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

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,185
South of the barcodes
#71
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...
A couple of bad examples there. Croatia is famous for running an extremely brutal system Jasenovac concentration camp - Wikipedia
Ustashe - Wikipedia

Hungary was relatively clean until the end of the war but the arrow-cross party was involved in massacres towards the end of the war Arrow Cross Party - Wikipedia

Romania was responsible for massacres of jews Iași pogrom - Wikipedia
Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom - Wikipedia

In Summer-Autumn 1941on the orders of the Romanian authorities, survivors of the massacre in Bessarabia and North Bukovina together with Jews from South Bukovina and the Dorohoi region (which were part of Romania) were brutally deported to the ghettoes and death camps of Transnistria in West Ukraine, a largely unsettled area between the Dniester and Bug rivers that Nazi Germany had ceded to Romania in return for its participation in the war against the Soviet Union. From the time of their deportation to Transnistria until their liberation by the Red Army in March 1944, 120,000 of the deportees perished as a result of murder, hypothermia, starvation and epidemics. This in addition to the tens of thousands of the local Jews in Transnistria who were victims of the Romanian invasion.

In total, 380,000 – 400,000 Jews, including the Jews of Transnistria, were murdered in Romanian-controlled areas under the dictatorship of Antonescu.
Murder of the Jews of Romania | www.yadvashem.org

Romania started their massacres without any outside instigation. They were also quite enthusuastic at it, to thee point that SS officers who were supposed to be organising the repression and transportation of European jews were disgusted at the chaos, brutality and lack of organisation.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#72
"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:
Maybe you are an expert in Cricket... but for sure not in 1936 - 1939 War.. First... Franco never gave a Coup... he only joined the coup after July 13th.... when socialist Police kidnapped and killed one opossition politican...The coup was organized by Mola, Queipo de Llano, Sanjurjo... still July 5th, 1936.. Franco said NO, to join the coup.... but of course.. I am sure you know a lot about Criquet....

Second.. Hitler never lent any force.. Franco PAID the force... with money, minerals (Wolfram) and Expeditionary Force.... by other side...Britain supported Somoza in Nicaragua... Does it means Elisabeth II and Somoza are friends and mate? Maybe Margaret Thatcher?....

So dear Belgarion... Morale lessons... not even one to me.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#73
A couple of bad examples there. Croatia is famous for running an extremely brutal system Jasenovac concentration camp - Wikipedia
Ustashe - Wikipedia

Hungary was relatively clean until the end of the war but the arrow-cross party was involved in massacres towards the end of the war Arrow Cross Party - Wikipedia

Romania was responsible for massacres of jews Iași pogrom - Wikipedia
Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom - Wikipedia

Murder of the Jews of Romania | www.yadvashem.org

Romania started their massacres without any outside instigation. They were also quite enthusuastic at it, to thee point that SS officers who were supposed to be organising the repression and transportation of European jews were disgusted at the chaos, brutality and lack of organisation.

It is what i said... Romanians, Croatians etc.. and we can´t forget Letons and Lithuanians... (Kaminski brigade or the degeneration). Hungarians were major criminals after Horthy fall down.... Ferenc Szalasi was not an Angel... and we can´t forget Polish Armija Krajowa and the Polish hate agaisnt Jewish...

As I said... in WW2.. all of them were criminals.... but between criminals... allied were less evil criminals. In Axis Forces.... Italians were the less criminal.... and in Allied Forces.. maybe Norwegian or Danish.
 
Jun 2013
367
Connecticut
#74
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.
I stand by my statement period. You're not going to change my mind.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,435
Australia
#75
Maybe you are an expert in Cricket... but for sure not in 1936 - 1939 War.. First... Franco never gave a Coup... he only joined the coup after July 13th.... when socialist Police kidnapped and killed one opossition politican...The coup was organized by Mola, Queipo de Llano, Sanjurjo... still July 5th, 1936.. Franco said NO, to join the coup.... but of course.. I am sure you know a lot about Criquet....

Second.. Hitler never lent any force.. Franco PAID the force... with money, minerals (Wolfram) and Expeditionary Force.... by other side...Britain supported Somoza in Nicaragua... Does it means Elisabeth II and Somoza are friends and mate? Maybe Margaret Thatcher?....

So dear Belgarion... Morale lessons... not even one to me.
You are correct Martin. Franco was more afraid of Hitler than his friend. However that still does not alter the fact that he did deals with him to secure his own power and during the war, while almost all of western Europe was fighting him, Franco pursued a pro-axis neutrality which even then he compromised to the extent of sending soldiers to fight for the Nazis. Do you not see the irony of referring to the Allies as 'criminals' given these inconvenient facts?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#76
You are correct Martin. Franco was more afraid of Hitler than his friend. However that still does not alter the fact that he did deals with him to secure his own power and during the war, while almost all of western Europe was fighting him, Franco pursued a pro-axis neutrality which even then he compromised to the extent of sending soldiers to fight for the Nazis. Do you not see the irony of referring to the Allies as 'criminals' given these inconvenient facts?

I agree with you Belgarion. Franco and Hitler were not friends. Yes, he deals with Hitler indirectly .. during the civil war. They only saw each other once in their entire lives.

almost all of western Europe was fighting him,

Not at all. Only Great Britain and France declared war on him. Nor Netherland, nor Belgium, nor Ireland, nor Denmark, nor Norway , nor Luxembourg nor Portugal declared war... All of them were Neutral... till Germany attacked them... the same about Yugoslavia and Greece.
If Germany would have attacked to Spain... for sure Spain would habe been fighting him... but Hitler didn´t attack to Spain.. so why to be "fighting".... Netherland was not fighting him...at all... Hitler fought Netherland (the same about Denmark or any others).. In fact, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal or Spain were as neutral as Belgium or Norway... if they didn´t figth Hitler it was only because Hitler didn´t attack them. Belgium or Netherlands would have been neutral...till the end of the war.. but Hitler attacked them.

so... Not almost all Western Europe fighting him. In fact, Only Great Britain (France prefered surrendered.). The Spanish Expeditionary Force in Russia was not fighting for nazis (they didn´t fight against Great Britain, USA...etc etc)... They fought only in Soviet Union against the Soviet Union. (the obligatory visit... Soviet had been first in Spain... so... it is a honor issue to return the visit to the Russian communists.

Nazis and Axis commited Crime Wars... and the allied too. But if you want to say it was better the Allied victory than Axis Victory... I agree with you.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,864
Sydney
#77
.
a complicated dynamic if ever there was one , Britain was on the whole rather pro Franco , the us ( or rather ford and standard Oil ) certainly was
the French were hampered by their own internal tensions , Britain was solidly behind a neutral to a fascist victory camp policy

Franco was anything but a Nazi puppet , he sought as much help from Italy and Germany without tying himself to them
the Blue division was a God send opportunity to get rid of his uber militant "allied " within the Falangist movement
it is quite telling that the Azul was recorded as a volunteer force with no connection to the regime .
in fact , by late 1943 there were officially no Spanish volunteers left in the Soviet Union
in practice however about 5000 joined the Waffen SS , most of them Falangists and Carlists
they would fight and die in their thousands until the last remains would bed shot in the Ruins of Berlin
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#78
.
a complicated dynamic if ever there was one , Britain was on the whole rather pro Franco , the us ( or rather ford and standard Oil ) certainly was
the French were hampered by their own internal tensions , Britain was solidly behind a neutral to a fascist victory camp policy

Franco was anything but a Nazi puppet , he sought as much help from Italy and Germany without tying himself to them
the Blue division was a God send opportunity to get rid of his uber militant "allied " within the Falangist movement
it is quite telling that the Azul was recorded as a volunteer force with no connection to the regime .
in fact , by late 1943 there were officially no Spanish volunteers left in the Soviet Union
in practice however about 5000 joined the Waffen SS , most of them Falangists and Carlists
they would fight and die in their thousands until the last remains would bed shot in the Ruins of Berlin
I agree with you. British people prefered Republic... British stablishment (from Royal House to City) prefered Franco and the White generals. The same Ford, Standar Oil etc (Standar Oil made what never was made by the REDS)... they gave Franco "free oil" for the time lasted the War! (the "capitalist" tycoon proved to have more solidarity than the "red" solidarity) Soviet Union demanded previous payment and only sent the supplies etc after receiving the money in Russia.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,354
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#79
I can see what you mean there - it seems to me that the dropping of the atom bombs was both atrocious and yet in a sense justified (i.e, it was not a grauitoud atrocity like the murder of Jews and 'undesirables' in concentration camps). But isn't there something self-contadictory in the notion of a justified atrocity? I would regard an atrocity as something that must be ruled out absolutely on moral grounds. These are difficult waters to navigate.
Back to this thread after a while ... yes you're right. But probably it's the later development of the conception of "atrocity" to have change the approach to this or that event. During the Crusades to "kill the infidels" was a meritorious act and no one minded how Crusaders killed the infidels.

Then there is the immediate conception to consider: in the final phases of a war like the Second World War [which had already seen dozens of milions of casualties] the perception of a war act like a nuclear bombardment of civilian targets was well different from how we perceive such an act today.

1945 is not that far. Our present civilization was just improving the last details to see our society [still a bit or racism, a bit of chauvinism, too many traditionalists around ... and so on ...], but the mind of who was living WWII was evidently affected by the ongoing disastrous planetary catastrophe. They felt the need to do that ...
 
Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#80
The bombed of cities were Crimes of War according with the Article 25, Chapter I, 2nd Convention, Den Haag, July, 29th 1899.

Article 25

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.

Dresde was a Crime of War... as Conventry, Rotterdam, Warszawa or Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

As the German, French, Russian, Japanese etc etc repression on Civil Population (and Yugoslavian, Croatian, Hungarian etc etc).


But all the cities you list were HEAVILY defended. For example Germany protected Dresden with anti-aircraft weapons, the Luftwaffe, and their ground forces nearby. It wasn't like Russia was able to just march into the city without being stopped.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were protected by submarines, ships, anti-aircraft weapons, aircraft, etc... You are really making the argument that if the US chose to send troops into two cities they would have met no resistance defending them?
 

Similar History Discussions