Well, Hortland, your vision of the era does seem somewhat in line with that of many revisionists/apologists. In fact, many of your themes from this and the other thread, are contained at this disagreeable site. Now, there is a lot of other material at this site that goes far beyond anything posted by you in these threads, and I'm certainly not attributing those positions to you since you haven't stated those positions. [edit: BTW, I post a lot of stuff against Israel's current/past policy, so I am aware of the dangers with jumping to conclusions, since I don't appreciate false assumptions made about my motivations. However, I do make sure people know exactly where I'm coming from in a broad sense, so they know exactly who they are dealing with. I am a "race defiler" anyway (my wife is Jewish), so there is only so far those assumptions can realistically be drawn
It's funny, I actually know far more about the holocaust, or Israeli politics than she does and likely ever will.]
True revisionists actually trumpet Hitler's mandate over Germany (true democracy in action), say the German war aims were really fair and just, then deny that events like the holocaust occurred. There's no need to say the people didn't know since, well, there was nothing to know in the first place.
First you eliminate Germany as an aggressor, the Holocaust (12 million plus Henry Ford style) as a stunningly evil event, and then even things out with the: My side bombed yours, you bombed mine, what’s the difference? The next step, of course, becomes Hitler had the right idea and the Germans were the real victims. Just look what the Russians did to us! It's time for Aryan action! BTW Hortland, could you footnote, attribute or link the specific points in your reply?
Wotan, as I stated, Harris was wrong on that specific attack, perhaps even criminally wrong in spirit if not by definition. But, terror bombing itself was just another horrible, but conventional element in a total, 20th century industrial war. The days where armies were measured in the tens of thousands (or less) and fought one or two battles on some remote field to decide the war are long gone -- well, they may actually be coming back now in the 21st century.
You almost have to completely destroy a determined industrial country's infrastructure and economy(including its means of production) in order to stop it. Destroying its will to fight is much harder (if there's a significant will to fight in the first place), but that was a lesson learned FROM WW2, not before or even during, apparently.
If the de-housing aspects of terror bombing helped end the war a year earlier and saved allied lives (as the non-aggressors in the conflict) then I will not say we should have allowed more allied soldiers to die in order to save German civilians who were only "innocent" up to a point.
Similarly, individual excesses have always occurred, and yes, all sides are guilty throughout the ages. The difference I see is between a "manslaughter" act and a "1st degree murder" act. Individuals on all sides shot pilots in their chutes in the heat of battle. Individuals on all sides shot potential prisoners trying to surrender in the heat of battle, particularly if they had just killed some friends. I can accept that as a "part of war."
If you look at the allies, Harris might well have committed "1st degree murder" at Dresden (though he would probably have gotten off on a technicality). If you look at the Axis, "1st Degree murder" starts when the first tank rolls into Poland and continues through some 50 Million dead. I do see a distinction. At the battlefield level, for each Allied cold act of "1st degree murder" attributable to an individual commander making a cold-blooded decsion out of personal hate, how many similar Axis events were committed against civilians or captured troops as a matter of APPROVED POLICY in order to send a message (partisan activity reprisal, commandos captured, etc.)?
Here's one to throw out for consideration: The battle of the Bismark Sea.
In January 1943, a combined army of Australian and American troops started to move on the Japanese in New Guinea. Admiral Yamamoto was still determined to hold his bases at Salamoua and Lae.
So, on Febuary 28,1943, 8 destroyers and 8 transports carrying 6,000 troops slipped out of Rabaul, heading along the coast of New Britain Island and through the Bismarck Sea towards Lae. The next day, an RAAF Liberator spotted the convoy. Despite the initial raid by B-17 Flying Fortesses, which blew up two of the transports (wow, it actually did happen at least twice), the convoy stayed on course. They were about to turn around the Huon Peninsula and make their final run for Lae when, on the morning of March 3rd, 84 American bombers and fighters, accompanied by 13 RAAF Beaufighters swept in mast-high out of the morning sun.
Four destroyers and the remaining transports were sunk, leaving hundreds of men clinging to wreckage. More and more Allied aircraft (330 in all) now zoomed in to machine gun the survivors. Later that night, the grisly work continued, to stop the Japanese from coming ashore. About 3000 Japanese died in what the Japanese called the "Bismarck Sea Massacre". Only 850 reached Lae, where they too soon perished. After that, there was little Yamamoto could do to reinforce his forces in New Guinea.
Some Factors to Consider:
1. Many still had their weapons, none had surrendered
2. There was a good chance they would make it to the war zone, and many did.
Charon
