It can not be, what shouldn't be!

I don't know. :cool:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

I agree with your first paragraph.

But how could the Allies/British help the Poles,Jews, gypsies and others? It was not hypocritic as you suggest. It was a factor of distance. The world was a much bigger place then.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Hi all,

I have been reading a book entitled:

Best of Enemies. Britain and Germany. Truth and Lies in Two World Wars.

Author is Richard Milton.

Britain and Germany according to Milton were prior to WW1 close allies. They had a shared culture and a shared Royal Family. WW1 was expected to involve Germany and Britain as Allies against the French.

But after the start of WW1, the propaganda machines of both Britain and Germany changed the situation for ever.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

It's you that doesn't understand. I read the first dozen pages, and posted my thoughts on the comments you made on those pages. I don't need to read another 50 pages to form an opinion on what you wrote in the first dozen.

Firstly, it's not double standards, because I'm not drawing a distinction between which side was killing civillians. Both sides killed civilians, some were killed while military targets were being attacked, some were killed deliberately for different reasons. What number of civilian lives lost is considered acceptable is open to debate (regardless of which side you're on). I do draw a distinction between that and ethnic cleansing. And because of that, you are seriously shocked and think I'm not mature enough for this conversation. Ok.

I'm talking about reality - the reality of whether someone is fighting for the right reasons or not. Your arguement is that the winner is always the goodie, purely because that is the story they will tell. My point is that you have to search beneath the story, and not believe everything the state tells you, and find out the truth. Your arguement suggests that I would believe the crusades were a good thing, which I don't.

Of course I accept that some civilians will die. Are you suggesting that if someone found a way to end a war, but it would involve one civilian dying, that the war should continue instead? If a dictatorship was developing nuclear weapons, and showed the world it had the will and capability to use them as soon as ready, but they kept the factories in a populated town, would you just accept that your country (and population) was going to be destroyed because civilian casualties in an opposing nation would be so unthinkable?

Western governments lied to their people (and those governments were lied to by certain experts too) about the evidence and reasons for going to war with Iraq. I personally think that was wrong and war should have been avoided.

I was simply pointing out to you that we don't always believe that the victors are the goodies, which is what you said.

No it isn't. People can be lied to and suppressed. When a country goes to war, I don't assume that is the fault of every individual in that country.

This attitude stems from the legal priciple of " causation". The old, none of what followed would have transpired" but not for" Germany starting the war. Not one but two World Wars.

Yes, sorry. It could keep doing that until the thread is closed.

I disagree. I think it's better to try than start WWII. To each their own.

It may not always be clear cut, and there can be differing opinions, I agree, but sometimes it is clear cut.

That we learnt from the Romans doesn't make what they did right (not that I judge them by todays standards).
Same for the British empire, just because many people are in a better position than they would have been does not mean that the cause was just or the deaths of innocent people worthwhile.
Travelling through foreign lands murdering, raping and pillaging is bad in my books, but you think it's ok because it's better than letting the Muslims carry on without Christianity. I guess we won't be agreeing on this.
I didn't use it to justify killing civilians, that didn't cross my mind. We were looking back at right and wrong, and I was saying that the holocaust was a bad thing (call me radical).

Is that what your professor said to you when he/she made you change your mind?
Are you trying to patronise us because you think it makes your opinion more valid, or have you just run out of points to your arguement?

depressingly perceptive.
sigh
free time gladly spent
you have done with your very long, very wrong posts. it doesn't matter if you write a large 700 page book on it, if this is a mere taster it would still be spectacularly wrong.
again with putting words in our mouths. where exactly is that posted? please quote it, references man.
top post

does it matter - we got 9/11 in here as well, hadn't noticed that reference before, what next?

ooooo tiebreaker!