Off Topic Politics Thread

[Onionman]

It's maybe not as black and white as you think:

When the Allies invaded Normandy there were under a hundred German 88mm anti-tank guns in the area. In Germany, there were 15,000, all in use as anti-aircraft guns. At the same time, around 50% of total German industrial output was going into fighter aircraft to defend against allied air attacks. Two thirds of optical equipment production was going into air defence equipment. None of all that equipment was being used against the invading forces, who (let's be clear about this) were also liberating the Germans from Naziism. Without attacking Germany itself by air and thus leaving all that production for effective defence against ground forces in both the East and West, things might well have turned out differently.

So, the air campaign is a tad more complex than "genocide", "revenge" or "war crimes". It was part of a much bigger effort to subdue Germany's ability to wage war.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

It's maybe not as black and white as you think:

When the Allies invaded Normandy there were under a hundred German 88mm anti-tank guns in the area. In Germany, there were 15,000, all in use as anti-aircraft guns. At the same time, around 50% of total German industrial output was going into fighter aircraft to defend against allied air attacks. Two thirds of optical equipment production was going into air defence equipment. None of all that equipment was being used against the invading forces, who (let's be clear about this) were also liberating the Germans from Naziism. Without attacking Germany itself by air and thus leaving all that production for effective defence against ground forces in both the East and West, things might well have turned out differently.

So, the air campaign is a tad more complex than "genocide", "revenge" or "war crimes". It was part of a much bigger effort to subdue Germany's ability to wage war.

So kinda similar to what the Israelis have done.

 

[Onionman]

So kinda similar to what the Israelis have done.

No

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

No

Well they're trying to subdue the ability of Hamas to wage war, no?

 

[Onionman]

I refer readers to a post I made at the time about a suggested approach for Israel. At the time I was told I was an out of touch lefty.

For what my opinion is worth, I think the better response from Israel (had it had a stronger leader) would have been to stop the immediate attacks and isolate Gaza but exact no quick revenge. Then they might have said "we're going to deal with this; not today, not tomorrow but soon. You have my sincere promise that those responsible will be dealt with in due course but, at the moment, a reaction will simply play into the hands of Hamas. Patience. Justice will be served. If it's not, kick me out of office."

It would have been a far more rational course of action that might have reaped far bigger rewards long-term - the response would have been reasoned and properly planned. Unfortunately, a weak PM needed to act immediately.

Vin

 

[Onionman]

Well they're trying to subdue the ability of Hamas to wage war, no?

Yes, but your comment appeared to me to suggest that the air campaign in WW2 (specifically stated as being part of a wider campaign) was similar to what Israel is trying to do against Hamas. There are very few similarities between the two situations. Just one example (out of plenty); Hamas has no industrial base to speak of. Vast differences like that make simple comparisons rather suspect imo.

If what you said is true then William the Conqueror's campaign was pretty much the same as the allied war effort in the Second World War. In a war, everyone's trying to subdue their enemy's ability to wage war.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Yes, but your comment appeared to me to suggest that the air campaign in WW2 (specifically stated as being part of a wider campaign) was similar to what Israel is trying to do against Hamas. There are very few similarities between the two situations. Just one example (out of plenty); Hamas has no industrial base to speak of. Vast differences like that make simple comparisons rather suspect imo.

If what you said is true then William the Conqueror's campaign was pretty much the same as the allied war effort in the Second World War. In a war, everyone's trying to subdue their enemy's ability to wage war.

It was more a comment about how people’s reactions can be misplaced. It was comparing the narrative of “Israel bad, Palestine good” with “Allies good, Nazis bad”. The whole reductive attitude of people who just decide Israel are committing ‘genocide’ (they’re not) but wilfully ignore occasions where ‘we’ have committed far more destructive acts, because it’s accepted that the Nazis weren’t terribly nice.

 

[Archers Road]

Rupert Lowe just confirmed that in 2023 “the total amount of Universal Credit paid to households where one or both claimants were refugees was £726M.”

This is ABSURD. When pensioners and the rest of us are being mugged off.

Rupert Lowe? And you believe him? That’s why we’re ****ed, folks…

 

[Archers Road]

Playing devil’s advocate here.

If those figures are true, and 44,000 people have been killed in this war, then that’s 7,000 more than were killed when Britain firebombed Hamburg in WW2. That killed, conservatively, 37,000 in ONE NIGHT, and they were mostly civilians.

The following night, the bombers were told to go back and bomb again. The pilots questioned why, as the city was on fire, to which the reply was that they had missed a post office complex, which was now being used as an emergency centre, so they were to go back and finish it off. They did.

It was a brutal, brutal policy, but one that was felt necessary in order to break the will of civilian Germans, and turn them against the Nazis.

Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk are worse than the Nazis, they just don’t have the military might to carry out atrocities at the same level.

So, my question being, were the allies wrong to pursue that policy, and were the allies guilty of ‘genocide’?

Yes, they were wrong, quite wrong. There were no military or industrial targets in Dresden. The consensus among historians is that the fire bombing of Dresden did absolutely nothing to shorten the war.

Whether the bombing constituted genocide depends on the definition of that word. So probably not, but on the other hand - semantics.

There’s a reason, btw, why bomber command didn’t get a memorial in Whitehall for 50 years after the war - despite the attrition rate for bomber crews being as horrendous as they were.

Edit; I misread your post, thought you were talking about Dresden, a medeaval city whose main industry was pottery, not Hamburg, a strategically import port. So that does change things a little, but deliberately targeting civilians is never justified imo.

 

[saintrichie123]

Isn’t Lee just lovely.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[shoot_spiderman]

Yes, they were wrong, quite wrong. There were no military or industrial targets in Dresden. The consensus among historians is that the fire bombing of Dresden did absolutely nothing to shorten the war.

Whether the bombing constituted genocide depends on the definition of that word. So probably not, but on the other hand - semantics.

There’s a reason, btw, why bomber command didn’t get a memorial in Whitehall for 50 years after the war - despite the attrition rate for bomber crews being as horrendous as they were.

Edit; I misread your post, thought you were talking about Dresden, a medeaval city whose main industry was pottery, not Hamburg, a strategically import port. So that does change things a little, but deliberately targeting civilians is never justified imo.

Pretty much spot on for me Archers

In addition…

This is not Israeli’s bad, Palestinian’s good, but Israeli military policy bad, Hamas bad

Targeting civilians in Gaza will not inhibit the extremists ability to wage ‘war’ as that ability relies on anti-Israeli fervour, and this fuels it

Targeting civilians in WW2 was said to be a way of breaking the morale of the German people, when that had clearly failed during the Blitz

For comparison:
Germany WW2 population 80m
Civilian deaths 436,000
>0.5%
Gaza population 2m
Deaths 45,000
>2%

 

[Osvaldorama]

You must log in or register to see images

Biden’s trying to start WW3 on his way out

Someone needs to lock the senile old fool up before he does any more damage

 

[Osvaldorama]

Isn’t Lee just lovely.

You must log in or register to see media

He’s more in tune with the public than most other politicians imo

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

You must log in or register to see images

Biden’s trying to start WW3 on his way out

Someone needs to lock the senile old fool up before he does any more damage

Tell me how you believe that is starting WW3?

Not saying I agree with it, but it’s a mad situation out there. Assad is a horrid bastard, but was actually the best bet for stability out there (see Libya and Gaddafi).

Currently you can choose between Assad/Russia with a side order of Iranian proxies, or AQ/Turkey with an IS/sunni mentalist side salad. Not a great choice, and clearly it’s now fallen to the latter.

But it’s not going to start WW3. That’s silly hyperbole. (And the stuff the US is doing there is to do with protecting the small Kurdish groups rather than this regime change anyhow).

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Isn’t Lee just lovely.

You must log in or register to see media

He wants to be careful introducing threatening behaviour into the mix, what goes around.....

 

[EasyBreezer]

BBC news salaciously reporting on Assads demise as if its nothing but good news is wild.

We all know what happens when less than savoury dictators fall in the Middle East as we have had Gaddafi and Saddam deposed in recent memory.

How they are calling this a possible victory for democracy despite the fact it is a violent coup orchestrated by jihadist groups on pickups holding rocket launchers is just beyond parody.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

BBC news salaciously reporting on Assads demise as if its nothing but good news is wild.

We all know what happens when less than savoury dictators fall in the Middle East as we have had Gaddafi and Saddam deposed in recent memory.

How they are calling this a possible victory for democracy despite the fact it is a violent coup orchestrated by jihadist groups on pickups holding rocket launchers is just beyond parody.

Yeah, there really is no ‘good’ winner in this one.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

BBC news salaciously reporting on Assads demise as if its nothing but good news is wild.

We all know what happens when less than savoury dictators fall in the Middle East as we have had Gaddafi and Saddam deposed in recent memory.

How they are calling this a possible victory for democracy despite the fact it is a violent coup orchestrated by jihadist groups on pickups holding rocket launchers is just beyond parody.

Not sure they’re doing that though, thus is a reasonably sensible article.

US will fear the vacuum that could replace Assad https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30enxzreyo

 

[EasyBreezer]

Not sure they’re doing that though, thus is a reasonably sensible article.

US will fear the vacuum that could replace Assad https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30enxzreyo

Can't open the article to see what that says, however all day BBC bulletins have been celebrating this as a possible victory for democracy for certain.

They even had Christian Syrians whose parents fled 20 years ago and never lived in Syria talking about getting their country back, whilst being interviewed from a church in London.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Can't open the article to see what that says, however all day BBC bulletins have been celebrating this as a possible victory for democracy for certain.

They even had Christian Syrians whose parents fled 20 years ago and never lived in Syria talking about getting their country back, whilst being interviewed from a church in London.

Weird, will try again.

US will fear the vacuum that could replace Assad https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30enxzreyo


Either way, it’s front page.