Do we all remember those war crime trials for all the British responsible for fire-bombing hundreds of thousands of Germans and the Americans responsible for fire-bombing over a million Japanese? Oh, I forgot, they were on the winning side - no trials. I'm so impressed with this one.

So he should just be allowed to go free? By the same token Himmler, Goering et al should've been allowed to carry on their lives after WWII as if nothing had happened? It may be winner's justice, but it's better than no justice at all.

Those were all in response to first strikes carried out by Germans and Japanese. You can't swing first then complain you got your butt kicked. Precision munitions were not yet developed, so you can't complain about splash damage. Plus, since those were formal country vs country conflicts, the entire infrastructure was in effect part of the war making capabilities. Learn how war works before you complain that it is too messy.

The idea that war, which is essentially about killing our fellow human beings, is some sort of moral exercise on either side, is lunacy that leaders try to sell their followers to keep up morale. Only fools believe it. "Mommy, he hit me first" (so I can kill all his civilians) is not really a morally valid position. Only losers have to pay though. One of the previous posters said in effect that is better than not punishing anyone. Quite possibly true but I could do without the moral superiority BS.

Says those who stand because others were willing to die for your right to do so. It is a moral exercise in many cases. And the reasons for it must have a logical rational... if nobody would have killed in WW2 for moral reasons, the axis powers would have easily won. Killing may be the last resort, but it is a logically and moral supported rational to physical aggression.

It unfortunate that when large groups disagree so violently that mass killing is the method of resolution, but do not say it is never warranted.

Do we all remember those war crime trials for all the British responsible for fire-bombing hundreds of thousands of Germans and the Americans responsible for fire-bombing over a million Japanese? Oh, I forgot, they were on the winning side - no trials. I'm so impressed with this one.

Perhaps............If these nations had surrendered earlier it would have avoided the death and destruction of the "fight to the finish"

Any blame for the leaders of these nations that kept the fighting going from the safty of a bunker while thier citizens died in a lost cause?

People have said bad things about the Italians due to thier surrender after Sicily was conqured: actually Italy looks better than the other Axis powers because they bowed out of a war that was a failure.

Exactly. There's a passage in 'Catch 22' where the old man in the brothel explains that Italy's incredibly successful at war because it always loses so quickly.

While I certainly agree that Germany et al. started the war, and that is shown by how they occupied and slaughtered people all over Europe, and as to the Japanese, all over China, Vietnam, and much of Asia.

However, there was no military reason for us to firebomb Dresdin, etc. We tested a lot of weapons on those poor people long after we had whupped them, and IMHO it was the right wing doing it because they wanted an ideological, religious war with the Soviet Union as soon as the dust of World War II cleared and they were getting ready,

They can't stand it when anyone is different from them, I guess.

When there is any way other than conflict, no conflict should occur.

candoxx. such an idealouge. Can you tell us how the City of Havana was ruined?