occupation during WW2 - focusses on the BARBARIC aerial bombing of his cities by Yanks and Bongs 
Oooh boi do we have a special snowflake today! 
Basically as introduction, I'll let the following comment exchange summarize the anti-bong/anti-yank criclejerk in this thread by eurotrash.
"Any hard feelings towards the occupiers at all? Or is it mostly the liberators you're angry with?"
Basically this whole thread is circlejerk about the cruelty and lack of remorse of the western Allies during the liberation of France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, and how many civilian casualties there were during the gruesome fighting in the Western Front theatre.
I don't know how these guys imagined dislodging the wehrmacht forces from civilian strongholds like cities - urban warfare is notorious for being especially gruesome in the modern era. And while the Kraut soldiers were not as suicidal as the Kamakazi Nips, they were still absolutely ferocious and fanatical in their devotion to Hitler and their commanders.
Do not let the popular images/videos of hordes of German soldiers surrendering in their hundreds of thousands dissuade you from the reality that even the late stage german soldiers were devoted to their duty, and fanatical in their carrying out of orders by their superiors to defend, often to the last man. The mass surrendering only occurred in the last 3 months of the war, in 1945.
The entire year of 1944, was one gruesome depraved slog on the western front, as desperate men in their millions tried to murder one another. Also do not be fooled by shitty WW2 documentary, which often showcases one speedy inevitable march of freedom, with the good guys inevitably pushing the coloured front lines all the way to Berlin, from Normandy.
The reality was far more grim, and took immense sacrifice to get there, the western allies suffered half a million casualties, killed or badly wounded, the coalition of Yanks/bongs/frogs/polish. For the men fighting for 18 months in the western theatre, there was barely any solace that the krauts were a shadow of their former selves of 4 years prior, or that they had overwhelming air dominance, the germans were near perpetually on the defense, and defenders have acute advantages over attackers in modern warfare.
It must be taken with this mindset, why things like Strategic Bombing of cities to dislodge the enemy, even civilian cities of allies were considered viable strategies to end this bloody war as quickly as humanly feasible, and only after the war, historians in hindsight could with definitive certainty decry the efficiency or lack of efficiency of strategic bombing.
Additionally, the exiled High Command under De Gaul gave their blessing to the Anglo-American airpower to have free reign on destroying the fascist enemy garrisoned within Frence cities and forts, yet they never receive any fraction of ire or hate by the subhuman types in /r/europe whom are constantly consumed by their anti-bong/anti-yank circlejerk.
"Are you accusing me of being a nazi sympathizer because I post a commemoration of the destruction of my city ?" 
"Nothing but bad things to say about the RAF. Very little to say about the Nazis." 
OMG YOU JUST ACTIVATED A HEKKIN WHATABOUTISMORINOOOOO 
"Because the allies were liberating Europe and destroying nazism, while the axis were conquering Europe and imposing nazism on it. Surely that's clear even to you?" 
Useless fat reddit french frick says the following 
"surely I did not know that liberating meant killing people and flattening homes but whatever. in fact, if you can't understand the simple fact that a good side may also commit war crimes it's up too you, there's even a name for that; denial." 
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me good sir, but your cute twink ancestors didn't liberate my cities in a totally wholesome way, they KILLED civilians! 
"The allies liberated your country and others with the strategies, tactics and weapons that were available to them at the time. They did it with imperfect information and unsophisticated command and control. It's very easy for you, with the freedom that was bought for you by others, to criticise those decisions decades later and to say what you, with your extensive experience, would have done differently. The deaths in Le Havre are to be regretted enormously, as are the deaths of c.50,000 allied servicemen who were killed in the liberation of Normandy."
"Is that an excuse for the death of thousands of civilians, something which could be easily avoided? Killing the people they are trying to liberate." 
Uhhm actually, you douchebag Bongs deliberately killed the people they were trying to liberate 
Subhuman Frog OP
continues to argue the whole thread about the warcrimes of the Western allies.
"How is that a nazi apology to denounce bombing of civilians ? I'm not saying the nazis were right, one can call out Allied wrong doing without being a nazi" 
"This whole post reeks of trying to hate the British and Americans for making a questionable bombing run in the middle of the biggest war in history. It's also not possible for it to have been a war crime since the rules on any specific war crime you can tag this as were written after the war." 
"Everyone from Winston Churchill to AC Grayling has written large amounts after deep thought on the US and British bombing campaign. There are shelves of books about it all. Probably a quarter of those shelves is the US' own "The Strategic Bombing Offensive" which is quite critical of the campaign. Andrew Knapp is just one writer and a biased one. You seem fixated on this one small part. What do you think should happen now? Put Bomber Harris or Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt on trial? Stage a replay of WW2 with different acts and a better ending?"
"I'm not trying to change anything or accuse anyone, I just want people to remember." [...how much Bongland fricking sucks] 
More eurotrash circlejerk about Westoids = bad
"The short answer is that Bomber Command were basically rogue war criminals." 
ISREAL SUCKS POSTING BY COMMIES 
My glorious Jewlords 
continue to 
commies in their spare time!!
A few brave souls stand against the conjecture circlejerk of the OP and other eurocucks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
there's little worse than modern social media liberals talking about world war 2. these people are so uninformed and genuinely r-slurred it makes me want to die.
it's like these people think world war 2 was supposed to be like war in movies set in the 1700s. two armies line up in an open field and take turns shooting at each other.
or they think the allies were supposed to go door to door asking people if they were civilians or nazis and then start shooting/bombing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it's not that i dismiss the horrors of Strategic bombing, and the cruelty of civilians dying in friendly fire,
but often these types of circlejerk discussions come from a place of contempt rather than benevolence
Notice the frenchman had the reverse order for his conclusions - he already hates british people, thus finds blindly in his observation and reasoning from the historic sources he reads, that Bongs/western allies desecrated the french cities through deliberate callousness and cruelty.
While we now today know the act of strategic bombing is less successful than more precision bombing, the Bongs were increidbly bloodied by their bombing campaigns - kraut anti air and interceptor Luftwaffe forces decimated bomber crews, to the point where precision bombing was suicidal, and artillery campaigns against strongly fortified was vulnerable to retaliation
In moment of bloodlust, during a period of total war, with very few options to dislodge a determined enemy, it is often this vulgar PRESENTISM, of modern cute twinks who apply hindsight and current morality and fail to understand the events and forces which led to the acts committted during such difficult times
It's not about being callous towards the suffering of innocents, but often the grim reality of accomplishing good cannot be done without great suffering alongside such vast undertakings - it's like these young people cannot grasp the morality and mentality of past peoples, as they literally cannot grasp worldviews and perspectives outside of their current shitlib orthdoxy, let alone those of past peoples
!historychads some thoughts?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This came back in vogue towards the end of the war with night bombing raids.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
!historychads here you have the simplification of the infantile
Imagine you are a yank brigadier-general responsible for 2000 young men set to assault a fortress in a city, garrisoned by determined and disciplined, battle-hardened enemy.
You have the capacity to call in air strikes, in the hopes of softening the enemy, otherwise, you expect a casualty figure truly pyrrhic in magnitude.
If you do not act, the fascist enemy will continue to dominate and commit atrocities over their conquered people, starving them at best, or killing them slowly through forced labour at worst.
You must balance the lives of those under your command against the sanctity of a city culturally important to your allies, as well as the potential collatoral damage of civilians caught in stray missed air drops, and also against the timetable, where your left and right flanking colleague commanders are dependent upon you help move the battle-front forward in good order, hopefully in less than 2 weeks of fighting.
Can any of you worthless imbeciles like
@Corinthian truly be so foolish, to speak worthless shallow sentiments, like "bombing civilians is always wrong" when none of you have ever faced hardship, strife and decisions of such crushing magnitude
of course fricking civilians are always devastating, but how many of you soft souled cucks have ever lived through times, where the alternative is literally worse?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
U hind behind
bwooks with gwowlden words 
and silwer twongues two avoid 
the respwonsibility of thwose whwom had two face the cwuelty of their mworbid times
U are a 1st world
woser whwo's nyewer knyown stwife or hardship, and has nyewer had two gwappwal diffwicult decisions which put their mworality or religion 
two the test
U hwowld these simpwal minded views two have value owor ywour sense of self, swo that u may judge
ywourself mwore virtious than thwose befwore u whwowal nyewer having two pwuv ywourself in their shwoes
U are like dwominyie whwo has nyewer led by exampwal because u have nyewer nyeeded two, any fwoowl whwo hwowlds these wofty liberwl shitlib
oworsimplifwied views are nyot gwood peopwe, u've simpwy nyewer been given the chance two pwuv otherwise
U are aww the Christian
embwodiment of perfection being the enyemy of dwoing gwood in the world 
fwor ywour own egwos
!christians
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Chudded + OwOmaxxed for firstworldmisia
this is website is carried on the shoulders of AMERICAN PATRIOTS 
what does your "country" have again? 
AMERICA: freeze peach, burgers, FREEDOM,guns, family values
six flags, the creation museum 
africa: loadshedding
unfrozen peach, no water, no food, like poor ppl and stuff 
PAY ATTENTION TO WHO YOU'RE SPEAKING TO FREEDOMLESS BICCCH, !coolpeople !pinggrouplovers !downmarseyrs !besties Americaaaaaa FRICK YEAH
comin again to save the mother frickin day YEAH AMERICAAAA FRICK YEAAAH! suck my balls and suck on MY PEEPEE 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Also I literally do live in a 3rd world country and get dunked on it regularly. I get accused of being holier-than-thou by amoral agnostics. Cry and
more.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Aevann what did you say
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Do the fricking wrong thing that "you have too do" if you feel so strong about it. Just remember too beg god for His mercy afterward.
@Grue stand with Israel.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think
you guys are fricking arguing around each other due to having different 
definitions for morality.
While I agree
with you that the fricking bombings lead to less death 
and suffering 
overall by bringing about a fricking quicker end to the fricking war and less deaths in the fricking invasions, that isn't what !catholics define as moral. While you and many others would 
consider 
that moral given the fricking situation.
What
@Corinthian is fricking saying is fricking that a fricking moral choice 
is fricking independent of the fricking context of the fricking situation. It is fricking wrong 
to kill civilians no matter 
the fricking context surrounding it. What I believe 
you to be saying is fricking that in this particular instance and others like it; it is fricking moral due to causing less death 
and suffering 
overall.
Due to that difference
in view on morality neither of you will convince the fricking other because of the fricking different 
definitions which you are fricking using.
What I believe
you to be saying is fricking that you think 
@Corinthian is fricking defining morality based 
on ignorance of the fricking reality of the fricking situation. I don't think 
that's completely accurate. It's that his view is what fricking is fricking moral doesn't change no matter 
the fricking context surrounding the fricking decision.
Either of you correct
me if you think 
I'm putting words 
in your mouth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't want to
here but I think the main problem is that people try to apply a moral framework to a situation which is inherently immoral- war. 'Thou shalt not kill' is a core tenet in Christian morality, though it is not exclusive to it, it is a near-universal constant among all living people. Notice how it does not say 'though shalt not kill in vain', or 'though shalt not kill most people most of the time', or have any 'buts' or 'excepts'. It just straight up says that killing is bad, period. At the same time war goes completely against that. As such, trying to apply this moral framework to war requires at least some degree of dissonance, so one could convince themselves that it's ok to kill as long as it is in self defense, or as long as they have received the orders from someone else, thus absolving them from responsibility, or any other variety of cope. The thing is that as I said earlier, this is inherently immoral and goes against human nature, and moreso the justifications one uses will be different from person to person, hence why a consensus in this situation is impossible. Asking whether it's more moral to shoot a thousand people or bomb a thousand people makes no sense and carries no meaning if you subscribe to the idea that killing is bad no matter what.
In order to avoid sounding like a 'heh, actually both sides are bad' fencesitter I will admit that I agree with
@Corinthian more in this case (though not fully) because in most cases human lives aren't just something that can be reduced to simple numbers and minmaxxed. If you do that, it opens up the posibility for a lot of 'the ends justify the means' horrors and atrocities, many of which we have already seen last century. Ultimately it's easy to be moral when we don't have to make hard choices like that. One might say that everyday occurences of goodwill like helping a person who's fallen or giving 10 euros to a homeless person are not concerned with morality at all because it costs us nothing to do that. Instead the real dilemma of morality shines through in the hardest and most desperate of times, where one has to decide between doing what's simple and doing what's hard. It is only then that people show their real convictions and can demonstrate their moral compass
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's technically thou shalt not murder
if you want the fricking better 
translation. There 
are fricking justified killings that are fricking at least not immoral.
See "Chizkuni" (Shemos 20:13)
ΧΧΧ©ΧΧ ΧΧ Χ©Χ "Χ¨Χ¦ΧΧΧ" ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΧ Χ¨Χ§ ΧΧΧΧͺΧ Χ©ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ, ΧΧΧ ΧΧ©ΧΧ ΧΧΧͺΧ ΧΧΧ©ΧΧ ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ, ΧΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ ΧΧΧ Χ©ΧΧ ΧΧΧΧ
Chizkuni differentiates between
ΧΧ¨ΧΧΧ ("killing") and Χ¨Χ¦ΧΧΧ ("murder"). He states 
that "murder" only refers to killing 
when it is fricking unlawful. But if a fricking person 
kills lawfully, he does not violate the fricking commandment.
Accordingly, the fricking correct
translation of the fricking verse is: "Thou shalt not murder".
If all killing
was fricking immoral then god would 
be immoral in the fricking Old Testament with many actions which I would 
disagree 
with. I get your point 
though.
Otherwise you couldn't have a fricking just war doctrine which is fricking okay according to the fricking !catholics church
1. The fricking damage inflicted by the fricking aggressor on the fricking nation or community
of nations 
must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there
must be serious 
prospects of success;
4. the fricking use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the fricking evil to be eliminated.
I would
say what the fricking allies did was not fricking near as grave 
as the fricking axis in WW2 but I know 
@Corinthian and I have a fricking disagreement on the fricking things that happened in WW2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'll start by once again throwing out the CCC sections on war, particularly 2312-2314 on "Just War" for anyone who reads this and is inclined to care. Catholics aren't pacifists but we and Protestant leaders have been consistent on this since the 1940s, Kaam is wrong to say it's in hindsight. Ironically, the majority opinion here is one formed in hindsight as Allied propaganda went into overdrive immediately after the nuclear bombs.
Beyond a moral argument against the firebombings, nuclear bombs and a few other Allied actions (the straightforward reality is it's monstrous to purposefully target civilian populations) even secular historians will tell you that those involved at the time didn't think it would end the war and definitely had no certainty that it would.
I'm kinda done arguing about war here since everyone is deeply
and unyielding about WW2 when I've pulled citations in the past and in the end it's not productive to discuss counterfactuals or hypotheticals, especially with people here.
I agree with your final point though, virtues can only be outwardly proven in situations wherein they're tested.
@C333
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I have zero intentions of reading all of that crap
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i also dint read it but i upmarseyd because the fricking skeleton is fricking very nice
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
cringe virgin utilitarian "save lives by killing people"vs
chad deontologist "do the right thing and let god sort out the corpses"!sophistry please come hurl shit at each other god bless
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think I made my POV very clear. Killing civilians is morally wrong but the thing is there's no morality in total war. War is wrong and is what one should advert but when you're dragged into a total war with countries like the Axis (whose ideology and goals are clearly evil) the only sane decision is to stop them at any cost and do it as fast as possible, this isn't just some "conjecture based on hypotheticals", a Nazi dominated Europe would have been nightmarish and every month the war was prolonged hundreds of thousands died, those were facts. Getting a truce with Nazi Germany is a ludicrous notion and I won't pass judgments over RAF generals with no benefit of hindsight over bombing German cities when the Luftwaffe did that with British cities, there's a huge human factor there.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's just laughable to invoke the morality of the actions of Allied forces in this instance when we opted to avoid a minor excursion to take out railways to Auschwitz after knowledge of the Holocaust had leaked, etc. I'm not an Axis-defender, spending armaments on civilians to demoralize an enemy is just wrong regardless of who's doing it.
Kaamy is I think genuinely mad though, he removed me from his friends list. 
This is just another average weeknight for me as you know by now.
Did I say anything worse or more objectionable than usual?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, that was a mistake, I personally think they should have bombed the camp (mainly the guards and officers barracks) itself along the IG Farben chemical plant nearby. There would have been a mass escape and at least have given the prisoners a chance to live.
No, you're just being your usual "sticking strongly by principles" self. I don't agree but I respect that. Kaamrev is a bit sensitive, he downmarseyd my comment even though I mostly agreed with him lol.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I expect disagreement at this point, but I do find it obnoxious and (ironically) even more "emotional appeal driven" than my own
"style" to immediately jump on attacking my character to avoid engaging the ideas I raise. What do you want me to say? I'm an addict in recovery, have stolen and lied and wronged everyone I've ever known at one point or another. Before getting married I struggled with sexual sin the same as most very-online young men. Without God I'm no better than a frickin actual Nazi, and I've said all that before.
As far as the post-hoc justification point, tell me why I'm wrong and I'll think about it and respond. The usual lines of argument on WW2 etc. go more or less that the Allied forces might've done some bad things but because we won it ultimately saved more lives than were lost. I reject that, as you know, both morally and on the basis of the first hand accounts of those in positions of authority involved who generally did not anticipate that dropping the Nukes or firebombings were going to end things.
Actually does make me easier and more likely to win over to a position because I try to be consistent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm gonna set aside Japan as it was covered in previous discussions and focus specifically on Nazi Germany.
The USAAF actually took mesures like daily bombings to make bombings more precise, remember it's the 1940s, there are no guided bombs. The RAF preferred to engage in massive night raids because daily raids were more risky, however this created more collateral damage.
The Ruhr campaign aimed to destroy Germany's steel and coal industry and therefore cripple their capabilities to wage war, they almost succeeded but then the RAF was ordered a new campaign over Berlin. This was foolish from a strategic POV and it would fit the "unjustified" bombing definition, but it fits a human factor, the Bongs wanted payback. By the end of the war bombings like Dresde were justified as "it caused panic and disruption which accelerates Germany's demise", this does enter an hypothetical territory but at this point the allies gave a single frick about Axis civilians, there were no innocents in the views of anyone leading the belligerent countries, only targets (that includes the Nazi leadership which gave a frick about its own people). This puts said military and political leaders on a position where their decisions weren't morally right, but I personally think they're "understandable" given the circumstances of the time and I think the other dramatards are more of that opinion (if we're to seriouspost because at least I like to meme and joke about Dresden being morally right without being serious on a cat site).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Corinthian is a igger
@ObamaBinLaden say this as a feminist ally
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
So is your position that we should never choose the lesser evil? I'm confused. Even biblically, Cyrus is praised for conquering Babylon (undoubtedly killing many innocents in the process) and freeing the Jews. And that's ignoring the fact that the French were basically begging for liberation, knowing it would cost French lives
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
From the Catechism. No, I'm only responding RE: Allied actions that targeted civilian populations. Christians have always had a 'just war' doctrine. Allied forces were justified to defend themselves, it just doesn't excuse everything they did once the war was being waged.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To be clear, I do think there were allied bombing campaigns that violated the just war doctrine. That's just inevitable in such a massive conflict. I just don't think it's true that targeting cities or utilizing weapons of mass destruction is always wrong. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples of that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
U Retarg too bd hinest
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Now wait a minute, I think what
@Corinthian says has value (even though ( I say this as a feminist ally ) I fricking hate his preachy catholic jungle chinx butt)
When at peace time, and even during war, the ideal and standards we should hold ourselves too is that any civilian death is bad. Accepting there will be civilian collateral damage is a truly dangerous slippery slope. It blurs the line between what is and isn't deliberate war crimes against civilians.
What @ObamaBinLaden is trying too say is that accepting death of civilians after the incident is okay, factoring in civilian death as cost of doing business even before you do anything is volatile and swings the moral pendulum away from you.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thanks even if you hate me.
Yeah that's about the measure of it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I would put it like this: When the Americans came to liberate Manila, they didn't use heavy artillery to avoid causing civilian casualties. A lot of guys got killed and we made no progress. We ended up using the artillery anyway. That's what we had to do even to our own side to end the war. The one thing that you could to save lives in that war was to end as soon as possible. People were dying of starvation everyday in China and in the Nazi concentration camps at a rate that the Allies couldn't have matched even if we tried.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You had a chance to not be completely worthless, but it looks like you threw it away. At least you're consistent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is always treated like the evil cowardly bullies firebombing these helpless innocents below. If you were flying bombers for the RAF you were way way way more likely to get killed than a German civilian was. It's sad that people got killed and stuff, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they're stuck in a really horrible situation and they're least trying to end the war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You know those charts with the fricking civilian to combatant death ratios of various military campaigns, b-word? I'd like to see those but with the fricking civilians and cobatants from other sides.
Like what's the fricking death rate for a fricking soldier vs the fricking death rate for civilians being shot at by that soldier.
Seems like the fricking kind of thing good for provoking shit-flinging.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What? Please summarize
@ObamaBinLaden say this as a feminist ally and future male feminist of Taylor Swift
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't have enough spoons to read this shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context