"Operation Gomorrha"

[Furball]

Originally posted by GScholz
Sorry Furball, not good enough. Still took only one A/C back in 1945 (think big-booms in Nippon)

yup, but 1943 it didnt, which was 60 years ago

[Dowding]

And the English were just as bad as the Germans, or even worse, when it comes to this particular method of butchering civilians...

The hero master-race more than made up for their 'deficiency' via other methods, eh?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
The master-race more than made up for their 'deficiency' via other methods, eh?

Point being? That since the Germans killed more innocent civilians than the Brits did anyway, what the Brits did is ok?

[Dowding]

Point being?

Hello? I believe you kicked this off with "...the English were just as bad as the Germans, or even worse...".

That since the Germans killed more innocent civilians than the Brits did...

I like how you compare the systematic genocide of millions of people in a superbly ochestrated and resourced process to what the Allies did. Neat. Neither in scale nor in design are they remotely similar.

And here's the difference: when the Allies won, the killing immediately stopped. If the heroic master-race had won, do you think the killing would have come to a sudden halt?

[Batz]

The war wasnt won by firebombing civilians, it was won else where.

Sneaking in at night to kill civilians didnt beat the lw, stop the wehrmacht or liberate a single death camp.

Most of what was learned about the Death camps came to light at the end of the war. Not when Harris was planning how to "dehouse" German Civilians.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Batz
The war wasnt won by firebombing civilians, it was won else where.

Sneaking in at night to kill civilians didnt beat the lw, stop the wehrmacht or liberate a single death camp.

Most of what was learned about the Death camps came to light at the end of the war. Not when Harris was planning how to "dehouse" German Civilians.

So if someone tried to "raize to the ground" New York, Washington + all other american cities..... the americans wouldn't retaliate?

[Dowding]

The war wasnt won by firebombing civilians, it was won else where.

You can't possibly know what the outcome would have been without the bombing. No-one can. Basing your argument on the idea that you have that ability weakens your whole point.

Sneaking in at night to kill civilians didnt beat the lw, stop the wehrmacht or liberate a single death camp.

See point made above. So, all those planes, pilots, fuel and ammo expended in defending the Nazi regime from the air-raids had absolutely no effect on the German war effort?

Most of what was learned about the Death camps came to light at the end of the war. Not when Harris was planning how to "dehouse" German Civilians.

So?

[Batz]

The night terror raids werent heavily defended. Do a search on nightfighters.

I am talking the Brit (Harris) dehousing policy. The Brits knew from their experience with Germans bombing their cities that it would not in all likelyhood break their will. All it did was up the body count of women and children. The daylight raids were more efffective not in what they hit but because it forced the lw up where it was destroyed. That didnt happen at night.

That doesnt weaken my point it does just the opposite in showing Harris' bloodlust.

Dont claim morale superiority. The terror bombing by the brits was just as much a crime as any other.

Which goes to Steve's point.

[Dowding]

But they were defended then? A few posts ago you were saying the complete opposite.

The holocaust was a completely different crime to the 'crime' of night-bombing. It was one of systematic extermination of races and peoples; if the British (and Americans) were so intent on the murder of innocents, as you might say, why didn't they nuke Germany? Why didn't they systematically machine gun people besides freshly dug pits in the ground? Why didn't they build camps in which to gas people and then incinerate them at a rate of hundreds of thousands a month?

You're trying to level a mountain.

[Batz]

quote "undefended" in my post.

Harris did have a "system". He "systematically" went about terrorizing civilians. The war ended early for him. Had the war been more difficult for the allies, ie the Russians, then the us might well have "nuked" berlin. The russians were on the verge of victory.

The only thing that stopped Harris was that Großadmiral Dönitz surrendered.

You imply that Harris had to terror bomb German cities as if it was crucial to the war effort. Or that it some way makes up for the death camps. A crime is a crime.

BTW German night fighters didnt constitute "the lw". What defense they put up was meager using mostly planes that had no use in daylight.  So yea there was "defense" but for the most part was meaningless. Hardly enough to change the course of the war.

[Dowding]

Harris did have a "system". He "systematically" went about terrorizing civilians. The war ended early for him. Had the war been more difficult for the allies, ie the Russians, then the us might well have "nuked" berlin. The russians were on the verge of victory.

And the death camps - remind me please? Did the Allies set any up? Did they intend to set any up? Your argument seems to be that the Allies set out to exterminate the German people like the Germans set out to exterminate the Jews or gypsies. Well, all I can say is that they weren't quite as efficient were they?

A crime is a crime.

Kind of like how speeding and axe murdering your entire family are crimes? A crime is a crime, but that coverall statement hides a whole bunch of nuances.

Clearly we are never going convince each other of the validity of our opposing viewpoints, so let me put this to you. Would you agree with the following statement: "The Allies were as bad as the Germans in the prosecution of the war and their treatment of civilians."

[Batz]

"The Allies were as bad as the Germans in the prosecution of the war and their treatment of civilians."

No (excluding the Soviets). I never said that. But terror bombing civilians is a crime.

Kind of like how speeding and axe murdering your entire family are crimes? A crime is a crime, but that coverall statement hides a whole bunch of nuances.

No more like blowing up your house then puring gasoline on your entire family and killing them and/or gassing your entire family. Both are equally horrid.

Again Harris wasnt firebombing civilians to stop death camps. He was trying to kill them. The fact there were death camps is irrelevent to his terror policy. They are 2 seperate crimes. Is firing bombing civilians as evil as gassing jews? Yes.

Look at Israel. Does an Arab nail bomber blowing him self up justify an Israeli response of missiles into crowds of Arabs?

Ofcourse not.

Anyway, this is old ground and has been whooped back forth.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
Hello? I believe you kicked this off with "...the English were just as bad as the Germans, or even worse...".

[/b]
LOL, and now you are reduced to ripping quotes in half to make them look bad or something?

I like how you compare the systematic genocide of millions of people in a superbly ochestrated and resourced process to what the Allies did. Neat. Neither in scale nor in design are they remotely similar.

[/b]
They are similar in end result though... Dead innocent civilians, women and children mostly. And as I have been saying in post after post on this subject, it matters little to the victim what the color was on the uniform of the murderer. But then you show up with some retarded "sow the wind" BS...Innocent civilians are just that, no matter what excuse you try to come up with after you have slaughtered them.

[fffreeze220]

The point is the attack on civillian houses and districts.

THe goal wasnt the industry.

[fd ski]

you reap what you sow.....