because there is a direct attack or because of something their country did to yours a generation ago?

Two generations?

Theres a reason the allies decided not to cause bloody vengeance in Germany after WW2 and instead went for the humanitarian option of rebuilding German society.
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#64
The two atom bombs which ended WWII saved more lives than the number which would have been lost if Japan had been incinerated by conventional bombing.
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#65
The two atom bombs which ended WWII saved more lives than the number which would have been lost if Japan had been incinerated by conventional bombing.
Japan was incinerated by conventional bombing, by the point that the atomic bombs were dropped XXI Bomber Command command and staff were exacerbated because they'd already burned down a good majority of nearly every major city in Japan with no tangible strategic results to show for it (as they believed the Japanese would surrender because of the raids). As it was, both uses of the atomic bombs caused fewer casualties then the firebombing raids against only Tokyo. What mattered was how the casualties were caused.

What the atomic bombs did exponentially more effectively then thousand B-29 bomber firebomb raids could do was break the will/morale of certain members of the Supreme War Council/Big Six (actually seven men) who controlled and ran Imperial Japan. Even during time the firebomb raids were occurring and in preparation for resisting the amphibious invasion of the Home Islands, the military members of the Big Six (Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, Chief of the Army General Staff, and Chief of the Navy General Staff) were pro-war, were quite willing to sacrifice however many Japanese subjects as was necessary to bleed the US military bad enough to halt further offenses and agree to a cease fire. Extreme enough that even after the first atomic bomb was dropped they were still trying to figure out a way to continue the war. Even the second atomic bomb didn't break them, they still wanted to fight on. Previously, those four individuals bullied the other two into submission, so it was their voice who previously had carried weight. The atomic bombs changed that, because they broke Emperor Hirohito, who for the first time actually spoke up against the war (which for eight months previously he'd silently been against continuing), which also allowed other members of the Big Six who were against the war (specifically Togo) to speak up as well, admit that he'd been secretly trying to make a deal with the Soviet Union to orchestrate peace (which was out, since the Soviet Union had also just declared war on Japan too and invaded Manchuria).

The shock of the Emperor speaking out against the war to the military ministers, blatantly calling them out as liars (who had promised the atomic bombs were impossible, that Japan could easily withstand an attack, etc), managed to brow beat and shame those members to a point they were willing to also accept unconditional surrender. Which was very important, as the Emperor would only cast his vote on a decision after the Big Six had previously voted unanimously.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#66
Not only a atrocity but a war crime, though it must be noted that the German's were the undisputed masters of this act, they murdered around 3.0 million Soviet POW's in the first years of their invasion of the Soviet Union. All that film of the masses of Soviets captured in the early campaigns becomes very bleak when you realised that within months all of them would die, either murdered by their guards, left in the open to freeze to death, or just simply left to starve.
I agree with you, A War crime..In WW2 nobody are free from sins... all of them were criminals... but I think Germany, Japan were the top... then USA-UK-USSR-Croatia-Romania-Hungary etc etc etc...
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,430
Australia
#67
I agree with you, A War crime..In WW2 nobody are free from sins... all of them were criminals... but I think Germany, Japan were the top... then USA-UK-USSR-Croatia-Romania-Hungary etc etc etc...
Does that include Hitler's mate Franco, or the republicans responsible for the 'red terror?'
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#68
Does that include Hitl

Franco was never Hitler´s Friend.. and I can prove with the USA and UK embassadors in WW2... so not mate at all.. if you would have said Mussolini...yes, Franco admire him.. but not Hitler.. dear...that the reason because Franco NEVER was to Berlin (and he was invited in 3 times.. and he said no) and ye he was in Italy...

And yes.. War Crimes.. as the Crimes commited by Lincoln... If Franco was responsible National War Crimes... Lincoln was responsible for Unionist War Crimes.... as Sherman etc etc..War Crimes are very old... the origin is not in 20th Century at all. (The Laws of the War came from Israeli-Christian-Islamic societies).

If so much you are interested in Franco... you can open a thread about Franco and LENIN....

Always a pleasure to talk with you.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,829
Sydney
#69
when during the Bulge offensive ,Eisenhower was told of three SS prisonners he was amazed they had not been summarily shot
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,430
Australia
#70
"Franco was never Hitler´s Friend.. and I can prove with the USA and UK embassadors in WW2... so not mate at all.. if you would have said Mussolini...yes, Franco admire him.. but not Hitler.. dear...that the reason because Franco NEVER was to Berlin (and he was invited in 3 times.. and he said no) and ye he was in Italy..."


Yes Hitler was so much not Francos mate that he lent him an air force to help him grab power in his coup. :rolleyes:
 

Similar History Discussions