[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

it's not hard to accept, it's just ludicrous to suggest that because of that it 'must' be all lies, did the Vietnamese win the Vietnam war?.....yes.....whose history tells us so?.......everybody's because it is fact.

whoa whoa whoa, easy tiger, I think you got it all wrong.. let's try and keep it civilised and I will be glad to answer your points..

I think the example of Vietnam exemplifies your confusion on the concept of "winning": Vietnam was divided in two parts, and as much as there was an anti-American feeling, many others didn't really like the idea of living under a Communist regime. Talking about "Vietnamese winning the war" doesn't actually make any sense because of the socio-political implications of the Vietnam war.

this is the most incredible thing I have heard yet, frankly it's disgusting and offensive and you have just fallen straight into the Nazi appologist cattegory, as bad as bombing civillians is, there is no justification for exterminating people en-masse in the most inhumane ways conceivable based purely on ethnicity and religion, the civillian populations of Germany were never targeted for extermination, the Allies did't make the decisions to bomb them easily, what had to be taken into account was that these Germans were working in munitions factories, they were creating future generations for their armies, they were responsible for perpetuating the situation, they may have been a 'frightened' populace affraid to turn against their oppresive taskmasters but the fact is their reluctance to act was causing the greatest injustice in the world and the allies were doing something about it and at least made an attempt to warn them.

again, double standards. How can you justify joining forces and arming a mass murderer of the size of Stalin and live with the fact that he killed and persecuted millions more than Hitler and for more futile reasons at times is something I really wanna hear.
I'm not justifying Nazism, I'm just appalled by double standards set up for personal interests "yeah good ol' uncle Joe has a bit of rough hand with his folks, but hey, if this helps us winning against Hitler, let him on board!"
As for area bombing, go look for the other thread on it, justifying area bombing is as valid as justifying a war crime, and funnily enough it's only after that that the Geneva convention cared about the well being of civilians..

I realise now that your concern for these causes is a smokescreen, it is just merly a way for you to justify your Nazi sympathy by appearing in touch with moderate views.

Are you calling me a Nazi? Seriously?

an uncalled for snipe at the British which as far as I saw was not prompted by any of the alleged Nationalist propaganda you so often cry about, what has the schneider trophy got to do with it? nobody bothered to oppose the British because it was pointless by then, it's not the Brits fault, if only you had the same views when it came to your beloved Nazis and their unfairly advantaged/unopposed conquests in europe.

that's your view, the rest of the world on the other hand thought that racing without opponents, when in the past the races had been called off for the lack of participants, was puerile and grotesquely silly, and aimed merely at wanting to keep the Cup.. but hey, fair enough, if that's the way you like to win..

what is disturbing about it? let me see, it might have something to do with the fact it was brutal/total/mercyless genocide they thought was a 'good cause' like nothing the world had seen before.

so were Dresden, Bremen, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... ah no sorry, those were for a good cause!

George Galloway had noting but 'praise and admiration' for Sadam Hussein, and he's just been elected into parliament here, yes this world is 'crazy and FUBAR', but neville chaimberlain didn't lead Britain during the war, your arguments are a little weak by using the moderate branding of National socialism, it was just a way for Hitler to convince the German populace they needed him in power, yes the Germans thought they were fighting for a good cause, it's just it was all a lie created to hide Hitlers true agenda, the Germans fell for it and fought for it and ultimately paid the price.

my point was that appearances can be deceiving, and if a German politician has enough carisma to enchant British ones, then it doesn't surprise me he managed to drag the whole of Europe to hell with his talk.

remember that folks, if youre ever getting an arse kicking just give up and say it's on indefinate hold and you never really lose......brilliant!

well hey, that's what happens when you study history, you get to know about these things called facts. Your comparison shows how intelligently you're facing the topic here..

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

and what?....were the Germans more allergic to salt water? what exactly was the advantage for a british pilot in the drink over a German?

if youre going to bomb another country you just have to live with the fact youre over enemy territory, it's just incredible people a criticising the British for having a 'home advantage', at least the British weren't using V bombs...talk about indiscriminate murder of civillians.

we were talking about the odds of being saved and brought back to fight when being closer to your territory... jesus, are you actually reading the other people's posts or are on a flag waving mission?