Remind me, why was Tywin a bad guy again?

[Chronicler]

Which is my point. Two people can do the exact same thing, but based on the situation, that act will be interpreted differently.

Tywin attacks the Riverlands unprovoked for a slight against his family. The USA bombed Germany towards the end of WW2 as a response to, among other things, Germany declaring war on the USA, Germany and Japan attacking the USA, genocide, war crimes and breaking all sorts of international treaties.

So you are saying the US bombed Germany for a genocide they didn't know about yet? That hardly seems logical to me.

And Germany never declared war on the US, second error

Germany never attacked the US either, third error

And Germany was severely limited after ww1 and the Versailles treaty, the new treaty Hitler got with the british called Agna stipulated that Germany could have 35% of the size of the british fleet.

And let's say it like this, human crimes are always human crimes regardless of motivation, sure, Germany bombed women and children and cities....so then it's right for the US to do the same thing? Child reasoning.

German soldies killed civilians in the east, so then it was okay for the red army to kill like 3 million germans and rape 90% of the women in eastern Germany? >_>

[danm_999]

So you are saying the US bombed Germany for a genocide they didn't know about yet? That hardly seems logical to me.

You realize the Allies didn't find out about the genocide after the war right? Things like Kristallnacht and resettlement were happening in the years before the war even began with the UK and France, let alone when the USA entered the war.

What they discovered after the war was not that genocide was occuring, but the shocking extent of the genocide.

And Germany never declared war on the US, second error

Yes, yes it did. December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the US. In retaliation, the USA declared war back.

Germany never attacked the US either, third error

Google the Second Happy Time.

You're 0 for 3 on your history so far.

And let's say it like this, human crimes are always human crimes regardless of motivation, sure, Germany bombed women and children and cities....so then it's right for the US to do the same thing? Child reasoning.

German soldies killed civilians in the east, so then it was okay for the red army to kill like 3 million germans and rape 90% of the women in eastern Germany? >_>

You're initial question was is there a difference between the USA bombing Germany in WW2 different to Tywin sacking the Riverlands in the War of the Five Kings.

My answer, as always, was that the context was different. The USA only bombed Germany after Germany had begun attacking other sovereign nations, killing civilians rather indiscriminately, and declared war on the USA. Tywin Lannister began setting the Riverlands aflame because he felt his family honour had been slighted.

One is justifiable. One is not.

[Chronicler]

You realize the Allies didn't find out about the genocide after the war right? Things like Kristallnacht and resettlement were happening in the years before the war even began with the UK and France, let alone when the USA entered the war.

What they discovered after the war was not that genocide was occuring, but the shocking extent of the genocide.

Yes, yes it did. December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the US. In retaliation, the USA declared war back.

Google the Second Happy Time.

You're 0 for 3 on your history so far.

You're initial question was is there a difference between the USA bombing Germany in WW2 different to Tywin sacking the Riverlands in the War of the Five Kings.

My answer, as always, was that the context was different. The USA only bombed Germany after Germany had begun attacking other sovereign nations, killing civilians rather indiscriminately, and declared war on the USA. Tywin Lannister began setting the Riverlands aflame because he felt his family honour had been slighted.

One is justifiable. One is not.

1. It's different killing political opponents etc, they didn't know about the actual genocide, and the final solution wasn't created/implemented until 43-44.

2. Well, I guess it's a technicality, because Roosevelt stated that they would attack german vessels etc already in october. So the nations technically already were at war. (Germany was pretty much forced to declare)

3. I ofc meant there was no german attack on the US *before* the war declarations. It seems logical that there should be attacks after a war declaration no?

And no, attacks on civilians are never justifiable.

[jlk7e]

So it's okay to murder German civilians in Dresden and other German cities because the Germans are murdering Jews in Poland? It's especially worth noting that while the Allies were aware that Jews were being murdered, their bombing campaign was not in any way meant to be retaliation for that. The basic attitude of the British and Americans was that the German people were complicit in Hitler's aggressions, and that as such, there were no true civilians and everyone was fair game. It's worth noting that, while this was their attitude, they also at the same time stridently denied that this was what they were doing, claiming that they were only attacking militarily valuable sites.

In war, civilians suffer. Much more in a modern war like World War II than in medieval style wars, in fact.

[danm_999]

1. It's different killing political opponents etc, they didn't know about the actual genocide, and the final solution wasn't created/implemented until 43-44.

The US State Department had the intel that the Nazi's planned to exterminate the Jews as early as 1941 from a Chilean Diplomat in Prague.

In May 1943, the leader of the Polish government in exile in London committed suicide, citing the world's inaction in stopping the Holocaust. US Strategic bombing of Germany occured in late 1943, 1944 and 1945.

2. Well, I guess it's a technicality, because Roosevelt stated that they would attack german vessels etc already in october. So the nations technically already were at war. (Germany was pretty much forced to declare)

That's not a technicality. You said Germany never declared war on the USA. They did so December 11 1941. You were wrong. Nor does it matter what Roosevelt said, only Congress can declare war in the US.

3. I ofc meant there was no german attack on the US *before* the war declarations. It seems logical that there should be attacks after a war declaration no?

You said Germany never attacked the US. Not Germany never attacked the USA before they declared war (an event you maintained didn't happen).

And no, attacks on civilians are never justifiable.

Of course they're justifiable, though they may not necessarily be justified.

[jlk7e]

danm - it's true that the Allies knew about the Holocaust, at least in general terms, by late 1942. It is not true that strategic bombing was ever justified by the allies as being a response to the Holocaust.

[danm_999]

danm - it's true that the Allies knew about the Holocaust, at least in general terms, by late 1942. It is not true that strategic bombing was ever justified as a response to the Holocaust.

In hindsight, no, I agree. At the time though? It became every obvious the Nazis were trying to destroy all evidence of the Holocaust because they knew the jig was up. Massive death marches occured pushing concentration camps into Germany away from the fronts, so the Allies at the time had a decent justification for trying to end the war as quickly as possible.

Given the knowledge the Allies had at the time, ending the war in Europe ASAP was a humanitarian concern. Of course, they also wanted to maintain a strong post-war position against Russia, so it wasn't entirely altruistic.

[Chronicler]

The US State Department had the intel that the Nazi's planned to exterminate the Jews as early as 1941 from a Chilean Diplomat in Prague.

In May 1943, the leader of the Polish government in exile in London committed suicide, citing the world's inaction in stopping the Holocaust. US Strategic bombing of Germany occured in late 1943, 1944 and 1945.

That's not a technicality. You said Germany never declared war on the USA. They did so December 11 1941. You were wrong. Nor does it matter what Roosevelt said, only Congress can declare war in the US.

You said Germany never attacked the US. Not Germany never attacked the USA before they declared war (an event you maintained didn't happen).

Of course they're justifiable, though they may not necessarily be justified.

1. You probably mean a leader and not the leader. And yes, there were rumours, but they had nothing confirmed. From what I have read they got pretty early news relayed from Franco who had gotten the word from a spanish doctor in Poland (but he had only heard rumours), yes they talked about it, but the mass-killings didn't start until 43-44.

2. I see Roosevelt saying they will attack german ships etc as a war declaration, to officially declare war (which Germany was forced to do really) is just a technicality.

And there has been loads of military actions ordered by presidents without the approval of congress.

3. Well, it's a simple assumption that it was before any war declaration. Since obviously in a war two sides attack each other.

Well, english is my third language, and I'm writing this in a hurry. But I would say no, neither justifiable or justified.

[danm_999]

1. You probably mean a leader and not the leader. And yes, there were rumours, but they had nothing confirmed. From what I have read they got pretty early news relayed from Franco who had gotten the word from a spanish doctor in Poland (but he had only heard rumours), yes they talked about it, but the mass-killings didn't start until 43-44.

So now we've gone from "didn't know about it" to "rumours, but they had nothing confirmed".

The State Department recently released they knew about it from several sources. There's no plausible deniability.

2. I see Roosevelt saying they will attack german ships etc as a war declaration,

Then your sight is impaired. The US Constitution only allows Congress to declare war. Nobody else.

to officially declare war (which Germany was forced to do really) is just a technicality.

But you claimed it never happened.

And there has been loads of military actions ordered by presidents without the approval of congress.

Which occured after WW2. So it's got nothing to do your with point. Reagan in El Salvador, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya, all post WW2.

3. Well, it's a simple assumption that it was before any war declaration. Since obviously in a war two sides attack each other.

Can we stop with the backpedaling please? You claimed Germany never declared war on, or attacked the USA. Both are false, I'm getting rather tired of you plopping in qualifiers after you've been called out on this.

Well, english is my third language, and I'm writing this in a hurry. But I would say no, neither justifiable or justified.

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[Datepalm]

Mod:

Ok people, this is off topic. We have a place for discussing world war 2 and it isn't here. Bring it back to Tywin or take it to gen chat.

[Chronicler]

Mod:

Ok people, this is off topic. We have a place for discussing world war 2 and it isn't here. Bring it back to Tywin or take it to gen chat.

So I can't answer? :(. Then I will look stupid.

[Lyanna Stark]

So I can't answer? :(. Then I will look stupid.

Copy the answers, create a new threat in Gen Chat. Sorted.

[danm_999]

Mod:

Ok people, this is off topic. We have a place for discussing world war 2 and it isn't here. Bring it back to Tywin or take it to gen chat.

Apologies, I did express that concern a few pages ago but I guess I'm too stubborn to follow my own advice.

@ Chronicler

Tywin did what he did for personal reasons, unprovoked. I think the comparison to modern warfare, especially the blase nature he gives to that decision (set the Riverlands on fire) demonstrates the innate immorality of his actions.

[Chronicler]

Apologies, I did express that concern a few pages ago but I guess I'm too stubborn to follow my own advice.

@ Chronicler

Tywin did what he did for personal reasons, unprovoked. I think the comparison to modern warfare, especially the blase nature he gives to that decision (set the Riverlands on fire) demonstrates the innate immorality of his actions.

I think you to easily forget that Catelyn seized Tyrion before Tywin did what he did.

And even so, pillaging etc was a natural part of warfare in medieval times. They needed to get food from somewhere.

[bloodymime]

I think you to easily forget that Catelyn seized Tyrion before Tywin did what he did.

And even so, pillaging etc was a natural part of warfare in medieval times. They needed to get food from somewhere.

And he should have gone to the king for justice like the Riverlanders did when it came to him pillaging their land. He was not the ultimate authority in the land even if he liked to think that he was.

I couldn't remember if it was just in the show or in the book as well but in fact Robert does order Ned to command Cat to release Tyrion so it's not a matter of Robert siding with Ned and Tywin just doing what he has to do to free his son.