You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
there are circumstances where, sadly, use of military force is necessary. We don’t live in an ideal world.
Indeed. I am a lifelong pacifist but i recognise this. the concept of a just war or a just action in a war and that of a war crime. Now the victors write the history so you need a bit of salt with it but for example the DDay landings cost a huge amount of lives. Was that justified? On balance I would say yes. The Bombing of Dresden? War crime
but for example the DDay landings cost a huge amount of lives. Was that justified? On balance I would say yes.
Getting slightly off topic maybe but the "on balance" phrase intrigues me, suggesting a degree of doubt. What were the alternatives to D-Day that would still have won the war (there by stopping the Holocaust) that would maybe have involved fewer lives being lost?
I know this is all a bit hypothetical, but am curious.
Maybe just a poor choice of words but meaning - balancing all the factors it was justified. greatest good of greatest number
What were the alternatives to D-Day that would still have won the war (there by stopping the Holocaust) that would maybe have involved fewer lives being lost?
Pretty much the best alternative to D Day, the best way of not sacrificing those lives would have been not have got involved in the pointless Great War, not played along with petty imperial power politics, not allowed WW2 to start at all*. But, it did start, and cost 70 million lives..
And, once again, D Day didn't have anything at all to do with stopping the Holocaust. ;D
* and that's where the pacifism bit comes in, not once you've started enlisting every person n the country to the war effort.
Pretty much the best alternative to D Day, the best way of not sacrificing those lives would have been not have got involved in the pointless Great War, not played along with petty imperial power politics, not allowed WW2 to start at all*. But, it did start, and cost 70 million lives..
In that case how far back do you go? Should Britain have intervened in 1870 and crushed Prussia? Would that have prevented WW! or would it have led to something else even worse? Or say we hadn't got involved in WW!, Germany may well have crushed France and Russia, leading to them becoming a dominant power in Europe and allowing them to carry out an even greater Holocaust. We can never know. Far too many variables and to say "Well we should never have got involved is far too simplistic".
My question was basically In, say, 1943, were there any alternatives to the D-Day landings? I suspect not but my knowledge of history isn't brilliant so am curious.
Wonder if he knew my grandad
It's possible since they were both at Belsen about the same time. He went a across on D-Day & was with the troops battling for Caen. Worked his way through France, Belgium (mentioned in dispatches here) and then into Germany.
If you've any old photos of your grandad's medical unit this is Sergeant Bert Thornton
[img] 
[/img]
I only mentioned my father (Royal Navy) was in the Battle of the Atlantic 1940/1943 and it got him talking. Apparently, Bert was based in Iceland which is where the navy took many shipwrecked survivors. From that small opener he began to tell me his story.
In that case how far back do you go? Should Britain have intervened in 1870 and crushed Prussia?
Exactly. (I was thinking exactly the same about 1870!) It's impossible, of course. But my point is, it makes no difference what the alternatives were to the Normandy landings. By that stage everyone was in too deep for anything to make a difference - it would all cost lives.
and allowing them to carry out an even greater Holocaust.
On this point - does anybody know how many potential Holocaust victims were saved by the ending of the war that point? Were there many more Jews, or other persecuted groups, still living in German occupied areas?
Might have been able to go up from the Italian landings, but no, eventually you have to push them back through France and over the Rhine. Otherwise the Russians will push them from the east and no one wants that...
And, once again, D Day didn’t have anything at all to do with stopping the Holocaust. ;D
I don’t think by ‘44 you can separate the two. Defeating the Nazis will end the Holocaust, it might not be why you’re there in the first place (although certainly the allies were aware of the death camps by 1942) but that will the end result
Were there many more Jews, or other persecuted groups, still living in German occupied areas?
yes, thousands in occupied France Denmark, Greece, the Balkans and Italy
Saving the jews wasn't considred important at the time and before, during and after WW2 many countries (the UK, US, Canada) were very reluctant to take Jewish refugees. Anti-semitism was rife all over the world at the time (inc in the UK). The US & Canada refused refugee ships the right to land (MS St. Louis in 1939) and the UK was targetting Jewish refugee ships en route to Israel after WW2 to appease the arabs (we wanted oil).
We might have been on the winning side, but we certainly weren't 100% the good guys.
My question was basically In, say, 1943, were there any alternatives to the D-Day landings? I suspect not but my knowledge of history isn’t brilliant so am curious.
I would guess that if the D-Day landings didn't take place Germany would have lost the war eventually as, in terms of ground fighting, the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting. This would have saved many British, Commonwealth and American lives at the expense of many more Eastern European lives. We might have had the Iron Curtain at the channel ports, or if the Soviets lost interest after invading Germany, the rump of a fascist state in Western Europe. (sounds like a good plot for an alternative hsitory novel)
The War did stop the holocaust as it was in full swing right up to the liberation of the Death camps.
If hitler had established his thousand year Reich they would have carried on until none of the "undermenschen" (sp?) were left.
IMHO of course
(sounds like a good plot for an alternative hsitory novel)
Have you seen The man in the high castle on Amazon Prime? Excellent alternate history.
I've read the book - it's very good.
And, once again, D Day didn’t have anything at all to do with stopping the Holocaust.
Indirectly, it had quite a lot to do with stopping the Holocaust surely?
Yeah tend to agree, D day was the beginning of the end of what was an absolute appalling piece of history, how man thinks he's better than animals is beyond me!!.
It’s possible since they were both at Belsen about the same time. He went a across on D-Day & was with the troops battling for Caen
Sounds familiar, I have no pictures though, they are in USA where my uncle lives now.
Apparently, Bert was based in Iceland which is where the navy took many shipwrecked survivors
My great uncle, grandads brother in law I think was the captain of a fishing trawler that was converted for escorting cargo ships across the Atlantic. He won a DSO fir sinking an Italian sub. Maybe he went to Iceland too, he also went to Algiers
Another trawler to put paid to an Italian submarine was the Lord Nuffield. This was off Algiers, shortly after the Allied landings in North Africa. Lord Nuffield made an underwater contact and was preparing to lay a pattern of depth‑charges when the submarine, the Emo, came up to periscope depth almost underneath her. Emo crash‑dived but took a hammering from Lord Nuf.field's depth‑charges as it did so. The trawler ran in for a second attack, lost contact but dropped a single depth‑charge, and the submarine panicked and came to the surface again. Unable to start his diesels and pull fast away from the trawler, the Italian commander ordered his men to the guns, but Lord Nuffield, captained by Lieutenant D. 8. Mair, RN, was far too quick for him. Her four‑inch, Oerlikon and machine‑guns raked the submarine and smashed the conning‑tower, effectively stopping all enemy resistance, and with most of his crew already in the water Erno's commander gave orders to scuttle and abandon ship. Eleven Italians died in the battle, the remainder being rescued and taken to Algiers.
http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/tgtw.html
Nice little story about some of those who avoided Aushwitz
there are circumstances where, sadly, use of military force is necessary. We don’t live in an ideal world.
This is an easy argument to throw out there because it sounds reasonable.
However, it is totally wrong because governments don't use military force where it's necessary. They use it for economic or political gain. They fail every time.
The two legitimate reasons for military force are self defense and preventing genocide.
We've been conditioned to think that affecting "regime change", for a "regime" that supports the aggressor funnily enough, is a good thing. We're the good guys, others are bad and it's our job to be World Police. This is why we need armies, right? It just isn't and always leaves a bigger mess. See Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, wherever, for details.
If governments used their military force purely as defence, ie pretty much never, or actually stopping genocide then this argument stands. They don't.
We should be invading Myanmar and stopping what is happening there, but instead we're in Iraq because they have oil.
It's easy to say that vastly scaling back militaries is somehow naieve often accompanied with a nice pat on the head. The truth is that 65 years of interventionist policies have been a nightmare for world peace. They fail every time.
Still happening now though isnt it? and the world is doing nothing about the concentration camps in China. The Fallon Gong and the Uighurs are rounded up, imprisoned and tortured on an industrial scale.
Yep, but China make our smartphones and that's what really matters!
This is an easy argument to throw out there because it sounds reasonable.
However, it is totally wrong because governments don’t use military force where it’s necessary. They use it for economic or political gain. They fail every time.
The two legitimate reasons for military force are self defense and preventing genocide.
Please be so kind as to point out where exactly in this thread I have suggested otherwise. I was originally talking about when military force was used to stop the Holocaust.
Holocausts are going on right now though so we also need to act on this warning.
What practical steps should we take to prevent them? A genuine question, what can/should we do (often two different things admittedly)?
http://www.harry-tates.org.uk/tgtw.html/blockquote >Only had chance for a skim through but will read later. Very interesting about the minesweepers since my father was transferred to the fleet in Lowestoft in 1943 after his ship was sunk by torpedo in the Atlantic. In 1945 he was sent to join the British minesweeper fleet in the Indian Ocean in readiness for the invasion of Japan. My father would not have known this but I researched the plans for the US led naval invasion & the minesweepers would be in the vanguard (just like D-Day) but the chances of survival was expect to be minimal. I have two photos of him, one in 1940 & the other 1945. The difference 5 years of war had taken is astonishing.
Have a read of "In Europe - travels through the twentieth Century" by Geert Mak - great read - very shocking data on the chances of survival of Jews in Europe from 1938-45 given the amount of co-operation with the Nazis because of anti semitism - best chances of survival if you were Jewish -Italy - worst Austria...
Please be so kind as to point out where exactly in this thread I have suggested otherwise.
You described using military force because we don't live in an ideal world. Holocausts being a few notches away from not "ideal" I inferred that you meant for other less important reasons.
What practical steps should we take to prevent them?
Genocides? Action should be direct, tangible, within a legal framework and aimed at the perpetrators.
Sanctions are often used but this is the wrong approach. Sanctions harm the regular population and the elites in charge carry on.
The way to solve it is if a leader or political party is commiting genocide then there should be a swift
International Criminal Court trial and decision and the people involved arrested and prosecuted. If this involves the military then this is where it should be used. Unfortunately, as America and Saudi lead the way on warcrimes, they will never join this court and it remains largely powerless. If the military leaders in Myanmar knew that a special forces helicopter was going to land in the garden one day and they'd either die fighting or in jail then it would stop. Same for China. Xi arrested at the airport rather than going for a pint with Cameron would be the right action.
This is what Team America World Police should look like but it won't because they'd have to arrest everyone from Kissinger to Bush and Cheney.
Genocide and war crimes are largely decriminalised in the world.
The way to solve it is if a leader or political party is commiting genocide then there should be a swift
International Criminal Court trial and decision and the people involved arrested and prosecuted.
within a legal framework
If this involves the military then this is where it should be used.
Well Xi Jinping has diplomatic immunity outside of China, as a head of state, and he's also the head of the world's 3rd largest nuclear power, so I can't see him being arrested and prosecuted (legally) even if there was a will to do so.
He could be tried in absentia, but that's not going to achieve anything.
Any more good ideas?
Went there a couple of years ago in February, well actually went to Krakow for a conference. Friday before the flight home three of us jumped into a taxi to visit the place.
I wasn't prepared for it.
It's short of miraculous that people survived.
You described using military force because we don’t live in an ideal world. Holocausts being a few notches away from not “ideal” I inferred that you meant for other less important reasons.
I was meaning genocide, however there are other "lesser" examples I can think of. For example was it morally correct to use military force to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Were we entitled to take military action to regain the Falklands?