My father is Croatian.
I can tell you. Croatians commited warcrimes as well.

People won't admit that because the winning side writes history. American firebombings were on a holocaust level of war crime but few consider the magnitude of the crime.

It's all but certain the Kosovars were slaughtering Serbs and harvesting their organs to sell on the black market but since Kosovo was the "ally" those crimes weren't pursued.

No side comes out of a war completely clean.

That being said, I do think that the (Bosnian) Serbs commited most of the heinous things that went on there.



Again, to anyone that's interested, I can highly recommend the documentary "The Death of Yugoslavia" if you are interested in that conflict.

... NO, this is evident from Tacitus to (whoever wrote today), and the biases of Tacitus are not those exhibited by historians or historian x
or the Early Yuan writings of the Yuan history (aka. the Chinese didn't like the Mongols).
or most of history in general. you'd be laughed at by any and all historians of all times.
or whichever historical sources one familiarises oneself in

you've got no idea of how history is to be interpreted whatsoever, deal with it. and as i've said before - you'd do us all a favour if you'd stop pretending that you have the slightest clue of how history is read and understood.

from a purely juridic view of the law, discounting the whole god damn "genocide"-aspect of the holocaust.
no, they were not anywhere close to the holocaust level of a warcrime. if you're to approach war crimes via a convention-based basis, the Hague convention allowed aerial bombardment of civilian population btw, which post-WW2 disallowed.
if performed today many of the bombings by allies would be war crimes, yes, but this was wholly before such an understanding of them. the fact that they were not convicted is has to do with the fact that what they did wasn't illegal to do at all.
care to relate to us what the "bombings of London" were? or what "Concentration camps" were?
how about Dresden's status and what importance it held as a city though?

why did you not tell us of the German bombings btw? was it your ideology or what?

i mean, wtf is your problem, do you even bloody fucking god damn understand what the holocaust is? your ridiculous and altogether god damn fucking retarded views of history have been shown idiotic before, but here you are really being an total,full-blown idiot altogether.


you're all but certain that your modern stereotypes influenced by Kosovar organised crime organ trade (it is a problem among organised crime) had to do with the problems of the time (i.e. fullblown god damn war). seems like the victors don't write the history.
imo it's a sort of a propaganda to tarnish the Kosovar fighters against Serb aggression.

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 9 2014 05:54pm

As a sidenote, the word 'holocaust' (from the Greek holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt") could correctly be used to describe the firebombing of Dresden.

The fact that the Germans commited atrocities does not whitewash the atrocities commited against them. I would describe the bombing of Dresden as an atrocity as it was aimed at civilians with next to no military benefit to the Allies.

This post was edited by hATemOnkEy on Oct 9 2014 05:57pm

Dresden was a city of importance with its' industrial and military targers, the firebombings had to do with crippling their working.

btw, the husband of Hannah Arendt was somewhat of a holocaust denier because he didn't believe that it'd be rational of the Nazis to devote so much time to killing "undesirables". the thing about National Socialism was/is that it appealed exactly to the unconscious among other things - the irrational was from where it claimed its' power.
of course i think it's god damn wrong, but it's actually a response to... exactly the same thing when the Nazis tried to do it (Hitler's generals adviced against him iirc, yet again.). bomb English civilian targets.


each and every nazi apologist better explain what Belarussians did wrong when they got butchered by the Nazis and forgotten by the Soviets.

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 9 2014 06:03pm

I'm not a Nazi apologist.
I'm just saying that atrocities were commited against the German people as well.

And no, the bombings of Dresden were not against military or industrial targets.



I'd have to look it up, but I'm fairly convinced that Fergusson in his book 'War of the World' comes to the same conclusion.

well, Dresden had a wholly different strategic objective. as it was common with what was defined by the Nazis, it couldn't be achieved. Dresden's industrial production was powerful, particularly because of its' status as a Judenfrei town as opposed to those tows providing armanent via slave labour.
how did other cities fare compared to Dreseden btw? this is a question that Nazi and pseudo-Nazi seekers of martyrs often seem to reject.

to modern pseudo-Nazis, the followers of Göbbels' lies as parroted by modern nazis, Rodenberger's retarded amounts of casualties published in favour of the Nazis (with their data) (multiplying the actual amounts in order to fit Göbbels' propaganda), or Irving's general fuckupedness seem to be the only sources to be followed. they don't work towards any objective understanding. in fact those that seek to most understand the offenders are mostly the ones that outright wish that the offenders had killed off all Russians/Jews/Belorussians.

This post was edited by Gastly on Oct 9 2014 06:33pm

I don't understand what you're asking.

You're flat out wrong. History is not neutral in any sense as you claim it is. Roman historians are the predominant source for history of war and conflict, in many cases the only source. Many people today believe the Carthaginians sacrificed children, of which the only literary evidence comes from biased Roman sources. It wasn't until recently that it was discovered it is far more likely Carthaginian's cremated and revered their children rather than sacrifices. Historians today still don't accept that because of the biased history of Roman chronographers. The narrative and discourse of conflict is defined by the victors, and the evidence to over turn this has to be overwhelming. Perhaps you should learn to have a clue of what you're talking about before you start making such outlandish, ludicrous, and obviously incorrect statements and acting as if you are some authority. You're a nobody who make a clearly incorrect claim (history isn't biased).

You can circle jerk with Brmv if you want to make elitist and wrong claims.

Saying something wasn't illegal because people weren't convicted is ridiculous. It is fact the allies committed war crimes, and it is fact (not opinion) that the fire bombing's of German and Japanese cities was a crime against humanity. Setting a city on fire so it's civilians are incinerated and killed in gruesome ways is as heinous as the gassing a population group. The Americans killed around 100,000 Japanese civilians on a single night. That is not just war. What makes the holocaust a significantly worse crime than fire bombings? Because the German's explicitly killed to eliminate population? The result's are comparable: mass killings for little to no military gain.

The Hague Conventions did not allow bombardment of civilian populations from the air. They made no mention, because the advent of bombing from aircraft didn't begin until the Spanish Civil War. Slaughtering civilian populations with no just military justification absolutely would have been considered a war crime. German's were prosecuted for doing just that. It is easy to make the argument the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo can be viewed as unlawful slaughter's of civilian populations.

Germany did not incinerate over 100,000 enemy civilians. You seem to think there is no difference between the fire bombing of Tokyo and a small scale bombing of an industrial zone.

No, accusations and strong evidence of Kosovo rebels harvesting the organs of Serbian's comes from conflict in Yugoslavia. The evidence is overwhelming that Kosovar rebels engaged in organ theft against Serbian populations. Your desire to claim history is unbiased is a joke in the face of your own incorrect claims being affected by the narrative written by the victorious side in the Kosovo War

You've proven yourself to be an ignorant fool who can't make an argument without filling it with "well nuu uh" arguments and childish flames.

History is biased. Your absurd posts proves are evident of that.