View Full Version : Killing
David Banks
10-Apr-10, 17:08
John Little's thoughtful thread on "The Holocaust" and a possible Holocaust memorial day leads me to raise a more general topic.
If I have a gun and shoot someone dead, I will be charged with murder.
If I have a gun and am wearing a uniform, and shoot someone who has a gun and is wearing a different uniform, I will not be charged with murder with its resultant penalty. Instead, I'll be given a medal, and will be honoured on a regular basis.
From the comfort of my chair, I don't see much flippin' difference.
I have read about 'justifiable war,' and am not convinced.
I would ask responders not to immediately verify Godwin's Law - if that law is new to you as it was to me, Google it first (see end of above-referenced 'Holocaust' thread by John Little).
John Little's thoughtful thread on "The Holocaust" and a possible Holocaust memorial day leads me to raise a more general topic.
If I have a gun and shoot someone dead, I will be charged with murder.
If I have a gun and am wearing a uniform, and shoot someone who has a gun and is wearing a different uniform, I will not be charged with murder with its resultant penalty. Instead, I'll be given a medal, and will be honoured on a regular basis.
From the comfort of my chair, I don't see much flippin' difference.
I have read about 'justifiable war,' and am not convinced.
I would ask responders not to immediately verify Godwin's Law - if that law is new to you as it was to me, Google it first (see end of above-referenced 'Holocaust' thread by John Little).
I think they're all hitlers;)
No, There is no difference.
John Little
10-Apr-10, 17:21
You speak in comfortable times and from a comfortable chair.
Sometimes there has to be war and there really is no option.
Consider what the response of the King of the Belgians should have been when the German Kaiser demanded that he allow the German army to move through Belgium to attack France in the summer of 1914.
The Belgians had not provoked Germany- indeed they were avowedly neutral and Germany had reaffirmed a treaty guaranteeing that neutrality in 1878.
King Albert told the Kaiser that Belgium was not a public thoroughfare and refused to allow the German army to cross his territory. So the Germans attacked anyway.
The Belgians did not want to fight. But they did.
What would you have done in Albert's shoes?
(BTW the Holocausr Memorial day is not a possible - over here it is a fact, introduced by Mr Blair a few years ago)
northener
10-Apr-10, 18:02
Military forces should be for the defence of the State. Sometimes an agressive stance may have to be taken to allow that defence to continue.
The same argument could be applied to police forces. Sometimes armed aggression is the only response that will bring about a 'successful' conclusion to a given incident.....so therefore we have armed agents of the State carrying out sanctioned killings for that state. No different to the Military. Yet it is 'justifiable' to the majority.
John Little's thoughtful thread on "The Holocaust" and a possible Holocaust memorial day leads me to raise a more general topic.
If I have a gun and shoot someone dead, I will be charged with murder.
If I have a gun and am wearing a uniform, and shoot someone who has a gun and is wearing a different uniform, I will not be charged with murder with its resultant penalty. Instead, I'll be given a medal, and will be honoured on a regular basis.
From the comfort of my chair, I don't see much flippin' difference.
I have read about 'justifiable war,' and am not convinced.
I would ask responders not to immediately verify Godwin's Law - if that law is new to you as it was to me, Google it first (see end of above-referenced 'Holocaust' thread by John Little).
You can rabbit as much as you wish from the comfort of your armchair because someone closer to you than you might think, gave up their today so you could have your tomorrow.
You can rabbit as much as you wish from the comfort of your armchair because someone closer to you than you might think, gave up their today so you could have your tomorrow.
And its been happening, somewhere in the world, pretty much every day for a hundred years or more.
From the comfort of my chair, I don't see much flippin' difference.
'nuff said..
A medal for him?
A murder charge against a man who stabbed a teenage burglar to death in his mother's Nottinghamshire home is to be dropped, his lawyers have said. Tyler Juett, 17, and a boy of 14 broke into the property in Old Basford in March 2009 and were then confronted by 23-year-old Omari Roberts. Juett was stabbed and died later. Now lawyers for Mr Roberts say the CPS will not contest his not guilty plea. Mr Roberts' mother had called the decision to prosecute "outrageous".
Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson claimed her son was acting in self-defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8612829.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8612829.stm)
John Little
11-Apr-10, 00:38
"I don't see much flippin' difference."
I am sure that you said this as a device to stimulate further thought and discussion- I am equally certain that you see the difference.
If a man or woman in the armed forces of a country shoot someone dead in the defence of their state or its interests, and under the legally sanctioned commands they are given, then they act within the law. they put their persons into peril in order to defend said state or its interests.
Why should they do that?
You could argue that they are mercenaries; yet recruitment for the army has apparently risen of late. Could it be that there is an upsurge of patriotic feeling going on and that the men and women of our armed forces feel that they have something which is worth dying for?
And killing for.
Someone I shall not name for fear of Godwin's law said that 'Democracy has no convictions for which men are prepared tro give up their lives'
he was proved wrong by 1945.
Whatever - the killings they do are legal under the Army act;
http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073383_en_1
A private individual may not kill.
Save in self-defence.
But by so doing they place their liberty in jeopardy because they may be accused of over-reaction.
Being confronted by an armed burglar in your own house and then killing him in defence of property and family is not imho an over reaction. It must be a terrifying situation. The householder did not ask for this situation and must perforce act as if a soldier.
And soldiers are trained to neutralise the enemy. It does not matter how you do it - you just take him out- not necessarily by killing him, but you remove the threat.
Unfortunately you are placed in the position of Arthur Henderson who moved heaven and earth to get the World Disarmament Conference going by 1932. Then Germany pulled out in 1933 and that was that.
You may abhor killing/war etc but until everybody else sees it your way it will go on.
Until t'Kingdom come, and t'lion shall lie down wi't lamb.
Yep, when you beat your swords into ploughshares, someone will be right along to beat you to death with them
John Little
11-Apr-10, 18:04
Well what Ducati said is true is it not?
Japan has no metals and in the 1930s was almost entirely reliant on US scrap metal. So the yanks were happily breaking up their fleet in accordance with treaties, scrapping cars, any old iron and shipping it at a profit to Japan.....
who made it into aircraft carriers and went on a little jaunt to Hawaii.....
northener
11-Apr-10, 20:02
I like Ducatis' take on it.
The one about speaking softly but always carrying a big stick also rings true to me.
David Banks
12-Apr-10, 02:10
I think they're all hitlers;)
No, There is no difference.
Thank you for your comment MrLennie, and I recognise that you are somewhere in the minority - where I am presently wandering.
From the responses, state-authorised killing is "justifiable to the majority" (per Northener) and unavoidable - "there really is no option" (per John Little). I observe that the 'majority' appears to be all male, and I wonder what women think.
In my opinion, it could come down to what we believe about the natural state of humanity. If humanity is essentially 'evil' at heart, then it would be logical that 'taking up arms' would be the only solution.
However, I once heard the opinion that taking up arms against Hitler was not the only 'reasonable' response possible. There was an alternative, and I have wondered if the non-violent views of one such as Ghandi was what that person had in mind.
Can I have some opinions from the org's loyal opposition, male or female?
The Drunken Duck
12-Apr-10, 08:58
The simple fact is this David.
Killing is the most primal instinct man has, we were doing it long before we invented the wheel. And we will keep on doing it, its our nature. Now if you think that all those who wear a uniform are no better than murderers fine, I never really cared what people of your view think about those who serve. In my opinion a pacifist talking about killing has as much credibility as a virgin talking about sex.
If you think that nothing justifies it then fine. But the simple truth is that your very ability to criticise was provided by men who killed and died for your freedom. That makes you at the very least ungrateful. I wonder though, do you wear a poppy on the 11th of November ??, because if so your a hypocrite too. Deep down you know that if your freedom was threatened others would be willing to fight, kill and die for your right to have your views. While you would do nothing for the freedom you cherish. I have to ask .. how does that makes YOU feel ??
Dont feel bad though, if everyone had the courage to go and fight, kill and die for what they believed in there would be no one left at home to line the streets and cheer those who returned.
Can I have some opinions from the org's loyal opposition, male or female?
There are two different issues here. If a soldier from one army meets a soldier from the army of another country with which they are at war then it is not murder for them to kill each other.
But in May 1940 things changed for Britain, at a meeting of the British War Cabinet the decision was made to bomb civilian targets in Germany. Hitler had bombed other European cities but had given strict orders only military targets could be attacked in Britain, he still hoped he could one day reach a compromise with us. Apart from one or two isolated incidents where either by mistake or on their own initiative German pilots had dropped bombs on a civilian area they had not been targeted.
On May 11th 1940 the decision was made to bomb German cities, it was decided to bomb working class houses because they are more densely packed and more people could be killed per bomb. The aim was to demoralise the German people, to hinder their war effort by bombing their workers in the night, they could not be working in the munitions factories if they were busy organising funerals. Another aim was to goad Hitler into retaliation, divert his bombers from Britain's air bases and naval dock yards to British cities. On the night of 11/12 May 1940 British bombers set off for the Ruhr Valley to bomb Cologne and they continued to set off night after night. It would be three months before Hitler retaliated and ordered his planes to bomb civilian targets in Britain.
By the end of the war 61 German cities with a combined population of 25 million people had been destroyed. Retaliatory raids on Britain cost the lives of 60,000 people and seriously injured another 85,000.
That is murder. When the British government ordered the bombing of civilian populations they were committing mass murder and they knew it.
John Little
12-Apr-10, 10:09
Oh you do set yourself up for stuff don't you? I am at work now and cannot respond as I would wish but ho-boy!
David Banks
12-Apr-10, 11:23
Oh you do set yourself up for stuff don't you? I am at work now and cannot respond as I would wish but ho-boy!
Take your time John, I'm not leaving.
On May 11th 1940 the decision was made to bomb German cities, it was decided to bomb working class houses because they are more densely packed and more people could be killed per bomb. The aim was to demoralise the German people, to hinder their war effort by bombing their workers in the night, they could not be working in the munitions factories if they were busy organising funerals. Another aim was to goad Hitler into retaliation, divert his bombers from Britain's air bases and naval dock yards to British cities. On the night of 11/12 May 1940 British bombers set off for the Ruhr Valley to bomb Cologne and they continued to set off night after night. It would be three months before Hitler retaliated and ordered his planes to bomb civilian targets in Britain.
By the end of the war 61 German cities with a combined population of 25 million people had been destroyed. Retaliatory raids on Britain cost the lives of 60,000 people and seriously injured another 85,000.
That is murder. When the British government ordered the bombing of civilian populations they were committing mass murder and they knew it.
Fred, in the real grown up world of brutal reality, it's called 'Total War'. Blinking heck, next you'll be saying Bombing of Dresden was wrong!
Fred, in the real grown up world of brutal reality, it's called 'Total War'. Blinking heck, next you'll be saying Bombing of Dresden was wrong!
Renaming it "Total War" doesn't make it any less murder like renaming torture "Enhanced Interrogation" doesn't stop it being torture.
The targeting of civilians was illegal and we knew it, that's murder.
John Little
12-Apr-10, 12:53
"But in May 1940 things changed for Britain, at a meeting of the British War Cabinet the decision was made to bomb civilian targets in Germany."
Yes Fred. It was.
We had watched with horror the destruction of Poland and the devastation of Warsaw both from the air and with 80 siege guns; seen the deaths of thousands of our ally’s civilians as they fought the Nazis. And on May 10 1940 Hitler attacked Denmark, Belgium. Holland and France. The political crisis generated by this made Churchill Prime Minister on 10 May. As Rotterdam was carpet bombed from the air and Stukas bombed and machine gunned thousands of fleeing civilians Church declared ‘They have sown the wind- they shall reap the whirlwind.’
You think it unreasonable that the war cabinet took the decision to bomb German civilians as the BEF was forced back to Dunkirk?
I don’t.
“ Hitler had bombed other European cities but had given strict orders only military targets could be attacked in Britain, he still hoped he could one day reach a compromise with us.”
That is true. The reason was because our government had been run by a weak kneed set of fools who thought they could deal reasonably with Hitler up until May 10. The man most likely to take over from Chamberlain as PM on May 10 was Lord Halifax, a traitorous man who wished to sign a separate peace with Hitler and betray our allies. Instead a rank outsider became PM with the help of the Labour Party – Churchill. Thank goodness.
“T hat is murder. When the British government ordered the bombing of civilian populations they were committing mass murder and they knew it.”
So it’s ok for their side to do it to us and our allies but not for us to do it to them?
Boozeburglar
12-Apr-10, 12:56
There are two different issues here. If a soldier from one army meets a soldier from the army of another country with which they are at war then it is not murder for them to kill each other.
But in May 1940 things changed for Britain, at a meeting of the British War Cabinet the decision was made to bomb civilian targets in Germany. Hitler had bombed other European cities but had given strict orders only military targets could be attacked in Britain, he still hoped he could one day reach a compromise with us. Apart from one or two isolated incidents where either by mistake or on their own initiative German pilots had dropped bombs on a civilian area they had not been targeted.
On May 11th 1940 the decision was made to bomb German cities, it was decided to bomb working class houses because they are more densely packed and more people could be killed per bomb. The aim was to demoralise the German people, to hinder their war effort by bombing their workers in the night, they could not be working in the munitions factories if they were busy organising funerals. Another aim was to goad Hitler into retaliation, divert his bombers from Britain's air bases and naval dock yards to British cities. On the night of 11/12 May 1940 British bombers set off for the Ruhr Valley to bomb Cologne and they continued to set off night after night. It would be three months before Hitler retaliated and ordered his planes to bomb civilian targets in Britain.
By the end of the war 61 German cities with a combined population of 25 million people had been destroyed. Retaliatory raids on Britain cost the lives of 60,000 people and seriously injured another 85,000.
That is murder. When the British government ordered the bombing of civilian populations they were committing mass murder and they knew it.
If you are suggesting that targetting civilians was not justified, on the basis Hitler did this only to our allies then you really have no idea what was happening.
On top of that you seem to think that because we were better at it that is somehow unfair.
So it’s ok for their side to do it to us and our allies but not for us to do it to them?
I was asked my opinion on if the killing in war time is murder and I gave my opinion. When civilians are deliberately targeted then it is murder.
The illegality was without question.
These are three general rules which we can all accept and which we do accept, but it is obvious that when you come to put them into practice they give rise to considerable difficulties. Let me say at once that we cannot too strongly condemn any declaration on the part of anybody, wherever it may be made and on whatever side it may be made, that it should be part of a deliberate policy to try and win a war by demoralising the civilian population through a process of bombing from the air. That is absolutely contrary to international law, and I would add that, in my opinion, if any such policy is followed, it is a mistaken policy from the point of view of those who adopt it, for I do not believe that deliberate attacks upon the civilian population will ever win a war for those who adopt them.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/jun/21/foreign-office
Illegal killing, that is murder.
Tubthumper
12-Apr-10, 13:15
What about manslaughter? That's illegal killing, but it's not murder.
At least in the real world.
John Little
12-Apr-10, 13:25
You keep coming back to 'illegal' by which you refer to something called 'international law.'
If no-one except yourself observes 'international law' does it exist outside the abstract conception of your own brain? So we are too proud to fight back against the sinking of ships with the union jack on them. We wring our hands and harp on about how aweful it is and watch our friends and allies be bombed to smithereens, women and children.
And we are too proud to do the same.
Nothing stops unremitting force save superior force.
get real Fred.
Learn some more History
Renaming it "Total War" doesn't make it any less murder like renaming torture "Enhanced Interrogation" doesn't stop it being torture. The targeting of civilians was illegal and we knew it, that's murder.
"It is possible, for example, under international humanitarian law to mobilize all of a society’s resources to war ends. It is also possible to fight lawfully within international humanitarian law in any theater or with any legal weapons. It is even possible, although more difficult, to fight a war attacking military-economic infrastructure legally, provided that the attacking forces respect international humanitarian law rules regarding indiscriminate attack. Where a party to conflict runs afoul of international humanitarian law is the belief that total war permits the suspension of the laws of armed conflict. "
If you are suggesting that targetting civilians was not justified, on the basis Hitler did this only to our allies then you really have no idea what was happening.
On top of that you seem to think that because we were better at it that is somehow unfair.
No, Hitler hadn't actually done what we did. The cities he bombed were on a battle front, bombed in support of his troops taking part in an invasion. Civilians had warning of the advancing German armies and chance to evacuate. The Stukas John Little talked of were short range dive bombers which accurately hit strategic targets, it could put a bomb through the window of a specified target building, hit an armoured car or tank.
Using long range high altitude heavy bombers to indiscriminately carpet bomb civilians in their beds hundreds of miles behind the battle lines is something different.
Using long range high altitude heavy bombers to indiscriminately carpet bomb civilians in their beds hundreds of miles behind the battle lines is something different.
I believe it was all we could do at the time so was not really 'strategic'. Our bombing was so inaccurate that the RAF were quite pleased and surprised if they actually managed to hit a city never mind a specific area within a city. The Germans thought at one point we were deliberately targeting fields of cows in an attempt to starve them.
John Little
12-Apr-10, 13:52
"No, Hitler hadn't actually done what we did. The cities he bombed were on a battle front, bombed in support of his troops taking part in an invasion.
It was deliberate policy; read Basil Lidell-Hart 'How to win wars' or Guderian on the same. The deliberate terrorsing of the civilian population into fleeing so that they would choke the roaids was part of the doctrine of Blitzkreig.
"Civilians had warning of the advancing German armies and chance to evacuate"
That you say this almost beggars belief. Denmark? Holland?
Warning.
12 hours I think.
Get everyone out of Lonon in 12 hours. If you can!
The first accurate bomb sight was developed in 1941 for RAF Pathfinders.
Anyone who speaks of precision bombing before then is talking hogwash
John Little
12-Apr-10, 13:54
BTW Fred the Germans were using tactics they had rehearsed amply and used repeatedly in Spain 1936-38.
Guernica ring any bells?
And please, without further ado, look at what they do to Rotterdam and Warsaw.
No, Hitler hadn't actually done what we did. The cities he bombed were on a battle front, bombed in support of his troops taking part in an invasion. Civilians had warning of the advancing German armies and chance to evacuate. The Stukas John Little talked of were short range dive bombers which accurately hit strategic targets, it could put a bomb through the window of a specified target building, hit an armoured car or tank.
Using long range high altitude heavy bombers to indiscriminately carpet bomb civilians in their beds hundreds of miles behind the battle lines is something different.
Here you go Fred, your favourite 'Wiki': " [1939] Meanwhile, the German bombing of Poland became an indiscriminate and unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
A certain person on here reminds me of my own basic training in the Army, we were doing bayonet practice; running along like idiots, screaming our heads off and sticking our bayonets into straw-filled dummies..
Except one: Sapper White from London, who prior to the exercise asked what 'Bayonet Practice" was. "It's sticking this feffing great knife into the enemy, lad" says Corp.
"But that's Murder!" says Sapper White, before being marched off to the CO's office.
Never saw him again.
Here you go Fred, your favourite 'Wiki': " [1939] Meanwhile, the German bombing of Poland became an indiscriminate and unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
Well yes but the point I was making was that the bombing was taking place on a battle front as part of the invasion of Poland.
We we terrorising civilians in their beds hundreds of miles away from any battle front.
Last night someone planted a bomb next to the MI5 headquarters in Ireland, don't you see that's different from planting a bomb next to a school?
Fred, you are a glutton for punishment. But let's get this clear. Are you saying the London Blitz never happened?
And if it did happen it was because we annoyed that nice Mr. Hitler?
What about the Battle of Waterloo? Are you saying we should have left that nice Mr. Bonaparte alone?
As for Banockburn, well that was all the fault of the Scots.
This is revisionism on a cosmic scale!
Fred, I admit to getting in the mood for a rant after a couple of slugs of Scotch but as far as I can tell you are doing this stone cold sober.
Wow!
Well yes but the point I was making was that the bombing was taking place on a battle front as part of the invasion of Poland.
German forces invaded Poland and its planes have bombed Polish cities, including the capital, Warsaw. . (A battle front?)
'The bombing of Wieluń refers to the indiscriminate bombing of the Polish town of Wielun by the German Luftwaffe on 1 September 1939.
The Luftwaffe started bombing Wielun five minutes before the shelling of Westerplatte, which has traditionally been considered the beginning of World War II. It is considered to be one of the first Terror Bombings in history and first in Europe in this war It killed an estimated 1300 civilians, injured hundreds more and destroyed 90 percent of the town centre. It is widely acknowledged that there were no targets of any importance in the area such as military installations or industrial facilities. The casualty rate was more than twice as high as Guernica..
Hmm Nice Germans, let's make friends like Halifax wanted shall we?
German forces invaded Poland and its planes have bombed Polish cities, including the capital, Warsaw. (A battle front?)
Yes, that is where the Polish army was. That was the city Germany had to take and that was the city the Polish army was defending.
Can you not see a difference between that and dropping high explosives on ordinary working people, women and children far away from any battle and not as a part of any battle?
I'm not defending what Hitler did, if I had my way there would be no wars but what we did was something different, we crossed the line, what we did was terrorism. We weren't using force to capture territory, we were using high explosives and phosphorus to terrorise people.
Tubthumper
12-Apr-10, 17:15
My God!
I never realised!!
Great Britain is bad!!!
Every time!!!!
It's always US!!!!!
I must emigrate immediately!!!!!!!!!!
John Little
12-Apr-10, 17:36
"Yes, that is where the Polish army was"
No it was not. Smigly-Rydz had two options for the defence of Poland because it is so flat. He could attempt to defend the frontiers or retreat beyond the Vistula and hold that line.
He attempted to defend the frontiers because to retreat beyond the Vistula would have meant abandoning Warsaw. The Vistula was low because of a dry summer anyway.
So when the Germans invaded an armoured pincer movement encircled the Polish armies miles from Warsaw and cut them off. A tiny garrison would have stood no chance but the people of Warsaw took up arms to defend their homes and fought for two weeks before the German guns and bombs shelled them into submission. As they fought the Polonaise played constantly on Warsaw radio to tell the world they fought on - it died halfway through as the wehrmacht fought into the building.
Thousands died.
At least be accurate.
Yes, that is where the Polish army was. That was the city Germany had to take and that was the city the Polish army was defending. Can you not see a difference between that and dropping high explosives on ordinary working people, women and children far away from any battle and not as a part of any battle?
But Fred you said (#26) No, Hitler hadn't actually done what we did. The cities he bombed were on a battle front, bombed in support of his troops taking part in an invasion. Civilians had warning of the advancing German armies and chance to evacuate. The Stukas John Little talked of were short range dive bombers which accurately hit strategic targets, it could put a bomb through the window of a specified target building, hit an armoured car or tank. Using long range high altitude heavy bombers to indiscriminately carpet bomb civilians in their beds hundreds of miles behind the battle lines is something different. "
But that's what 'they' did!
Yes, that is where the Polish army was. That was the city Germany had to take and that was the city the Polish army was defending.
Can you not see a difference between that and dropping high explosives on ordinary working people, women and children far away from any battle and not as a part of any battle?
I'm not defending what Hitler did, if I had my way there would be no wars but what we did was something different, we crossed the line, what we did was terrorism. We weren't using force to capture territory, we were using high explosives and phosphorus to terrorise people.
I agree with the sentiment, but the fact was we were not in the kind of war (there have been many since) that you could choose to or not take part in. In the early part of the war Britain was fighting for survival, There simply was no other way to strike the enemy. We were loseing on all fronts.
Can you not see that this was an 'anything goes' scenario?
When you are fighting for your life (and that is the situation Hitler put us in) there are no rules.
I feel I am well acquainted with members of the Org.
I am fairly confident we are not harboring any murderers in our midst.
I do not believe there are corpses hung up in our closets.
I feel confident I could have a shower without an Orger slashing the curtain to bits, and me with it, with a carving knife a la Tony Perkins in Psycho.
So given that we are a peaceful lot why should we be lectured on our murderous ways by Fred? 1t is utterly redundant.
Murder, cries Fred - murder, murder, murder. Murder most foul!
I am sure there are other groups -elsewhere in the world - who might benefit from a good scolding for their homicidal proclivities.
But aint us, old Chum.
So tell us what you are trying to do and why you are doing it to us!
No, on second thoughts, don't... it's just too, too boring and predictable...
John Little
13-Apr-10, 08:38
Auguste Comte set up the first academic department of History in the Sorbonne in 1831. He was very frustrated that his philosophy students knew nothing of how the world came to be where it is. Unfortunately Comte thought you could predict the future from what had happened before, which is, of course, not so.
It was left to Erich von Ranke to define what the study of History should be about- History should be understood by rigorous application to source.
In other words the historian should study the material available, analyse it and come to a conclusion (s).
The enemy of historians is the Polemicist.
The Polemicist's interest in source material is fleeting and partial because the Polemicist has a world view which is already formed. As far as he is concerned source material is only there to confirm his pre-existing views. This is a particular characteristic of totalitarian regimes of both left and right. The Polemicist ignores evidence that is inconvenient to his truth, and is quite prepared to skew and twist in order to further his arguments and pre-existing bias.
You Fred are a Polemicist.
Your view is formed and I fear that there is nothing that will shake it. No consideration of argument, relativity of factors, weight of evidence or probability will shift you into even considering that a counter argument might have merit.
And I got in first cos I saw you were replying. And I have a fair idea of what your position might be.
I agree with the sentiment, but the fact was we were not in the kind of war (there have been many since) that you could choose to or not take part in. In the early part of the war Britain was fighting for survival, There simply was no other way to strike the enemy. We were loseing on all fronts.
Can you not see that this was an 'anything goes' scenario?
When you are fighting for your life (and that is the situation Hitler put us in) there are no rules.
I thought it was us who declared war on Germany not the other way round. I was under the impression Hitler wanted to avoid Britain entering the war.
I know we pretended that we had to join the war because we had a mutual defence pact with Poland but as we only signed the pact hours before Germany was going to invade I think we had probably decided we were going to war with Germany anyway. The pact couldn't have been too important, we never sent one British soldier to actually help defend Poland then at the end of the war we handed them over to Stalin.
I thought it was us who declared war on Germany not the other way round. I was under the impression Hitler wanted to avoid Britain entering the war.
I know we pretended that we had to join the war because we had a mutual defence pact with Poland but as we only signed the pact hours before Germany was going to invade I think we had probably decided we were going to war with Germany anyway. The pact couldn't have been too important, we never sent one British soldier to actually help defend Poland then at the end of the war we handed them over to Stalin.
I suspect that the big minds of the time where not convinced that Hitler would stop at the Channel, having annexed the whole of Europe. I'm very glad you were not one of them! (big minds that is).
John Little
13-Apr-10, 08:56
D'oh - this really is the last time I'm going to say this. The pact was signed in March 1939 as I provided you evidence for earlier. It was re-affirmed in August to show Hitler that we meant it this time.
The pact was important; we did not send soldiers because it was a logistical impossibility. In that sense the declaration of war was a demonstration of solidarity rather than a definite offer of help. We thought the Poles capable of looking after themselves because we did not realise that althought they defeated the Russians in 1921 their army could not resist Blitzkreig.
At the end of the war we did not hand Poland to Stalin - his army already had possession of it and there was nothing we could do. Polish soldiers in Britain were sent home because they were Polish and maybe Attlee thought they might help rebuilt their country...
I don't know why I am bothering with this - I know you will not listen
I suspect that the big minds of the time where not convinced that Hitler would stop at the Channel, having annexed the whole of Europe. I'm very glad you were not one of them! (big minds that is).
Why would Germany want to invade Britain? We had nothing they wanted, we were busy stealing everything we had from the rest of the world ourselves. Germany didn't even bother occupying any more of France than they needed to, didn't mind Russia having the east of Poland.
After reclaiming the territories they lost in WWI Germany was heading east in search of oil, the one resource German industry desperately needed. They had to produce most of their oil from coal by a costly process or buy it from British and American oil companies.
John Little
13-Apr-10, 09:24
Wibble.
I am so out of this thread.
Goodbye.
Wibble...
Why would Germany want to invade Britain? We had nothing they wanted, we were busy stealing everything we had from the rest of the world ourselves. Germany didn't even bother occupying any more of France than they needed to, didn't mind Russia having the east of Poland.
After reclaiming the territories they lost in WWI Germany was heading east in search of oil, the one resource German industry desperately needed. They had to produce most of their oil from coal by a costly process or buy it from British and American oil companies.
Well actually we didn't want the dirty Nazis to get their oil anywhere else so we...Oh yes, bombed their cities and invaded France (briefly) and North Africa.
I give up Fred, you remember your version of history and I will make up mine. Agreed?
Well actually we didn't want the dirty Nazis to get their oil anywhere else so we...Oh yes, bombed their cities and invaded France (briefly) and North Africa.
I give up Fred, you remember your version of history and I will make up mine. Agreed?
We could take it from someone who knew.
“Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war,” Churchill said, “was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.”
(Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War, 2001, orig. 1938)
It was Germany's economic plans which scared Britain, not their military plans. That is why we started preparing for war in 1936.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan
Boozeburglar
13-Apr-10, 11:22
We could take it from someone who
knew.
“Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war,” Churchill said, “was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.”
(Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War, 2001, orig. 1938)
Yet again Fred, you use a quote that has no credibility at all.
Why exactly would Churchill talk about events in the past tense before they occur?
David Banks
14-Apr-10, 10:07
I'd like to get back to somewhere near the original topic.
It had been my hope that we would have progressed some in the last 50 years.
I find it hard to accept "Killing is the most primal instinct man has . . . it's our nature." Does this mean that we can use this as an excuse - it was entirely out of my control - I could not help it!
We have other primal instincts which we have learned to control; e.g.: we may view a youthful member of the appropriate sex and think "I know what I would like to do with that body." Yet, for 2000+ years, since we lived in villages, we have agreed that that urge is not to be allowed free sway, be that agreement by general consensus or by law.
I also think there would be laws against being beaten to death by newly manufactured plowshares.
I have trouble with modern warfare not having progressed beyond the raping of women and pillaging, of yesteryear.
I have trouble with the modification of the 'natural' human condition to turn a raw recruit into a killing machine, and then engendering group cohesion to amplify the effect.
I have trouble with the numbers of people returning from the Falklands, or Iraq, or Afganistan with their psyche's and their lives destroyed by 'shell shock' or whatever the latest acronym may be. If fighting was so 'natural' you would think we were better suited for combat, wouldn't you?
I have trouble with the truth being the first casualty of war.
"You Can't Handle The Truth."
Why can't the general populus who has authorised a war be able to hear the truth about what is being done in their name?
I have trouble with the downright deception of the existance of weapons of mass destruction as justification for going into a preemptive war.
I have trouble with the fact that young men go to fight old men's wars. What are the young men not being told?
I have trouble with societies which require their women to spend their entire lives living in cloth bags, because men are apparently totally incapable of controlling their primal instincts.
I have trouble with societies where, if a daughter is raped, the father's first instinct is to stone her to death for having shamed the family.
I have trouble with societies where baby girls are killed because they are of no use.
I have trouble with societies where women earn 70% of what men earn for work of equal value.
I have trouble with societies where accommodations are not made so that women feel free to participate freely in political discourse (such as this thread).
I think our governments would be less likely to jump to the military solution as a first reaction if governments were represented by men and women in proportion to their representation in a country.
And then my 'troubles' are put into perspective when I observe Barak Obama hosting the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in an effort to "recharge efforts to keep nuclear materials out of terrorist hands." I believe history will show him to have been an honourable man.
And for those who want to hear: I am 99.9% certain that if I had been the correct age during WWII, I would have been in the military thanks to the pressure from Church, home and the general community, and proudly marching each Nov. 11th - assuming I had passed the entrance medical and survived the war, something a great many did not.
I live in a military town (Halifax, N.S.) and have great respect for the ordinary Joes, and now also the Josephines who defend these shores.
And yes, I am the father of two daughters and one son, and wish equality for them all. When being asked about non-traditional female activities, I encouraged my daughters to try whatever they wanted.
I am extremely proud that one of my daughters now works for an NGO which, in part, encourages female students to consider non-traditional careers, and provides role models.
I find it hard to accept "Killing is the most primal instinct man has . . . it's our nature." Does this mean that we can use this as an excuse - it was entirely out of my control - I could not help it!
Killing isn't the most primal instinct man has, the most important instinct any animal has is the instinct to preserve the species and any species which has an instinct to kill it's own kind without good reason will not last long. Dog does not actually eat dog, that is a fallacy. The law against killing another person is our oldest and most basic law, every society in the world believes it is wrong instinctively.
Most people have an instinct not to kill, to avoid conflict if at all possible, the emotions which lead the ordinary man to war, to trade morality for a few medals and a smart hat, are manufactured.
Boozeburglar
14-Apr-10, 11:25
I think the 'ordinary man' who may choose to serve generally has a better grip on his emotions and moral compass than some who consider him with such disdain.
We gain instinct collectively now?
Tubthumper
14-Apr-10, 12:27
I have trouble ...
I think you do. It's an unfortunate part of the human condition today (probably always was, except you didn't hear about so much in the old days) that the world operates in way we don't agree with and can't understand. All we can hope to do is work for change to the best of our abilities and hope that history looks kindly on us.
I have a lot of trouble too. :(
I think the 'ordinary man' who may choose to serve generally has a better grip on his emotions and moral compass than some who consider him with such disdain.
We gain instinct collectively now?
The instincts have always been there. Man is a pack animal, we live in tribes, any animal which lives in a herd has a fear of being cast out of that herd because at one time that meant certain death, we lived in packs because we needed to for protection and to hunt for food. That instinct can be manipulated.
In times of hardship when there wasn't enough food to sustain one pack they would try to drive away another pack, that pack would defend themselves. That instinct can be manipulated, like when a lot of young Americans joined the army and went off to Afghanistan and Iraq believing they were defending their tribe from those responsible for 9/11.
The enemy can be dehumanised, soldiers can be taught to not think of who they are killing as human, they can be taught they are sub human. The killing can be made remote, people can kill from afar like playing a video game as in the Wikileak video in Iraq.
In training the bulls eye target can be replaced with a realistic representation of a human and Pavlovian principles applied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8608282.stm
Tubthumper
14-Apr-10, 13:11
In training the bulls eye target can be replaced with a realistic representation of a human and Pavlovian principles applied.
That's the whole reason why UK military shooting uses the 'figure 11' or charging man target. You don't gain a lot of training value in popping off at bullseyes. And what Pavlovian principles are you gabbling about, man?
I have an issue with this report you've linked to: military training areas for OBUA have to include realistic features, for european ops that includes churches, hospitals and refugee centres. It doesn't mean they're there for target practice. Realistic training for operations in Afghanistan requires a realsitic Afghan environment, including mosques.
It's a symptom of our nation I'm afraid; the populace has become so divorced from reality that it can't understand the simplest things about training.
Fred, you are even weaker as a social anthropologist than you are as a justifier of the foreign policy of Hitler's Germany.
"If I have a gun and shoot someone dead, I will be charged with murder.
If I have a gun and am wearing a uniform, and shoot someone who has a gun and is wearing a different uniform, I will not be charged with murder with its resultant penalty. Instead, I'll be given a medal, and will be honoured on a regular basis."
Ok, my thought on the matter is its me or them. And if you have a gun and shoot someone dead for the crack then yes your a murderer. If you had said, "If i had a gun and some bloke just shot up the house and killed my family." If you shoot them dead then you still murdered but in self defense.
The uniform thing is a totally different story. Say your a cop and you shoot someone who's uniform is that of a gang member or terrorist who has intentions to kill you or do harm to others then you should be given a medal.
I think you shoulda put a tad more info in your post as to the circumstances etc as this has a million different possibilities. Sorry if ive come across quite strong and as a bit of an ass!:lol:
The Drunken Duck
14-Apr-10, 17:57
Did anyone notice the glaring contradiction in David's last post with his comments in his first one ??
In his first post he maintains that he cant see the difference between a common murderer and those who killed in a uniform. Now he states that he has "great respect" for those fought in World War 2 and for those who defend his shores today.
Once you look past the moralising and the "I have a problem with .. " droning, there is the simple truth behind every pacifist. No matter how much they harp on about killing and the military, deep down they are glad they are there. Because it means they know that they wont have to put their necks on the line for the freedom they value so much.
I really cant be bothered listening to the drivel talked about killing, warfare and the forces by people who have never been closer to one than the distance between their nose and the telly. I prefer to concentrate on people like this little girl who get up and do something about what they believe in instead of prattling on but doing sod all .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8618717.stm
Bags of character that little girl.
"If I have a gun and am wearing a uniform, and shoot someone who has a gun and is wearing a different uniform, I will not be charged with murder with its resultant penalty. Instead, I'll be given a medal, and will be honoured on a regular basis."
Only if you follow the strict "Rules of Engagement" issued to you prior to deployment.
You will only be issued with a medal if appropriate and you serve the requisite term in theatre.
Honour on a regular basis belongs to those who did not come home. Most families will want to remember their fallen relatives alongside the Veterans. It's called respect.
I get the impression that the most vociferous voices on this subject have never served in the military and have little understanding of the military psyche :roll:.
Bags of character that little girl.
What an inspiring person, makes me realise how little I've achieved in my life. Must try harder :cool:
Fred, you are even weaker as a social anthropologist than you are as a justifier of the foreign policy of Hitler's Germany.
Yet I didn't try to justify anything. It was others doing all the justifying, justifying our declaring war on Germany for reasons obviously different to those we stated, justifying the dropping of high explosives on innocent civilians, women and children, as they slept in their beds far from any battle front.
What this thread is really about is hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of those who say it is wrong for some to kill but not for others. It is the dual standards of those who condemn other countries as evil murderers for doing what they claim is justified for our country to do.
What people will argue black is white before admit is that we are the same the world over. Our leaders are evil and corrupt with no conscience and no morals and the people are all too easy for them to lead, lead to the slaughter. It is obvious that the people of Britain Churchill spoke of were not the people of the working class areas of London and Coventry he goaded Hitler into bombing, they were expendable.
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering
Yet I didn't try to justify anything. It was others doing all the justifying, justifying our declaring war on Germany for reasons obviously different to those we stated, justifying the dropping of high explosives on innocent civilians, women and children, as they slept in their beds far from any battle front.
What this thread is really about is hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of those who say it is wrong for some to kill but not for others. It is the dual standards of those who condemn other countries as evil murderers for doing what they claim is justified for our country to do.
What people will argue black is white before admit is that we are the same the world over. Our leaders are evil and corrupt with no conscience and no morals and the people are all too easy for them to lead, lead to the slaughter. It is obvious that the people of Britain Churchill spoke of were not the people of the working class areas of London and Coventry he goaded Hitler into bombing, they were expendable.
Did old Herman really use the term "Fascist Dictatorship"?
Boozeburglar
15-Apr-10, 13:16
No one needs to justify declaring war on Germany. That is one case where the ends certainly justify the means.
It is a pity that the US could not have joined in earlier and perhaps prevented much of what happened.
War was the result of Germany's own actions. They made that choice.
I would not apply the same to Iraq or Afghanistan.
We had our mucky hands in the regimes that we went to war with in both cases; there were unexplored alternatives left. War has achieved the exact opposite of the stated aims.
There is a time to kill. I believe that. It should be ideas that we kill with ideas, not humans holding those ideas or those they manipulate into fighting on their behalf.
The ideology that allowed the holocaust should never be allowed to flourish.
Let us hope we learn how to eradicate it without resorting to war; a poor cousin to diplomacy and the answer that always comes too late and sows the seeds of hate in future generations.
Boozeburglar
15-Apr-10, 13:40
Did old Herman really use the term "Fascist Dictatorship"?
It would perhaps be better to cite the author, who attributed the quote to Göring.
It is a translation of course, but well regarded from what I can gather.
Fred, I'm not going on with this.
It is a pity that the US could not have joined in earlier and perhaps prevented much of what happened.
Oh I think there were a lot of powerful people in America who wouldn't have been too bothered if Germany had won.
When America entered the war Germany was already beaten, they were beaten by the Russians at Stalingrad and the Russian army was following them all the way home. America only entered the war in Europe to make sure the Russian army stopped when it got to Berlin.
What people will argue black is white before admit is that we are the same the world over. Our leaders are evil and corrupt with no conscience and no morals and the people are all too easy for them to lead, lead to the slaughter. It is obvious that the people of Britain Churchill spoke of were not the people of the working class areas of London and Coventry he goaded Hitler into bombing, they were expendable.
Just back from Braemar, had a quick look here, nothings new, so it's Wibble Wibble from me...
David Banks
15-Apr-10, 18:50
Did anyone notice the glaring contradiction in David's last post with his comments in his first one ??
In his first post he maintains that he cant see the difference between a common murderer and those who killed in a uniform. Now he states that he has "great respect" for those fought in World War 2 and for those who defend his shores today.
Once you look past the moralising and the "I have a problem with .. " droning, there is the simple truth behind every pacifist. No matter how much they harp on about killing and the military, deep down they are glad they are there. Because it means they know that they wont have to put their necks on the line for the freedom they value so much.
I really cant be bothered listening to the drivel talked about killing, warfare and the forces by people who have never been closer to one than the distance between their nose and the telly. I prefer to concentrate on people like this little girl who get up and do something about what they believe in instead of prattling on but doing sod all .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8618717.stm
Bags of character that little girl.
I for one was aware of the contradictions, and thought I had telegraphed the equivocal nature of my comments by indicating that they were "from the comfort of my chair . . " at the beginning.
We all come from "different places" on the org, but Caithness figures in there somewhere. Speaking on one level, I "come from" the vast throbbing metropolis of Scarfskerry. There one would not find any 'dens of iniquity' such as pubs or dance halls. In fact, the communion wine at the baptist church is strictly non-alcoholic grape juice because, as we all know, Jesus' first miracle of 'turning water into wine' was actually of the grape juice variety. However, Scarfskerry also was devoid of debating clubs which was good because I am not gifted in the gentle art of repartee.
To keep these comments brief, I will add that, just prior to joining the org, circumstances left me with a little extra time on my hands. I decided to explore in more depth many of my opinions on various matters, and this particular forum was the only one where I felt comfortable expressing my questions, doubts and opinions. By the way, please do not pigeonhole me as a pacifist. From another recent thread, I understand that my actions should be condemned as "trolling," which I freely admit to.
Thank you for your post, and thank you also for being "bothered" enough to edit your post by inserting the link about that little girl.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.