NationStates Jolt Archive

Have any of you seen this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/5284832.stm

It is disgusting how some people can be this way. I know that war is a nasty business and mistakes are made, but we all owe a debt to the men and women who died so that we may live in freeedom. I ask all of you who fel the same as me to E-mail the Peace Pledge union on:
jan@ppu.org.uk

Thank you,

Xanderism

Bastards. Everyone else got a plaque or memorial, and the men of Bomber Command did their duty to defend their country and fight the enemy the best way they could. They should get a statue.

Sorry, online petitions aren't worth anything.

But yeah, all war veterans deserve respect, regardless of who they fought for.

They're not against it because they love peace. They are against it because they hate the RAF.

Anway, a lot of those guys had no choice. They would have been conscripted anyway, so they deserve a memorial. No one can doubt the bravery of bomber command, it was an exceedingly dangerous job.

Does everyone deserve a plaque? Lithuania in the past years kept trying to erect a statue and memorial for the Lithuanians that served in the SS to fight the Soviets, but heavy protests from Israel, and to some degree Russia made them put a small plaque in a university, instead of the grand statue they envisioned. However there is still clout to erect the statue.

The Lithuanian men who joined the SS are views as patriotic freedom fighters, do you believe Lithuania should erect a huge memorial to their deaths?

Or is just the memorials of Allied losses acceptable?

Sorry, online petitions aren't worth anything.

But yeah, all war veterans deserve respect, regardless of who they fought for.

Not all. Sorry, I have no respect for those who commit the atrocities at My Lai and similar acts, nor do I think they deserve it.

No perceived reward for state-sanctioned mass murder. Period. It's time we began learning from past mistakes, and long since past time we stigmatize War as being a contemptible means of resolving conflict.

Sorry Bomber Command - nothing personal - but we need to change our collective ways for the sake of future generations.

Not all. Sorry, I have no respect for those who commit the atrocities at My Lai and similar acts, nor do I think they deserve it.

You have no idea what the men in Vietnam were going through do you?

Read A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. It helps explain why some soldiers did what they did.

You have no idea what the men in Vietnam were going through do you?

Read A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. It helps explain why some soldiers did what they did.

It explains it. It does not, however, justify or excuse their actions. I can explain and rationalize alot of things. That doesn't make them okay.

It explains it. It does not, however, justify or excuse their actions. I can explain and rationalize alot of things. That doesn't make them okay.

You didn't read the book did you? :rolleyes:

No perceived reward for state-sanctioned mass murder. Period. It's time we began learning from past mistakes, and long since past time we stigmatize War as being a contemptible means of resolving conflict.

Sorry Bomber Command - nothing personal - but we need to change our collective ways for the sake of future generations.

Those men fought for their country the only way they could - attacking the enemy at his own game. Was it moral? Probably not. But it was the only way they could show that Britain was undefeated at such a critical time? Yes.

55,000 men died from Bomber Command. A fraction of their victims, yes, but they died doing their best for their country. Why should they be left in the shadows?

Not my country, not my business. In my own country, I would oppose anything that glorifies any war or any of its participants.

Same old, same old. The pacifists protest a memorial dedicated to the very people who died so that they would have the right to protest. When will the sheep learn.:rolleyes:

I really don't folks. Learn from the past? OH! I get it! We should appease dictators and theocracies, because that worked SO well during WWII. And also, to whoever wrote the post on the SS, generally, it's considered that the side which did NOT slaughter 30 million people in the space of 6 years was the good side, and therefore there are, as it should be, very few memorials to the Nazi's victories built after 1945.

And, to whichever 35-year-old-lives-in-his-mom's-basement wrote that the monument should not be made and that we need to learn from the past, you really need to look at some statistics which say how much of a percentage of Vietnamese helped the VC and NVA, and then come back and tell me that those peasants didn't have it coming.

You didn't read the book did you? :rolleyes:

No, I haven't. But I will state this...nothing will ever justify a massacre. Nothing can justify My Lai and get my respect for those men. Nothing can justify Rwanda, Sudan, Serbia, Germany, Russia, China, Spain. I will not respect those who have earned the distinction of truly being "baby killers".

Sorry, you can rationalize it all you want. You could scream "they were just following orders" untill you are blue in the face. Those men still made their choice, and that choice was to murder innocent people for no reason. And for that, they deserve my scorn.

I really don't folks. Learn from the past? OH! I get it! We should appease dictators and theocracies, because that worked SO well during WWII. And also, to whoever wrote the post on the SS, generally, it's considered that the side which did NOT slaughter 30 million people in the space of 6 years was the good side, and therefore there are, as it should be, very few memorials to the Nazi's victories built after 1945.

And, to whichever 35-year-old-lives-in-his-mom's-basement wrote that the monument should not be made and that we need to learn from the past, you really need to look at some statistics which say how much of a percentage of Vietnamese helped the VC and NVA, and then come back and tell me that those peasants didn't have it coming.

Oh, fantastic post. Look chum, if we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to forget it. We should be remembering the men of Bomber Command who died - and there should be a bigger memorial to those they killed whilst doing their duty. Side by side, preferably.

Secondly, Appeasement was a flawed strategy, but one that most believed was the best thing to do at the time. Let us not forget that Appeasement gave Britain time to re-arm, and that Chamberlain himself backed Churchill to the huilt once he realised what he had done.

Thirdly - attacking people isn't exactly a great strategy, and I'd avoid it.

Fourthly - Most Vietnamese peasants were just trying to survive, and others were fighting their invaders. I don't see that as 'Having it coming'.

Not all. Sorry, I have no respect for those who commit the atrocities at My Lai and similar acts, nor do I think they deserve it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

You have no idea what the men in Vietnam were going through do you?

Read A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. It helps explain why some soldiers did what they did.

You can explain it, but you can't justify a massacre of those types. I have found "Killology" (On Amazon) to be a fascinating read.

No perceived reward for state-sanctioned mass murder. Period. It's time we began learning from past mistakes, and long since past time we stigmatize War as being a contemptible means of resolving conflict.

Sorry Bomber Command - nothing personal - but we need to change our collective ways for the sake of future generations.

Ever heard of this one? A really smart guy said it a while back.

"So long as there are men there will be wars"

I can't believe you think that it's possible to make war unavoidable. That's not even plausible by any stretch of the imagination.

Well I guess you wouldn't understand since your country has never been in any danger.

So, you think that no memorial should be given to those who died in WWII?? What is this? You think that we should roll over and be taken over by dictators to stop violence? Once again, I bring up the appeasement policy of the 30's!

But, what can you expect from the Irish? I mean, it's not like anyone's been killed in the fight for your freedom. Why, I think that England needs to send over a few divisions right now, (I'm sure they'd oblige), and you had better not say a word, or even think of supporting those who DO fight back, because that would go against your policy. Ireland did not do anything during WWII, besides order out a few patrol boats, so I'm not really surprised that you're not losing sleep over your statement. My whole family, two generations before myself, fought in that war for the US/Allies, and my great-uncle even flew for the 8th Airbomber (is that the name) division.

So, you think that no memorial should be given to those who died in WWII?? What is this? You think that we should roll over and be taken over by dictators to stop violence? Once again, I bring up the appeasement policy of the 30's!

But, what can you expect from the Irish? I mean, it's not like anyone's been killed in the fight for your freedom. Why, I think that England needs to send over a few divisions right now, (I'm sure they'd oblige), and you had better not say a word, or even think of supporting those who DO fight back, because that would go against your policy. Ireland did not do anything during WWII, besides order out a few patrol boats, so I'm not really surprised that you're not losing sleep over your statement. My whole family, two generations before myself, fought in that war for the US/Allies, and my great-uncle even flew for the 8th Airbomber (is that the name) division.

You need to calm down and stop flaming, right away. This is extremely counter-productive..and I'm not even sure Cabra is Irish. Ireland also contributed troops voluntarily to the war effort, and Irish troops served in all branches of the British military in World War Two. Heck, even the neutral part of Ireland generally released British POWs sooner than German ones, unlike Switzerland (Although Ireland wasn't next to Germany, to be fair).

This is OTT. WWII was a legit war.

Remember guys memorials don't glorify war, they remind us of the futilitys of war and of the people who died so that we could do simple things in freedom, like go shopping and protest for example.

No, I haven't. But I will state this...nothing will ever justify a massacre. Nothing can justify My Lai and get my respect for those men. Nothing can justify Rwanda, Sudan, Serbia, Germany, Russia, China, Spain. I will not respect those who have earned the distinction of truly being "baby killers".

Sorry, you can rationalize it all you want. You could scream "they were just following orders" untill you are blue in the face. Those men still made their choice, and that choice was to murder innocent people for no reason. And for that, they deserve my scorn.

See, you just don't understand. This has nothing to do with following orders, or killing for the hell of it.

Evidently you have never lose EVERYTHING you have, or have seen your friends die right in front of your eyes.

Read more 1st person war books.

Why should they be left in the shadows?

Like I said Skin - nothing personal; it's just that it's time we moved on from celebrating the worst means of resolving conflict, and worse.

I can't believe you think that it's possible to make war unavoidable. That's not even plausible by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, whether you can or can't believe what I think makes no difference to me.

Fine.

That's just the problem with being neutral. It means that you didn't do anything.

Heck, even the neutral part of Ireland generally released British POWs sooner than German ones, unlike Switzerland (Although Ireland wasn't next to Germany, to be fair).

Generally released. That's quite a term. And, I'm pointing my finger at both Ireland and Switzerland (and any other major neutral country), that staying out of a war which removes a brutal and vicious dictator committing atrocities on such a large scale, (and believe me, everyone who was well informed knew of the killings, to an extent) is just as bad as having fought on the other side, if only because it took away precious resources from the war effort, which could have been catastrophic.

I'm not even sure Cabra is Irish. Ireland also contributed troops voluntarily to the war effort, and Irish troops served in all branches of the British military in World War Two.

Well, it said Dublin on it, so I took a stab in the dark...anyway, back to the point.

Contributed troops voluntarily. That was nice of them. How many? It couldn't have even close to the gargantuan Allied armies (that's simple logic, most of the armies could have populated Ireland two times over), but what about percentage? I would say that, given the population of the US at the time of WWII was around 100 million, give or take a few, the army of 12 million took a collossal effort. I believe that England's army consisted of 9 million (I'm pulling these numbers from memory folks, don't quote) Give or take 1 million from their colonies (and that's extremely generous) that's still 8 million, in a country of 50 million (at the most). I can't imagine Ireland gave more than 50K, and in a country of 2.5 million that adds up to *counts on fingers* not a lot, when a whole lot more should have been given.

You have no idea what the men in Vietnam were going through do you?

It doesn't bloody MATTER what they were going through! What about the word atrocity escapes you?

So, you think that no memorial should be given to those who died in WWII?? What is this? You think that we should roll over and be taken over by dictators to stop violence? Once again, I bring up the appeasement policy of the 30's!

But, what can you expect from the Irish? I mean, it's not like anyone's been killed in the fight for your freedom. Why, I think that England needs to send over a few divisions right now, (I'm sure they'd oblige), and you had better not say a word, or even think of supporting those who DO fight back, because that would go against your policy. Ireland did not do anything during WWII, besides order out a few patrol boats, so I'm not really surprised that you're not losing sleep over your statement. My whole family, two generations before myself, fought in that war for the US/Allies, and my great-uncle even flew for the 8th Airbomber (is that the name) division.

*lol
So you assume I'm Irish simply because I live there? I'm German, born and bred, honey.
I think the victims of WW II deserve to be remembered and the cruelties should never be forgotten. If you suggested, however, to put up a plaque commemorating the bombing of Dresden by the RAF, you can expect my opposition. It is one thing to remember a war and to learn from it, and quite another to glorify those who killed. On either side.

Somone just came on with a comment of 'This is OTT, WWII was a legit war'. What does that mean?

*lol
So you assume I'm Irish simply because I live there? I'm German, born and bred, honey.
I think the victims of WW II deserve to be remembered and the cruelties should never be forgotten. If you suggested, however, to put up a plaque commemorating the bombing of Dresden by the RAF, you can expect my opposition. It is one thing to remember a war and to learn from it, and quite another to glorify those who killed. On either side.

What about a larger memorial next to it detailing the civilians those men killed, and detailing their needless deaths due to an bloody-minded dictator?

Same question goes to Dobbs (Because I'm lazy).

Contributed troops voluntarily. That was nice of them. How many? It couldn't have even close to the gargantuan Allied armies (that's simple logic, most of the armies could have populated Ireland two times over), but what about percentage? I would say that, given the population of the US at the time of WWII was around 100 million, give or take a few, the army of 12 million took a collossal effort. I believe that England's army consisted of 9 million (I'm pulling these numbers from memory folks, don't quote) Give or take 1 million from their colonies (and that's extremely generous) that's still 8 million, in a country of 50 million (at the most). I can't imagine Ireland gave more than 50K, and in a country of 2.5 million that adds up to *counts on fingers* not a lot, when a whole lot more should have been given.

You're American, right? Every discussion about any form of contribution to virtually anything always seems to descent into a penis-measuring contest with you guys.... why does it matter how many troops Ireland sent? Irish were also working for the arms manufacturing industry in England, they came over in droves.
And considering that the majority of Irish traditionally live outside Ireland, namely in the States, you may want to do some further research on your figures.

Somone just came on with a comment of 'This is OTT, WWII was a legit war'. What does that mean?

Many regard WWII as a 'legitimate' conflict because it was a conflict against a dictator-driven country that wanted only war and caused the deaths of millions inside its own borders - not to mention those killed ending said regime. As oppossed to WWI, which was essentially a rather pointless conflict.

the last verse of Siegrfied Sassoon's 1917 work would be appropriate:

"You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go."

What about a larger memorial next to it detailing the civilians those men killed, and detailing their needless deaths due to an bloody-minded dictator?

Same question goes to Dobbs (Because I'm lazy).

How about we put the materials to better use and build something that'd make all those dead bombers proud? Like a hospital or a daycare?

What about a larger memorial next to it detailing the civilians those men killed, and detailing their needless deaths due to an bloody-minded dictator?

Same question goes to Dobbs (Because I'm lazy).

So... you suggest ot commemorate the killers right next to those killed? If we're going for compromise, why not settle for a plaque commemorating the event, listing the deaths on both sides? Not calling one side heros and the other criminals.

To reply to the actual first post...my uncle was killed in the RAF during WWII and I do not think that a memorial is appropriate at all....
And to say a memorial isn't the right thing is not the same as saying that what they did or didn't do was the right or wrong thing....So nobody start on the "would you let dictators run the world" crap....
I have read many first person books on various wars...including the book someone mentioned...most of them agree that they hated the whole experience and would rather educate people as to how disgusting and sick it all was so it wouldn't happen again....
And to the person who stated that the vietnamese "had it coming".....actually the people who invaded vietnam had it coming....i.e. the french and the us and the british...
And about the whole irish thing...there are no memorials that I know of to all the volunteers who gave their blood in the hope of liberating their country from the british invaders....
and stalinburg I have lost everything and I have seen my freinds die....I don't see how it merits a memorial....

How about we put the materials to better use and build something that'd make all those dead bombers proud? Like a hospital or a daycare?

Seconded.

So... you suggest ot commemorate the killers right next to those killed? If we're going for compromise, why not settle for a plaque commemorating the event, listing the deaths on both sides? Not calling one side heros and the other criminals.

That seems appropriate.

War memorials honor the memory of people who died in wars, and stand as a testament to their sacrifice in the face of, oft times, unspeakable horrors that humanity as a whole would like to try and not repeat. I find it hypocritical that people say we need to learn from the past and never forget its lessons, and then be against a memorial statue of it. War memorials are generally very noticeable, and very in-your-face about the fact that some horrible shit that no one would want to live through went down at some point.

There's opposing war, but there's going too far.

However you put it, those who died, DIED, and they were doing the duty placed upon them. That's irreversible.

I am 100% anti-war, but I condemn anyone who opposes remembering the dead from a war.

War memorials honor the memory of people who died in wars, and stand as a testament to their sacrifice in the face of, oft times, unspeakable horrors that humanity as a whole would like to try and not repeat. I find it hypocritical that people say we need to learn from the past and never forget its lessons, and then be against a memorial statue of it. War memorials are generally very noticeable, and very in-your-face about the fact that some horrible shit that no one would want to live through went down at some point.

War has many aspects. To commemorate the horrors in an effort not to have them repeated is something I agree with. To call any side that fought in a war "heros" is something I oppose, as it doesn't serve to prevent future wars, but glorifies past ones instead.

First of all, I would apologize to the German living in Dublin, no offense was intended, but I'd say that a good percentage of the people in Dublin are Irish, so one can hardly blame me.

And, now knowing that you're German, your opposition seems obvious. First of all, the monument does not commemorate the bombing of Dresden, just the people who bombed it. And, as most members of the population of Dresden were Nazis (as nearly all Germans at that time) I find it hard to draw up sorrow for them. Also, the Dresden bombing took away resources from the German war effort, which helped to end the war sooner in our favor.

Second of all, it IS right to glorify those who killed, at least on our side. I keep coming back to this our point. The reason that there are large WWII monuments throughout the West commemoration victory is because... we won. Not only that, but the Germans (yes that's you too honey) killed almost 30 million people for being inferior. That generally places them (Germans) in the field of being the "bad guys". And because they are the "bad guys" it's good to glorify the 'good guys" who killed them. I don't care if they were drafted or if they were the most hardcore SS or SA or Gestapo that you'd ever want to meet.

That's all I have

First of all, I would apologize to the German living in Dublin, no offense was intended, but I'd say that a good percentage of the people in Dublin are Irish, so one can hardly blame me.

And, now knowing that you're German, your opposition seems obvious. First of all, the monument does not commemorate the bombing of Dresden, just the people who bombed it. And, as most members of the population of Dresden were Nazis (as nearly all Germans at that time) I find it hard to draw up sorrow for them. Also, the Dresden bombing took away resources from the German war effort, which helped to end the war sooner in our favor.

Second of all, it IS right to glorify those who killed, at least on our side. I keep coming back to this our point. The reason that there are large WWII monuments throughout the West commemoration victory is because... we won. Not only that, but the Germans (yes that's you too honey) killed almost 30 million people for being inferior. That generally places them (Germans) in the field of being the "bad guys". And because they are the "bad guys" it's good to glorify the 'good guys" who killed them. I don't care if they were drafted or if they were the most hardcore SS or SA or Gestapo that you'd ever want to meet.

That's all I have


And that's the exact reason why I oppose the kind of war memorial. They promote the good guys - bad guys attitude that will make it so much easier to get support for furture military campaigns.
In Dresden, approximately 25,000 civilians died in the night from the 13-14 February 1945. There was no attempt to destroy just industry in the city, or support lines. That attack was aimed at killing as many people as possible. The city was packed with refugees from the East at that time.
Oh, but sure, all of them were bad guys. And all of them were Nazis.

As much as I hate Germany's Nazi past, the one thing I hate more is the glorification of killing in any form. Period.
I don't oppose commemorating it, don't get me wrong. I oppose glorifying it.

We traditionally adopted a militarily neutral position on all matters. But in this war we were clearly neutral on the allies side.

Ireland didnt fight in WW2 for a number of reasons.

At the time DeValera knew that free state soldiers fighting aliong side the Brits (and the possibility of British military activiry in Ireland as a result) would have been unacceptible to even moderates in Ireland at the time and the free state was so fragile he couldnt contemplate sending that level of military personnel overseas ot the IRA might rise again, quite probably successfully.

And the decision not to go to war was taken in 1939, the holocaust didnt begin until 1943 and became public knowledge in 1945. To say this should have been a factor is a nonsense.

War has many aspects. To commemorate the horrors in an effort not to have them repeated is something I agree with. To call any side that fought in a war "heros" is something I oppose, as it doesn't serve to prevent future wars, but glorifies past ones instead.

There are heroes in war, though, although this is usually exemplified by doing things like hurting the enemy so your own can survive.

Take, for instance, Rodger Young, a World War II infantryman. In his younger life, he was selflessly devoted to his family to the point of self-detriment. He then displayed this again during the war, rejecting his promotion to sergeant because he felt his failing physical condition wouldn't be good in a leadership role. Later, he went on to disable a German machinegun nest by popping a grenade into it, allowing the rest of his squad to reach safety. Unfortunately, the only way to throw the grenade was to stand up in front of the machinegun, so that act ended Rodger Young.

Morals are a slippery thing. I think one could successfully argue that in such a situation, what Young did was not only heroic, but morally correct. He had a hard choice - kill myself and the two guys who will kill my nine friends, or let me and my nine friends get killed by these two guys? There's only one clear option there, and neither option was peaceful. And either way, the outcome would have been personally disastrous to the man making it.

First of all, I would apologize to the German living in Dublin, no offense was intended, but I'd say that a good percentage of the people in Dublin are Irish, so one can hardly blame me.

And, now knowing that you're German, your opposition seems obvious. First of all, the monument does not commemorate the bombing of Dresden, just the people who bombed it. And, as most members of the population of Dresden were Nazis (as nearly all Germans at that time) I find it hard to draw up sorrow for them. Also, the Dresden bombing took away resources from the German war effort, which helped to end the war sooner in our favor.

Second of all, it IS right to glorify those who killed, at least on our side. I keep coming back to this our point. The reason that there are large WWII monuments throughout the West commemoration victory is because... we won. Not only that, but the Germans (yes that's you too honey) killed almost 30 million people for being inferior. That generally places them (Germans) in the field of being the "bad guys". And because they are the "bad guys" it's good to glorify the 'good guys" who killed them. I don't care if they were drafted or if they were the most hardcore SS or SA or Gestapo that you'd ever want to meet.

That's all I have

Jesus...Cabra, I apologise for this guy.

Listen mate, I don't know where you studied history, but go back and do it again. Perhaps open a book this time.

1) "And, as most members of the population of Dresden were Nazis (as nearly all Germans at that time)" - What does this even mean? Very few were members of the Nazi party, actually. Membership was not demanded for every
citizen, and there were many who were not members.

2) The military impact of the Dresden bombings is oft debated, and was likely minimal. Studies have found that allied bombing did little long-term or even medium-term damage to the factories and facilities hit by the raids; they were ofetn running again within 12-24 hours due to the workers efficency. Thus, the Dresden bombings took away little if any resources away from the war effort. It did little to aid the Soviets, who demand Atlee authorise the bombings. (Interestingly, Churchill was away when the demand was made and met, and was horrified by the results when told)

3) I believe around 11-12 Million were killed because they were Untermensch. The rest were casualties of the conflict itself (and even then you give an odd estimate.) And most Germans were not "Bad Guys" nor were we really "The good guys". Neither side for for reasons of virtue or heroism.

Gah...that's all I can be bothered to say.

So Skin, what'd you think of my idea?

And why shouldn't it come down to the numbers? (Although I'd say the Russians did far more than any American or Brit or certainly German *lol* to win the war)

On an individual level, I'd say the Russians gave the most, followed by the British, then the Americans. I don't know if you've read 'Inside the Third Reich' (although it is quite common) but it actually says that Germans had the least commodities taken away from them during the war. This comes from the mastermind of the German war armaments industry! Back to the point.

You seem to think that because the Irish gave a little, they shouldn't be blamed for not giving more. Also, I was refering the native Irish, not the ones exported to foreign countries. (a.k.a citizens)

Really is an interesting debate going on here.

I think that if the government wants to erect a plaque to distinguish the guys who it sent to die, than it should be able too. Just like the germans. No reason they can't erect plaques to commemorate the brave guys who died for their country, is it?

Some people are acting like every German was responsible for the holocaust. Most germans didn't even really realize the full extent of the holocaust, and frankly, the US and GB, who knew a whole lot more, really didn't do much to stop it.

As for My Lai, the conditions the soldiers were under certainly explains their actions. It doesn't mean they all shouldn't be put to death, because they should.

A memorial should be a commemoration of the sick, pointless waste that is war. It need not be a celebration. This is Great Britain... they're not going to erect a monument to the people they killed. Why should they? They killed them! Germany can do that if it wants.

I like the idea of a hospital as a memorial, but the way they have it right now is fine. Just something to remember the massive number of those who died.

Many soldiers do not deserve honor. But almost all deserve respect, particularly those who died in combat. This goes to all sides of every war, even the ones who started it.

So Skin, what'd you think of my idea?

Calming down a bit, I think it is a good idea. Such things were what they fought and died for, and thus would make the most fitting memorial. It just galls me a little that such brave men died and will get no memorial like their fellow soldiers. I know what they did was morally wrong and may not have helped that much - but they did what they could to fight back against an enemy that, at least in the early eyars, looked likely to invade and conquer the UK at any time.

Hey Cronos2546 if you're going to go for the whole nationalistic thing....then shut up...the memorial is in england....it is an english problem not american....it has nothing to do with america or americans so keep out of it....
And also what the f**k are you on about..do you even know anything about Irish history....the British since their first occupation have been responsible for the deaths of many more millions of Irish than any country killed either legitamtely or not in WWII....And in what way are they to "blame" as you put it???

You seem to think that because the Irish gave a little, they shouldn't be blamed for not giving more. Also, I was refering the native Irish, not the ones exported to foreign countries. (a.k.a citizens)

read my post at the bottom of page 3!!

what bit about the concept of military neutrality are you struggling with?

First of all, don't apologize for me and don't insult my knowledge of WWII. Although there was little actual military impact, the so-called 'shock-and-awe' took away morale, and the resources had to be diverted to care and to transport the refugees who have gone to A: rebuilding the factories and B: repairing tranport systems.

Second of all, spare me the 'We didn't know about it' argument. It's just like the Balkans 'television-stealer' concept. Sure, you weren't there when they pulled the trigger, sure you didn't know where those Jews or that prostitute went or who took them, but it didn't take a great leap of faith to guess.

That's all for me folks.

Really is an interesting debate going on here.

I think that if the government wants to erect a plaque to distinguish the guys who it sent to die, than it should be able too. Just like the germans. No reason they can't erect plaques to commemorate the brave guys who died for their country, is it?

Some people are acting like every German was responsible for the holocaust. Most germans didn't even really realize the full extent of the holocaust, and frankly, the US and GB, who knew a whole lot more, really didn't do much to stop it.

As for My Lai, the conditions the soldiers were under certainly explains their actions. It doesn't mean they all shouldn't be put to death, because they should.

A memorial should be a commemoration of the sick, pointless waste that is war. It need not be a celebration. This is Great Britain... they're not going to erect a monument to the people they killed. Why should they? They killed them! Germany can do that if it wants.

I like the idea of a hospital as a memorial, but the way they have it right now is fine. Just something to remember the massive number of those who died.

Many soldiers do not deserve honor. But almost all deserve respect, particularly those who died in combat. This goes to all sides of every war, even the ones who started it.

Thank you!

So would anyone think it appropriate to commemorate Lithuanian SS members? It is, after all, the logical extension of commemorating those who died on bomber patrols.

So would anyone think it appropriate to commemorate Lithuanian SS members? It is, after all, the logical extension of commemorating those who died on bomber patrols.

Considering that there's a school in my home town named after Graf Stauffenberg, why not? Let's turn them all into heros...

Second of all, spare me the 'We didn't know about it' argument. It's just like the Balkans 'television-stealer' concept. Sure, you weren't there when they pulled the trigger, sure you didn't know where those Jews or that prostitute went or who took them, but it didn't take a great leap of faith to guess.

That's all for me folks.

Who didn't know? German citizens at the time? Assuming they did guess what was happening to those who were taken, what, pray, were they meant to do about it? Frankly, it's naive at best to expect common citizens to a) be able to even find the concentration camps and b) round up the support and ability to be able to do anything about them, either diplomatically or militarily.

Or perhaps you mean other countries? Now correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm fairly sure I'm not, but countries like the UK didn't have a clue what was going on - why would they? It's not like the Nazi government did a weekly news broadcast of what'd been going on - 'and this week at Belsen the camp commandant finally got the plumbing fixed so don't worry guys, we'll have those showers working again pronto'. It'd be a stupid government that actively proclaimed something like that, and the Nazis were anything but.

Oh and since this post has been done so thoroughly there's jsut one little point I'd like to make that somehow has been overlooked.

Not only that, but the Germans (yes that's you too honey) killed almost 30 million people for being inferior.

Umm, what? Sorry, Cabra had an active hand in the killing of these untermensch? Impressive for someone of negative age at the time don't you think?

That has to be one of the more impressively ignorant statements you've made in this thread - please please tell me you don't hold modern Germany personally eesponisble for the actions of the Nazis. You may as well blame me for the Saracens killed in the Crusades - after all, I'm English, so I must have been out there, longsword in hand, trying to capture Jerusalem hmm?

Yeesh, you're lucky Cabra's such a nice person... and a passifist. I personally wouldn't, and haven't, been nearly so gentle as she has, and you aren't even directing your comments at me.

We should commemorate most people on both sides duing the war, the majority of German soldiers did absolutly nothing to harm the Jewish population, they were jsut defending their contry.

Have any of you seen this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/5284832.stm

It is disgusting how some people can be this way. I know that war is a nasty business and mistakes are made, but we all owe a debt to the men and women who died so that we may live in freeedom.
'Disgusting' is a bit of a strong word. If they'd smeared dog crap all over it or smashed it up, that would be 'disgusting'. This would be better described as 'pacifist group talks about pacifism.'

I'm glad that they are getting a memorial. Anyone brave enough to do these things should be remembered, whatever the personal views of people towards the things they were doing. It's a courage and honour that I'm not convinced that I possess, should I ever face such horrific circumstances myself.

We should commemorate most people on both sides duing the war, the majority of German soldiers did absolutly nothing to harm the Jewish population, they were jsut defending their contry.

In the last days of the war, yes. In the begining, they were attacking peaceful nations.

As I said, war should be remembered, but it is best remembered by keeping in mind the artrocities commited on all sides in each and every war rather than to deify one side.

'Disgusting' is a bit of a strong word. If they'd smeared dog crap all over it or smashed it up, that would be 'disgusting'. This would be better described as 'pacifist group talks about pacifism.'

I'm glad that they are getting a memorial. Anyone brave enough to do these things should be remembered, whatever the personal views of people towards the things they were doing. It's a courage and honour that I'm not convinced that I possess, should I ever face such horrific circumstances myself.

I agree. they deserve to be rembered. do they oppose the vietnam memorila because people killed people in that war?

In the last days of the war, yes. In the begining, they were attacking peaceful nations.

As I said, war should be remembered, but it is best remembered by keeping in mind the artrocities commited on all sides in each and every war rather than to deify one side.

Memorials are there to commemorate those who died for their country. It's right that servicemen are remembered in this way, but the Peace Pledge people could also raise memorials to the tragedy of the civilian dead. Be a lot more telling of their principles than opposing a memorial to a country's defenders.

See, you just don't understand. This has nothing to do with following orders, or killing for the hell of it.

Evidently you have never lose EVERYTHING you have, or have seen your friends die right in front of your eyes.

Read more 1st person war books.

I don't understand? Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is trying to say that everyone should respect a bunch of men who slaughtered innocent women and children. What of the two men who ended the massacre? They were in the same war, and still knew it was wrong.

Let me make this absolutly clear. I do not give a fuck what you have been through. I don't care if you have had your house burned to the ground. I don't care if you have watched your wife be raped by the enemy and your child murdered by their hands. That does not make a massacre of innocents "okay". Period. End of story. You can rationalize it. You can try to justify it and make it seem "okay". But nothing will ever make it okay to rape and then murder dozens upon dozens of innocents. Ever. You do not slaughter 350-500 innocent people in cold blood because the enemy did something to you. I really could not care less how they choose to rationalize it.

As for first hand accounts of war, I've spoken to my grandfathers many times, as well as close friends, relatives, and several interviews with local vets. And you know what? They all said war is hell. None ever said it justified massacre (and yes, I did ask my grandparents and friends if they saw certain events such as My Lai as being justifiable).

Perhaps I understand much more than you think. And I know, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that men who slaughter innocent civillians are wholly and unquestionably undeserving of my respect, praise, or honor.

And I know, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that men who slaughter innocent civillians are wholly and unquestionably undeserving of my respect, praise, or honor.

Disagreeing with this is like saying "I believe in puppy-kicking"... But can I suggest at least a modification?

We're so far removed, and so heavily insulated from live-or-death situations and decisions that, likely, 99% of us will never face anything like the unending stresses war brings on soldiers. I don't think that people who've done what you said are deserving of 'respect, praise, or honor' either. But our moral repugnance stems from the safety that people _like_ them, who could easily have committed their crimes if they were in their circumstances, bought us.

Criminalise and prosecute these types of people, certainly; but remember that when atrocities happen in the heat of the moment (cold-blooded, planned atrocities are obviously a different case) that what they've done isn't just caused by their own failings and weaknesses, but also by the almost impossible strains they were under.

<battens down hatches>

Disagreeing with this is like saying "I believe in puppy-kicking"... But can I suggest at least a modification?Actually, it is closer to saying "I support slaughtering 500 innocent people";)

We're so far removed, and so heavily insulated from live-or-death situations and decisions that, likely, 99% of us will never face anything like the unending stresses war brings on soldiers. I don't think that people who've done what you said are deserving of 'respect, praise, or honor' either. But our moral repugnance stems from the safety that people _like_ them, who could easily have committed their crimes if they were in their circumstances, bought us. Yes, I, or anyone, could have commit the same crimes they did. And had I, I would deserve the scorn of the world. And the fact that Hugh Thompson Jr., a man in the same war, and the same situation, knew enough to say "stop now" demonstrates that each man had their choice. Does war create enormous pressure? Yes, without a doubt. Do the soldiers still make their choices? Yes. And should they be held accountable, regardless of their reasoning? Yes. Therefore, I will not respect ALL members of the military. As I originally said, there are members of the military who deserve nothing but scorn.

Criminalise and prosecute these types of people, certainly; but remember that when atrocities happen in the heat of the moment (cold-blooded, planned atrocities are obviously a different case) that what they've done isn't just caused by their own failings and weaknesses, but also by the almost impossible strains they were under. They still made their choice. And their choice resulted in the death of anywhere from 350-500 innocent civilians in a town that housed no combatants.

These men made their choice. I don't care why the made it, or what their reasoning is. They STILL chose. They might be great people otherwise. But they still commit a massacre, and for that, deserve no respect.

We should commemorate most people on both sides duing the war, the majority of German soldiers did absolutly nothing to harm the Jewish population, they were jsut defending their contry.

Yeah they did something wrong, they were fighting for the wrong side and for a dictator with genocide on his mind.

Actually, it is closer to saying "I support slaughtering 500 innocent people";)

I think I avoided that, but thanks for putting the boot in anyway! :p

each man had their choice. Do the soldiers still make their choices? Yes...
They still made their choice... These men made their choice...They STILL chose...

Choice is a loaded word; any criminal can plead guilty and offer mitigating circumstances to suggest the balance of their mind was disturbed. That doesn't let them off, or gain them your respect etc., but it reminds the court - or us, comfortable in front of pc screens - that we're not always able to make our choices as rational as we'd like due to the circumstances we're in, not the people we are.

Don't respect them, praise them, or honour them - punish them, they deserve it. But don't spit and snarl out of simple reflex either - or you'll never be able to work out all what went wrong and help avoid its repetition.

I think I avoided that, but thanks for putting the boot in anyway! :p



Choice is a loaded word; any criminal can plead guilty and offer mitigating circumstances to suggest the balance of their mind was disturbed. That doesn't let them off, or gain them your respect etc., but it reminds the court - or us, comfortable in front of pc screens - that we're not always able to make our choices as rational as we'd like due to the circumstances we're in, not the people we are.

Don't respect them, praise them, or honour them - punish them, they deserve it. But don't spit and snarl out of simple reflex either - or you'll never be able to work out all what went wrong and help avoid its repetition.
oh, believe me, that was hardly my original intent. This all started because New Stalinberg said
But yeah, all war veterans deserve respect, regardless of who they fought for.
so I responded with
Not all. Sorry, I have no respect for those who commit the atrocities at My Lai and similar acts, nor do I think they deserve it.

I still stand by it.

We should commemorate most people on both sides duing the war, the majority of German soldiers did absolutly nothing to harm the Jewish population, they were jsut defending their contry.

Defending? Is that a joke? If invading other nations to advance their leaders insane desires for world domination. Is that defensive? :rolleyes:

I don't understand? Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is trying to say that everyone should respect a bunch of men who slaughtered innocent women and children. What of the two men who ended the massacre? They were in the same war, and still knew it was wrong.

Let me make this absolutly clear. I do not give a fuck what you have been through. I don't care if you have had your house burned to the ground. I don't care if you have watched your wife be raped by the enemy and your child murdered by their hands. That does not make a massacre of innocents "okay". Period. End of story. You can rationalize it. You can try to justify it and make it seem "okay". But nothing will ever make it okay to rape and then murder dozens upon dozens of innocents. Ever. You do not slaughter 350-500 innocent people in cold blood because the enemy did something to you. I really could not care less how they choose to rationalize it.

As for first hand accounts of war, I've spoken to my grandfathers many times, as well as close friends, relatives, and several interviews with local vets. And you know what? They all said war is hell. None ever said it justified massacre (and yes, I did ask my grandparents and friends if they saw certain events such as My Lai as being justifiable).

Perhaps I understand much more than you think. And I know, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that men who slaughter innocent civillians are wholly and unquestionably undeserving of my respect, praise, or honor.

You just keep reinforcing my statements.

Anyway, we just don't see eye to eye on this matter. No need to flame me over it. :rolleyes:

You just keep reinforcing my statements.

Anyway, we just don't see eye to eye on this matter. No need to flame me over it. :rolleyes:

I don't see how I'm reinforcing your statements, nor do I see where I was flaming you, but if you see it as I was, then I appologise.

I do maintain that there are members of the military who do not deserve respect based on their actions. My Lai is an example of those actions that earn my scorn.

I don't understand? Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is trying to say that everyone should respect a bunch of men who slaughtered innocent women and children. What of the two men who ended the massacre? They were in the same war, and still knew it was wrong.

Let me make this absolutly clear. I do not give a fuck what you have been through. I don't care if you have had your house burned to the ground. I don't care if you have watched your wife be raped by the enemy and your child murdered by their hands. That does not make a massacre of innocents "okay". Period. End of story. You can rationalize it. You can try to justify it and make it seem "okay". But nothing will ever make it okay to rape and then murder dozens upon dozens of innocents. Ever. You do not slaughter 350-500 innocent people in cold blood because the enemy did something to you. I really could not care less how they choose to rationalize it.

As for first hand accounts of war, I've spoken to my grandfathers many times, as well as close friends, relatives, and several interviews with local vets. And you know what? They all said war is hell. None ever said it justified massacre (and yes, I did ask my grandparents and friends if they saw certain events such as My Lai as being justifiable).

Perhaps I understand much more than you think. And I know, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that men who slaughter innocent civillians are wholly and unquestionably undeserving of my respect, praise, or honor.

So what do you suggest should have happened instead? No bombing?

I doubt your commie handlers would have liked that theory at the time. So have a cup of stfu, thx.

So what do you suggest should have happened instead? No bombing?

I doubt your commie handlers would have liked that theory at the time. So have a cup of stfu, thx.

Oh, just knock it off.

Oh, just knock it off.

are you saying that stalin was not a fan of area bombing? or are you saying that truth should not be injected into this debate?

actually what are you saying?

So what do you suggest should have happened instead? No bombing?

I doubt your commie handlers would have liked that theory at the time. So have a cup of stfu, thx.

...how about not massacring 500 people?

I dislike war, yes. But I am hardly one to say it isn't something that will happen. I dislike it, but in some cases, I see its purpose. I also dislike that people must die in war...be those people military or civillian. But I can understand that with every war, there will be incidental civillian loss.

What I cannot understand, however, is a group of soldiers entering a town that holds no military/enemy combatants, and murdering anywhere from 350-500. There were no bombs used. The civilians were lined up and mowed down with machine guns. They were hearded into pits, and had grenades throw in.

I am not making an argument against war. I am not making an argument against bombing. What I am doing is arguing against massarcing hundreds of civilians in cold blood. What I am "suggesting", if you can put such a weak term on what I am doing, is that massacres of innocents should not be tolerated, and those who are a part of them deserve the scorn of the public.

So no, I'll pass on the cup of STFU. Thanks all the same. I do suggest that you read my argument and educate yourself on what My Lai was before accusing me of arguing against all aspects of war.

actually what are you saying?

What I'm saying is

your commie handlers

that you aren't doing

have a cup of stfu, thx

anything to help advance your argument with this business, here. And it's not funny enough to be passed off as glib witticisms. You're just antagonizing needlessly.

actually, i thought this was about area bombing in wwii, not the my lai massacre, my bad. :fluffle:

yea, that was wrong.

actually, i thought this was about area bombing in wwii, not the my lai massacre, my bad. :fluffle:

yea, that was wrong.

no harm, no foul.

Don't get me wrong...I hate the idea of area bombing/atomic bombing/destruction of enormous areas indescriminatly...however, at the time, there wasn't much choice.

*shrug*

no harm, no foul.

Don't get me wrong...I hate the idea of area bombing/atomic bombing/destruction of enormous areas indescriminatly...however, at the time, there wasn't much choice.

*shrug*

yea, I hate it too, tho' there was non choice on the allies side at that point.

but sorry about being a douche, i should have read more closely. i was a dick, I admit it.

What I'm saying is



that you aren't doing



anything to help advance your argument with this business, here. And it's not funny enough to be passed off as glib witticisms. You're just antagonizing needlessly.

yea, i jumpered the gun.

sorry. 'k. ?

yea, I hate it too, tho' there was non choice on the allies side at that point.

but sorry about being a douche, i should have read more closely. i was a dick, I admit it.

happens to the best of us...as I said, no harm, no foul. I've done my share of the same.

You have no idea what the men in Vietnam were going through do you?

Read A Rumor of War by Phillip Caputo. It helps explain why some soldiers did what they did.

Have you read that book? Caputo goes out of his way to state that the actions were inexcusable.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. I'm a pacifist myself, and I oppose war, but these people gave their lives doing this. They deserve some commemoration.

I don't see how the plaque would be glorifying the tactics used. The men in Bomber Command were our grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers, friends. When they died it was under some of the most horrific conditions, trapped inside a burning metal tube as it plummets to the ground. What they did during the war, while unnaceptable under the modern climate, is what helped tip the balance in the favour of the allies. They themselves weren't left with much choice, you either applied or were conscripted but you still ended up in the same place, and you still had to follow orders. To ignore all that they gave for us to be here today strikes me as twisted. It's a bleeding plaque to say "We lost relations and love ones who died fighting for us.", it's not like anyone is training kids to be killers from the age of 4 ...