Hitchens and Hanson - Did the Allies Commit War Crimes in WWII?

Complete video at: fora.tv/2008/07/09/Uncommon_Kn...
Political commentators Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson dismiss allegations that Allied actions in World War II were comparable to war crimes committed by Axis forces.
-----
Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens take on the World War II revisionists, focusing first on Patrick J. Buchanan, the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.
They counter the essential claims in Buchanan s book that Britain s guarantee to protect Poland in the event of a German invasion made the war inevitable; that the Holocaust was a consequence of the war and that, without it, the Holocaust may not have occurred; and that Germany invaded Russia only because Britain under Churchill was determined to partner with Russia against Germany.
Finally they address two claims made by author Niall Ferguson that "[the Allies] adopted the most brutal tactics of those they were fighting" and that the principal beneficiary of the Second World War was Stalin's Soviet Union - Hoover Institution
Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. Now living in Washington, D.C., he has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Nation and Slate; additionally, he is an occasional contributor to many other publications. He is the author of several books, including The Trial of Henry Kissinger and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor emeritus at California University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He was a full-time farmer before joining CSU Fresno, in 1984 to initiate a classics program. In 1991, he was awarded an American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award, which is given yearly to the country's top undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin.
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, Uncommon Knowledge. Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MB.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

At 2:34 mins. Allied atrocities were "incidental"? Does he actually call the Area Bombing Directives to de-house (a.k.a. Killing women and kids) Germans, incidental? It was OFFICIAL policy, endorsed at the highest level. Killing women and kids was NOT collateral. The bombers were sent out night after night with only one goal - to kill more civilians than the week before. Soldiers were given an ORDER to do so.... "You didn't have special groups of British soldiers slaughtering?" Yeah, right....

[@tiaandeswardt7741]

Yup. They tried to break German civilian morale after it was proven that this was nigh impossible and cannot bring an end to the war in itself. Harris(Bomber Command CO) was a sadist. When he heard of the German surrender he was sad because there was still cities he had to bomb

[@tiaandeswardt7741]

magomezga Go Google the Russian gulags. There was a systematic extermination of German POW's as well.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

magomezga Google the "Area Bombing Directive". It was a guideline which gave RAF officers the "right" to order their subordinates to directly aim for (and kill) "enemy" women and kids. The directive used euphemisms like "de-housing" and "enemy workforce" in order to soften the impact on those men who were given the order to kill women and kids. Furthermore it was official POLICY to kill enemy civilians, and NOT aim for factories and yards. The men sent out to kill enemy women and kids knew exactly what they had been sent out to do. Watch a Canadian Doc called "Death by Moonlight". It tells of those brave men whose loyalty had been misused by the policy makers, and who became drug addicts and alcoholics after the war, because they realized what they have done. Oh, and BTW, there are a few brave soldiers who appear on this doc, who you can now call "Nazi sympathizer".....

[@ickysdad]

+Ralph Bernhard Yes it was "incidental" to the conduct of the war...The technology of the time didn't allow for precise bombing that would have made possible to bomb without collateral damage. Cities are fair game if they produce war material, have garrisons,havedefenses or war material passes through them. Furthermore i don't recall any Luftwaffe officers or anybody in the German High Command being prosecuted for their bombings of Rotterdam, Warsaw or Guernica of bombings by Zeppeliens in WW1.

[@tiaandeswardt7741]

Brian Gray The fire bombings of Dresden and Cologne? What important military targets were there in that cities? The area-bombing campaign was a campaign launched to destroy the German civilian morale. How did they do this? By destroying their homes and killing the people they love. As I mentioned before, Bomber Harris was sad when the war ended because there still remained German cities that weren't bombed. Did I mention that he had a list of all the major German cities that he should bomb? Are you telling me that ALL of them had military importance?

[@zakapholiac9377]

Allies did tons of war crimes, POWs were tortured and killed. Women and children were raped and various other things in the war. Soviet Union did loads too. The enemies did war crimes. War crimes were everywhere, this is what happens when a war gets out of hand and hatred starts to fuel these soldiers, and various tactical war crimes were used to get an advantage and if not used they were at a disadvantage against an enemy willing to commit those crimes

[@MrChickennugget360]

the difference was that the Germans specifically ordered and implemented as a matter of government policy mass murder of civilians.

[@toddstevens1323]

Germany and Japan would have recovered even without Marshall Plan. They were simply high quality populations.

[@michaelfern4079]

Matthew Hanlon truth brother.

[@rogerthornhill1491]

That was not really the point of the comment though was it? The point was if the tables were turned, the Nazis and Japanese would not have had a similar plan of goodwill towards the conquered. Also, I don’t think you can argue that the Marshall plan, anyway you want to measure it, hastened the recovery in the locations where it was deployed.

[@robertduluth8994]

They why was japan so behind before commodore Mathew Perry ?

[@lopendepaddo]

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[@studiobencivengamarcusbenc5272]

Exactly Nietzsche the paid atheist knew - so did Marx both paid pay special interest parties for certain "essays" - philosophers that die mad babbling about the giants in a neo Greek utopia 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@masvidalyautja9794]

@@studiobencivengamarcusbenc5272 your Jesus is a madman and he died cruelly painfully and indignantly

[@nad1ax2]

@@masvidalyautja9794 Jesus was never crucified

[@masvidalyautja9794]

@@nad1ax2 you atheist?

[@LaughingMan44]

@@masvidalyautja9794 cringe

[@rezabigdeli6]

Well I sort of remember two nuclear bombs on civilian cities, vaporizing the whole population in the matter of milliseconds...

[@rezabigdeli6]

@SOURABH DHANUKA Don't forget the fire bombing and carpet bombing of the German cities.. but just don't talk about it

[@butchyshoe]

@@rezabigdeli6 I think your forgetting the buzz bombs that hitler used on British civilians !!!!!! indiscriminately !!!!

[@rezabigdeli6]

@@butchyshoe no my good sir, I didn't

[@rhysnichols8608]

@@butchyshoe After Churchill had indiscriminately bombed Berlin 8 times first

[@pele68ish]

And?

[@maryrose4712]

41/2 million Bengalis starved to death as a direct result of Churchill's orders, who diverted rice to Britain, which was then kept in storage. No mention of that in this discussion.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

maryrose. The fiction that Churchill caused the famine. The truth-documented by Sir Martin Gilbert and Hillsdale College-is that Churchill did everything he could in the midst of world war to save the Bengalis; and that without him the famine would have been worse.

[@hmmer3471]

That is because countries like India, african nations are 3rd class nation.

[@homeofthemad3044]

Actually Churchill did try to relieve the famine in Bengal. I don't think he would have sent rice from Bengal to England under any circumstances, because it would probably rot.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@Retro Mammoth Strange how Churchill never stole anything, bought and paid for, if it was in short supply why did your own people sell it? Churchill did try to help out as soon as he found out about it. Ghandi was a traitor to his own people who were fighting against the Nazi and the Japanese. What did your wonderful Ghandi do about the crop failures and the famine?

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@Retro Mammoth Maybe just the way you try to blame Britain yet do not accept the famine was not caused by Britain. My take on it is from real research not just taking some odd claims at face value. In mid-October 1942 a devastating cyclone ripped through the coastal regions of east Bengal (today lower Bangladesh), killing thousands and decimating the autumn rice crop up to forty miles inland. Rice that should have been planted that winter was instead consumed. When hot weather arrived in May 1943, the rice crop was a fraction of normal for Bengal’s peasantry, who had spent centuries living on the edge of starvation. Turning bad news into disaster were the Japanese, who had just overrun Burma, the main source of India’s rice imports. Within a month, the entire southeastern portion of the subcontinent faced starvation. The governments in New Delhi and Bengal were unprepared, and as the heat intensified, people began to die. It was the greatest humanitarian crisis the British Raj had faced in more than half a century. During that crucial summer, the Anglo-Americans had just prevailed in the Atlantic U-boat war. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt then knew how decisive was their success. Germany had suffered a crucial setback at Kursk; Japan at Guadalcanal. Yet both remained deadly opponents. Japan was still poised on the border of India, where a massive uprising instigated by Gandhi against British rule had just been suppressed. Meanwhile, both America and Britain were bracing for their impending landings in Italy. Instead of blindly blaming Churchill why not accept that Ghandi was more to blame for the starvation, without the uprising at the time British attention would not have been so diverted away from other troubles like the famine.

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

2:36 Is this guy serious? The Soviets had rape gangs, they specifically had squads made up of mongols to "clean up" (i.e. rape) the places they took. The US and UK may not of had dedicated squads, but some of the generals certainly gave the "Have at it boys!" order. Not to mention something like the Bengal Famine, where there was no way Churchill _didn't_ know what the outcome of his order would be, only proving it intentional when he prevented the US (who had the resources) from providing aid.

[@spiritscar]

I would also recommend the book, “Gruesome Harvest” About the US role in post war Germany. This is a truly shameful and ugly chapter in that period and conflict that has been swept under the rug of history. Some people, though not most, are aware of the Soviet mass rapes of the German Nation. Well this is what the Americans were doing. And it’s just as horrific.

[@iffilayo]

The mark of an intelligent, fair person? Someone who can agree with a person they find ultimately objectionable. Both Hitchens and Hanson demonstrated this admirable characteristic. Too bad there aren't more humans behaving in this manner.

[@nyguy1488]

They were war crimes committed by the allies after the war. most people don't know about the Eisenhower camps just read the book other losses.

[@ickysdad]

nyguy bigguy I think you need to read upon it more...

[@jacksonlsd5008]

U.S. Troops in World WarII Raped and Prostituted the Comfort Women womensspace.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/us-troops-in-world-war-ii-raped-and-prostituted-the-comfort-women/

[@ickysdad]

+JacksonLSD500 I still say most on her need to read upon it more...One also needs to watch this video and understand individual actions versus national policies...

[@ickysdad]

+Brian Gray per the Eisenhower camps this has been discussed on several military history forums and it seems the Allies did try but were just over whelmed logistically but at least they did try...

[@fureuropa-gegennwo1259]

Brian Gray The Allied did try what, to murder innocents? They did not just try - they murdered 3 Million German civilians after the war was over. What is your motivation, to try to whitewash these crimes?

[@kaijessen3654]

The allies didn’t commit war crimes because they defined what war crimes are. If allies did an act then it was by their definition not a war crime. By giving themselves the moral high ground and the righteousness inherent in their decision making, the American led alliance caused one atrocity after another around the world from WWII till the present. The concentration camps and the Marshall Plan are where these three define the absolute moral superiority of the allies. When I was a child I could be persuaded easily by these men and their superficial arguments but now that I’m past the age of these guys I cringe at the glib superficial arguments that are repeated endlessly like a religious chant praising a benevolent and righteous elite and a blessed people. These old school thought leaders were hand picked to be educated in the right schools. From there they are elevated to positions of power that oversee a killing machinery that could wipe out the human species in a day. Beware of clowns like these three gasbags and their childlike beliefs of good versus evil. WWII was evil against slightly less evil and believing that there was a righteous victor is useless. It is as bizarre as believing in the divine right of kings or that Jesus will come to rule the earth and set everything right in our lifetimes. Let’s all grow up and start thinking for ourselves.

[@rosesprog1722]

What a just and conscious statement, I am very close but I think that believing that there was a righteous victor is extremely important in that it allows for lies to matter more than truth, for beliefs to matter more than knowledge, it allows murder to be justified, atrocity propaganda to be accepted as true, we aqre good, they are bad, we don't torture, they have WMDs, babies in incubators, manifest destiny, the axis of evil and get your vaccine. I honestly believe that our societies, particulary on the winning side began to degenerate as a result of all the lies, the justifications and the whitewashing that took over the facts of that war ruined the importance of the righteouness and the pride of being humans and that until the truth comes out and the righteous victor is dethroned, our future is justifiably uncertain, we are lied to constantly and from all sides, be it advertisement, politicians, teachers, social and cultural institutions, we all know about it and yet, we say nothing, we are looking more and more like a failed experiment, and that scares me.

[@kaijessen3654]

@@rosesprog1722 I like what you said. Living in this grey zone of intellectual ambiguity is difficult. People want to gravitate towards absolute ideals as answers to our troubled evolution. I get that because I wanted that at one point. There is no cure is the short answer. It’s freedom of speech unless you say too much, was a line from the Neville Brothers. To be or not to be. We can choose the righteousness of our terrible swift sword or elevate the right for every living thing to exist as a guiding principle in deciding the fate of humanity.

[@rosesprog1722]

@@kaijessen3654 Yes, lies can be very comfortable when they flatter one's greatness in the pages of the agreed narrative and they provide all the necessary justifications to avoid having to do the tedious and painful research truth seekers put themselves through for nothing but a few insignificant so called discoveries that have absolutely no impact on the version created for us by the lovely team of horribly biased British historians and their fellow partners at the "Ministry of Information". Churchill said he didn't fear history because he intended to write it himself, such noble intentions are rare nowadays, I go with him!!! ; )

[@VVeltanschauung187]

This is true. They did a lot of legislative language games such as designating german civillians as 'disarmed enemy soldiers' so they could be more laxed with their treatment towards them and don't have to worry about the cost of destruction they've wrecked upon cities such as Dresden

[@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK]

Couldn't have said it better myself, a comment like yours is a breath of fresh air. I'm the only 1 in my friend group that has the opinions I do, the rest like to see themselves as righteouss & the good guys in any combat our country goes to. It maybe helped me realise the hypocrisy when as an 11 year old I was moved from the west to Turkey for a few years & I realised the good vs bad argument I was fed in school here was a little weak.

[@chokin78]

Both Hitchens and Hanson are so well versed and articulate. Such a pleasure to my ears...

[@AreopagiticanEco-Nationalist]

So we should ignore the Allied war crimes because the end justifies the means. Sickening.

[@MsTommyknocker]

Yes

[@slinkoplush3323]

You've not understood what they've said in the video.

[@AreopagiticanEco-Nationalist]

SlinKO PluSh Explain.

[@slinkoplush3323]

Areopagitican Cool. Hello. In the words of the bloke here, 'violence' was 'incidental', not 'causal', in the case of Germany, and Japan to a lesser extent. I think Russia is a whole different ball game who changed allegiances depending where there interests lied over the course of the war. The 'Allies' (term used loosely) did what they had to do to win the war, whereas the Axis powers had an ethos underpinning it. Secondly, the succinct point referred to is that it was weighed up that it would kill less in the long run through a nuke bombing than a ground invasion of Japan, which would have been horrific for both sides on reflection of the death toll in the battle of Okinawa. That's how I read it. I think 'ends justify the means' is a more perfect summation of Hitler's philosophy.

[@LilleyAdam]

I agree. War should only happen in cases were the means are reasonable and appropriate. All previous wars have been won on those terms. Fuckwit.

[@Bucketheadhead]

The argument essentially seems to be, our war crimes were not as bad as their war crimes, so that makes it okay. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't hold up. Just because they are worse, doesn't mean that you aren't bad.

[@jodawgsup]

Clearly they admit that there were atrocities committed on both sides, but that it is also unavoidable to completly cut out the war crimes entirely in such a war as it was. The best thing that could have been done, I reckon, is to prosecute the allies soldiers, generals, etc who committed crimes to be prosecuted just as hard as they did with the axis ones.

[@jodawgsup]

Bucketheadhead Exactly. And that is the problem.

[@bubiruski8067]

Bucketheadhead Unluckely very true. And it was not even the British, it was a few English. These few fooled the British and further more the US. The consequences were terrible for the next half century and still persist. After mass rape Putin may even consider a lot of russian blood in western Europe for which he should provide aid.

[@Bucketheadhead]

magomezga No we bombed southern civilian industrial areas in the south which had never voted Nazi. Was real great of us. "There was no prosecution against any colonial power so I don't get your point." That precisely is the point, one rule for us, one rule for them. It just doesn't hold up.

[@Bucketheadhead]

magomezga They is the enemy, whoever the enemy may be at the time. We are the US and its allies.

[@iancooper9278]

As a military history major, some of these points are rubbish. The Allied air campaign against Germany was based on the Air Power proponents of the 1930's who claimed that air power alone could crush and defeat an enemy. This included the destruction of the civilian population along with the industrial apparatus. Dresden is a prime example of targeting civilian targets. Yes, you can claim that the accuracy of the Allied bomb aiming equipment was so bad, that the areas to be hit were missed most times, however that the solution was to drop more bombs on any given target. It is interesting that at the Nuremberg Trials, the Luftwaffe generals, except for Goering, were not put on trial as the Allies used the same tactics as the Germans, and a good lawyer could easily crush any Allied prosecutor claiming the Luftwaffe committed war crimes.

[@daniell6813]

Does anyone have the full video?

[@Spearsonist]

2:17... so good, he gets two introductions.

[@chriswatson3464]

2:17

[@danieweir9588]

Victors write the history and repress the vanquished until their influence wains, eventually a more balanced "truth" is realised ... we are still held captive by post war propaganda. Have you heard about Reginas escapades in India? South Africa? The Brits didn't become great by being nice.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

The British did not become great by being as nasty as the Nazi`s. History is what it is, revisionists and pro Nazi`s try to change it.

[@sheLovesG]

Especially concerning Germany

[@PeterMayer]

Being German-American ( my whole family is from there), I do think that the bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs are questionable. But to if this person said that we are no better ( and I'm speaking during that time, not any later conflicts) is ridiculous. The panel is right. German and Japan would have not rebuild or would have been slow. And although some Allied soldiers might have executed prisoners which there is no excuse. However, nothing to magnitude of Japanese and Germans.

[@wynfoster6586]

To avoid any confusion to new comers - Christopher Hitchens is the guy with the blue jacket and hair, the caption at 2:17 is incorrect.

[@sorsocksfake]

The very notice that "Never Again" is now taken for granted, in light of Europe's history, speaks volumes.

[@ickysdad]

All I have to say about dropping the A-Bomb is that even after dropping both bombs and after learning of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria the Japanese Military still wasn't convinced to surrender ,it was only by Hirohito's will that the war ended and his mind was done made up after he heard of the Nagasaki bomb.

[@neilbohrs5990]

Lies. Japan was already seeking ways to surrender.

[@Sobieskicharge]

Absolute horseshit. Japan wad ready to bend over backwards. Stop excusing these war criminals who send innocent kids to die in totally avoidable wars.

[@insight827]

This is pure revisionism of a shoddy and transparent kind. The allies knew prior to the dropping of the bombs exactly the ways they could elicit a surrender from japan, but they would probably have had to involve a soviet invasion. They didn't want to afford stalin and the USSR a seat at the negotiation table after the war, and thus they concluded that they should deploy the atomic bomb to preclude that possibility. If they wanted Japan to surrender, they could have just waited. In fact, the Atomic Bombs did nothing to encourage japanese surrender as they did not hit military targets. The Japanese war council was determined to continue no matter what, in the typical suicidally-disciplined Japanese way. The bombs were far away from hirohito and the council and they didn't care to respond to them.

[@davidmartin6804]

You screwed up Hanson's identification at 02:17

[@shaheer151]

Complete video is NOT available at the link posted above. ... fora.tv/2008/07/09/Uncommon_Knowledge_Hitchens_and_Hanson

[@damnedcarrot]

Churchill was the first to commit war crimes in ww2 and opened the door for retaliatory war crimes.

[@marthastakye5769]

...and Bucharest,,,

[@badger5079]

@krackersdave Is a war of defence against foreign aggressors illegal in your view?

[@arash8761]

What sort of argument is it to say "War crimes are justified because of actions taken AFTER the war crimes"?

[@prac2]

@ickysdad In your opinion, do you think it will?

[@woofielove1970]

04:17 I'm amazed and shattered at the same time. Hitchens enlightens me after death, again.

[@chriswatson3464]

04:17

[@reasonablyserious]

It's very naive to believe any party in ww2 was virtuous. Especially if they consorted with Stalin, didn't care about the way he continued to run the soviet union, killing innocent people, but never stop talking about the moral dimension of defeating the nazis. Of course Hitler had to be stopped, but the second world war was not a great humanitarian cause. Greetings to the past, by the way.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@reasonablyserious An example of the ,,virtuousness'' of the Western Allies is the plan of a sudden and massive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union in 1949 by the United States (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot). That plan was made when the Soviet Union did not have a nuclear weapons yet and was not a threat, i.e. the Soviet Union that had undergone the biggest losses in the World war and so did not want any new war, would have been attacked by the United States when it was not a threat. In other words, one of the pillars of democracy, freedom and human rights, would attack a country that at that point was neither a threat or had issued an ultimatum to the States, and the States would murder millions of civilians. Liberal democracy at its finest. The only reasons why the plan was abandoned, were the succssesful development of a nuclear bomb by the Soviet Union in 1949 and the lack of strategic bombers to accomplish the mission.

[@antondelacruz9362]

@@reasonablyserious rather than say x or y person or nation was virtuous, it is more apt to say whether x or y action was virtuous. If something is justifiable under our values, we call it virtuous. In this clip they justified the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. But to look at other evidence of virtue... America had no need to fight in europe, nor, as hanson said, did the allies have any reason to help the germans and japanese recover following the war. Post war, America also gave up its former imperial ambitions in asia. They liberated the philippines and granted independence, leaving some military bases and some biased economic policies. Germany was considered the height of culture and civilization before the world wars, yet after the wars spent the latter half of the 20th century feeling guilty, reducing its military capabilities, banning the swastika, and disallowing excessive violence in media that would be perfectly acceptable elsewhere. When chancellor merkel does stuff like take in a million refugees, she isnt just a nice old lady, theres a historical context. Even they know they were in the wrong back then. The only people who think they werent unvirtuous or immoral is the japanese, and that only because they have such a (proven) biased education system that many educated japanese ive spoken to dont even know about japans imperial ambitions, or that theyre somehow victims of a vastly more powerful enemy, even though it was they who started fhe fight with america. Every military in the world commits arrocities, but the allies didnt start a war to expand their borders, didnt send hundreds of thousands of pows on death marches, didnt build gas chambers to eliminate millions of a specific group of people (neven though many of the allies didnt like Jews either). On a personal level, the usa colonized my people, altered our history, pulverized my city and heritage while 'liberating' it, and subjugated our economy to theirs so badly that its after effects still affect us to this day, but that is absolutely nothing compared to what the japanese did or were trying to do. Major victories in politics and diplomacy have involved getting the usa to admit to interfering in our politics, to remove their military bases, and to return church bells pillaged after a massacre. Japan to this day will not admit to war crimes such as making women sex slaves or bayonetting infants for fun. Even the germans were shicked at how brutal the japanese were. Maybe youre right and neither side was virtuous, but clearly one side was less virtuous and did provably less virtuous things.

[@EzraB123]

​@Anton De la Cruz I think you summed it up perfectly. Well done. I was in the U.S Military and spent a lot of time in Japan. The legacy of the empire is still very much alive in the people, at least that's the sense I got.

[@bobby99qq]

"Modern-Day Comfort Women : The U.S. Military Transnational Crime, and the Trafficking of Women" The trafficking of women has been a lucrative moneymaker for transnational organized crime networks, ranking third, behind drugs and arms, in criminal earnings. The U.S. military bases in South Korea were found to form a hub for the transnational trafficking of women from the Asia Pacific and Eurasia to South Korea and the United States.

[@bobby99qq]

genderandsecurity.org/projects-resources/research/modern-day-comfort-women-us-military-transnational-crime-and-trafficking

[@Berzerk-cr2cy]

Both of they’re arguments are awful. Because one war crime isn’t as bad as another doesn’t make it less of a war crime.

[@vladekm]

@ivanlagrossemoule You surely are not referring to the Gliwitz incident are you?

[@ickysdad]

Instead of "Allied Bashing" why don't we ask the residents of occupied Europe who they thought the real war criminals were? I mean the Dutch,French,Belgians and others all suffered dead because of Allied bombings BUT they certainly didn't look at at Allies as war criminals...

[@reviewreviewer1]

As a man from the Netherlands who has family who lived through the war I will call what the Allies did war crimes.

[@reviewreviewer1]

How was the bombing of Dresden necessary?

[@silvernerian3093]

So I other words, if we didn't do it, they would have. What a great moral stance!

[@midnighttrucker19]

Yeah ask yourself what Europe and the west would look like today if Germany had won. Has the west done better since or has it steadily declined

[@ickysdad]

@jkim204 uh huh??? Any good sources???

[@monophthalmos9633]

Looting is a war crime too and nobody collected German war medals like the US soldiers. The term war crime however is ridiculous. There is no nice way to win a war.

[@WorksopGimp]

I think collecting things from the dead or captured enemy would be classed as a war trophy and not looting

[@monophthalmos9633]

WorksopGimp I don't want to be rude, but international law is slightly more important than what you think.

[@WorksopGimp]

Gerhard Thiel Just had a look and its seems that it was officially prohibited by the military but nothing in Law, "reparations" was in the treaty of Versailles and authorized the removal of large amounts of property from Germany, war trophy's wrote into Law, War Prize is another term. Edit The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 explicitly prohibits the looting of civilian property during wartime, notice the word Civilian.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

At 1:54 mins. "...Germany nurtured back to prosperity..." I generally agree with Hitchens, but not on this point. The reconstruction of Germany (and Japan) was self serving. The Cold War had started, and NOT nurturing them back to prosperity (after destroying these countries) would have been counter productive. The void would been filled by the SU and communism. Any effort made to turn these countries into agrarian states would have backfired. To attribute the efforts made to rebuild these states entirely as "acts of benevolence" is a bit far fetched.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

magomezga I actually wrote "To attribute the efforts made to rebuild these states ENTIRELY as "acts of benevolence" is a bit far fetched.", which means that I don't exclude a small element of benevolence here.

[@johnpaulsamonte7591]

Yes. But i think they really didn't invade germany. Now imagine if the nazis won. What do you think would the european map look like?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

John Paul Samonte Much worse. What is your point? I'm not speculating about "what Nazis would have done", but rather analyzing what really happened, and the reasons it happened. Hitchens argument is based on "what if" speculation, rather than an objective analysis of facts.

[@LunaYNeko]

John Paul Samonte Moreover, how the Allies treated the Axis post-war shouldn't, in the eyes of the law, justify atrocities committed during the way. It's not as if killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was justified by the reconstruction of the country afterwards. This would be akin to breaking someone's arm with a gold bar and then offering it to them, and saying no harm was done.

[@percivalconcord9209]

magomezga How so? They were almost just as bad as everyone else

[@scottwalker2980]

i am sure all of those innocent german and japanese civilians would love this nice round table talk about how they were killed.....shameful

[@ickysdad]

@badger5079 Did Coventry and London have war industries?

[@Smudgeroon74]

The RAF started bombing Germany first the day after Churchill became prime minister(chief executive of United Kingdom). This is important. Germany were not threatening Britain at all. Yes, there was Operation Sea Lion but that was just a bluff. Hitler never even looked at the plans. The real target for Germany and her 5 allies(+47,000 Spanish soldiers + 2 divisions of Belgian troops) was always the Soviet Union and to destroy the threat of Bolshevism once and for all...

[@murphy2870]

Why did Germany have a non-aggression pact with Russia then?

[@Smudgeroon74]

@@murphy2870 Germany was becoming more and more politically isolated by 1939. Signing the agreement with the Reds was a political strategy. It worked up until the Soviets decided to invade eastern Poland just because Germany invaded from the west. But the Reds crossed into Poland for completely different reasons than why the National Socialists went in. Poland posed no threat to the east, certainly not to a country the size of the Soviet Union...

[@tralfmusic]

Did you forget Germany invaded Poland almost a year before?

[@garywenzlaff6918]

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Smudgeroon74]

@@tralfmusic tell me more about this please, I was not aware.

[@hoasjhdfiadsf]

it's great to watch hitchens in discussion with other intellectuals

[@antondelacruz9362]

5.17. Peter robinson's lean-in to get confirmation of hitchens' assent on limbaugh is magnificent. I love the evolution of their relationship on this show.

[@MaskedMarvyl]

Hanson's argument is fatuous. The firebombing of Dresden (in which citizens specifically were targeted, and tens of thousands burned alive by incendiary bombs), accomplished absolutely nothing, and prompted Churchill to suggest curtailing further such civilian massacres when he heard the horrific account of it. The Allies lost a lot of moral high ground (or any moral ground) by committing a deliberate war crime against civilians in Dresden.

[@theoryofthemobius]

Oh yes they did, Hanson. You're dead wrong.

[@paulhaywood9081]

Correct the biccaria massacre of sisily In ww2

[@chel3SEY]

What kind of "debate" is this? Both guests agree with the host!

[@TricotTV]

Where is the claim that this is a debate?

[@AinsleyHarriott1]

Why did you do this? For a TV

[@jasonivancontreras9340]

The allies were way to generous to germany, they should've dismantled that government established a Bavarian state, alemmanian state, Rhenish republic, Schleswig Holstein to Denmark, north west to the Netherlands, northeast to Sweden. That would leave out germany from trying to dominate europe atleast. The thing is france would've had to have gone through a similar partition. The EU must be destroyed

[@Ivan-yo4hy]

Dont forget, your internet cable is coming from europe, your almost whole population came from europe, half of your scientists came from europe. Even your recent ancestors came from europe. Most of your economy depends on europe. U are actually new cocky kids on the block regarding whole planet. And with that type of thought, u must be American, i am 99% sure. Bunch of imigrants....

[@ttrestle]

Always refreshing to hear Hitchens on literally any topic

[@crowneproductions9908]

Damn. I always have loved Hitch but in recent years (as I’ve grown older myself, 30 with kids now) I find Hanson much more level headed and pragmatic in his analysis of these issues and many others. That’s not to say that Hitch is not absolutely cutting through the bullshit and magnificent but there is something much more sober and just as cutting to the truth about Hanson’s analysis.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

I can't say the same. Hanson has deteriorated in the quality of his presentation- he's going full-on conservative and seems to play fast and loose with facts.

[@SK-jp3hq]

Hitches a fucking Marxist jrw Like the rest of em...

[@ickysdad]

@prac2 just what war are you talking about?

[@history70]

You are missing an important point. You correctly state that any army will have "some sick individuals", and there is no doubt the war crimes were committed by individual American/Britss in the war. The big difference is that in some armies, the sickness was either ordered or widely condoned by the commanding officers...and there can be no doubt that this was true of some large German, Russian, and Japanese formations. But the U.S. and UK did NOT engage in large scale war crimes.

[@jonmiles5836]

War never changes

[@ChetSwann]

Hog wash....

[@ImmanuelKunt1993]

you've got your name tags a bit muddled up

[@avus-kw2f213]

If you let your warcrimes slip they multiply , and if you ignore them they multiply , and if you don’t take necessary action against your own nation in regard to those warcrimes they multiply

[@KingOhmni]

Dresden. 'Nuff said.

[@wotan237]

Allied war crimes far outweigh any done by the Axis. Over 5 million ethnic German civilians 'disappeared' after the war, the expulsions in the east, they died. Eisenhower murdered over a million surrendered German soldiers inside open air concentration camps....Last year of the war Allied bombing killed over a million German women, children, old men, mostly in non military value targets...Churchill engineered a drought situation in Bengal that killed over 5 million Indians.....then there is the firebombing over civilian Japan and then the Hiroshima bomb- when Japan was negotiating peace.

[@connordrew2634]

wotan237 You've gone off the deep end man "Allied war crimes far outweighed any done by the Axis" Hahaha you've just made my night

[@barrierodliffe4155]

YHWH. Germany abided by the Geneva convention? Is setting up death camps not a war crime? Is bombing of cities with no military not a war crime? Is the murder of Prisoners not a war crime? Compared to these German war crimes the allies did none. A lot of ignorant people and pro Nazi`s try to excuse the Nazi`s and blame the allies for it all.

[@rextillerson2899]

Pro-nazi revisionist history. Total bullshit. Germans and Japanese murdered millions of nonviolent civilians and far outweigh what the allies did. The only ally that was excessively brutal was the communist Soviet Union.

[@garywenzlaff6918]

Thank you very much

[@2CSST2]

2:19 I think they put the wrong name on the bottom screen!

[@nationalist464]

Allies were more cruel then Germans

[@slinkoplush3323]

A lot of the comments here lead me to think that people don't know the definition of a 'war crime'. I'd advise everyone to look it up before commenting: 'A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war'. Nukes weren't a war crime. Killing people who surrender, or using biological weapons was.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

So, an officer giving a soldier an order to shoot a baby through the head, while these soldiers (officer and subordinate) are being covered against legal action by a higher command, is not a war crime?

[@slinkoplush3323]

Yes, that's a war crime.

[@Donbd83]

So shooting an innocent in the head is a war crime, but dropping bombs killing millions of civilians and innocents isn't? Where the fuck is the logic and reason in that?

[@barrierodliffe4155]

When did bombing kill millions? German bombing killed hundreds of thousands as did allied bombing Bombing was supposed to be of military targets but the Nazi`s were rather fond of bombing civilians where there was no military, they also shot innocent people and Murdered millions.

[@ickysdad]

Man some of the ignorance I'm seeing on here!!! The difference is in both scale and policy.... The Allies didn't make it policy to round up people and sending them to death camps & such. Individual actions most certainly but not policy.But why does this ignorance surprise me it's youtube afterall !!!!!!

[@sammya7745]

+Brian Gray what about japanese americans?

[@ickysdad]

+Sammy A Were they sent to death camps? I agree they were done wrong and as a matter of policy but to compare them to the what was done to Jews & Gypsies by the Nazis or what the Japanese did to Americans & Europeans interned in Asia is a bit disingenorous..

[@sammya7745]

so nagasaki also wasn't crime against humanity/war crime??

[@ickysdad]

+Sammy A Just how was it a war crime? Man I tell you ther ignorant revisionism that's coming forward these days. The Japanese did all sorts of crap against people in areas occupied by them but all revisionists can point to is the US dropping two A-Bombs in order to get them to surrender.Please read "Downfall" by Richard Franks..

[@sammya7745]

war was practically over and japanese would have surrendered already if emperor had given quarantees of not been procecuted. amaricans worried about russians beating them invading main islands.nagasaki wasn't bombed at all during the war,it was saved for testing only. mass murder of civilian in hiroshima was borderline, nagasaki was purely testing opportunity for the new weapon and not necessary at all. read official history and see that winners write the history. untold american history by oliver stone is very interesting.

[@ickysdad]

@inpersonaDK Even if what you say is true a few points and I will double check what you say...Did it have AA guns? Did supplies get transported through it? Were any troops stationed there?

[@nobodynowhere7163]

Hitchens and Hanson. This cannot get any better!

[@LoveBandit1000]

All that was said in this video I agree with but what wasn't mentioned was: Germany and Japan were the aggressors and Britain and the USA were the responders. In my view, that automatically makes the Allies' actions FAR more excusable no matter how barbaric and equivalent to the Axis' actions they seem on the surface. As an analogy, in a fistfight with two willing participants, it is not gentlemanly or moral to kick somebody in the nuts or scratch their eyeballs out. But if you are walking through a dark alley and are surprised by an aggressor-robber who puts a wire around your neck with the intent to strangle you to death, would anyone begrudge the guy getting strangled the moral right to kick his assailant in the nuts or scratch his eyes out in order to save and extricate himself from the deadly peril he finds himself in? OF COURSE one wouldn't so alot of what is "moral" in a battle depends on the roles that the two (or more) parties have assumed...

[@ElectricQualia]

That's not exactly true either. Read what Winston Churchil said about Germany and Hitler. "We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast) "Germany becomes to powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US-General Robert E. Wood) "Germanys unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance could not profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." - Winston Churchill, The second World War (Bern, 1960)

[@williamatchison5230]

do you really think...that as smart as a man (albeit evil) that Hitler was...that he would have fought a war on two fronts against two equally as powerful factions willfully? The idea of who threw stones first is a pretty arbitrary means to base a judgement of moral responsibility on. besides...your analogy is off. its much more akin to somebody trying to strangle you in an alley...you kicking them in the nuts....and then finding their innocent family members and beating the shit out of all of them. lol. the crime remains the same regardless.

[@garywenzlaff6918]

But the Jew was of course the instigator !!!!!!!

[@DeusExMachina10001]

Some of these comments are incredibly silly, and it seems like a lot of people don't understand what a war crime is, especially in the context of a total war like WWII. War, especially against an enemy with the capability to defeat you, cannot be handled with kid gloves. People are going to die, shit is going to happen, and individuals are almost certainly going to commit criminal acts on any side. People dying during a war is tragic, but it's not the same as a war crime. The question is whether or not it was/is general policy for a particular group to commit intentional violations of international law regarding war crimes, and in the case of the Allies (excluding the Soviets), the answer is basically no. In fact, they often went more out of their way to not do so than they probably should have given the circumstances, like dropping leaflets in industrial cities that were to be bombed.

[@motelghost477]

+DeusExMachina10001 Were the Nazis more wicked and evil than the Allies, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that 'our' side was evil and wicked too. As Jesus Christ pointed out, only God is good.

[@DeusExMachina10001]

Hunger Cult Films Ltd That's the kind of revisionist, apologist garbage that both Hitchens and Hanson refute here so well. Most often, sides in war are just varying shades of fairly dark grey but in WWII, overall the Allies (excluding the Soviets of course) were basically off-white and the Axis was just a few shades from pitch black. I'm not sure there has ever been another war in history where establishing which side was righteous and which was not has ever been so cut and dry. The Axis powers waged a war of aggressive territorial expansionism in which they intentionally committed mass rapes, mass murders, ethnic purges, the systematic, state-sponsored, industrial-scale murder of entire peoples, and flipping cannibalism (the Japanese), all because of a pseudo-scientific ideology that they somehow deserved life while others did not. The entire point of the war on the part of the Allies was to STOP all of this, and (again, with the exception of the Soviets), they went out of their way to be honorable about it even in the face of overwhelmingly brutal tactics on the part of the the Germans and, especially, the Japanese.

[@spud1243521]

+DeusExMachina10001 said the victor

[@DeusExMachina10001]

Christopher Chapman And fortunately so, especially if you were/are identifiably black, Jewish, any sort of Slav, Polish, Serbian, Romani, Soviet, any sort of communist or political leftist, disabled, mentally ill, homosexual, a Freemason, a Jehovah's Witness, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Indonesian, or Malaysian. The Axis wanted all of these groups of people to be as dead as they could achieve. Guess how many categorizable groups of people the Allies wanted to exterminate, or did exterminate? Zero.

[@juliancheah1506]

Some of the things you say are sad to hear and not based on fact. Firstly, you make it sound as if wars cannot be won without targeting its civilian population, which is not true. The Germans achieved victory in France without terror bombing, and they were almost victorious in Russia without terror bombing. Secondly, it is a hard fact that the targeting of German civilians by the USAF and the RAF was intentional. Arthur Harris made it clear in a film that was broadcast to Britain. Thirdly, I have never heard of leaflets being dropped to warn German cities of an impending bombardment. Why would the USAF and the RAF do that if the intention is to kill as many German civilians as possible?

[@ickysdad]

@badger5079 I don't think it's a matter of caring bombs versus evil bombs but a case of one side not giving the other side any other choice.

[@motelghost477]

We pat ourselves on the back for being lesser devils than our enemies. Aren't we terribly civilized in OUR butchery of children? Jesus must be so proud of us.

[@jolorulz]

Much as I love Christopher, he wasn't perfect. I totally agree with your assessment. It's time for everyone to give history another look and not be so caught up with a people's mythical view of themselves as saviors of the world.

[@sb848]

Everything they said is fairly accurate.

[@sorsocksfake]

The wars weren't futile. WW1 taught the atrocity of war. WW2 taught the necessity of rebuilding the vanquished. In the Pacific, WW2 also was a "harsh" lesson that the other races are as capable as our own. Some of the most important lessons are paid in blood.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@LeninBurg - At some things they are. just as at some things other people are better. One thing that some people are best at is wanting what others have worked hard for.

[@dscottcarter2484]

We would be better off speaking German now

[@yerk3]

@ArturAxmann Don't make me do your homework for you. Can you specify one incident where the cross has been censored so as not to offend "the invaders?" "Google it" isn't an answer.

[@craighicksartwork]

Very interesting points here. A lot of deaths at the hands of both sides. The atomic bombs were the greatest and most unnecessary war crime of them all.

[@marcomeme4875]

But you do know that more civilian japanese died in the fire bombings of Tokyo? And that there were few other ways to end the war without killing millions. I'm not sure how they reasoned forth the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they did, and in the aftermath, we have to be grateful that american soldiers didnt have to slaughter every man, woman and child in the nation before they surrendered ( which could very well have been the scenario ).

[@craighicksartwork]

Yes, I've studied it at great length. The notion of how the dropping of the bombs was the only option to end the war is one of the greatest myths of the second world war. The Japanese would have surrendered - and were in the process of surrendering - no question. The dropping of the bombs was a political exercise and a warning which would shape the next century.

[@marcomeme4875]

Craig Hicks Really? Can you provide me any evidence at all that the japanese regime were willing to give up?

[@craighicksartwork]

Yup, definitely! A really good place to start for an overall view of the entire war and how the bomb influenced decision making policy is Oliver Stone's recent 'The Untold History of the United States.' A very well put together and fact checked documentary which has been accepted by pretty much every historian on the subject. I will post a link too from some of the other material I have.

[@marcomeme4875]

Craig Hicks For several reasons, I view every attempt by historians and mediapersonalities to praise Japan in WW2 with a lot of scepticism.

[@unclegubsy8509]

The dropping of the atomic bombs was an act of severe over retaliation that not only caused the mass genocide but provided humanity with the means to eradicate its self from existence. Humanity slowly started to slip away the bombs went off. If only a peaceful end to the war with Japan was made (which it could have been) then the human race could be that bit safer.

[@brian177]

On what evidence do you base your claim -- "a peaceful end to the war with Japan ... could have been [made]"?

[@unclegubsy8509]

What I meant by that was that there wasn't much trying to bring a peaceful end to the war. There isn't any evidence because no attempts were made unless I am mistaken.

[@unclegubsy8509]

So you're saying that the atomic bombs were dropped for the purpose of scaring Stalin into his place?

[@slinkoplush3323]

Daniel Fry There was no way in hell that Japan would have reached a ceasefire with the allies. They made this perfectly clear. I don't know why you felt compelled to make your original comment when you weren't knowledgable on the subject.

[@slinkoplush3323]

***** Just plain wrong, Jay. I've studied this at degree level. Not much else i can say. Of note is that you seem preoccupied in slagging off the US - do you have a beef with them?

[@johnrobinson4445]

We are better, we just aren't perfect.

[@redprospect51]

2:17 that is not Christopher Hitchens

[@skierdude95]

The term "war crime" is an oxymoron. War brings out bad in everyone, just some more than others.

[@jektonoporkins5025]

Tommy boy Agreed. If a nation's survival is threatened, the nation will do anything and everything it can to ensure its survival. Many people say that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was a "war crime." What's a bigger war crime? Killing millions of Americans and Japanese in an invasion of Japan or killing 200,000 Japanese in the atomic bombings? When it comes to war, you do what you have to do to win, and it's never pretty.

[@Qotsage420]

+Tommy boy So we should never have bothered developing international norms and laws regarding the use of force, proportionality, mass killing of civilians? Its all just a big waste of time?

[@jektonoporkins5025]

Chris Molaei Sure, for small-scale conflicts. But in a conflict like WWII, those go out the window.

[@Qotsage420]

+Jek Tono Porkins That's a very casual attitude toward death and violence you have. It may be that hegemonic powers can more or less ignore modern international law but it's hard argue it doesn't serve to effectively deter every other country from committing aggressive and barbaric acts of war. Your statements trivialize the significant steps the world has taken in mitigating the most cruel and inhumane aspects of modern conflict. Also the example you use to justify your position that the US dropped nuclear weapons on Japan in order to save lives is total propaganda. It has been pretty well established that with the Soviet Union entering the war and the devastation already inflicted by conventional firebombing Japan was going to surrender no matter what happened, the Truman administration however used this line to justify their decision with the public and their pronouncements of how many lives were saved just grew more and more absurd over time. Now it's mostly used by apologists for the excesses of US foreign policy but it's just not true.

[@jektonoporkins5025]

Chris Molaei My attitude doesn't make a difference; in a large-scale conflict like WWII, nobody gives a shit about proportionality. You're trying to win the war. If you win the war, who is going to prosecute your country for so-called war crimes? That's right, nobody. Only losers of wars get charged with war crimes. Your position on Japan is the propagandized one not rooted in fact. Here are the facts. The Japanese knew they were beat militarily and were going to lose the war, yes. But that does not in any way equate to "being ready to surrender." Surrender was a foreign concept to them. The decision-making regarding Japan lied in the hands of the Supreme War Council, made up of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, Chief of the Army General Staff, and the Chief of the Navy General Staff. In the waning months of the war, the war council was split, 3-3, on the question of surrender. 3 wanted to surrender and 3 wanted to fight to the death. Even after the two atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, they were STILL split.Only with the Emperor's intervention to break the tie did Japan surrender. 3 of the members of the Council didn't want to surrender because of many reasons, one of which was that they were afraid that the military would revolt and attempt to kill them all and take over the government...which is exactly what happened. Now, provide evidence for your assertion that Japan was "ready to surrender."

[@meetadi4u]

Being an indian where britain committed atrocities against us and deliberately caused Bengal famine and which killed millions of bengalies but still support allies because they give freedom to enquire on war crimes committed. Allies were brutal because enemy was ruthless. Enemy wanted whole world on his feet ,so to defeat a "devil you have to be a devil" that's what allies did

[@dfhwze]

The allies created the devil, and defeated it. It's happening now again with ISIS.

[@MrBannystar]

Haha with ISIS? So, Islam has nothing to do with Islam? Got it.

[@_RedWizard]

I agree that the Nazis wouldn't have rebuilt their conquered enemies if they won, but I think Christopher hasn't thought too deeply about the motives behind the Capitalist's actions. They needed markets if they were to remain the superpower and they were very aware of this. Japan has served the US very well and so has Germany since WWII. Also, Japan gave up many, many rights in exchange for funding it's growth including self-determination of it's economy which became a market economy :(

[@history70]

Neither the U.S. nor Britain were engaged in a war crime at Dresden. That was a legiimate bombing target, since the war was still going on and that location was one of the major transportation hubs east of Berlin.

[@garywenzlaff6918]

Bullshit!!!!!!

[@burnhippiesforfuel]

the point that hamburg was "working class" indicates it's importance to the means of production.

[@garywenzlaff6918]

They are still fucking civillians!!!!!

[@apollon011]

There are many reasons given by WW2 historians for this. Some of the most common are: Hitler wanted to curry favor with Britain by showing leniency and hopefullly they would oblige by negotiating a ceasefire (underestimating Churchill). Or Hitler was a blundering military fool and this is not implausible. He was infamous for this latter "trait". Who will ever know? The point is that it doesn't excuse Hitler or his previous invasions, annexations, so forth.

[@theDyingWhale]

Thanks, KZbin, for the 2-minute commercial on this 6-minute video.

[@yerk3]

@ArturAxmann You lack the means to form a cohesive argument without absurdly twisting the meanings of already mined quotes.

[@gravenewworld6521]

Hitchens wrote at great detail about this and was of the opinion that there were plenty of war crimes committed by the allies. In this clip Hitchens and Hanson are disagreeing with a revisionist history book written by Pat Buchanan.

[@AnimeOfTheState]

cont..." The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7-8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword. (...)" [46]. That was your Japanese army. And they were enthusiastically supported by the people of Japan. And thats what Americans and EU could expect had they lost the war. A war for survival for our families and country.

[@SugoiEnglish1]

To tell the truth, whole squads and companies of Marines decided to not take Japanese prisoners.

[@soarinskies1105]

War is hell. You do what it takes to win. That's why there are no more winnable wars because no country has the same determination the United States and the allied forces had, to do what was necessary to win.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

D. The Malmedy massacre was just one that the Germans committed, they did the same in 1940 to British prisoners and they did the same to French prisoners. The comment you replied to was about allied bombing to try to end the war sooner.

[@MrAcarine]

What source says Hitler offered to withdraw from Poland?(Hess wasn't bringing an offer from Hitler) And what about the rest of Europe? What peace offers did Hitler make before the war? His only offer was "stand by while I conquer Eastern Europe". And I doubt he would have left the West alone if they had continued appeasement.

[@yerk3]

@ArturAxmann That first quote doesn't contradict anything I've said. The Nazi regime was a clear and present threat to all of the countries surrounding Germany. Conquering Europe was his stated goal from fairly early on. Some Europeans, like Chamberlin, either didn't see this or chose not to, others saw what was coming next from a mile away. Hitler was the aggressor, the English fought him because he attacked them.

[@yerk3]

@ArturAxmann Turn that question around: why do you leave so many replies?

[@leninstreet]

In war sometimes you are forced to commit atrocities. The moral problem comes when you have a choice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where not a war necessity. Japan was largely defeated and in fact the bombing went ahead despite recommendations from US commanders against using the bomb. There was no military value in the fire bombing of Tokyo that killed at least 100000 people either. The justification that Hitchens uses is the same that the Nazies used. The end justifies the means.

[@ruhri0411]

...von Choltitz arrived at Paris on 9 August. In the following 16 days, he disobeyed several direct orders from Adolf Hitler to destroy the city. Hitler's order from 23 August said: "The city must not fall into the enemy's hand except lying in complete debris." A common account holds that Hitler phoned him in a rage, screaming, "Brennt Paris?" ("Is Paris burning?")

[@ls1z28chris]

The bombing of those two cities were obviously atrocities, but they were not war crimes. And certainly not "clearly" so as the "military necessity" is an integral aspect of the question. Also, our contemporary understanding of the term "war crime" comes primarily from the Geneva Conventions which were articulated after the bombing of those two cities. I have a problem with applying 21st century standards to past actions.

[@garywenzlaff6918]

Germans get hunted down for war crimes!!They were disbanded after war brought to trial..What about Americans who committed war crimes.I can name you several incidents where atrocities occured and all were swept under the rug!!!!!!

[@history70]

The adjective "truthful" is in some doubt regarding "Winter Soldier" Some of the interviewees were not in the military or they were not assigned ot Vietnam. If there were widespread war crimes, as opposed to isolated instances, there would have been thousands of hours of footage. If the U.S. had been committing "systemic" war crimes with semi-official approval, Lt. Calley would have ben treated like a hero, as many German, Japanese, and Soviets were.

[@Orvellifly]

2:17...That isn't Christopher.

[@AnimeOfTheState]

Bertsura...Here is your disgrace- "The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated that 20,000 women were raped, including infants and the elderly.[35] A large portion of these rapes were systematized... where soldiers would search door-to-door for young girls, with many women taken and gang raped. The women were often killed immediately after the rape, often through explicit mutilation[37] or by stabbing a bayonet, long stick of bamboo[38], or other objects into the vagina."

[@commandergree1231]

His first point about war crimes not being essential to the allied war effort is bullshit. Notice how he only mentions America and Britain but not the USSR. They were on the allied side, their war crimes involved mass murder of POWs and using them as slave labor, murder of political dissidents who could’ve caused unrest at home, etc. Then we have Dresden which I was never taught in school, Soviet mass rape throughout Germany (Berlin especially). Then the US put all Japanese Americans in camps until the end of the war just because they’re Japanese. Such horseshit to paint WWII as black and white.

[@IustitiaPax]

@yerk3 It is Ancien Régime. If you cannot spell French properly, you are hardly going to understand the existing documents.

[@johnr.b.murray3417]

David Irving says they did. Hence, they did.