[Veltro]

Joseph Salemi said:

Pardon me, but there are certainly morals in war. Certain types of behavior are taboo, and we punish them under the rubric of "war crimes."
If you say that moral standards don't apply in wartime, then you cannot condemn Hitler for ordering the extermination of European Jewry, since he believed it to be a military necessity. The same holds for the Turkish genocide against the Armenians in 1915--the Turks felt that the military situation demanded it.

We don't tolerate the extrajudicial killing of POWs, or the rape of enemy women, or the pillaging of civilian property. We don't finish off wounded enemy soldiers, or machine-gun survivors of a sinking enemy ship. All of these things do happen sometimes, but civilized men have always recognized them as beyond the pale of proper behavior.

The same holds for acts of naked aggression against unoffending countries. If Germany's attack on Poland in 1939 was criminal, why is Italy's attack on Greece in 1940 not criminal?

I am sorry that you are not sleeping well. Try the following: A cup of good hot chocolate with a tot of cognac in it. You will sleep very soundly.

Amico Mio…..Morals and war at any time did/do not go together. The attempt to codify morals to paper was made mid way through ww2 and shortly thereafter (war crimes). As can be seen by the state of the world we doll out justice to those who seem fit for it.

Of course on a moral level…a human level, the attempt to exterminate the Jews by the Germans and the Armenians by the Turks (who by the way admit to no such thing regardless of the evidence and regardless of most of the Western world recognizing it including Canada , but not the USA for some political reason!) is 100% disgraceful, disgusting and a lot more adjectives that I can’t come up with at the moment….
But we are dealing with political entities whereby the state ceased to be human (not unlike corporations today). Faceless entities that did/do what they did/do for the good of the fatherland or motherland. Whereby the few were sacrificed so that the many may flourish. This is the perversion that Himmler foisted on his ss and condemned them to the dregs of history.

We tolerate what the time calls for nothing more and nothing less be it Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Italians , Russians, etc…

I never said that Italy’s attack was or wasn’t criminal. I think that you have to view that within the context of the times. If as has been stated by several well versed contributors that there was to be no battle but rather a march then would that still be considered criminal? Was Germanys union with Austria criminal? If however you do wish for a direct answer from me then I would say that Italy’s attack on Greece was more criminal than Germany’s on Poland. Why you say? Because Poland like Yugoslavia was a creation of the Paris peace of 1919. Poland as a state didn’t exist for 300 years prior to WW1. Post WW1 Poland was created at the expense of the Kaiser’s Germany.

I don’t know Joseph…I think if I gave the babies hot chocolate and cognac the childrens aid society would coma knockin :)


Best Reguards,
Eddy

[Joseph Salemi]

The hot chocolate and the cognac were suggested for you, not for your babies. I thought that you were having trouble sleeping. However, it is interesting to note that in the 19th century colicky babies were given laudanum to put them to sleep, and give the poor parents a break. Laudanum is over-the-counter opium. You rubbed laudanum on the kid's gums, and he went out like a light for several hours.

I can't agree with you on the question of morals in warfare. We can't just do what the times seem to require, with no attention paid to right and wrong. That makes every sort of crime feasible. As far back as the Middle Ages, Europeans felt that there was a "code of honor" that warriors needed to obey. Yes, morality has frequently been disregarded in combat, especially in the twentieth century. But that doesn't mean that disregarding morality is a valid option. If rape is extremely common, does that mean it's OK to rape girls?

Why is it morally OK to invade Poland and Yugoslavia on the grounds that they are "new" countries? They were sovereign states, just like France and Britain and the U.S. The attitude that places like Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Baltic states were somehow illegitimate is one that Hitler and the Nazis had. Hitler referred to all of the above nations as "the Treaty States," meaning that they had been created at Versailles in 1919, and had no real right to exist. I can see why a rabid German nationalist like Hitler thought that, but he was wrong.

[pg]

Joseph Salemi said:

The hot chocolate and the cognac were suggested for you, not for your babies. I thought that you were having trouble sleeping. However, it is interesting to note that in the 19th century colicky babies were given laudanum to put them to sleep, and give the poor parents a break. Laudanum is over-the-counter opium. You rubbed laudanum on the kid's gums, and he went out like a light for several hours.

:lol: :lol:
I'm liking this........drugging babies.....dont have any yet, but its only a matter of time. I'm off to the pharmacists!!!!! :D

[Joseph Salemi]

Laudanum, although now illegal, was widely used in the nineteenth century. If you try to ask for it in your pharmacy today, you'll be arrested. Just another casualty of America's stupid anti-drug war.

[pg]

Ah yes the fight against drugs....now theres a whole new can of worms to open!!! Where the US policy of spreading democracy to the world meets combatting drug supply the latter wins every time....and yet its totally unwinnable across the globe, from street level to the producer.

[Joseph Salemi]

When I think of all the money and human energy and police time wasted on this utterly insane attempt to stamp out drug use, I want to scream out in helpless rage. We Americans have poured more resources into this pipedream than we spent in World War II and on the develoment of the atomic bomb.

And it is a complete waste! The drug trade exists because millions of Americans want their cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, and will pay whatever they have to pay to get the stuff. Only morons think that you can solve a demand problem by interdicting a supply problem!

[pg]

I'm not sure anyone thinks it is a winnable situation, I think the aim is control. Without any kind of control I suspect the medical resources of the world would be overstretched in no time. As I said before its a whole can of worms on its own!

[Joseph Salemi]

I understand that control should be the basic aim. But we have to try and control drug use rationally, the way we control liquors and spirits. We can have an age limit for purchases, quality control to insure purity of product, taxation to get revenues, and above all the sensible attitude that some people are going to use drugs recreationally and we have to accommodate their needs. If we can come to this sort of modus vivendi with drinkers and smokers, why can't we do the same with drugs?

Right now, the biggest growth industry in the United States is PRISONS. We have penitentiaries sprouting up like mushrooms in every state of the union. In my own state of New York, we have fortresses everywhere, like Europe in the barbarian period. America now has more jails than the Soviets did with their G.U.L.A.G. system! And they are crammed with people convicted because of our stupid anti-drug laws.

But worst of all is our corrupt and vicious DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), which has all the power of the GESTAPO and the KGB combined. Bush's "Patriot Act" has essentially cancelled most of the civil liberties that Americans once enjoyed; the DEA has the right to seize private property and invade homes whenever it wishes.

Is all of this worth it, just to guarantee that some pimply-faced kid in the suburbs can't get a marijuana cigarette?

[Simes]

Old Alpino said:

:!: two more options:

2. Staying Neutral through out in exchange for cold hard cash

You mean like Sweden and Switzerland??

Not very 'noble' for fascist Italy. I'm not sure how Mussolini would have explained that to the public.

[Tikko]

The biggest Italian mistake was not launching attack on Malta.Just imagine, Malta is in Mussolini's hands... italian navy now can control almost all MEDITERRANEAN region, supplies for Italians in North Africa are safe...

[Folgore]

I agree with you Tikko...are you a new mwmber, isn't it?
Welcome to this forum.. :D

[Tikko]

Yep, I am new. Thank you for warm welcome.

[nemt]

As controversial as this may sound, I think the biggest mistake was refusing to use gas against European enemies. While reprisal by Britain may have been horrible, the initial attack on Egypt could've greatly aided Graziani's advance - just as it did in the Abyssinian war. It may have even compelled the British to seek a separate peace in Africa.

As for the given choices:

Invading Greece: Not a blunder in itself. Il Duce's fickle nature on the matter is what made it worse, along with the unreadiness of Italian officers and noncoms. There's no excuse for losing a battle with complete air superiority and a larger force, even if the enemy is dug into the mountains.

Advancing in N. Africa in 1940: It was a mistake to engage the British with the tactics eventually used. No amount of WW1 era infantry and armor was going to overwhelm the then-modern defenders.

Offering Germany an army for the Russian campaign: Not a mistake no matter how many men died. The Soviet Union was the ultimate evil in the world before, during and after WW2, and it was worth any sacrifice to attempt to bring them down.

Invading British Somalialand: Not sure why this is here, British Somaliland was the only independent decisive victory.

Not starting an all out assault on Malta in 1940: voted for this one

Not turning on the Germans straight after the armistice: I'd put the armistice itself as more of a mistake than this. I generally agree with Borghese's contention that it's better to be defeated with honor than to be victorious traitors.