Allied soldiers 'raped hundreds of thousands of German women' after WW2

[KingKhanWC]

You are right about American Civil War camps, POWs had little chance in those. Disease and malnutrition would get them.

The internment camps for Japanese-Americans in WW2 were pretty bad too.

But WW2 POW camps in the US were very good. Germans came out after the war having gained weight. They got prison pay and could work on farms.

This is not true. I read in one article the German POWs were shocked at how the Yanks treated blacks, so I doubt they would come out fat.

Watch this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Hitler rose through power after he issued government backed currency thus abolishing the central bank. I don't need to tell you who controls central banks, but the fact is Hitler pulled Germany out of hyperinflation, turned Germany into a European power, on the verge of becoming global within 10 years. He actually kept his promise as a politician - by bringing prosperity to Germany. He did it. Germans had nothing after WW1, now they see a leader who gave them everything.

There are 3 pieces of evidence which clearly reveal that Hitler was not acting alone:

1. Balfour Declaration.
2. Havaana Agreement.
3. Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel

If you have not heard the speech, it will blow your mind. Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

Thanks, I'll give it a watch. There was also the 'transfer agreement'. Interestingly the high Rabbis of Germany before WW2 insisted Jews cannot go back to the holy land as no Messiah has arrived and no Temple has been built. Then they were all killed and others emerged who said the opposite.

 

[Technics 1210]

Remember the Treaty of Versailles put sole blame on Germany for starting WW1, we all know this is not true, it was Austria/Hungary that started WW1. The people of Germany felt humiliated, the provisions of the treaty were utterly draconian (ceasing land etc).

Why are we not taught this in more detail at school? Simple, Germany was the bogeyman in the first half of the 20th century, the pretext to wage war, and as with all bogeymen, once their use is no longer needed, they, and the country they reside in, is destroyed.

 

[Technics 1210]

Thanks, I'll give it a watch. There was also the 'transfer agreement'. Interestingly the high Rabbis of Germany before WW2 insisted Jews cannot go back to the holy land as no Messiah has arrived and no Temple has been built. Then they were all killed and others emerged who said the opposite.

Brother, all in the speech. In fact there are transcripts available too :

https://samisdat.info/media/willard-hotel-speech-benjamin-freedman-1961/BenajaminFreedman1961.pdf

This is the story they did not want to tell you.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Brother, all in the speech. In fact there are transcripts available too :

https://samisdat.info/media/willard-hotel-speech-benjamin-freedman-1961/BenajaminFreedman1961.pdf

This is the story they did not want to tell you.

I knew of this but will take time to read it.

The masters of deception who played both sides in WW1 and WW2 have their rewards in the holy land and must be laughing all the way to the bank(no pun intended) knowing their are millions of people who believe their manufacutred version of history.

 

[Technics 1210]

I knew of this but will take time to read it.

The masters of deception who played both sides in WW1 and WW2 have their rewards in the holy land and must be laughing all the way to the bank(no pun intended) knowing their are millions of people who believe their manufacutred version of history.

Would it surprise you if I told you that all the Holocaust denial laws were implemented after the speech in 1961? It was damage control from that point on. All the key changes in the WW2 narrative occurred after this speech, because at that time, Balfour and Havaana agreements were top secret, that is, until the cat was out of the bag in 1961.

Here’s the kicker, Israel passed a law which criminalised Holocaust denial in 1986. When one might ask, why so late, surely Israel would be the first nation to pass such a law, well now we know why.

In a way I think if it had not been for this speech, we may not have seen laws punishing Holocaust denial, but at the same time, if it was not for this speech, we may never have known the truth.

 

[Robert]

I know we Brits are by reputation often accused of arrogance, but how would naval blockade, mass starvation or mainland invasion be considered a worse fate than being oblieterated from existence? Would you have prefered a nuke dropped on your home town if it won the war for the successful side?

Because mass starvation or invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed many more Japanese people than the nuclear strikes did.

 

[Captain caveman]

Because mass starvation or invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed many more Japanese people than the nuclear strikes did.

I dont really want to get into a debate about a war which ended nearly 75 years ago. But the fact is stalin had agreed to send his 12million troops to the east to fight japan, after the german surrender and japan would have been quickly overpowered and defeated.
The us needed to test their new weapon, to see the effects on human beings, dropping an atomic bomb on white europeans would have been impossible due to the backlash, but dropping it on asians wasnt an issue.

The american got their data on the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings.
I

 

[Robert]

This is not true. I read in one article the German POWs were shocked at how the Yanks treated blacks, so I doubt they would come out fat.

Watch this.

Ok, I gave if five minutes. Fake history. Germany didn’t get ‘pastoralised’. The Marshall Plan got them up and running again quickly. By 1956 they were re-arming and became a key member of NATO.

 

[Robert]

I dont really want to get into a debate about a war which ended nearly 75 years ago. But the fact is stalin had agreed to send his 12million troops to the east to fight japan, after the german surrender and japan would have been quickly overpowered and defeated.
The us needed to test their new weapon, to see the effects on human beings, dropping an atomic bomb on white europeans would have been impossible due to the backlash, but dropping it on asians wasnt an issue.

The american got their data on the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings.
I

For Heaven’s sake. It wasn’t ready in April 1945 when Germany surrendered.

They knew what it did, they had tested it in their own desert.

The USSR entered Manchuria, not Japan. It had no plans to attack the Japanese mainland. It had no experience of amphibious assault and very little in the way of a navy.

The American experience on Okinawa was so terrible - such massive loss of life - that they didn’t want to attack the Japanese mainland which would have been far worse.

 

[Robert]

Hitler rose through power after he issued government backed currency thus abolishing the central bank. I don't need to tell you who controls central banks, but the fact is Hitler pulled Germany out of hyperinflation, turned Germany into a European power, on the verge of becoming global within 10 years. He actually kept his promise as a politician - by bringing prosperity to Germany. He did it. Germans had nothing after WW1, now they see a leader who gave them everything.

There are 3 pieces of evidence which clearly reveal that Hitler was not acting alone:

1. Balfour Declaration.
2. Havaana Agreement.
3. Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel

If you have not heard the speech, it will blow your mind. Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

It didn’t blow my mind. Fake history and antiSemitic conspiracy theory. There was no deal by “Zionists” to get the US to enter the war. The truth is simpler - the American people turned against the Germans in 1915 when the Lusitania was sunk. In 1917 five American merchant ships were sunk by U-boats and Wilson declared war in response.

 

[Captain caveman]

For Heaven’s sake. It wasn’t ready in April 1945 when Germany surrendered.

They knew what it did, they had tested it in their own desert.

The USSR entered Manchuria, not Japan. It had no plans to attack the Japanese mainland. It had no experience of amphibious assault and very little in the way of a navy.

The American experience on Okinawa was so terrible - such massive loss of life - that they didn’t want to attack the Japanese mainland which would have been far worse.

Like i said, i dont want to debate a war that ended nearly 75 years ago, but there are documentaries on the history channel which go into detail about this and would show the relevant proof that stalin had agreed to send his troops to wage war against japan, after refusing throughout the war to do so.

The date of the atomic bomb being ready is classified, and you are only going by what information was released by the us, which may or may not be true.

Yes the americans had tested the device in the desert but there was no humans in the vincinity and the americans had no data on the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings!

You can dispute these facts if you like, and buy in to the lies of 'ending the war 3 years early and saving millions of lives', but i thought you were smarter than that.

 

[Technics 1210]

It didn’t blow my mind. Fake history and antiSemitic conspiracy theory. There was no deal by “Zionists” to get the US to enter the war. The truth is simpler - the American people turned against the Germans in 1915 when the Lusitania was sunk. In 1917 five American merchant ships were sunk by U-boats and Wilson declared war in response.

You are right, Balflour Declaration is fake. Havaana Agreement is fake. Heck, the speech was a hologram from top to bottom.

Forgive me for saying, but someone who did not study WW2 at school (still shocked) would not have a grasp on WW1.

It was not the sinking of the Lusitania, it was the alleged sinking of the SS Sussex which lead to deaths of Americans which lead the USA into WW1. You would have known this had you learned about WW1 in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Sussex

The truth is simple, it just depends on how you look at it.

 

[Robert]

Like i said, i dont want to debate a war that ended nearly 75 years ago, but there are documentaries on the history channel which go into detail about this and would show the relevant proof that stalin had agreed to send his troops to wage war against japan, after refusing throughout the war to do so.

The date of the atomic bomb being ready is classified, and you are only going by what information was released by the us, which may or may not be true.

Yes the americans had tested the device in the desert but there was no humans in the vincinity and the americans had no data on the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings!

You can dispute these facts if you like, and buy in to the lies of 'ending the war 3 years early and saving millions of lives', but i thought you were smarter than that.

You are just repeating your point about Stalin which I refuted, so please don’t tell me I am not smart. I knew all this stuff from books, before the History Channel. Come up with a counter-argument to my argument. How would Stalin have got his tanks to Japan with no navy?

Another thing I am smart enough to know is what 6000 Celsius will do to human beings without the need to actually try it. As did Oppenheimer. They already knew what mass incendiary attacks did to city centres.

Where did you get this three year figure from? I didn’t say it.

 

[Robert]

You are right, Balflour Declaration is fake. Havaana Agreement is fake. Heck, the speech was a hologram from top to bottom.

Forgive me for saying, but someone who did not study WW2 at school (still shocked) would not have a grasp on WW1.

It was not the sinking of the Lusitania, it was the alleged sinking of the SS Sussex which lead to deaths of Americans which lead the USA into WW1. You would have known this had you learned about WW1 in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Sussex

The truth is simple, it just depends on how you look at it.

OK, so you are now accepting that the US entered WW1 because of loss of shipping, not Zionists as per 1961 speech?

Of course the Balfour Declaration and Havana Agreement happened but had no effect on WW1, which preceded them both.

 

[Technics 1210]

I dont really want to get into a debate about a war which ended nearly 75 years ago. But the fact is stalin had agreed to send his 12million troops to the east to fight japan, after the german surrender and japan would have been quickly overpowered and defeated.
The us needed to test their new weapon, to see the effects on human beings, dropping an atomic bomb on white europeans would have been impossible due to the backlash, but dropping it on asians wasnt an issue.

The american got their data on the effects of an atomic bomb on human beings.
I

Nah dude, the war in Europe had ended by the time Japan was nuked, but you are correct in saying that the USA were gagging to drop the bomb to make examples of lesser human races.

All because Einstein sent a letter to the USA President warning him of the power of the atom, and wait for this, encouraged the USA to start their own Nuclear Program.

Einstein–Szilárd letter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letter

 

[Technics 1210]

OK, so you are now accepting that the US entered WW1 because of loss of shipping, not Zionists as per 1961 speech?

I always excepted that the alleged sinking of a ship dragged the USA into war. False flag events.

SS Sussex, Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin - these are all false flag events which dragged USA into war.

Of course the Balfour Declaration and Havana Agreement happened but had no effect on WW1, which preceded them both.

Who said it did? These documents prove beyond all doubt that Zionists & UK/USA politicians were colluding. Also Zionism preceded WW1. Now you can claim Zionists had no effect on WW1, but you cannot deny that Zionists had no effect on WW2 - and it is at this point the entire post WW2 narrative comes into question.

 

[Captain caveman]

Nah dude, the war in Europe had ended by the time Japan was nuked, but you are correct in saying that the USA were gagging to drop the bomb to make examples of lesser human races.

All because Einstein sent a letter to the USA President warning him of the power of the atom, and wait for this, encouraged the USA to start their own Nuclear Program.

Einstein–Szilárd letter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letter

Brother, i know the war in europe had ended before japan wad nuked. Thats my point, stalin had agreed to shift his troops east after defeating germany, so 12 million soldiers were going to make light work of japan, so there was no need to nuke japan to try and end the war early as the americans claim, it was just an excuse to test the effects on humans of an atomic bomb.

 

[Captain caveman]

You are just repeating your point about Stalin which I refuted, so please don’t tell me I am not smart. I knew all this stuff from books, before the History Channel. Come up with a counter-argument to my argument. How would Stalin have got his tanks to Japan with no navy?

Another thing I am smart enough to know is what 6000 Celsius will do to human beings without the need to actually try it. As did Oppenheimer. They already knew what mass incendiary attacks did to city centres.

Where did you get this three year figure from? I didn’t say it.

The composition of the Soviet fleets in 1941 included:[8]

3 battleships,
7 cruisers (including 4 modern Kirov-class heavy cruisers),
59 destroyers (including 46 modern Gnevny-class and Soobrazitelny-class destroyers),
218 submarines,
269 torpedo boats,
22 patrol vessels,
88 minesweepers,
77 submarine-chasers,
and a range of other smaller vessels.
In various stages of completion were another 219 vessels including 3 battleships, 2 heavy and 7 light cruisers, 45 destroyers, and 91 submarines.
Wikipedia - soviet navy
Hope that ends your first argument!

Secondly, its not just about the heat but what the radiation would do to humans and how the land, sea and animals will be affected by the radiation and how long the radiation will last. Will new born babies have deformities and what other effects there might be, as well as the long term effects.

The 3 years early and saving millions of lifes was the american excuse for using the atomic bomb, its very well known.

I hope you can broaden your horizons!

 

[Technics 1210]

Brother, i know the war in europe had ended before japan wad nuked. Thats my point, stalin had agreed to shift his troops east after defeating germany, so 12 million soldiers were going to make light work of japan, so there was no need to nuke japan to try and end the war early as the americans claim, it was just an excuse to test the effects on humans of an atomic bomb.

Ahh understand your point and agree with it. I mean even today, USA love dropping bombs just to test the effects!

 

[Robert]

The composition of the Soviet fleets in 1941 included:[8]

3 battleships,
7 cruisers (including 4 modern Kirov-class heavy cruisers),
59 destroyers (including 46 modern Gnevny-class and Soobrazitelny-class destroyers),
218 submarines,
269 torpedo boats,
22 patrol vessels,
88 minesweepers,
77 submarine-chasers,
and a range of other smaller vessels.
In various stages of completion were another 219 vessels including 3 battleships, 2 heavy and 7 light cruisers, 45 destroyers, and 91 submarines.
Wikipedia - soviet navy
Hope that ends your first argument!

Secondly, its not just about the heat but what the radiation would do to humans and how the land, sea and animals will be affected by the radiation and how long the radiation will last. Will new born babies have deformities and what other effects there might be, as well as the long term effects.

The 3 years early and saving millions of lifes was the american excuse for using the atomic bomb, its very well known.

I hope you can broaden your horizons!

Most of said Navy (much of which was obsolete anyway) didn’t survive until 1945 which is the year we are talking about.

The effects of nuclear radiation have been known since Curie.

You are trying to apply modern peacetime morality to a colossal death struggle between empires. It came down to numbers. The two nuclear strikes took 200k lives, but saved millions.

 

[Robert]

Brother, i know the war in europe had ended before japan wad nuked. Thats my point, stalin had agreed to shift his troops east after defeating germany, so 12 million soldiers were going to make light work of japan, so there was no need to nuke japan to try and end the war early as the americans claim, it was just an excuse to test the effects on humans of an atomic bomb.

Actually 1.5M Red Army soldiers were deployed to Manchuria, not 12M. Most of the Red Army was deployed in the European nations the USSR had just seized.

Why would you have been happy for these soldiers to have invaded the Japanese homeland, with the resulting massive loss of life?

 

[barah_admi]

I'm sad we have someone like Robert on here literally making excuses for rape.

 

[Technics 1210]

I'm sad we have someone like Robert on here literally making excuses for rape.

Not true at all, [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is not doing anything of the sort. He is questioning the validity and credibility of the OP.

 

[Robert]

Not true at all, [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is not doing anything of the sort. He is questioning the validity and credibility of the OP.

Thank you.

This thread seems to have gone wildly off topic, and we seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing so I am off to do something constructive instead.

 

[barah_admi]

Not true at all, [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is not doing anything of the sort. He is questioning the validity and credibility of the OP.

No he is not. He has raised several red herrings and strawmen, diverting the argument to Japan, to Russia etc. At no time has he posted evidence to counter the historian quoted in the OP. He has also failed to answer my logical post, where I told him that "whataboutery" doesn't work here.

It is the exact same thing that he did in the thread regarding the Bengal famine, where he claimed that it was needed for 4 million Indians to starve to death, so that the British soldiers could have their food. Go read that thread also.

 

[sweep_shot]

The UK government and armed forces have been accused of covering up the killing of civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An investigation by BBC Panorama and the Sunday Times has spoken to 11 British detectives who said they found credible evidence of war crimes.

Soldiers should have been prosecuted for the killings, say insiders.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it rejected the unsubstantiated allegation of a pattern of cover-ups.

The new evidence has come from inside the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated alleged war crimes committed by British troops during the occupation of Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

The government decided to close IHAT and Operation Northmoor, after Phil Shiner, a lawyer who had taken more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off as a solicitor following allegations he had paid fixers in Iraq to find clients.

But former detectives from IHAT and Operation Northmoor said Phil Shiner's actions were used as an excuse to close down criminal investigations. None of the cases investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor resulted in a prosecution.

One IHAT detective told Panorama: "The Ministry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn't wriggle their way out of it."

Another former detective said the victims of war crimes had been badly let down: "I use the word disgusting. And I feel for the families because... they're not getting justice. How can you hold your head up as a British person?"

Panorama has re-examined the evidence in a number of alleged war crimes cases. One such case investigated by IHAT was the shooting of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier on patrol in Basra in 2003.

Raid al-Mosawi was shot in an alleyway as he left his family home, and later died from his wounds. The incident was investigated at the time by the British soldier's commanding officer, Maj Christopher Suss-Francksen.

Within 24 hours, Maj Suss-Francksen concluded the shooting was lawful because the Iraqi police officer had fired first and the soldier had acted in self-defence.

His report said another British soldier had seen the shooting and confirmed the Iraqi had fired first.

IHAT detectives spent two years investigating the case and interviewed 80 British soldiers, including the soldier who had supposedly witnessed the shooting. But he told detectives he was not in the alleyway.

In his statement to IHAT, this soldier directly contradicted Maj Suss-Francksen's report: "This report is inaccurate and gives the impression that I was an eyewitness. This is not true."

The soldier said he had only heard one shot, which suggested the policeman had not fired at all. This was confirmed by other witnesses interviewed by IHAT.

Detectives concluded the soldier who shot Raid should be prosecuted for killing the Iraqi police officer and Maj Suss-Francksen should be charged with covering up what happened. But military prosecutors have not taken anyone to court.

Maj Suss-Francksen's lawyer said: "My client has not seen the IHAT material and is unable to offer any comment on the quality or reliability of the evidence gathered by the IHAT investigators or why it was insufficient to satisfy a prosecution of any soldier under UK law."

Operation Northmoor was set up by the government in 2014 and looked into 52 alleged illegal killings.

Its closure was announced by the government before Royal Military Police detectives even had a chance to interview the key Afghan witnesses.

One Northmoor detective said: "I wouldn't write off a job until I have spoken to both parties. If you are writing off a job and the only thing you have got is the British account, how is that an investigation?

"My view is that every one of those deaths deserved to be examined and due process of law to take place."

The MoD said military operations are conducted in accordance with the law and there had been an extensive investigation of allegations.

"Investigations and decisions to prosecute are rightly independent from the MoD and have involved external oversight and legal advice," a spokesperson told the BBC.

"After careful consideration of referred cases, the independent Service Prosecuting Authority decided not to prosecute."

"The BBC's claims have been passed to the Service Police and the Service Prosecuting Authority who remain open to considering allegations."

Panorama, War Crimes Scandal Exposed is on BBC One at 21:00 GMT on Monday 18 November.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50419297.

 

[Robert]

No he is not. He has raised several red herrings and strawmen, diverting the argument to Japan, to Russia etc. At no time has he posted evidence to counter the historian quoted in the OP. He has also failed to answer my logical post, where I told him that "whataboutery" doesn't work here.

Russia was raised in the OP, then later by [MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] I think.

Japan was first raised in post #30 by [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION], not by me.
[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] had by then compared the USA to Nazi Germany which I refuted.

So any whattaboutery was not coming from me.

It is the exact same thing that he did in the thread regarding the Bengal famine, where he claimed that it was needed for 4 million Indians to starve to death, so that the British soldiers could have their food. Go read that thread also.

I hope everyone does so, then they will see that I did no such thing.

I refused to descend into emotional hyperbole, and instead tred to analyse what actually happened, what when wrong, whether or not it could have been alleviated faster, and why it wasn't.

You may have got my contribution to said Bengal famine debate confused with a point I made about the Iranian Famine of 1917 there the British Army of Mesopotamia stole the Iranian food reserves thereby condemning five million Iranians to death by starvation, which I believe I characterised as monstrous.

So please take your own advice and read what was posted by whom in what order in both threads, and then perhaps you will kindly cease putting words in my mouth.

 

[Robert]

Ahh understand your point and agree with it. I mean even today, USA love dropping bombs just to test the effects!

This interesting graphic illustrates your point.

 

[Technics 1210]

This interesting graphic illustrates your point.

Yeah have seen this before, it's really cool, except for the fact it completely misses out the Nuclear tests carried out by Israel.

 

[Robert]

Yeah have seen this before, it's really cool, except for the fact it completely misses out the Nuclear tests carried out by Israel.

Where and when did they do those? Someone would have noticed surely. Egypt or Syria would say something to the UN.

 

[Technics 1210]

Where and when did they do those? Someone would have noticed surely. Egypt or Syria would say something to the UN.

The Vela incident. Very famous!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident

Well before the Vela incident, American intelligence agencies had made the assessment that Israel probably possessed its own nuclear weapons.[31] According to journalist Seymour Hersh, the detection was the third joint Israeli-South African nuclear test in the Indian Ocean, and the Israelis had sent two IDF ships and "a contingent of Israeli military men and nuclear experts" for the test.[32] Author Richard Rhodes also concludes the incident was an Israeli nuclear test, conducted in cooperation with South Africa, and that the United States administration deliberately obscured this fact in order to avoid complicating relations with South Africa and Israel.[33] Likewise, Leonard Weiss offers a number of arguments to support the test being Israeli, and claims that successive U.S. administrations continue to cover up the test to divert unwanted attention that may portray its foreign policy in a bad light.[34] Similarly, Professor Avner Cohen concluded that in hindsight, the existence of a cover-up by the United States is unambiguous because there were “at least three independent scientific pieces of evidence unrelated to a satellite that confirm the existence of the explosion.”[35] [36]

In the 2008 book The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and its Proliferation, Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman stated their opinion that the "double flash" was the result of a joint South African–Israeli nuclear bomb test.[37] David Albright stated in his article about the "double flash" event in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that "If the 1979 flash was caused by a test, most experts agree it was probably an Israeli test".[2] In 2010, it was reported that, on 27 February 1980, President Jimmy Carter wrote in his diary, "We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of Africa."[38]

Leonard Weiss, of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University writes: "The weight of the evidence that the Vela event was an Israeli nuclear test assisted by South Africa appears overwhelming."[39]

Reed has written that he believes the Vela incident was an Israeli neutron bomb test.[40] The test would have gone undetected as the Israelis specifically chose a window of opportunity when, according to the published data, no active Vela satellites were observing the area. Although the decade-old Vela satellite that detected the blast was officially listed as "retired" by the U.S. government, it was still able to receive data. Additionally, the Israelis chose to set off the test during a typhoon.[41] By 1984, according to Mordechai Vanunu, Israel was mass-producing neutron bombs.[42]

 

[HitWicket]

I forgot to add, none of the above, including Germany's rise from Wiemar Germany to European power, is taught in UK schools.

Weimar Germany is within every major exams boards GCSE specification.

 

[Technics 1210]

Weimar Germany is within every major exams boards GCSE specification.

I am referring to Germany's rise from Wiemar Germany. i.e Credit to Hitler. This is not taught.

You are referring to the consequence of the treaty of Versailles, which is taught.

 

[HitWicket]

I am referring to Germany's rise from Wiemar Germany. i.e Credit to Hitler. This is not taught.

You are referring to the consequence of the treaty of Versailles, which is taught.

Nah, Germany under Hitler and some of the pros are covered on most specifications too.

 

[Technics 1210]

Nah, Germany under Hitler and some of the pros are covered on most specifications too.

Like the Havaana Agreement, and abolishment of Central Bank issued currency?

Sure.

 

[Robert]

The Vela incident. Very famous!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident

Interesting. I hadn't heard of that, though I heard rumour that the two pariah states of the day - RSA and Israel - had collaborated in a nuclear weapons programme.

 

[barah_admi]

Russia was raised in the OP, then later by [MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] I think.

Japan was first raised in post #30 by [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION], not by me.

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] had by then compared the USA to Nazi Germany which I refuted.

So any whattaboutery was not coming from me.



I hope everyone does so, then they will see that I did no such thing.

I refused to descend into emotional hyperbole, and instead tred to analyse what actually happened, what when wrong, whether or not it could have been alleviated faster, and why it wasn't.

You may have got my contribution to said Bengal famine debate confused with a point I made about the Iranian Famine of 1917 there the British Army of Mesopotamia stole the Iranian food reserves thereby condemning five million Iranians to death by starvation, which I believe I characterised as monstrous.

So please take your own advice and read what was posted by whom in what order in both threads, and then perhaps you will kindly cease putting words in my mouth.

Regardless of who raised other countries first, you jumped in wholeheartedly and tried your best to make excuses for the british soldiers. I repeat, do you have evidence these crimes did not occur?

We can re open the discussion for the Bengal famine in that thread but you must stay on point and stop deflecting facts.

 

[Robert]

Regardless of who raised other countries first, you jumped in wholeheartedly and tried your best to make excuses for the british soldiers. I repeat, do you have evidence these crimes did not occur?

We can re open the discussion for the Bengal famine in that thread but you must stay on point and stop deflecting facts.

Nobody has evidence for things that did not occur, that’s a logical impossibility. You can only produce evidence for things which did occur.

I made no excuses for any criminal soldiers from any land - you made that up in your head. Indeed I said those criminals were not punished hard enough. So you continue to put falsehood in my mouth instead of doing the decent thing and retracting it.

You mentioned the Bengal Famine first, not me. So that was your deflection. Please follow your own advice.

 

[Captain caveman]

Russia was raised in the OP, then later by [MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] I think.

Japan was first raised in post #30 by [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION], not by me.

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] had by then compared the USA to Nazi Germany which I refuted.

So any whattaboutery was not coming from me.



I hope everyone does so, then they will see that I did no such thing.

I refused to descend into emotional hyperbole, and instead tred to analyse what actually happened, what when wrong, whether or not it could have been alleviated faster, and why it wasn't.

You may have got my contribution to said Bengal famine debate confused with a point I made about the Iranian Famine of 1917 there the British Army of Mesopotamia stole the Iranian food reserves thereby condemning five million Iranians to death by starvation, which I believe I characterised as monstrous.

So please take your own advice and read what was posted by whom in what order in both threads, and then perhaps you will kindly cease putting words in my mouth.

Yes i raised russia in this thread
Sorry if i derailed the thread, was not my intention.

 

[Robert]

Yes i raised russia in this thread
Sorry if i derailed the thread, was not my intention.

I don't mind at all [MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] It's [MENTION=146504]barah_admi[/MENTION] who doesn't like thread diversions.

 

[Captain caveman]

I don't mind at all [MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] It's [MENTION=146504]barah_admi[/MENTION] who doesn't like thread diversions.

Thanks.
Iike i said earlier, theres not much point dragging up a war that ended 75 years ago. If anyone believes that 'evil' things were not committed by ALL sides, then they are naive.
War is evil and it brings out the evil in some men.
Best let bygones be bygones!
Lets pray for the all the current wars to end and though its childish and unrealistic lets pray for no more wars!

 

[Technics 1210]

I don't think any post in this thread is irrelevant. In fact the posts highlight the very point the OP represents - the realities of war are either not accurately reported/taught, or parts of history are completely missing from any form of curriculum/media/politics to support a particular narrative.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ok, I gave if five minutes. Fake history. Germany didn’t get ‘pastoralised’. The Marshall Plan got them up and running again quickly. By 1956 they were re-arming and became a key member of NATO.

Not everything might be correct but never mind.

We know the history we are taught is fake. You cannot deny this.

The brutality hasnt ended either.

UK government and Army are accused of covering up war crimes amid claims British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq 'murdered children and tortured civilians'

In another case, an SAS soldier burst into a room in an Afghan village and shot three boys and a young man in the head at close range. The teacups they had been drinking from were filled with blood.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7694065/UK-government-Army-accused-covering-war-crimes.html

While Nazi Germany is long gone the Brit, American pax has continued war crimes are still flowing in full force.

Its time for citizens of these nations stand up against such crimes and stop being fooled by nationalism. Many in the UK do but many dont.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

The allies became worse than the guys they were defeating
It is just like the state of Israel really

 

[barah_admi]

Nobody has evidence for things that did not occur, that’s a logical impossibility. You can only produce evidence for things which did occur.

I made no excuses for any criminal soldiers from any land - you made that up in your head. Indeed I said those criminals were not punished hard enough. So you continue to put falsehood in my mouth instead of doing the decent thing and retracting it.

You mentioned the Bengal Famine first, not me. So that was your deflection. Please follow your own advice.

So you agree with the OP that allied soldiers carried out rape en masse?

 

[msaaim89]

Thought I'd share a documentary I'm currently watching, which is related to this thread.

 

[KingKhanWC]

^ Nice one.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So you agree with the OP that allied soldiers carried out rape en masse?

Robert believes Blair was a greatest leader in his lifetime but only did wrong with Iraq. He wont accept Blair should be on trail for war crimes which have only recently occurred. So no chance of agreeing with anything which makes the British look bad in the world wars. Churchill didn't kill millions in the Indian famine either.

 

[Captain caveman]

Rape and murder are inevitable in war, war is evil and it brings the evil out of men!

 

[Robert]

Robert believes Blair was a greatest leader in his lifetime but only did wrong with Iraq. He wont accept Blair should be on trail for war crimes which have only recently occurred. So no chance of agreeing with anything which makes the British look bad in the world wars. Churchill didn't kill millions in the Indian famine either.

Yes, pretty much everything else he did was good.

- devolved power to the Assemblies
- saved the NHS
- doubled the education budget
- cut crime by 30%
- negotiated peace in NI
- cancelled all developing world debt
- scrapped Section 28 and delivered civil partnerships
- banned fox hunting
- all workers got 24 days leave
- lifted a million pensioners out of poverty
- stopped Sierra Leone civil war
- stopped Kosovo genocide
- cut unemployment from 3M to 1M

I’ll discuss with you whether he should face trial when you tell me exactly which law you think he broke. The Law Lords ruled that there is no crime in English law he can be charged with. While crimes of aggression now are on the international statute book, they do not operate retrospectively. So your argument is emotional not legal.

As for Churchill I have explained how millions of Bengalis were killed by a combination of natural disaster, hoarding of food in other parts of India and mass migration of Nepalese refugees fleeing the Japanese advance - but you are not interested in reasoned argument and keep repeating the same emotion-based accusation over and over again with your fingers in your ears.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yes, pretty much everything else he did was good.

- devolved power to the Assemblies
- saved the NHS
- doubled the education budget
- cut crime by 30%
- negotiated peace in NI
- cancelled all developing world debt
- scrapped Section 28 and delivered civil partnerships
- banned fox hunting
- all workers got 24 days leave
- lifted a million pensioners out of poverty
- stopped Sierra Leone civil war
- stopped Kosovo genocide
- cut unemployment from 3M to 1M

I’ll discuss with you whether he should face trial when you tell me exactly which law you think he broke. The Law Lords ruled that there is no crime in English law he can be charged with. While crimes of aggression now are on the international statute book, they do not operate retrospectively. So your argument is emotional not legal.

As for Churchill I have explained how millions of Bengalis were killed by a combination of natural disaster, hoarding of food in other parts of India and mass migration of Nepalese refugees fleeing the Japanese advance - but you are not interested in reasoned argument and keep repeating the same emotion-based accusation over and over again with your fingers in your ears.

Cancelled all developing world debt? How?

Also I was change 'negotiated peace' with 'negotiated with terrorists'.

 

[barah_admi]

Yes, pretty much everything else he did was good.

- devolved power to the Assemblies
- saved the NHS
- doubled the education budget
- cut crime by 30%
- negotiated peace in NI
- cancelled all developing world debt
- scrapped Section 28 and delivered civil partnerships
- banned fox hunting
- all workers got 24 days leave
- lifted a million pensioners out of poverty
- stopped Sierra Leone civil war
- stopped Kosovo genocide
- cut unemployment from 3M to 1M

I’ll discuss with you whether he should face trial when you tell me exactly which law you think he broke. The Law Lords ruled that there is no crime in English law he can be charged with. While crimes of aggression now are on the international statute book, they do not operate retrospectively. So your argument is emotional not legal.

As for Churchill I have explained how millions of Bengalis were killed by a combination of natural disaster, hoarding of food in other parts of India and mass migration of Nepalese refugees fleeing the Japanese advance - but you are not interested in reasoned argument and keep repeating the same emotion-based accusation over and over again with your fingers in your ears.

Ok, let us look at just a couple of these points....however, first I will say YES, Blair did some good with home policy. His push for education was excellent and helped many people from ethnic minorities get into universities that does not however excuse his mass genocide in Afghanistan and Iraq, country's the UK went to war based on lies. That last statement is a statement of fact.

Now, can you explain how you claim he stopped genocide in Kosovo even though thousands of Muslims were killed over the course of many years? Both he and Clinton should have reacted much, much earlier. The situation is so bad in that part of Europe that people are still finding mass graves to this day. Yet this is the same Tony Blair who was foaming at the mouth to bomb Afghanistan looking for one man.

Seriously Robert, I rarely respond to you on non cricket comments because I feel you are either ignorant or a liar.

 

[Robert]

Cancelled all developing world debt? How?

He wrote off all the debts owed to the UK by developing world nations.

Also I was change 'negotiated peace' with 'negotiated with terrorists'.

If you like. It brought about peace after twenty years and 3,000 killings. Belfast used to be a war zone. Now it is a thriving city with peaceful streets. Go and look.

 

[Technics 1210]

He wrote off all the debts owed to the UK by developing world nations.



If you like. It brought about peace after twenty years and 3,000 killings. Belfast used to be a war zone. Now it is a thriving city with peaceful streets. Go and look.

Yup. Basically it paid to negotiate with terrorists.

 

[barah_admi]

He wrote off all the debts owed to the UK by developing world nations.



If you like. It brought about peace after twenty years and 3,000 killings. Belfast used to be a war zone. Now it is a thriving city with peaceful streets. Go and look.

All the debt?

Are you referring to Gleneagles in 2005? Gordon Brown was a far more important character in that development than Blair and yet, you make it sound like all debt was written off to developing nations....your use of the word "all" is why I am saying this. Maybe you want to re-phrase that? Or maybe you want to actually read into what happened?

Because all debt for all developing nations was not written off by the UK or any of the other G8 nations. There were a handful of countries that benefited but many financial targets were not met by the countries promising to write off this debt. I could sit here and talk you through it all but you will probably still end up denying the truth, so maybe spend a few hours reading about it.

 

[Robert]

All the debt?

Are you referring to Gleneagles in 2005? Gordon Brown was a far more important character in that development than Blair and yet, you make it sound like all debt was written off to developing nations....your use of the word "all" is why I am saying this. Maybe you want to re-phrase that? Or maybe you want to actually read into what happened?

Because all debt for all developing nations was not written off by the UK or any of the other G8 nations. There were a handful of countries that benefited but many financial targets were not met by the countries promising to write off this debt. I could sit here and talk you through it all but you will probably still end up denying the truth, so maybe spend a few hours reading about it.

Good grief, a semi-respectful post.

I had quoted the Tony Blair web site which is perhaps prone to exaggeration.

OK, let's clarify. Chancellor Brown chaired the 31st G8 summit. All the debt from eighteen heavily indebted countries was written off by the Blair government, though other G8 nations did not follow suit wholely or in part. More countries would have qualified for debt relief if they had met anticorruption targets.

 

[Robert]

Yup. Basically it paid to negotiate with terrorists.

Paid? Strange word. Suggests that some financial gain was involved. Many NI citizens gained. This is an excellent humanitarian achievement by the Major and Blair goverments.

 

[Technics 1210]

Paid? Strange word. Suggests that some financial gain was involved. Many NI citizens gained. This is an excellent humanitarian achievement by the Major and Blair goverments.

Yes paid. The benefit of negotiating with terrorists 'paid' dividends. You were the one who mentioned 'thriving' city.

 

[Technics 1210]

Good grief, a semi-respectful post.

I had quoted the Tony Blair web site which is perhaps prone to exaggeration.

OK, let's clarify. Chancellor Brown chaired the 31st G8 summit. All the debt from eighteen heavily indebted countries was written off by the Blair government, though other G8 nations did not follow suit wholely or in part. More countries would have qualified for debt relief if they had met anticorruption targets.

Which 18 countries?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes, pretty much everything else he did was good.

- devolved power to the Assemblies
- saved the NHS
- doubled the education budget
- cut crime by 30%
- negotiated peace in NI
- cancelled all developing world debt
- scrapped Section 28 and delivered civil partnerships
- banned fox hunting
- all workers got 24 days leave
- lifted a million pensioners out of poverty
- stopped Sierra Leone civil war
- stopped Kosovo genocide
- cut unemployment from 3M to 1M

I’ll discuss with you whether he should face trial when you tell me exactly which law you think he broke. The Law Lords ruled that there is no crime in English law he can be charged with. While crimes of aggression now are on the international statute book, they do not operate retrospectively. So your argument is emotional not legal.

As for Churchill I have explained how millions of Bengalis were killed by a combination of natural disaster, hoarding of food in other parts of India and mass migration of Nepalese refugees fleeing the Japanese advance - but you are not interested in reasoned argument and keep repeating the same emotion-based accusation over and over again with your fingers in your ears.

If the US didn't intervene neither would have Blair. This coward wont help anyone, he only played his poodle role.

What he did means nothing to me when he made up lies to bomb innocent women and children.

There were no laws under Nazi rule which would mean Nazis should stand trial for war crimes. This is dumb argument posed in order to save one of their own for the blood he shed. Geneva convention makes it clear why he should be on trial.

Its easy to make excuses for murder and bloodshed when it's not your family blown to pieces.

imo anyone who is a Blair apologist is no better than him. You are just a typical deluded Empire Brit, no different.

 

[Robert]

If the US didn't intervene neither would have Blair. This coward wont help anyone, he only played his poodle role.

What he did means nothing to me when he made up lies to bomb innocent women and children.

There were no laws under Nazi rule which would mean Nazis should stand trial for war crimes. This is dumb argument posed in order to save one of their own for the blood he shed. Geneva convention makes it clear why he should be on trial.

Its easy to make excuses for murder and bloodshed when it's not your family blown to pieces.

imo anyone who is a Blair apologist is no better than him. You are just a typical deluded Empire Brit, no different.

An inappropriate comparison, as the Nuremberg trials were as a result of the joint Declaration of 1943 by the Allied Powers against the crimes of Nazi Germany i.e. the Holocaust and surrounding mass extermination of Europeans and Russian civilians.

The judgements gave rise to the Geneva Convention of 1947 and Genocide Code of 1948.

Milosevic and Karadzic were convicted of genocide (which Blair helped stop, incidentally).

Blair didn’t breach the Geneva Conventions according to my reading though it could be argued that some British soldiers may have in alleged mistreatment of prisoners.

No excuses, just pointing out to you that there is no offence Blair can be charged with. An attempt was made and thrown out by the Law Lords.

You’re assuming justice is the same thing as law. It isn’t necessarily.

It’s very interesting how you reach for the insults when your arguments are countered.

 

[KingKhanWC]

An inappropriate comparison, as the Nuremberg trials were as a result of the joint Declaration of 1943 by the Allied Powers against the crimes of Nazi Germany i.e. the Holocaust and surrounding mass extermination of Europeans and Russian civilians.

The judgements gave rise to the Geneva Convention of 1947 and Genocide Code of 1948.

Milosevic and Karadzic were convicted of genocide (which Blair helped stop, incidentally).

Blair didn’t breach the Geneva Conventions according to my reading though it could be argued that some British soldiers may have in alleged mistreatment of prisoners.

No excuses, just pointing out to you that there is no offence Blair can be charged with. An attempt was made and thrown out by the Law Lords.

You’re assuming justice is the same thing as law. It isn’t necessarily.

It’s very interesting how you reach for the insults when your arguments are countered.

Im not here to educate you, your hero should stand trial for war crimes according to the Geneva conventions.

But lets put law aside. Simple question.

Is Tony BLiar guilty of mass bloodshed due to his role in the Iraq war of 2003? Yes or No will do.

 

[Robert]

Im not here to educate you, your hero should stand trial for war crimes according to the Geneva conventions.

But lets put law aside. Simple question.

Is Tony BLiar guilty of mass bloodshed due to his role in the Iraq war of 2003? Yes or No will do.

You haven’t read the Geneva Conventions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tony-blair-in-the-dock-fantasy-wars-aggression

 

[KingKhanWC]

You haven’t read the Geneva Conventions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tony-blair-in-the-dock-fantasy-wars-aggression

You've posted a link because neither you or I are qualified enough to debate these International laws. I can post others which suggest otherwise.

But you have ingored the pertinent question.

lets put law aside. Simple question.

Is Tony BLiar guilty of mass bloodshed due to his role in the Iraq war of 2003?

Yes or No, one word answer will do. Thanks

 

[barah_admi]

Good grief, a semi-respectful post.

I had quoted the Tony Blair web site which is perhaps prone to exaggeration.

OK, let's clarify. Chancellor Brown chaired the 31st G8 summit. All the debt from eighteen heavily indebted countries was written off by the Blair government, though other G8 nations did not follow suit wholely or in part. More countries would have qualified for debt relief if they had met anticorruption targets.

So you quoted Tony Blair's website itself...then you found my reply and decided to wikipedia some things...this is why I don't bother with you on such topics.

 

[Robert]

You've posted a link because neither you or I are qualified enough to debate these International laws. I can post others which suggest otherwise.

But you have ingored the pertinent question.

lets put law aside. Simple question.

Is Tony BLiar guilty of mass bloodshed due to his role in the Iraq war of 2003?

Yes or No, one word answer will do. Thanks

The person to whom the article refers is qualified.

One word isn’t enough. He shouldn’t have got us involved in Rumsfeld and Cheney’s adventure, it was a cataclysmic mistake with dreadful unforeseen consequences across the region and beyond. Saddam should have been left where he was and contained as per the Clinton Doctrine.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The person to whom the article refers is qualified.

One word isn’t enough. He shouldn’t have got us involved in Rumsfeld and Cheney’s adventure, it was a cataclysmic mistake with dreadful unforeseen consequences across the region and beyond. Saddam should have been left where he was and contained as per the Clinton Doctrine.

You dont have in you to say the obvious, he has the blood of many on his hands. No further questions needed. thanks.

 

[Salma_T]

Is it any different to any army in the world.....women have and will be used as spoils of war......colour/caste/religion doesn't apply they all do it

 

[Robert]

Is it any different to any army in the world.....women have and will be used as spoils of war......colour/caste/religion doesn't apply they all do it

Totalitarian states such as USSR and Imperial Japan turn a blind eye to it. Indeed the latter forced 100K Koreans to be “comfort women” for the troops i.e. sex slaves.

The armies of democracies have a higher regard for human rights, and will try to prevent this happening and bring rapists to justice.

 

[Captain caveman]

Totalitarian states such as USSR and Imperial Japan turn a blind eye to it. Indeed the latter forced 100K Koreans to be “comfort women” for the troops i.e. sex slaves.

The armies of democracies have a higher regard for human rights, and will try to prevent this happening and bring rapists to justice.

Sure they will.
Its not encouraged of course, but it is covered up, when such things happen.

 

[Robert]

So you quoted Tony Blair's website itself...then you found my reply and decided to wikipedia some things...this is why I don't bother with you on such topics.

Come on big man, have a proper debate with me without the name-calling and misrepresentation of my words.

My opinion is that Blair did a lot of good things for the people of this country, and for people around the world too, scrubbing some developing world debt and increasing foreign aid to 0.7% GDP. Stopping a civil war in Northern Ireland and another in Sierra Leone. Helping stop a genocide in the Balkans. He was the best British PM of my lifetime for those reasons.

But all the good he did gets ignored because of the disaster he contributed to in Iraq. That's Manichean on/off one/zero thinking.

Name a PM after Attlee who raised health, education, wages, living standards and liberty for the people of Britain as much as Blair.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Come on big man, have a proper debate with me without the name-calling and misrepresentation of my words.

My opinion is that Blair did a lot of good things for the people of this country, and for people around the world too, scrubbing some developing world debt and increasing foreign aid to 0.7% GDP. Stopping a civil war in Northern Ireland and another in Sierra Leone. Helping stop a genocide in the Balkans. He was the best British PM of my lifetime for those reasons.

But all the good he did gets ignored because of the disaster he contributed to in Iraq. That's Manichean on/off one/zero thinking.

Name a PM after Attlee who raised health, education, wages, living standards and liberty for the people of Britain as much as Blair.

So because he improved the lives of British, the blood on his hands of the deaths and destruction of Iraq doesn't matter?

 

[Robert]

So because he improved the lives of British, the blood on his hands of the deaths and destruction of Iraq doesn't matter?

British and Sierra Leonians and Irish and Kosovo Muslims and a bunch of people in the Developing World nations whose debt was scrubbed and those who benefir from the big rise in foreign aid.

Of course it does! - everyone has good and bad in them. This is your one/zero thinking again. I'm thinking in analogue terms.

 

[dhump]

This is what happens in a war and this is why wars should be avoided at all costs.

 

[KingKhanWC]

British and Sierra Leonians and Irish and Kosovo Muslims and a bunch of people in the Developing World nations whose debt was scrubbed and those who benefir from the big rise in foreign aid.

Of course it does! - everyone has good and bad in them. This is your one/zero thinking again. I'm thinking in analogue terms.

You aint got a clue. The intervention in Kosovo was far too late and there were better options because this led to more deaths of Kosovans. Ireland issue was solved by the Yanks, without their blessing their poodle couldn't swing his tail. Lets not even discuss Africa due to Britains past.

Iraq war led to over a million dead. Blair lied in order to bomb innocent women and children.

Any apologist for the Iraq disgusts me. If it was their family bombed to bits, doubt would be so laid back about one of the biggest forms of terrorism in history.

 

[Robert]

You aint got a clue. The intervention in Kosovo was far too late and there were better options because this led to more deaths of Kosovans. Ireland issue was solved by the Yanks, without their blessing their poodle couldn't swing his tail. Lets not even discuss Africa due to Britains past.

Iraq war led to over a million dead. Blair lied in order to bomb innocent women and children.

Any apologist for the Iraq disgusts me. If it was their family bombed to bits, doubt would be so laid back about one of the biggest forms of terrorism in history.

The Kosovo intervention happened and a genocide of Muslims was halted.

NI was solved by the Yanks? Please learn about this. A Senator who was trusted by the IRA assured the British government that the IRA weapons had been placed beyond used - presumably dumped in the Irish Sea. He certainly did not set up power sharing at Stormont, allow Catholics to join the RUC, repeal Ireland’s constitutional claim on the Six Counties and release prisoners. That was Major, Blair and the Taoiseach.

So because of colonialism, you think writing off post-colonial third world debt is the wrong thing to do? Doing the right thing now is wrong due to the destructive actions of men who are long in their graves? That’s what you just told us.

My family narrowly avoided getting bombed to bits in WW2. If a bomb had landed fifty yards to the left, no Robert. My Uncle died fighting the Germans. I don’t hate them.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Nuremberg trials were a comedy show.

1. All of the accused were guilty before the trials started.

2. There was no precedent which meant no set of rules, thus all rules were made on the fly.

If the Nuremberg trials were held today, there'd be no empirical evidence brought forward, just circumstantial at best.

 

[Robert]

The Nuremberg trials were a comedy show.

1. All of the accused were guilty before the trials started.

2. There was no precedent which meant no set of rules, thus all rules were made on the fly.

If the Nuremberg trials were held today, there'd be no empirical evidence brought forward, just circumstantial at best.

The admission of the criminals themselves, the tonnes of paper records and the vast number of witness statements?

 

[Adil_94]

There certainly were rapes of German women by allied soldiers but to this scale it seems like a big overstatement. Given how Germans and allies soldiers generally treated each others POWs. The most visceral rape and violence was on the Eastern Front between the Nazis and The Soviets. When the Soviets conquered Berlin they literally raped their way through millions of German women.