Comments on: Allied Crimes During World War II

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:51:08 +0000

Probably the worst example of hypocrisy in world history was the Nuremberg trials.The fact that Russia, America, and Britian considered themselves fit to hold the moral high ground at the end of that appaling war is truly amazing.How can anybody justify the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians soley on the grounds that they were misfortunate enough to be born in the axis countries.German war crimes are consistently broadcast as the worst in human history.But does not that “honour”go to the Soviet Union.And why oh why does one of the worst and most disgusting crimes in world history almost never get a mention.The mass rapes of millions of women and children by the Red Army.And how many German civilians were done to death after the war ended,their only crime again being their nationality.Many Many on the Allied side should also have been hanged at the end of the war and the fact that they were not just made the trials of the Axis leaders and soldiers nothing more than an exercise in revenge and hypocrisy.In international law as in all law.Nobody should be above it.

By: setsanto

setsanto — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:57:23 +0000

Nobody is saying that the Nazi’s did not commit war crimes. However, the fact of the matter is that the USA did.

On a personal note, my grandfather died in Dresden. There were documented logs that he had already saved 53 Jewish men, women and children at this point. I hope you are ashamed if you use the Holocaust to justify Dresden. I actually don’t even know what to say about those who do. 130000 Germans did not DESERVE to die. 0 Germans DESERVED to die in Dresden. Maybe at the Nuremberg Trials. Not in horrible agony as a result of being burned to death. Would you have agreed to firebombing Dallas in the 1930’s due to all the civil rights violations? Or are you one of those Christians that says they hate fascists like the Nazis, then turn around and denounce gay marriage and are secretly (or sometimes not so secretly) racist?

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:28:10 +0000

Agent Elfond

To state what you did about Americans being no better than Nazis and that every American has a genocidal side and that we relish wars and killing has to be the most idiotic and ignorant statement I have ever heard. Americans are typically generous, charitable and supportive of peace and freedom. What the fight for is freedom and though not perfect (far from it) we would never make a statement as hateful and distorted as you have.

By: Agent Elrond

Agent Elrond — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:53:48 +0000

Guys I don’t think there is anypoint arguing with Americans on their war crimes. Frankly they just don’t care, they want to believe they are always right, whatever they do, even if it means they have to wipe off the human race from the rest of the world. It makes them no better than the Nazis, the Nazis believed their ideals too and thought they were protecting themselves by killing the semitic race. Deep down, almost every American has a genocidal side, it just take a good justification and prodding to bring it out. One has to look back in history to understand that and it also helps if you talk with an American and see how he relishes when it comes to wars and killing.

By: ericoak

ericoak — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:49:46 +0000

You misinterpreted what I said. I was saying all the Japanese wanted to do was surrender, but that isn’t what they were looking for when they bombed us in the first place. They attacked us! After they lost they wanted to just surrender. I wasn’t saying Pearl Harbor was justification, I was saying it was justification to want to completely conquer them, just like what happened to the Nazi. They didn’t just let them surrender like World War I. The Allies took over the whole country.

By: Dmitri

Dmitri — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:39:19 +0000

@ ericoak - Are you trying to say Pearl Harbour is a justification of atomic bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? I hope not, as it would highlight you as someone totally alien to World War history. There were much more casualties and battles between US and Japan in the World War 2 which have nearly neutralised Japan's crimes. In the end Japan wanted to surrender to US and end the war in return for sovereignty of the Japanese territory. But the US had other plans of course...

By: ericoak

ericoak — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:58:23 +0000

So wait, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor I bet they weren’t trying to destroy the US, just make them surrender to “reasonable demands.”

By: Imladris

Imladris — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:22:37 +0000

The allied powers feel no remorse for these crimes because 8 out of 10 of them are bigots who are too busy blaming the Nazis for all world war deaths to draw attention off their own crimes. Both the allies and axis were evil, they care all for their own greed.

By: Jez

Jez — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 14:33:41 +0000

You’re right about mixing historical arguments - to use the holocaust as a justification for further evil is crazy. It sickens me how people see things in black-and-white, when there’s no reason we can’t accept simultaneously that the Nazis committed evil, the Allies committed evil, and the Israelis have committed evil. I still maintain, however, that what the Nazis did was orders-of-magnitude worse. By that I don’t just mean in terms of numbers of dead, but on that subject I think the historical consensus on the magnitude of the holocaust has been worked out with the pre-war exodus and military casualties taken into account, the former being well-documented and the latter being at most a small fraction.

Re Dresden, I already have the sinking feeling I’m going to get nowhere here, but for some reason I’m compelled to get drawn into this at least one more time.

“If I choose to villify….” Well, sure. If you choose in advance which angle to present, and then look for stats to support it, then you can pluck any figure you like out of the air. But you didn’t originally cite 600-800k in your article, and for good reason: there’s no source to back it up. “Check details from the sources linked:” re Dresden you must mean the rense.com article. Unfortunately that doesn’t tell us where its figures come from either—and it’s written in a very propagandist style, with a big imbalance of emotive language over fact, much more so than yours. As such it’s not much of a source.

The fact we’re even debating this shows that you are right about another thing: much of history is written by people with some or other axe to grind. Blogs doubly so. But while the Napoleonic quote has a cool cynical ring of truth about it, I’d say it’s not true of all historians. For what it’s worth, I don’t *want* to believe anything in particular. I believed Kurt Vonnegut when he wrote that Dresden was bigger than Hiroshima. And now I don’t. Now I think his figures probably came from highly questionable sources. Show me something *convincing* and I might believe again. In any case I’m with you in not wanting people to gloss over these massacres, or to think they are somehow justified by Coventry or Pearl Harbor, or even by the Holocaust itself.

What sources do we have? You can say 800k based on pure conjecture, 300k and cite Goebbels, anywhere from 100k to 250k and cite Irving, or 30k and cite Reichert. Who has which axe to grind? I guess one would have to look carefully into Reichert’s motivations as well as his methodology. For the other two, I know enough about their motivations to believe their figures were inflated.

Definitely with you on the making sense thing.

By: Aby

Aby — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 12:57:31 +0000

I get reminded of Napoleon’s quote “History is nothing but a set of lies made by victors and generally agreed upon” . Yet in the case of Dresden, due to its massive nature we have varying versions of history and we need to look into facts and plausible theories rather than rely on blind faith on what could be said as “Allied propagada”. As we know, casualties in wars are constant but their quotes depend on the side you take. If I choose to vilify the Allied powers, the figure for Dresden could go as high as 600000 - 800000 considering about 1.2 milliong civlians were on the city, mostly refugees who have fled from the horrors of Red Army of Soviet Union you can check details from the sources linked in the article above. Fearing for getting labelled ‘Nazi’ and denying actual casualties would make me as bad as the proponents of this massacre. The horrors of Dresden is not only the firebombing raids but also the attacks on medics, rescuers and survivors by machine gunning them to destroy witnesses. Angela’s Eyewitness Account - Time Witness

And the Allied claim of 25000 civilians based on mere body counts is simply illogical, we see double standards in here and an attempt to vilify the opponents crime while cloaking one’s own. While in the count of Nazi holocaust casualties the method to get the number used is (pre wartime Jew population - post wartime Jew population) which by itself is statistically inaccurate as a lot of Jews have faced wartime casualties or fled to other countries. It is naive to take the quoted figure of Allied forces like US and UK without taking into consideration, the political propaganda. After all they use Holocaust as a justification of not taking action against the Israelis who have been carrying out their own genocides in Palestine.

And by the way I have no intention to spread Nazi propaganda but fear of being labelled Nazi is not an excuse to accept the anti-Nazi side and get mired in their propaganda. And as for ‘liberal’, the site name is more of a sarcasm in reponse to an American lady who considered me a ‘liberal democrat’ for my internationalist views. For details, you may check out the Testimonials page in this site. My political beliefs are my own and my views do not have to conform to social standards unless they make sense.