I cannot apologise for fighting against apartheid': Robert McBride defends Durban bombing

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,604
Tokyo? Combined more civilians were killed in that bombing than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Bombing against Germany totalled 400k but both sides bombed the hell out of each other.
There is a great Hardcore History episode where he goes into the change in attitudes towards bombing, how civilian casualties became "acceptable" over time...

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/

The firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo meant that the A-bomb wasn't seen as any more excessive as to what had already been done on previous occasions...
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
23,161
The NP didn't need to act like terrorists within SA, they controlled the army and the police -outside SA borders is where they started to use bombs to hit targets in other countries...

In terms of bombings, yes the ANC relied on bigger and more indiscriminate devices (which horrifically claimed many innocent lives) - the SA government didn't need to bomb people within SA, they simply deployed the army and kicked people's doors in...
That's comparing apples to oranges though..... you cannot oppress the people of SA by using an army outside of it... at worst/best that was oppressing foreign people.

Foreign SA targets were legitimate targets of war.
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,604
That's comparing apples to oranges though..... you cannot oppress the people of SA by using an army outside of it... at worst/best that was oppressing foreign people.
Foreign people? You do know that the SADF were deployed to the townships during the 80's?
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
23,161
Foreign people? You do know that the SADF were deployed to the townships during the 80's?
If a violent mob forms you shoot it apart and reason with whatever is left, there is no other sane way to think in such a situation. The SADF actually showed a lot of restraint.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
51,189
There is a great Hardcore History episode where he goes into the change in attitudes towards bombing, how civilian casualties became "acceptable" over time...

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-42-blitz-logical-insanity/

The firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo meant that the A-bomb wasn't seen as any more excessive as to what had already been done on previous occasions...
Yup, the A-Bomb was apparently seen as more "humane" than firebombing, as it would be over quicker or something. Look all wars produce an unnecessary amount of killing, just WW2 took it so far with the amount of civilians killed. Almost being 5 to 6 times more civilian deaths than WW1.
 

Jopie Fourie

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
2,251
The long and the short is that the Apartheid government were too lenient with terrorists. They should have been hanged 24 hours after being convicted.
 

HunterNW

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
26,465
Am sure you are just dying to make a clever point so I will await your response...
Rambo made it quite clear. Pitty we don't have the same SADF deployed around squatter camps and areas of unrest.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
92,880
The firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo meant that the A-bomb wasn't seen as any more excessive as to what had already been done on previous occasions...

The japanese were quite happy to die for the emperor and their surrender did not appear imminent dragging the war out. One would have expected immediate surrender after the first bomb but not the japanese...
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,604
If a violent mob forms you shoot it apart and reason with whatever is left, there is no other sane way to think in such a situation. The SADF actually showed a lot of restraint.
Killing people after they resist your oppression and then patting yourselves on the back for being so "restrained"... :rolleyes:
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,604
The japanese were quite happy to die for the emperor and their surrender did not appear imminent dragging the war out. One would have expected immediate surrender after the first bomb but not the japanese...
I don't disagree, Japan was pretty much run by the Generals and even after the second bomb some of them wanted to carry on....
 

rambo919

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
23,161
Yup, the A-Bomb was apparently seen as more "humane" than firebombing, as it would be over quicker or something. Look all wars produce an unnecessary amount of killing, just WW2 took it so far with the amount of civilians killed. Almost being 5 to 6 times more civilian deaths than WW1.
There is another better argument though, the Japanese mindset at the time was one of win or die. The a-bombs shocked them to the point of surrender, though they won't have been needed if the Americans did not demand unconditional surrender.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
51,189
There is another better argument though, the Japanese mindset at the time was one of win or die. The a-bombs shocked them to the point of surrender, though they won't have been needed if the Americans did not demand unconditional surrender.
There's also that, but they tried other methods, as I said the firebombs of Tokyo killed more than the two A bombs did.
 

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
25,726
Shopping centers and restaurants..... women and children.

:confused:
 

Excalibur

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
5,622
Sorry, but your little tedious whine here is rejected with contempt. You know absolutely nothing about me or my family and what we did and did not benefit from. And neither do you enjoy the privilege of an explanation either.
I never sought your acceptance, I just stated my view like you are stating yours. I don't have to know about your particular family, the fact is that the innocent men, women and children maimed and killed during Apartheid, and those whose livelihoods were destroyed for generations to come and other evils committed were committed for the benefit of the minority. All the legislation created to exclude the majority of South Africans from education, jobs, healthcare, business etc were not done in a vacuum or just to punish the majority but to benefit the minority. All those benefits obtained from the blood that was spilled are still being enjoyed today and carry on to the next generation.

There is no justification for murder... ever. And you insult the memory of thousands (actually millions) of "oppressed" South Africans who also rejected murder as a solution.

I think you've got a very bigoted view if you think the oppressed just decided out of the blue to use "murder as a solution". You paint them as savages, again a hallmark of the brainwashing of the minority population by the then government. You somewhat spend a lot of time and energy lambasting those who were oppressed for their methods of resistance and much less on the oppressor.


In 1960, under conditions of a state of emergency and a harsh crackdown on the ANC, a number of our leaders were sent abroad to establish an external mission under the then Deputy President-General of the ANC, Oliver Tambo. Faced with the regime's reign of terror and the closing of all avenues of legal protest and organisation, the ANC decided to form an army of liberation. In 1961 the ANC, together with the South African Communist Party, formed Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), a people's army, with Nelson Mandela as the first Commander-in-Chief. Large numbers of cadres left the country for military training.

And like I always say even the devil's help would have been welcomed by South Africans in order to fight Apartheid, justifiably so.
 
Top