Your CdM's China Warmongering Thread du Jour

[Martim Silva]

Fact 2 is some sort of quibble over death camps and camps where they starve people to death.  A distinction that was probably lost on the people the people dying in there and the American soldiers who liberated it.

Okay, let's say in 1947 WWIII broke out between the Union and the Western Allies. Say the Red Army advanced deeper into Germany and entered the British "Interrogation Camp" of Bad Nenndorf, commanded by this excellent British officer:



Lt. Col. Robin Stephens.

Now, this camp was originally intended to "interrogate" Nazis, but it soon devolved into an internment camp for everybody that had an ideology that the Western Allies disapproved of, namely Socialists or anyone that had a favorable opinion of the Soviet Union.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/bad-nenndorf.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/17/secondworldwar.topstories3

Now say the Red Army saw the inmates, as they were treated by the British:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation

Would you have, then, any moral problem if the Red Army troops just rounded up the British garrison and shot them all on the spot?

Portugal sure is a weird country!  Why do you think that the Portuguese educational system taught you to reject the idea that some US units might have killed PoWs in WW2?  That fact has been known and accepted in the US educational system and public at large since at least the 60s.

Mostly because the ww2 history books that I read in the 70s and 80s all dedicate chapters to the killing of US POWs by the Nazis, but never mention any similar act by the Western Allies. And that no normal person thought about the possibility before they saw those things in the movies (historians were probably a different thing, as they heard the veterans, but they sure didn't put that in their books).

Earlier you said that they were anti-American and antisemitic, now they are "100% pro-american(sic)"!  Make up your mind about which lies you want to promulgate, for hod's sake! 

You're more mature than that, and fully capable of understanding that my first mention was clearly ironic.

Winners make the rules. America & It's Allies won. They make the rules. Stop pointing it out, we know.

You didn't win Korea.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/093099korea-us.html

These American veterans say that in the first desperate weeks of the Korean War, American soldiers killed 100, 200 or simply hundreds of refugees, many of them women and children, who were trapped beneath the bridge.

(...)

One American veteran, Eugene Hesselman of Fort Mitchell, Ky., recalled his captain as saying: "The hell with all those people. Let's get rid of all of them."

Norman Tinkler of Glasco, Kan., a former machine gunner, said, "We just annihilated them."

Or

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4234885.html

The American colonel, troubled by what he was hearing, tried to stall at first. But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it "would be permitted" to machine-gun 3,500 political prisoners, to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces.

There are other (worse) massacres mentioned by North Korea, but I guess you'll just dismiss them out of hand, as it is told by "the Other Side"

Also, you didn't win Vetnam:

http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html

On October 19, 2003, the Ohio-based newspaper the Toledo Blade launched a four-day series of investigative reports exposing a string of atrocities by an elite, volunteer, 45-man "Tiger Force" unit of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division over the course of seven months in 1967.

The Blade goes on to state that in 1971 the Army began a four and a half year investigation of the alleged torture of prisoners, rapes of civilian women, the mutilation of bodies and killing of anywhere from nine to well over one hundred unarmed civilians, among other acts.

The articles further report that the Army's inquiry concluded that eighteen U.S. soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. However, not one of the soldiers, even of those still on active duty at the time of the investigation, was ever court martialed in connection with the heinous crimes. Moreover, six suspected war criminals were allowed to resign from military service during the criminal investigations specifically to avoid prosecution.

I think everyone knew that POWs would sometimes get shot.

Raz, when I was in my teens, even to suggest an american unit (a lone GI maybe, but a unit?) killed POWs would be laughed on. For the regular citizen, US troops as a whole never did anything wrong in any war.

[garbon]

Sounds like the problem is Portuguese history books.

[Razgovory]

So am I suppose to respond to all of this, or just the part where you answered me?   I really wouldn't care if the Soviets had shot a crazy prison camp commandant.  However, equating this to Dachau where 200,000 people died is kinda sick.

[Jacob]

I'm pretty sure the Red Army would have no problems with any kind of treatment of German POWs. Are you not familiar with how the Soviets viewed the Germans?

[Razgovory]

Sounds like the problem is Portuguese history books.

Yeah, looks like a case of Marty syndrome.  "If it's true where I live, it's true everywhere!"  It occurs to me that MS post is rather self defeating.  His evidence to Grey Fox (who's a Canadian, not an American), kinda undercuts his argument while not contradicting what Grey Fox said.

[Berkut]

LOL, Herr Martim is comparing Bad Nenndorf, where two people died due to abuse, there was a huge scandal and investigation, charges were filed, courts martial were held, etc. to Dachau.

If Red Army troops came upon Bad Nenndorf, and found 2 malnourished prisoners, I am not sure what they would do - but it probably would not be similar to what US soldiers did coming upon Dachau with thousands of nearly dead prisoners, and train cars full of bodies.

Wow, a full on Nazi apologist. They are so rarely seen in the wild these days!

Over/under on the start of quotes from "Other Losses"?

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay, let's say in 1947 WWIII broke out between the Union and the Western Allies. Say the Red Army advanced deeper into Germany and entered the British "Interrogation Camp" of Bad Nenndorf, commanded by this excellent British officer:

Hah - you can't fool me - that guy is wearing a monocle.  He's no true Englishman, he's a crypto-Kraut.

[Neil]

Wow, a full on Nazi apologist. They are so rarely seen in the wild these days!

Is he actually a Nazi apologist, or does his hatred for the US just run that deep?

[Barrister]

Wow, a full on Nazi apologist. They are so rarely seen in the wild these days!

Is he actually a Nazi apologist, or does his hatred for the US just run that deep?

His usual MO is as a lefty apologist, but in this particular case it's just his US hate showing.

[Jacob]

I don't think Marty S is particularly lefty; I think he's anti-US and in love with his own very idiosyncratic understanding of world events where he's the only one who truly understands what's going on.

[Martim Silva]

Sounds like the problem is Portuguese history books.

The problem was that the books I referred to weren't Portuguese; I got them from Brazil, Spain, France, the US, the UK... it was pretty much the same thing all over. Western Allies Do No Wrong.

After the Revolution I could read the history books published in the Eastern Bloc, and they had quite a different take on... well, mostly everything, really. Though I suspect most of you would reject everthing they said (and I do mean *everything*, from pre-history to the modern days, passing by the Middle Ages).

So am I suppose to respond to all of this, or just the part where you answered me?

You already did, you said you didn't care. But more to the point:

I'm pretty sure the Red Army would have no problems with any kind of treatment of German POWs. Are you not familiar with how the Soviets viewed the Germans?

What I am getting on about isn't how Germans were treated (don't give a rat's ass - you lot just fixated on it because it allowed you not to address the fact that your troops commit warcrimes), but rather more than the Western Allies have a permanent 'holier-than-thou' attitude towards everyone else [particularly Russia and China], while being systematically oblivious to what they themselved did and DO today.

In the case of the British camp, note that you only accept this because the facts were made public in 2005 (the process in the late 40's was internal). If I had posted anything about it in 2004, you would all be calling me ignorant and reject even the possibility that it had existed. And it's only because the media made it public - how many others like it actually existed? Probably in 20 years' time there will be more of those to talk about. But the western public will just remember the Gulags and forget everything else.

I don't think Marty S is particularly lefty; I think he's anti-US and in love with his own very idiosyncratic understanding of world events where he's the only one who truly understands what's going on.

Did you ever ponder the possibility that Americans (and other allied nations, in particular Britain and its former Dominions) may also have an idiosyncratic view of themselves?

It does recall the US idea that it is a "nation-builder", without pondering that the results it got in Western Germany and Japan just might have had more to do with the fact that these were disciplined peoples who worked hard, and that thus any effort in the Middle East will result in failure, as those populations lack those characteristics. Yet Americans went into Iraq and Afghanistan fully believing they would "build" those contries into prosperity.

(and that they would respect Human Rights along the way, for that matter)

I don't know weather to laugh or to cry.

[Syt]

history books published in the Eastern Bloc, and they had quite a different take on... well, mostly everything, really

I have a textbook for German history teachers, dated 1942. Shockingly, it also has a different take on, well, many things, really.

[Razgovory]

Martim, simply because you could not find these books, doesn't mean they didn't exist.  Trust me, in the 1960's and 1970's there plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic that were willing to say American soldiers murdered people.

[garbon]

Martim, simply because you could not find these books, doesn't mean they didn't exist.  Trust me, in the 1960's and 1970's there plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic that were willing to say American soldiers murdered people.

What's even odder is that I don't get what his point is even if he could somehow prove that many people didn't feel that way back then. Alright, so what does that have anything to do with the present day / last 20 years?

[Martim Silva]

I have a textbook for German history teachers, dated 1942. Shockingly, it also has a different take on, well, many things, really.

Indeed, different ideologies present the world in different ways. But in the West (mostly the US, Canada, Australia, Britain and France), people do BUY what they're told without critical thinking.

The common folk DOES believe that their troops will help the countries they invade, that they WON'T harm the locals; they DO believe privatization and liberalization is the best economic answer for everything; they REALLY believe that the mockery of 'Democracy' that they have is the most wonderful system EVAH. They DO think that there is very little corruption in Liberal Democratic regimes, and that systems like the Chinese are full of it.

In short, they are just like someone that read your Nazi textbook and bought all the crap in it, hook, line and sinker. Brainwashed and unthinking.