Russian invasion of Ukraine

I'm not comparing, I'm saying that killing lots of civilians doesnt mean you break the opponent, as Dibble has also.
Yeah, you can have legal precedent for what makes for a war crime and who's pretending Dresden didnt get bombed? Your argument came across very much as we can't point the finger at Russia when at a point in our history our ancestors did something that would today be a war crime.
And now I will go back to not debating things on the internet.

with 3 million civilian dead did the Germans loose the will to fight?

Most did, hence there was a surrender. Plenty lost the will to fight in '41.

So many controversial opinions here pal, not sure where to begin.

Somehow suggesting that its not ok to criticise Russian murdering of civilians yesterday due to some of our great grandfathers bombing Dresden 80 years ago is frankly ridiculous. The people that made those decisions are dead and buried. By your gauges of morality, society would never move on and no one on earth would be innocent.

Troll gonna troll

What evidence can you give to support the idea that the majority of the German population lost the will to fight and when did this happen?

How many lost the will to fight in 1941 and how did this manifest itself?

My point was that if you kill more and more civilians - far more than were killed in the Blitz - eventually the angry will to fight is overcome by hopelessness and despair. Generals know this, which is partly why they sometimes target civilians. In other words they deliberately commit war crimes if they think there's a military benefit.

Some British war crimes are very recent. It's not that long ago that the majority of British citizens said they wanted Blair tried as a war criminal.

How about looking up how many Germans surrendered to Russians at Stalingrad? And how many German plots there were to kill Hitler? I don't really want to recount all the details of a 6 year war.

It's not that long ago that the majority of British citizens said they wanted Blair tried as a war criminal.

I think you've misremembered this

I didn't suggest that, I was putting some of the facts in their context, because too many people have unthinking, uneducated, unenlightened, unsophisticted kneejerk reactions to what's happening, just like your reaction to my post.

Fact check it then.

Most did, hence there was a surrender.

I'm not sure the facts support that assertion. The fact that the Allies fought all the way to Berlin and occupied it might have had something to do with it. I'm pretty sure all those Allied soldiers who were killed and injured on the way to and into Berlin might disagree.

Plenty lost the will to fight in '41.

Again, I suspect that the allied troops who took part in D-Day in June 1944 and the allied troops who were on the receiving end of the Ardennes offensive in December 1944/January 1945 might beg to differ.

So those Germans surrendered in 1941 because of RAF bombing of civilians that didn’t start till February 1942?

Here's some more context, for anyone who's interested. https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3177206/how-russia-learned-wests-actions-iraq-kosovo-guantanamo-bay-and I'm bored of this discussion now

https://aoav.org.uk/2020/the-effects-of-strategic-bombing-in-wwii-on-german-morale/

Plus this. "More than 20,000 German troops were executed by courts-martial during the war for varieties of defeatism." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed

That is a report written by proponents of bombing who claim 305,000 civilian deaths 1/10 of your own claim. I’m surprised you aren’t doubting it’s veracity.
Nor does it explain why the 1942 bombing campaign produced a 1941 surrender.

South China Morning Post?Don’t they now promote the Chinese Government, who have committed many atrocities in the past and thus aren’t entitled to comment on current war crimes?

At some point, all forums become Urban75.

An uncle had a guy in his unit whose house and family had been blown up during the blitz. That guy killed every German he could.
He definitely did not lose the will to fight.

I’m thinking it would be very hard for me if I was a Ukrainian, not to kill every Russian I could if my wife had been raped and murdered, and the rest of my family killed.
Imagine being from Bucha and half the people you knew were killed and dumped in a hole. You wouldn’t be worrying about what happened in 1941.

That's the problem...killings cause a chain reaction. I'd like to kill Putin. I've never even hit anyone, but I really think I would kill him if I had the chance. Every dead Ukrainian makes me want to do it. I've been wanting to do it since he had Ukrainians shot in 2014.

Do your own work before spouting nonsense facts you half remember from a pub conversation

Quote from Finnish member of the public on BBC news
"If you'd asked me last year I'd have said 'Nato is just an anti Russian organisation' well it turns out we actually need an anti Russian organisation"

@nick_h. 's point isn't that contraversial. He's explaining Russia war Crimes by saying Russian Generals believe war Crimes bring strategic success. Russian soldiers may also simply be evil, brutalised murderers. But that's not the only reason they kill civilians. They are encouraged from higher up for strategic reasons. The question of whether war Crimes ever DO bring strategic advantage is a separate one, it seems odd people are sniping at each other over this.

Also: memories and wounds of soviet occupation still remain so I guess Russian brutality is not something new or unexpected to them.

If that's their point, I don't think it was well communicated by the initial post https://www.lfgss.com/comments/16520537/ and that's what caused 'controversy'. It's not an argument about military strategy.

Fair enough, agreed this is slightly ghoulish whataboutery