lincoln, wilson, fdr?

[dazzleman]

The best way to lose a war is to worry about whether what one does is legal.  Under FDR, we developed the atomic bomb, and firebombed German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians as deliberate policy.  And they deserved all of it.  They did worse to the people that they attacked, unprovoked, and would have done far worse to us if they could have.  So I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  The Germans and Japanese got what they had coming to them.  Period.  End of story.  A far worse 'war crime' would have been to lose.

Sorry, but I don't see how women and children and individuals who did not willingly participate in the policies of their government can in some way be seen as having it "coming to them" when they die in a carpet bombing of the city they happen to be living in.

I didn't mean to say that the individual people were guilty of anything necessarily.  I really don't believe in collective guilt.

But I think that they had their own government to blame for what they suffered, since their own government initiated the war, and launched unprovoked terror attacks of unspeakable cruelty against innocent and peaceful populations.  To the extent that they supported their government, then they got what they had coming to them, but it certainly can't be assumed that they all did.

Of course, had the German been feckless like the Italians, and surrendered once their inevitable defeat became clear, they would have avoided a lot of suffering.  The Germans had a selfish way of focusing only on their own suffering.  They were pleased as punch when their leaders attacked other countries unprovoked, and had no problem with terror bombings of civilians in those countries, but then acted as if it were a terrible crime when it was done to them.  Just as the very harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on the Russians when they surrendered early in World War I, was perfectly reasonable to them, but the much softer Versailles Treaty they considered an act of unspeakable cruelty.  No, I can't feel too sorry for what the German people endured in World War II, though obviously they weren't all guilty on an individual basis.

[Michael Z]

The best way to lose a war is to worry about whether what one does is legal.  Under FDR, we developed the atomic bomb, and firebombed German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians as deliberate policy.  And they deserved all of it.  They did worse to the people that they attacked, unprovoked, and would have done far worse to us if they could have.  So I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  The Germans and Japanese got what they had coming to them.  Period.  End of story.  A far worse 'war crime' would have been to lose.

Sorry, but I don't see how women and children and individuals who did not willingly participate in the policies of their government can in some way be seen as having it "coming to them" when they die in a carpet bombing of the city they happen to be living in.

I didn't mean to say that the individual people were guilty of anything necessarily.  I really don't believe in collective guilt.

But I think that they had their own government to blame for what they suffered, since their own government initiated the war, and launched unprovoked terror attacks of unspeakable cruelty against innocent and peaceful populations.  To the extent that they supported their government, then they got what they had coming to them, but it certainly can't be assumed that they all did.

Of course, had the German been feckless like the Italians, and surrendered once their inevitable defeat became clear, they would have avoided a lot of suffering.  The Germans had a selfish way of focusing only on their own suffering.  They were pleased as punch when their leaders attacked other countries unprovoked, and had no problem with terror bombings of civilians in those countries, but then acted as if it were a terrible crime when it was done to them.  Just as the very harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on the Russians when they surrendered early in World War I, was perfectly reasonable to them, but the much softer Versailles Treaty they considered an act of unspeakable cruelty.  No, I can't feel too sorry for what the German people endured in World War II, though obviously they weren't all guilty on an individual basis.

Oh right, sorry I misunderstood.

[dazzleman]

The best way to lose a war is to worry about whether what one does is legal.  Under FDR, we developed the atomic bomb, and firebombed German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians as deliberate policy.  And they deserved all of it.  They did worse to the people that they attacked, unprovoked, and would have done far worse to us if they could have.  So I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  The Germans and Japanese got what they had coming to them.  Period.  End of story.  A far worse 'war crime' would have been to lose.

Sorry, but I don't see how women and children and individuals who did not willingly participate in the policies of their government can in some way be seen as having it "coming to them" when they die in a carpet bombing of the city they happen to be living in.

I didn't mean to say that the individual people were guilty of anything necessarily.  I really don't believe in collective guilt.

But I think that they had their own government to blame for what they suffered, since their own government initiated the war, and launched unprovoked terror attacks of unspeakable cruelty against innocent and peaceful populations.  To the extent that they supported their government, then they got what they had coming to them, but it certainly can't be assumed that they all did.

Of course, had the German been feckless like the Italians, and surrendered once their inevitable defeat became clear, they would have avoided a lot of suffering.  The Germans had a selfish way of focusing only on their own suffering.  They were pleased as punch when their leaders attacked other countries unprovoked, and had no problem with terror bombings of civilians in those countries, but then acted as if it were a terrible crime when it was done to them.  Just as the very harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on the Russians when they surrendered early in World War I, was perfectly reasonable to them, but the much softer Versailles Treaty they considered an act of unspeakable cruelty.  No, I can't feel too sorry for what the German people endured in World War II, though obviously they weren't all guilty on an individual basis.

Oh right, sorry I misunderstood.

Do you really agree, or are you being sarcastic?  Forums like this don't allow you to read tone of voice or body language.  Sorry for being so obtuse, Mike.

[Michael Z]

The best way to lose a war is to worry about whether what one does is legal.  Under FDR, we developed the atomic bomb, and firebombed German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians as deliberate policy.  And they deserved all of it.  They did worse to the people that they attacked, unprovoked, and would have done far worse to us if they could have.  So I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  The Germans and Japanese got what they had coming to them.  Period.  End of story.  A far worse 'war crime' would have been to lose.

Sorry, but I don't see how women and children and individuals who did not willingly participate in the policies of their government can in some way be seen as having it "coming to them" when they die in a carpet bombing of the city they happen to be living in.

I didn't mean to say that the individual people were guilty of anything necessarily.  I really don't believe in collective guilt.

But I think that they had their own government to blame for what they suffered, since their own government initiated the war, and launched unprovoked terror attacks of unspeakable cruelty against innocent and peaceful populations.  To the extent that they supported their government, then they got what they had coming to them, but it certainly can't be assumed that they all did.

Of course, had the German been feckless like the Italians, and surrendered once their inevitable defeat became clear, they would have avoided a lot of suffering.  The Germans had a selfish way of focusing only on their own suffering.  They were pleased as punch when their leaders attacked other countries unprovoked, and had no problem with terror bombings of civilians in those countries, but then acted as if it were a terrible crime when it was done to them.  Just as the very harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed on the Russians when they surrendered early in World War I, was perfectly reasonable to them, but the much softer Versailles Treaty they considered an act of unspeakable cruelty.  No, I can't feel too sorry for what the German people endured in World War II, though obviously they weren't all guilty on an individual basis.

Oh right, sorry I misunderstood.

Do you really agree, or are you being sarcastic?  Forums like this don't allow you to read tone of voice or body language.  Sorry for being so obtuse, Mike.

Don't worry, I wasn't being sarcastic, I genuinely agree with that.   I just misinterpreted you as applying collective guilt.

That said, I do feel the Versailles Treaty was unjustified, or rather it was simply too draconian. It was basically the French trying to get their own back for what happened in Versailled in 1870 (or was it 1871), and while it's no excuse for what happened under the Nazis, it did destabilise Germany to such an extent that it helped create the right conditions for the Nazis to take charge.

[dazzleman]

Don't worry, I wasn't being sarcastic, I genuinely agree with that.   I just misinterpreted you as applying collective guilt.

That said, I do feel the Versailles Treaty was unjustified, or rather it was simply too draconian. It was basically the French trying to get their own back for what happened in Versailled in 1870 (or was it 1871), and while it's no excuse for what happened under the Nazis, it did destabilise Germany to such an extent that it helped create the right conditions for the Nazis to take charge.

Actually, I think the Versailles Treaty was in that dangerous middle ground of being unpleasant enough to piss the Germans off, but not severe enough to handcuff them long-term.

You could argue that the Allies should have made a nice peace treaty with the Germans that wasn't punitive.  You could also argue that Versailles wasn't tough enough, since it allowed the Germans to escape from its restrictions so quickly and start another, even worse, war.

We'll never know the results of either course.  I think that for the Germans, losing World War I was such a traumatic event that they would have sought to avenge that loss sooner or later, with or without the Versailles Treaty.  I simply don't believe that a people who were capable of such savage cruelty, unprovoked, against so many people would have abstained from it simply by being treated more nicely.  I think they weren't beaten badly enough in World War I, and that was the real problem.  They needed to have the absolute sh**t kicked out of them unmercifully to wipe away their pretensions of superiority over everybody else.

[Michael Z]

Don't worry, I wasn't being sarcastic, I genuinely agree with that.   I just misinterpreted you as applying collective guilt.

That said, I do feel the Versailles Treaty was unjustified, or rather it was simply too draconian. It was basically the French trying to get their own back for what happened in Versailled in 1870 (or was it 1871), and while it's no excuse for what happened under the Nazis, it did destabilise Germany to such an extent that it helped create the right conditions for the Nazis to take charge.

Actually, I think the Versailles Treaty was in that dangerous middle ground of being unpleasant enough to piss the Germans off, but not severe enough to handcuff them long-term.

You could argue that the Allies should have made a nice peace treaty with the Germans that wasn't punitive.  You could also argue that Versailles wasn't tough enough, since it allowed the Germans to escape from its restrictions so quickly and start another, even worse, war.

We'll never know the results of either course.  I think that for the Germans, losing World War I was such a traumatic event that they would have sought to avenge that loss sooner or later, with or without the Versailles Treaty.  I simply don't believe that a people who were capable of such savage cruelty, unprovoked, against so many people would have abstained from it simply by being treated more nicely.  I think they weren't beaten badly enough in World War I, and that was the real problem.  They needed to have the absolute sh**t kicked out of them unmercifully to wipe away their pretensions of superiority over everybody else.

Thing is, every country has someone like that. Walk into any bar anywhere and chances are you might meet some jackass, like Hitler, who spouts off about the Jews and black people and how we should all gas them and whatnot while other people are telling them to shut the f*** up. However, where we are and in the times we live in, they are just that, some lunatic in a bar who's being told to shut the f*** up by the other patrons.

It just so happened that post-WW1 Germany had the perfect conditions for someone like that to grasp power. Whether it may or may not happened without Versailles is hard to say, but Versailles certainly helped because it created a victim mentality and furthermore hurt the German economy to such a degree that, after a renaissance in the 1920s, once the German economy had recovered, it completely collapsed in the Great Depression with absolutely nothing to back it up (Germany was arguably the country worst hit by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 because it utterly depended on US loans). I don't have to explain how Hitler exploited this for his own political gains.

It's telling that the Allies, especially the US, decided to help West Germany build a liberal democracy after World War II and actively support the German economy through the Marshall Plan instead of being 100% punitive. (There were other reasons for that of course, namely the Soviet threat, but the lessons learned from Versailles certainly played their part).

[dazzleman]

Thing is, every country has someone like that. Walk into any bar anywhere and chances are you might meet some jackass, like Hitler, who spouts off about the Jews and black people and how we should all gas them and whatnot while other people are telling them to shut the f*** up. However, where we are and in the times we live in, they are just that, some lunatic in a bar who's being told to shut the f*** up by the other patrons.

It just so happened that post-WW1 Germany had the perfect conditions for someone like that to grasp power. Whether it may or may not happened without Versailles is hard to say, but Versailles certainly helped because it created a victim mentality and furthermore hurt the German economy to such a degree that, after a renaissance in the 1920s, once the German economy had recovered, it completely collapsed in the Great Depression with absolutely nothing to back it up (Germany was arguably the country worst hit by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 because it utterly depended on US loans). I don't have to explain how Hitler exploited this for his own political gains.

It's telling that the Allies, especially the US, decided to help West Germany build a liberal democracy after World War II and actively support the German economy through the Marshall Plan instead of being 100% punitive. (There were other reasons for that of course, namely the Soviet threat, but the lessons learned from Versailles certainly played their part).

Your last statement is true.  However, circumstances were totally different after World War II than World War I.

In World War I, Germany was winning as late as early 1918, until American forces arrived in high numbers.  Germany accepted its defeat even while its armies were occupying foreign territory, and the 'fatherland' was barely touched at all.  The outcome of the war aside, France took a much worse beating than Germany in the war.  This outcome allowed the Germans to keep the illusion that they didn't really lose, that they had been 'cheated' out of victory, stabbed in the back, etc.  While Versailles may have added to this, I think it would have been there even with a different type of treaty.

FDR was of the opinion that the Germans needed to take a terrible beating in World War II if they were to be peaceful in the future.  He was right.  I think that our policies after World War II clearly worked better than after World War I, but after World War II, Germany couldn't be under any illusions that they hadn't been beaten.  The war was brought home to every German in a way World War I never was.  So I have my doubts that a more magnanimous policy after World War I would have worked as well as it did after World War II.  I suspect that they would have simply taken advantage of it, and started another war anyway.  They needed the beating they got to turn the lion into the lamb.

[WMS]

FDR was of the opinion that the Germans needed to take a terrible beating in World War II if they were to be peaceful in the future.  He was right.  I think that our policies after World War II clearly worked better than after World War I, but after World War II, Germany couldn't be under any illusions that they hadn't been beaten.  The war was brought home to every German in a way World War I never was.  So I have my doubts that a more magnanimous policy after World War I would have worked as well as it did after World War II.  I suspect that they would have simply taken advantage of it, and started another war anyway.  They needed the beating they got to turn the lion into the lamb.

You can apply pretty much every word of this to Japan, too.

It took their utter and complete defeat at the hands of the United States, the worst defeat of their entire national existence, to stop what they had become.