Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

> EDIT >

I asked a dumb question.

I also exaggerated it. I was going to just delete the OP and ask for the discussion to be locked, but it seems that some people are discussing it. Just keep that in mind, that this is a bit exaggerated.

Also, by revisionist, I don't mean that racist historians are becoming credible or anything like that, but that views that lean slightly in that direction are becoming more acceptable.

Again, it was dumb and I totally exaggerated the question. I'm trying to learn not to do that.

^ EDIT ^

How long is it going to be before the Allies are seen as war criminals?

How long is it going to be before the war is remembered as us imposing our culture on another equally valid culture that should have been respected?

Is there really any difference between what the Nazis did and what is now considered to be "part of another culture that needs to be respected?"

There's already a growing attitude that the Allies were war criminals, even for supposed "crimes" that were necessary to anyone studying the subject.

People are also starting to blatantly ignore the historical context behind Allied "crimes." While such crimes were not "right," it is profoundly a-historical to separate any reactionary atrocities from their historical context. It is completely inappropriate to give the impression that the British suddenly started bombing German cities, when the fact is that they were engaged in a war started by the Germans. Providing the historical context is not justification either, as there is a major difference between explaining the reason why something happened, and justifying it. The fact is that the Germans supported a murderous regime that started a war and determined the terms on which it would be fought; what followed was natural. The Germans started a war that killed 60 million people, directly killed 20 million, and raped over 10 million Russian women. Now we're starting to see Nazi sympathetic revisionists gaining acceptance in spreading the idea that the Nazis were somehow victims and that "we weren't really much better then them."


This does not mean that there were not victims in Germany. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews who were persecuted, who had proven to be more nationalistic than non Jews during WWI. There were also small numbers of non Jews who were victims, but they are anecdotal exceptions. The vast majority of Germans supported the Nazis actively or passively.

EDIT

If anyone does think that maybe I am being a bit heavy handed or "anti German," please discuss it in a private message, as it is something that I have considered.

Wait, wut?

Oh, this Nazi thing of yours again...

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

There's already a growing attitude that the Allies were war criminals

No there isn't. The Soviets may have been war criminals but the western allies definitely were not.

I hope this is meant to be ironic.

If anyone does think that maybe I am being a bit heavy handed or "anti German," please discuss it in a private message, as it is something that I have considered.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Wait, wut?

Oh, this Nazi thing of yours again...

That's not quite what I took away from this. He appears to think that revisionist history will make it so Oceania will have always been at war with Eastasia.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
If anyone does think that maybe I am being a bit heavy handed or "anti German," please discuss it in a private message, as it is something that I have considered.

"Please don't call me out in public."

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I hope this is meant to be ironic.

Yeah, a large part of it. I am exaggerating that question. Or, I hope that I'm exaggerating that question.

Can you elaborate on the whole American agression? Did we remain out of the war until we were attacked?

 Lordhat wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
If anyone does think that maybe I am being a bit heavy handed or "anti German," please discuss it in a private message, as it is something that I have considered.

"Please don't call me out in public."

I don't want people going off topic. That is something that I would be interesting in discussing, and I might start a discussion on it, but I don't want this to devolve into that.

Since apparently you don't actually mean anything in your OP, reported as spam.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can you elaborate on the whole American agression? Did we remain out of the war until we were attacked?

Yes, we stayed out, even after Pearl Harbor, until the Germans specifically declared war.

The topic though is also on the ridiculousness of people constantly trying to turn us into the aggressor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
Since apparently you don't actually mean anything in your OP, reported as spam.

What?

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can you elaborate on the whole American agression? Did we remain out of the war until we were attacked?

Yes, we stayed out, even after Pearl Harbor, until the Germans specifically declared war.

The topic though is also on the ridiculousness of people constantly trying to turn us into the aggressor.

Well, proceed then... I apparently misread the OP.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can you elaborate on the whole American agression? Did we remain out of the war until we were attacked?

Yes, we stayed out, even after Pearl Harbor, until the Germans specifically declared war.

The topic though is also on the ridiculousness of people constantly trying to turn us into the aggressor.

Well, proceed then... I apparently misread the OP.

Gak. It was dumb anyway. It might be worth writing a blog and discussing it, but not like this.

Uh, what?!

Just... in all regards, to every point: What?!

Generally speaking, anti-American historical revisionism only applies to fighting non-Caucasian/left-wing foes. As the Nazi's were neither, I don't think you'll see what you're describing. Overall cultural relativism that is being pushed down peoples throats (aka "it's their culture you need to respect them" when one blows up embassies) does not apply to Western states.

For instance, you see much more disapproval of the U.S. war with Japan then Germany.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
If anyone does think that maybe I am being a bit heavy handed or "anti German," please discuss it in a private message, as it is something that I have considered.

Wait, so I can't think that you are being ridiculously hyperbolic, to the point of creating issues out of nothing, because you've already considered that possibility?

Great thinking there, buddy go on like this, you'll be Neumann 2.0 in not too long.

 Harriticus wrote:

For instance, you see much more disapproval of the U.S. war with Japan then Germany.

Which is odd considering that Japan was the agressor.

The only war crime the US might be guilty of is that Japanese warcriminals weren't prosecuted for their treatment of POWs and civilians.

We really would have remained at peace had Japan not attacked us. We would have eventually declared war on Germany, but Japan was not our main concern and they remained so until Germany was defeated.

Frankly, I don't see it. Yes, there have always been streaks of historical revisionism (in every nation, who would've guessed), yet the followers of such obscure theories are - to my knowledge - quite small in number and frequently ridiculed in the media as well as the common populace. Historical documentations in TV and in books as well as the internet have made information readily available, and kids learn about WW2 in school. To actually get to follow the revisionist path you really have to try hard, and likely needed to have a relative or a friend who had a relative who "missed the good old days" or (perhaps more likely) couldn't deal with what he or she was fighting for, resulting in a defensive attitude about how "the other ones weren't better".

Of course I can only speak for how I grew up in Germany, even more specifically the region I lived in ... but Germany as a whole is quite conscious of its role in WW2, and anyone trying to paint the USA as the aggressor (or similar silliness) would have a hard time explaining why even their erstwhile enemies would object to this.

I'm regularly ashamed when I read of some nutjob trying to make a case of twisting history, but I would never go as far and actually believe that the general populace would just swing around and swallow it. That's ... rather paranoid, I think. The US are often perceived as an aggressor nowadays because of what happened in recent history. Maybe some people somehow transplant this current image to the USA during WW2, but that still doesn't make such views generally accepted.

Testify wrote:No there isn't. The Soviets may have been war criminals but the western allies definitely were not.

Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II
Then of course there are some grey areas, such as the western allies harbouring some of the worst war criminals and preventing them from being prosecuted in the international tribunal in exchange for their knowledge.

Without question the Allies committed less war crimes than their enemy (certainly not comparable to what happened in, say, Vietnam) - but to claim complete innocence is just as wrong as painting them in the same light as the Axis powers. Stuff happened, deal with it.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Yes, we stayed out, even after Pearl Harbor, until the Germans specifically declared war.

That depends on whether you limit "WW2" to Europe alone or include the Pacific (as I would do). Germany declared war on the US after the US had declared war on Japan.
Of course, Japan declared war on the US first, so the US merely responded. Either way, they were "in" on December 8, 1:10 pm.

Uh...perhaps if the country throwing out said views was the DPRK or the like? 0.o

.......It was a case of American aggression for the US to respond to Japan attacking them by declaring war on them.

Right.... Well that's me confused for the day.

I suspect someone's been reading the Penultimate Truth or something.

I agree Nazis are bad, hey Inquisitor Ehrenstein want to talk about something else for once?

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only war crime the US might be guilty of is that Japanese warcriminals weren't prosecuted for their treatment of POWs and civilians.

So I guess the Tokyo Fire Raids, atomic bombing, mutiliation of Japanese war dead, and hideous behaviour of US occupation troops in Okinawa and postwar Japan were all perfectly acceptable.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only war crime the US might be guilty of is that Japanese warcriminals weren't prosecuted for their treatment of POWs and civilians.

So I guess the Tokyo Fire Raids, atomic bombing, mutiliation of Japanese war dead, and hideous behaviour of US occupation troops in Okinawa and postwar Japan were all perfectly acceptable.

So what?

What's the objective here?

That was WAR.

And using the atomic bombs was probably the most humane thing we did for Japan... otherwise, had we invaded, it would've been an absolute blood-bath that may destroy Japan.

By the same book the Japanese could argue that Nanking was war and therefore completely justified.

Of course I have my suspicions over the authenticity of the Nanking massacre but it makes gak turn ugly.

Being a soldier does not give you the right to rape and kill innocent civillians.

there's a lot of theories about WWII that are coming out, now that the veterans of that war are no longer in power.

For fifty years, it was seen as the "feel good" war that established the US as a superpower. History focused mostly on either how the Allies won, how the axis lost, or why the axis did what they did.

It's not like there weren't questions about the morality of the allies even in the 1940s. The use of atomic weapons alone raised a lot of questions.

While I think it will be hard to paint the war as anything other than axis aggression (as opposed to WWI which was the natrual result of the tensions of the time), there are a few questions that current and future generations will have about the Allies:
1) Is demanding unconditional surrender moral?
2) Was the wide spread bombing of civilian targets known to the allies, necessary for the allies, and if yes and no, was it moral?
3) How strong was the racial component in the Pacific war?

There were no doubt war crimes committed by the allies, even in the West. The question seems to be did the allies do everything they could reasonably do to prevent them.

 Polonius wrote:
there's a lot of theories about WWII that are coming out, now that the veterans of that war are no longer in power.

For fifty years, it was seen as the "feel good" war that established the US as a superpower. History focused mostly on either how the Allies won, how the axis lost, or why the axis did what they did.

It's not like there weren't questions about the morality of the allies even in the 1940s. The use of atomic weapons alone raised a lot of questions.

While I think it will be hard to paint the war as anything other than axis aggression (as opposed to WWI which was the natrual result of the tensions of the time), there are a few questions that current and future generations will have about the Allies:
1) Is demanding unconditional surrender moral?

Why does that matter?

2) Was the wide spread bombing of civilian targets known to the allies, necessary for the allies, and if yes and no, was it moral?

Why does that matter? In WWII, there wasn't much precision bombing... so, in order to be effective, carpet bombing is a tactic.

Let me ask you this: Is there such thing as conducting a "Moral" war?

3) How strong was the racial component in the Pacific war?

? Is this referring to the American-Japanese internment camps?

There were no doubt war crimes committed by the allies, even in the West. The question seems to be did the allies do everything they could reasonably do to prevent them.

Again... what are these "war crimes" really about?

Simply put, the victor makes the rules.

Not to mention the US interring loads of Japanese-Americans in camps.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

1) Is demanding unconditional surrender moral?

Why does that matter?

its' a big question because it's the underlying reason for the atomic bombs, the Soviet offensive into germany, and many other things. Could the goals of the allies have been achieved through a negotiated peace, rather than unconditional surrender? Particularly in Japan, where surrender is an enormous cultural taboo.

2) Was the wide spread bombing of civilian targets known to the allies, necessary for the allies, and if yes and no, was it moral?

Why does that matter? In WWII, there wasn't much precision bombing... so, in order to be effective, carpet bombing is a tactic.

Let me ask you this: Is there such thing as conducting a "Moral" war?

 Squigsquasher wrote:


Being a soldier does not give you the right to rape and kill innocent civillians.

Absolutely not, but I don't think you can find a single example from the US or another Western military in theater that even vaguely comes close to the atrocities (well documented, historical facts) perpetrated by Imperial Japanese occupation forces in China. Notably the Rape (as it is rightly called) of Nanking. Systematized, institutionally approved, rape, murder, brutality and torture. Encouraged by the Japanese racial superiority complex. (Interesting how that got along with Nazi Germany's OWN racial superiority complex innit?)

On to the fire bombings. You attack an enemy's ability to make war, this is nothing new. They attacked our fleet at Pearl Harbor for just this reason, to cripple our offensive capability. The Doolittle raids and the more regular sustained bombing of the Japanese home islands while psychologically useful by "spilling blood on Japanese soil" was a direct method of engaging and destroying Japanese industrial capacity. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both terrible when considered individually but when looking at the larger picture, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Industrial targets. Which is why they were picked in the first place, and while hundreds of thousands died Whembly's right, those bombs saved a lot more lives then they claimed. Russian, American and Japanese. We're still using Purple Hearts from the run made in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Back to the Inquisitor's initial subject I don't think I've really seen much in the way of Nazi apologists within any respectable historical circles any way. Actual Nazis or Neo-Nazis sure but that's about as respectable as the Mushroom Kingdom's castle security. I think as time's gone by and documents have been declassified our picture of the Second World War has been changing significantly. Whether that's being shifted unfairly against the Allies or it's just being more fair overall is... unclear as yet. I don't think anti-American, or anti-Western bias is quite that extreme in academia to scew the results and conclusions quite that badly.

 Lynata wrote:
Frankly, I don't see it. Yes, there have always been streaks of historical revisionism (in every nation, who would've guessed), yet the followers of such obscure theories are - to my knowledge - quite small in number and frequently ridiculed in the media as well as the common populace. Historical documentations in TV and in books as well as the internet have made information readily available, and kids learn about WW2 in school. To actually get to follow the revisionist path you really have to try hard, and likely needed to have a relative or a friend who had a relative who "missed the good old days" or (perhaps more likely) couldn't deal with what he or she was fighting for, resulting in a defensive attitude about how "the other ones weren't better".

Of course I can only speak for how I grew up in Germany, even more specifically the region I lived in ... but Germany as a whole is quite conscious of its role in WW2, and anyone trying to paint the USA as the aggressor (or similar silliness) would have a hard time explaining why even their erstwhile enemies would object to this.

I'm regularly ashamed when I read of some nutjob trying to make a case of twisting history, but I would never go as far and actually believe that the general populace would just swing around and swallow it. That's ... rather paranoid, I think. The US are often perceived as an aggressor nowadays because of what happened in recent history. Maybe some people somehow transplant this current image to the USA during WW2, but that still doesn't make such views generally accepted.

Testify wrote:No there isn't. The Soviets may have been war criminals but the western allies definitely were not.

Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II
Then of course there are some grey areas, such as the western allies harbouring some of the worst war criminals and preventing them from being prosecuted in the international tribunal in exchange for their knowledge.

Without question the Allies committed less war crimes than their enemy (certainly not comparable to what happened in, say, Vietnam) - but to claim complete innocence is just as wrong as painting them in the same light as the Axis powers. Stuff happened, deal with it.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:Yes, we stayed out, even after Pearl Harbor, until the Germans specifically declared war.

That depends on whether you limit "WW2" to Europe alone or include the Pacific (as I would do). Germany declared war on the US after the US had declared war on Japan.
Of course, Japan declared war on the US first, so the US merely responded. Either way, they were "in" on December 8, 1:10 pm.

My question was a bit exaggerated. I'm not really worried that it would ever get to the point of thinking that WWII was a war of American agression, but sometimes I get frustrated that people are taking a less than desirable view of the Nazis. Good post though.