4 ms·

> thousands of German civilian men, women and children who drowned From your own link: At least 1,650 people were killed [...] Over 1000 of the dead w

> thousands of German civilian men, women and children who drowned From your own link: At least 1,650 people were killed [...] Over 1000 of the dead were prisoners of war and *forced- labourers*, mainly Russian men and women. Poor Germans though, eh.

cyberferret 10y ago
Poor non combatants though, eh. Argue semantics if you like, but entire families were wiped out in the raid. You probably have an 'acceptable number' of women and children that can be destroyed to "save allied soldier's lives" but for a lot of people, that number is zero.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  What does this have to do with you falsely claiming thousands of Germans died, when in fact most of the people who died were victims of the Germans and were only there in the first place because of barbaric and racialist German policies? Edit: Well if he can whinge about downvotes, and get upvoted as a result, maybe I'll try. Didn't realize HN was such a haven for neo-Nazis.
  - cyberferret 10y ago
    Okay then, I'll edit my post to more accurately say hundreds of Germans civilians died. Let me know at which collective number you will finally stop deflecting and say "Gee, you know - that IS a terrible tragedy"... Edited after seeing your edit above: You seem to be equating all the German population in WWII as Nazis. I think I am beginning to understand the agenda of your posts now.
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      Why not edit your post to more accurately to say hundreds of German civilians died, along with over one thousand victims of German barbarity, who only died because of German barbarity? Is there a specific reason why you only want to fixate on German victims?
      - cyberferret 10y ago
        I include their number in the count of 'non combatants' that should not have been killed. I am sure that the local German civilians didn't have much to do with, nor condone, the Russian POWs or forced labourers in the area at the time. You seem to think that they need to be punished with extreme prejudice for having the temerity of accepting what the German leadership and military machine at the time did. My parents were kids in Malaysia during the Japanese, then the Allied occupation of that nation during WWII. They lived near a POW camp, and a forced labour site. They both (and their families confirmed) that while the Japanese treatment of POWs and such were atrocious, it was absolutely no different when the Allies took back control and the Japanese soldiers were on the receiving end. You've probably never (and never will) read that in history books though. My parents were not accepting of the treatment of either group of prisoners. In fact my mum and her mother used to regularly go down to the camp to collect prisoner clothing etc. to mend, and my father and his friend used to drop food to POW labourers working on bridges etc. But you are probably OK with the fact that my parents could have easily been unimportant 'collateral damage' (which my dad nearly was) during Allied bombing raids on Kuala Lumpur? [Clarification - I guess this is my reason for focusing on local civilian nationals as victims of war. Families in a German valley, kids playing on the streets of Aleppo - the moment you dismiss and forget them as 'acceptable casualties of war' and lump them in as 'the bad guy collective' is a sad one indeed]
        quirkafleeg 10y ago
        > I am sure that the local German civilians didn't have much to do with, nor condone, the Russian POWs or forced labourers in the area at the time. And I'm sure Allied bombers didn't want to kill anyone when they hit the dams, but that doesn't seem to prevent you being judgemental about it. What makes you "sure", BTW, that the Germans in that area didn't condone the Nazi policies of slave labour that resulted in so many people killed? > You seem to think that they need to be punished with extreme prejudice for having the temerity of accepting what the German leadership and military machine at the time did. You seem to like telling me what I think. Where did I say the Germans need to be punished with extreme prejudice, or anything even remotely like that? Stop being so hysterical. I'm questioning why you are so fixated with emphasizing German victims, while dismissing or showing little to no interest in non-German victims, because the only people I have ever seen doing that are Nazi sympathizers. > But you are probably OK with... There you go again, telling me what I think. Is this a tactic you find works in other arguments you have? > the moment you dismiss and forget them Who is forgetting them? I specifically said you should include all victims, and not just the Germans, which you refused to do. You're the one who is going out of your way to dismiss the fact that the majority of the people who died were not German, and only died because of German barbarity and racialist far-right policies. And I think it's pretty obvious now why you're doing that.
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      > You seem to be equating all the German population in WWII So referring to "barbaric and racialist German policies" is "equating all the German population in WWII as Nazis", is it? So, what, we're just supposed to pretend their polices were A-OK and legitimate? > I think I am beginning to understand the agenda of your posts now. Don't worry mate, I suspected the agenda of yours the minute you posted about German victims, while showing zero interest in non-German victims, and you've done nothing but prove my suspicions right. It's always handy when Nazi sympathizers out themselves. Edit: it's pretty funny you spend so much time crying about downvotes, here and elsewhere (fishing for upvotes), when you're so happy and willing to downvote other people's posts.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        People can't downvote comments that are replies to their comments. You can't downvote this comment, because it's a reply to your comment. Thus, the downvotes are coming from other people, and they're telling you to calm the fuck down. Plenty of people think Allied bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. The reason it wasn't a war time at the time is because "don't kill civilians" was taken for granted - it was so obvious no-one put it into conventions.
        quirkafleeg 10y ago
        > People can't downvote comments that are replies to their comments. You can't downvote this comment, because it's a reply to your comment. Thus, the downvotes are coming from other people Pat yourself on the back for taking three laborious sentences to simply repeat what the other poster already said in one sentence a day earlier. Perhaps try actually reading a thread before jumping head first into it (a day late) next time. > they're telling you to calm the fuck down I think you need to take your own advice, unless you can explain what is not "calm" about quoting hard facts (heavily downvoted) in response to an ignorant post making false claims (upvoted). > Plenty of people think Allied bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. The reason it wasn't a war time at the time is because "don't kill civilians" was taken for granted - it was so obvious no-one put it into conventions. Okay, list the names of the "plenty of people" you know of who believe the Dambusters raid was a war crime and we'll see how many of them (assuming they aren't just a figment of your imagnation) are not on the far right and/or Nazi sympathizers.
- junk23244 10y ago
  > You probably have an 'acceptable number' of women and children that can be destroyed to "save allied soldier's lives" but for a lot of people, that number is zero. The only solution would be to surrender to the Germans then. There was (and still is) no way to win a war without civilian casualties. You realize what the outcome would be?
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  It's a lot easier to have that opinion when you're wondering if some Japanese guy is gonna try and crawl into your foxhole and slit your throat later tonight.

cyberferret 10y ago

Poor non combatants though, eh. Argue semantics if you like, but entire families were wiped out in the raid. You probably have an 'acceptable number' of women and children that can be destroyed to "save allied soldier's lives" but for a lot of people, that number is zero.

quirkafleeg 10y ago
What does this have to do with you falsely claiming thousands of Germans died, when in fact most of the people who died were victims of the Germans and were only there in the first place because of barbaric and racialist German policies? Edit: Well if he can whinge about downvotes, and get upvoted as a result, maybe I'll try. Didn't realize HN was such a haven for neo-Nazis.
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Okay then, I'll edit my post to more accurately say hundreds of Germans civilians died. Let me know at which collective number you will finally stop deflecting and say "Gee, you know - that IS a terrible tragedy"... Edited after seeing your edit above: You seem to be equating all the German population in WWII as Nazis. I think I am beginning to understand the agenda of your posts now.
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    Why not edit your post to more accurately to say hundreds of German civilians died, along with over one thousand victims of German barbarity, who only died because of German barbarity? Is there a specific reason why you only want to fixate on German victims?
    - cyberferret 10y ago
      I include their number in the count of 'non combatants' that should not have been killed. I am sure that the local German civilians didn't have much to do with, nor condone, the Russian POWs or forced labourers in the area at the time. You seem to think that they need to be punished with extreme prejudice for having the temerity of accepting what the German leadership and military machine at the time did. My parents were kids in Malaysia during the Japanese, then the Allied occupation of that nation during WWII. They lived near a POW camp, and a forced labour site. They both (and their families confirmed) that while the Japanese treatment of POWs and such were atrocious, it was absolutely no different when the Allies took back control and the Japanese soldiers were on the receiving end. You've probably never (and never will) read that in history books though. My parents were not accepting of the treatment of either group of prisoners. In fact my mum and her mother used to regularly go down to the camp to collect prisoner clothing etc. to mend, and my father and his friend used to drop food to POW labourers working on bridges etc. But you are probably OK with the fact that my parents could have easily been unimportant 'collateral damage' (which my dad nearly was) during Allied bombing raids on Kuala Lumpur? [Clarification - I guess this is my reason for focusing on local civilian nationals as victims of war. Families in a German valley, kids playing on the streets of Aleppo - the moment you dismiss and forget them as 'acceptable casualties of war' and lump them in as 'the bad guy collective' is a sad one indeed]
      - quirkafleeg 10y ago
        > I am sure that the local German civilians didn't have much to do with, nor condone, the Russian POWs or forced labourers in the area at the time. And I'm sure Allied bombers didn't want to kill anyone when they hit the dams, but that doesn't seem to prevent you being judgemental about it. What makes you "sure", BTW, that the Germans in that area didn't condone the Nazi policies of slave labour that resulted in so many people killed? > You seem to think that they need to be punished with extreme prejudice for having the temerity of accepting what the German leadership and military machine at the time did. You seem to like telling me what I think. Where did I say the Germans need to be punished with extreme prejudice, or anything even remotely like that? Stop being so hysterical. I'm questioning why you are so fixated with emphasizing German victims, while dismissing or showing little to no interest in non-German victims, because the only people I have ever seen doing that are Nazi sympathizers. > But you are probably OK with... There you go again, telling me what I think. Is this a tactic you find works in other arguments you have? > the moment you dismiss and forget them Who is forgetting them? I specifically said you should include all victims, and not just the Germans, which you refused to do. You're the one who is going out of your way to dismiss the fact that the majority of the people who died were not German, and only died because of German barbarity and racialist far-right policies. And I think it's pretty obvious now why you're doing that.
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    > You seem to be equating all the German population in WWII So referring to "barbaric and racialist German policies" is "equating all the German population in WWII as Nazis", is it? So, what, we're just supposed to pretend their polices were A-OK and legitimate? > I think I am beginning to understand the agenda of your posts now. Don't worry mate, I suspected the agenda of yours the minute you posted about German victims, while showing zero interest in non-German victims, and you've done nothing but prove my suspicions right. It's always handy when Nazi sympathizers out themselves. Edit: it's pretty funny you spend so much time crying about downvotes, here and elsewhere (fishing for upvotes), when you're so happy and willing to downvote other people's posts.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      People can't downvote comments that are replies to their comments. You can't downvote this comment, because it's a reply to your comment. Thus, the downvotes are coming from other people, and they're telling you to calm the fuck down. Plenty of people think Allied bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. The reason it wasn't a war time at the time is because "don't kill civilians" was taken for granted - it was so obvious no-one put it into conventions.
      - quirkafleeg 10y ago
        > People can't downvote comments that are replies to their comments. You can't downvote this comment, because it's a reply to your comment. Thus, the downvotes are coming from other people Pat yourself on the back for taking three laborious sentences to simply repeat what the other poster already said in one sentence a day earlier. Perhaps try actually reading a thread before jumping head first into it (a day late) next time. > they're telling you to calm the fuck down I think you need to take your own advice, unless you can explain what is not "calm" about quoting hard facts (heavily downvoted) in response to an ignorant post making false claims (upvoted). > Plenty of people think Allied bombing of civilian populations was a war crime. The reason it wasn't a war time at the time is because "don't kill civilians" was taken for granted - it was so obvious no-one put it into conventions. Okay, list the names of the "plenty of people" you know of who believe the Dambusters raid was a war crime and we'll see how many of them (assuming they aren't just a figment of your imagnation) are not on the far right and/or Nazi sympathizers.
junk23244 10y ago
> You probably have an 'acceptable number' of women and children that can be destroyed to "save allied soldier's lives" but for a lot of people, that number is zero. The only solution would be to surrender to the Germans then. There was (and still is) no way to win a war without civilian casualties. You realize what the outcome would be?
dsfyu404ed 10y ago
It's a lot easier to have that opinion when you're wondering if some Japanese guy is gonna try and crawl into your foxhole and slit your throat later tonight.