Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SysError on February 13, 2015, 05:38:13 AM
-
I think people will be discussing Dresden/Cologne 100 years from now. Wikipedia states that there were 262 air raids on Cologne during WWII.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31449507
Anyone read Slaughterhouse-Five?
-
I think people will be discussing Dresden/Cologne 100 years from now. Wikipedia states that there were 262 air raids on Cologne during WWII.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31449507
Anyone read Slaughterhouse-Five?
Hardly a Historical account.
-
Hardly a Historical account.
I do not think that it was meant to be. I think that in around 3 minutes they provided a good overview of the reason(s) for the bombings and some impressions of participants on both sides of event. I thought that they did a good job. :old:
-
I think people will be discussing Dresden/Cologne 100 years from now. Wikipedia states that there were 262 air raids on Cologne during WWII.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31449507
Anyone read Slaughterhouse-Five?
Slaughterhouse-Five...one of my favorite all time books!
(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q586/eggshen2912/y8bDkuc_zps67dba893.jpg) (http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/eggshen2912/media/y8bDkuc_zps67dba893.jpg.html)
-
I do not think that it was meant to be. I think that in around 3 minutes they provided a good overview of the reason(s) for the bombings and some impressions of participants on both sides of event. I thought that they did a good job. :old:
It was about as legit as Catch 22. An anti-war movie based on mostly fiction.
At least History has finally admitted it was a legitimate target and revised the death toll to more realistic numbers.
It was a terrible moment in History.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5u7aoSxFQ
-
At least History has finally admitted it was a legitimate target and revised the death toll to more realistic numbers.
Who is this guy named "History"?
-
"Legitimate target"
There is no legitimacy in the deliberate slaughter of civilians. No matter the politics, race, religion or the actions of the enemy. No matter the outcome of the war. Killing defenseless men, women and children is pure evil regardless of the rationale behind it. Regardless of how and where and why they are killed. Pure evil.
-
Why will they be talking about Dresden in 100 years time?
This is the reason for bombing of German cities:
They tried to terror bomb Britain by orders of Adolf Hitler.
They put children in ovens
The Allies punished them for their crimes
DONT YOU ALL START WITH KAK ABOUT ETHICS,
Tattooing numbers on babies arms what society stoops to such deparvity?
-
Even Churchill thougth it was a step too far. And in feb -45 it was hard to justify bombings of that scale from a strategic standpoint.
-
Why will they be talking about Dresden in 100 years time?
This is the reason for bombing of German cities:
They tried to terror bomb Britain by orders of Adolf Hitler.
They put children in ovens
The Allies punished them for their crimes
DONT YOU ALL START WITH KAK ABOUT ETHICS,
Tattooing numbers on babies arms what society stoops to such deparvity?
But really. punishing people that killed innocent people by killing other innocent people isnt very contructive.
-
Why will they be talking about Dresden in 100 years time?
This is the reason for bombing of German cities:
They tried to terror bomb Britain by orders of Adolf Hitler.
They put children in ovens
The Allies punished them for their crimes
DONT YOU ALL START WITH KAK ABOUT ETHICS,
Tattooing numbers on babies arms what society stoops to such deparvity?
I wonder if anyone has asked an Auschwitz survivor if burning all those people alive in German cities made a difference, and if they thought it was justified. Indeed, what society stoops to such depravity?
-
This seems like a good thread for me to plug The Bombing of Germany (before you idiots get it locked)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28HhSdn_Nso
Mandatory viewing for Aces High players.
-
But really. punishing people that killed innocent people by killing other innocent people isnt very contructive.
True, true. But that's what war involves. No soldier has a particular gripe against the soldier on the other side.
- oldman
-
No that's not that war involves. That's what war crimes involves. Deliberately killing civilians is not war. It's murder.
-
I wonder if anyone has asked an Auschwitz survivor if burning all those people alive in German cities made a difference, and if they thought it was justified. Indeed, what society stoops to such depravity?
You really need to get off your high horse. There were Auschwitz survivors because the war ended earlier than it would have without the bomber raids. The entire country was a "war machine" so the entire country was a target to stop the war.
No one attacked Germany first. There was no way to tip-toe around and play nice, Germany was intent on World Domination and would have stopped at nothing to succeed.
-
YES!
The kids getting killed was a shame.
Adolf Hitler and the German People were to blame NO ONE ELSE.
The Emperor and the Japanese people were to blame NO ONE ELSE.
Ask the parents of a dead GI on the Normandy beaches who was to blame!
-
Zoney, the strategic bombing campaign against Germany was nothing short of a failure. If anything it hardened their will to fight and made moderate or even anti-Nazi officers in the Wehrmacht rally around the Nazi leadership. The war of annihilation that was waged by the Allied air forces made it clear to every German that they were all in the same boat. Killing civilians has absolutely zero impact on the military capability of the enemy. The Russians liberated Auschwitz and other extermination camps, and nothing the Allied air forces did or didn't do would have changed that.
There is no moral justification for killing children and other noncombatants. None what so ever. If a man kills your family and in turn you kill his family in revenge, no jury or court in the world would find it justified. The Jews are still hunting Nazis to this day, and that's a righteous cause. They have never gone after the Nazis families. After the war Wiesenthal, one of the most famous Nazi hunters, lived for many years only a few blocks away from the family of Adolf Eichmann in Linz, Austria. The Nazi criminal he would later capture.
I say that deliberately killing civilians is not war. It's murder. You retort with "you really need to get off your high horse." That says everything I need to know about your moral character.
-
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforth be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.
- Sir Winston Churchill
-
I'll tell ya what sport, ask those who had children who lived because the war was fought as quickly as possibly how many of their kids they would be willing to sacrifice to take the time to only kill combatants.
-
It was about as legit as Catch 22. An anti-war movie based on mostly fiction.
At least History has finally admitted it was a legitimate target and revised the death toll to more realistic numbers.
It was a terrible moment in History.
Have you even read catch-22 and have any idea what it is? Yes, it was a book before the movie, and it made absolutely no pretence of being historical - far far from it.
One of the most brilliant books ever written.
-
Zoney, why not simply ask those who lost sons needlessly in USAAF and RAF bombers over Europe. Men who were sent to needlessly murder civilians, not kill enemy soldiers. The strategic bombing of Germany did not shorten the war. It might actually have prolonged it by hardening the German people. Such things are in any case useless speculation.
-
The strategic bombing of Germany did not shorten the war. It might actually have prolonged it by hardening the German people. Such things are in any case useless speculation.
Speaking of useless speculation: I gather you have not read either the US Strategic Bombing survey or Albert Speer's memoirs.
- oldman
-
I have, but the best book I've read on the subject is Roger A. Freeman's books on the Mighty Eight. The man whose name now is synonymous with the research center of the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force. I recommend it. He concludes:
The Eighth Air Force was looked upon by USAAF commanders as their prime instrument to test their doctrine of strategic bombardment. The supreme hope was that such a campaign could render massive devastation to the war industry of a highly industrialized nation, like Germany, so that it would be unable to supply and support its armed forces; in effect, bombing into submission. In the event the combined strength of all Allied strategic forces proved unable to achieve this against Germany. What strategic bombing could achieve was evinced in the spring of 1945, but that it was decisive with the weapons and delivery systems of the Hitler war, must always remain speculative.
-
I have, but the best book I've read on the subject is Roger A. Freeman's books on the Mighty Eight. The man whose name now is synonymous with the research center of the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force. I recommend it.
Freeman's book is unquestionably the best single-volume history of the 8th AF, but he does not delve deeply into the results of the bombing, I imagine because he was focused on the organization itself.
Overy said it better than I can. From Overy, Richard, “Why the Allies Won,” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1995, isbn 0-393-03925-0, page 131:
The stifling of industrial potential caused by bombing is inherently difficult to quantify, but it was well beyond the 10 per cent suggested by the post-war bombing survey, particularly in the cluster of war industries specifically under attack. At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 per cent fewer tanks than planned, 31 per cent fewer aircraft and 42 per cent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion, and eased the path of Allied armies.
The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat. By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 per cent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into Germany’s scarce manpower: by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defence, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction. From the spring of that year frantic efforts were made to burrow underground, away from the bombing. Fantastic schemes were promoted which absorbed almost half of all industrial construction and close to half a million workers. Of course, if German efforts to combat the bombing had succeeded the effort would not have been wasted. As it was the defences and repair teams did enough to keep production going until the autumn of 1944, but not enough to prevent the rapid erosion of German economic power thereafter, and not enough to prevent the massive redirection of economic effort from 1943. Bombing forced Germany to divide the economy between too many competing claims, none of which could, in the end, be satisfied. In the air over Germany, or on the fronts in Russia and France, German forces lacked the weapons to finish the job. The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944. It is difficult not to regard this margin as decisive.
At p 133:
There has always seemed something fundamentally implausible about the contention of bombing’s critics that dropping almost 2.5 million tons of bombs on tautly-stretched industrial systems and war-weary urban populations would not seriously weaken them. Germany and Japan had no special immunity. Japan’s military economy was devoured in the flames; her population desperately longed for escape from bombing. German forces lost half of the weapons needed at the front, millions of workers absented themselves from work, and the economy gradually creaked almost to a halt. Bombing turned the whole of Germany, in Speer’s words, into a “gigantic front.” It was a front the Allies were determined to win; it absorbed huge resources on both sides. It was a battlefield in which only the infantry were missing. The final victory of the bombers in 1944 was, Speer concluded, “the greatest lost battle on the German side…” For all the arguments over the morality or operational effectiveness of the bombing campaigns, the air offensive was one of the decisive elements in Allied victory.
- oldman
-
useless
I'm done talking to you sir.
-
We can discuss the effectiveness of bombing industrial targets to the end of time, and there are many opinions both for and against. That's why I said it was useless speculation. However, the deliberate killing of civilians and the wanton destruction of civilian property is another matter entirely. What effect it had on the war effort is not measurable and in any case it is immoral regardless of effect. A county that has to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians to win a war does not deserve to win. Murdering civilians to "shorten the war" is even more reprehensible. Only a sociopath would sacrifice a child to save a soldier.
We all know where we stand on this matter. Further discussion is futile. End of discussion, on my part.
-
Have you even read catch-22 and have any idea what it is? Yes, it was a book before the movie, and it made absolutely no pretence of being historical - far far from it.
One of the most brilliant books ever written.
Bomb the Ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcmwPYCUysw
-
There is no doubt that the 8th AF bombing campaign as well as RAF bomber command area bombings contributed to the final result. However, one can argue whether all this huge amount of resources would have better spent elsewhere. The casualties in the 8th AF surpass the total casualties of the US Marines, if I remember correctly. Casualties of heavy RAF bombers were equally horrendous. Was it worth the result? This is even before arguing about the morality in bombing cities to the ground.
Times were different then and the Nazis were clearly the greater evil here, yet Dresden signifies all that was ugly on the other side as well. The bombing took place in Feb. 1945, when it was pretty clear that Germany is going to lose. The value of strategic bombing of cities when it was clear that the war will not last more than a couple of months anyway was almost nil. Same thing can be said about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was no need to evaporate two cities in order to demonstrate the new weapon and demand surrender, at a time when Japan has already lost all its offensive capabilities and was basically delaying the inevitable. Dropping nukes on open areas or military installations would have been enough in order to demand surrender - and if not, THEN you really nuke a city. I believe that the decision to nuke cities was aimed at the Soviets to not only make it clear that the US had these weapons, but that it is willing to use it to their full effect, without the need to drop some on USSR as well.
As I said, times were different and after a war as brutal as WWII, no one wanted to take or give any morality checks once it was over.
-
what I see after only 4 years of unrestrained bombing of Germany is that, 70yrs later, Germany is a place in the world.
a place that many wish to visit.
im for carpet bombing.
-
In Japan the war industries heavily relied upon by small shops making sub assemblies for their weapons of war. Many of these sub assemblies were made in family homes by civilians, making them military targets. Couple that with the bombing frightening the citizen population to evacuate the cities and away from their small (yet vital) manufacturing duties in their homes and war plants was a major factor in reducing the output of war making materials in Japan.
I don't think anyone condones the bombing of civilians, but sadly in that war many if not most were involved in making the weapons and supplies to allow a government that cared nothing about their well being to thrive. I'm sure if Germany or Japan had the ability our cities would have burned and they wod not have lost a minute of sleep over it. War was thrust upon the world by homocidal monsters and their delusions of greatness. Sadly something that has happened throughout human history. From the Assyrians, to the Romans, to the great feudal monarchy's of Europe and Asia. We can sit back now years later and point fingers and Monday-morning quarterback decisions made during war, but we were not there making these decisions or having to live with the ramifications of loosing.
Just my .02 cents
-
I don't think anyone condones the bombing of civilians
I'm sorry, I was away on another planet. When I came back, everyone had forgotten that Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douhet advocated the annihilation of the civilian population by aerial bombardment in the 1920s, and that American strategic nuclear doctrine from the 1950s until....now...?...has targeted cities, rather than military sites, in the event of "nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies."
Someone had better call the President quickly, so he can get the targets changed. We're in danger of being prosecuted as incipient war criminals otherwise.
- oldman
-
"Legitimate target"
There is no legitimacy in the deliberate slaughter of civilians. No matter the politics, race, religion or the actions of the enemy. No matter the outcome of the war. Killing defenseless men, women and children is pure evil regardless of the rationale behind it. Regardless of how and where and why they are killed. Pure evil.
I would argue that stopping a war machine, in any way necessary, that was responsible for horrific crimes almost beyond imagining makes bombing them legitimate. Dresden was a major marshaling center for troop/materials transport, industry, and the technology for high accuracy bombing did not exist at the time.
I imagine if you were on the field of battle, or one of the ones left waiting for slaughter in a K-camp, you'd have some interest in the outcome of the war. You'd probably have interest just being alive at the time cause there was always the chance you'd end up as Soylent Green if one of the Master Races decided you were undesirable.
Oh and BTW "History" is a guy you meet when you get your nose out of computer games and into books. For decades the casualties of Dresden were inflated by far, by as much as 8 or 10 times what they actually were. The actual toll is in the area of 20,000 and perhaps if the Germans wouldnt have invented terror bombing of cities much of it wouldnt have happened. Twice that number of civilians died in the Warsaw bombings and shellings of 1939 and 1,000 innocents died when the Luftwaffe terror bombed Rotterdam in 1940. About 30,000 British during the Nazi Blitz including over 5,000 children.
American strategic nuclear doctrine from the 1950s until....now...?...has targeted cities, rather than military sites, in the event of "nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies."
Nope your wrong. There are numerous war plans should things go that hot. The destruction of civilian targets is only one of them and would only happen if they targeted ours first.
-
I'm sorry, I was away on another planet. When I came back, everyone had forgotten that Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douhet advocated the annihilation of the civilian population by aerial bombardment in the 1920s, and that American strategic nuclear doctrine from the 1950s until....now...?...has targeted cities, rather than military sites, in the event of "nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies."
Someone had better call the President quickly, so he can get the targets changed. We're in danger of being prosecuted as incipient war criminals otherwise.
- oldman
:rofl
^ wins thread
-
Just very sad to see how arrogant and disrespectful people are. Just because the victims weren't Americans. No matter what the Nazi regime had done, fire bombing civilians a few months before the war ended (everyone knew it was a matter of time) where an immoral act.
I will give u an example of how bad the arguments are: (an example, not my opinion) Al quaida were at war with US and the economic centres where legitimate targets so 9/11 where a justified act in a war. That not what u guys want to hear and very disrespectful to the victims but u are doing pretty much the same thing to the Germans.
-
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-
There was a case in the UK where a crimminal was killed by someone defending themselves from being attacked.
The crimminals family were outraged in court.
This is the same mind set of those who try you transfer the crimminality of the crimminal onto the victim.
The Germans were to blame for the retribution brought upon the Reich.
And the Allies are to blame for the forgiveness and help given to Germany to rebuild the Democratic Germany.
Churchill 1
Hitler 0
-
I'm sorry, I was away on another planet. When I came back, everyone had forgotten that Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douhet advocated the annihilation of the civilian population by aerial bombardment in the 1920s, and that American strategic nuclear doctrine from the 1950s until....now...?...has targeted cities, rather than military sites, in the event of "nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies."
Someone had better call the President quickly, so he can get the targets changed. We're in danger of being prosecuted as incipient war criminals otherwise.
- oldman
I think you misunderstood me, I was all for the bombing we did during WW2 and moving forward. Maybe condone was a wrong choice of words...... I personally think it was 100% nessasary and warranted. Do I like it, no. Is / was it nessasary yes.
Not quite sure what your post means.
-
I don't know if it is funny or sad to see so many people on one hand condemn the Nazis for terror bombing, and on the other hand defend how the Allied air forces behaved like Nazis. Hypocrisy at its finest. :confused:
-
I think you misunderstood me, I was all for the bombing we did during WW2 and moving forward. Maybe condone was a wrong choice of words...... I personally think it was 100% nessasary and warranted. Do I like it, no. Is / was it nessasary yes.
Not quite sure what your post means.
It wasn't meant as a deep post; I simply wanted to point out that virtually the entire world has condoned the bombing of civilians since the 1920s-1930s. As you say, no one likes it, but the logic behind it, seems to me, is sound enough.
- jkw
-
War is an awful thing... Arguing about the moralities of/in war is a mute point in my opinion.
-
Just very sad to see how arrogant and disrespectful people are. Just because the victims weren't Americans. No matter what the Nazi regime had done, fire bombing civilians a few months before the war ended (everyone knew it was a matter of time) where an immoral act.
Oh I think sending 9,000,000 men woman and kids into the showers kinda qualifies them for special treatment. Then again they started the war. They are the ones who declared war. From the beginning Hitler wanted his master race riding horse and crop over the lesser subhumans, "those he allowed to live and work for the Reich".
I will give u an example of how bad the arguments are: (an example, not my opinion) Al quaida were at war with US and the economic centres where legitimate targets so 9/11 where a justified act in a war. That not what u guys want to hear and very disrespectful to the victims but u are doing pretty much the same thing to the Germans.
Your example blows. Were not legally at war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a country or an army. Its more of like a "Tony Soprano gets religion and wraps his head". They are not protected under INTL Law or conventions, yet even still we treat them far better then the Nazi's treated their "undesirables" or captured soldiers.
Dude you must have been out burning blunts during History class.
-
They are the ones who declared war.
Factually incorrect with the noted exception of the United States. France and the UK declared war on Germany. The RAF also started bombing German cities before the Luftwaffe did. The Ruhr valley and German port cities like Wilhelmshaven were bombed as early as late 1939.
German children did not send anyone into the showers.
-
Factually incorrect with the noted exception of the United States. France and the UK declared war on Germany. The RAF also started bombing German cities before the Luftwaffe did. The Ruhr valley and German port cities like Wilhelmshaven were bombed as early as late 1939.
German children did not send anyone into the showers.
Poland doesn't count?
-
As a French or British city? No. Warsaw was bombed relentlessly by the Luftwaffe because the city was a fortress. When the Polish troops entrenched there surrendered the city the bombardment stopped. Later Rotterdam was bombed when the German army approached and the city refused to surrender. Later when the German army approached Paris the French forces withdrew from the city and fought elsewhere and Paris was not bombed. None of these bombings represents strategic bombing. While the Luftwaffe bombings of these cities was indiscriminate they did not specifically target the civilian population. Unlike the later bombing of London the goal of bombing Warsaw and Rotterdam was not economic, strategic or just pure terror. It was to achieve a military goal; to defeat the military forces entrenched within those cities.
The civilian population was the specific and only target for saturation firebombing bombing of German cities by the Allied air forces.
-
Factually incorrect with the noted exception of the United States. France and the UK declared war on Germany. The RAF also started bombing German cities before the Luftwaffe did. The Ruhr valley and German port cities like Wilhelmshaven were bombed as early as late 1939.
German children did not send anyone into the showers.
My gist was that Germany started the war on everyone. Despite warnings from France and Britain he went ahead and, murdered a bunch of prisoners, dressed them up in uniforms, and then created a story about how Poland attacked Germany. So he attacked Poland. Like he fired the first shots in the west. Then fired the first against Russia, America, Finland, Norway....oh whats the point?
Children generally werent to active in the war with any side. Maybe the exception is Germany at the end when Hitler sent anyone in short pants out with a panzerfaust so he could live a few days longer and kill a few more Jews.
These Dresden threads never fail to disappoint. Im outta here.
-
Germany was clearly the aggressor. However, I'm not opposed to the war on Germany, but the conduct of that war.
-
Sir Arthur Harris said:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
-
Germany was clearly the aggressor. However, I'm not opposed to the war on Germany, but the conduct of that war.
and how do you defeat an aggressor, point your finger at him and say he is a naughty boy?
and invading a country, in your opinion, is not a defacto declaration of war?
so in you opinion Germany is the victim here. because as you have stated Germany never
'declared war' on anyone save the US.
regale us with you intelligence:
how many civilians were killed in the allied bombing campaign?
-
Sir Arthur Harris said:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind
I am going to have a Beer :salute
Germans today are alright :)
-
Germans who lived near concentration camps now deny smelling burning human flesh.
German solders still alive deny any involvement in atrocities.
German citizens still alive deny knowing anything about killing of jews/unwanted.
It was ALL Hitler....
The exceptions are ostracized....
JGroth
-
There were no extermination camps in Germany for exactly the reason of hiding it from the German people. Officially they were “deported to the East”. All the extermination camps were in the occupied lands in eastern Europe. Mostly Poland. It is shocking that you don't know this.
-
Germans were resettled in vast numbers..many near concentration camps.
Seems you read alot..and know little.
JGroth
-
And..your supposition that the truth of the concentration camps was 'hidden' from the german public, especially after years, is laughable..if convenient.
JGroth
-
Lol. Germans were not "resettled" anywhere. You're full of you-know-what. Seems you read little and know even less.
-
Ah, wrong...many of the ones resettled in Poland, and other eastern areas tried hard to get back to germany before the Russians caught them .
The Russians were ruthless in their treatment of the germans they did catch up to...as if they were trying to out do what the germans did to them....
I'd site sources but your not really interested...are you.
Facts just get in your way.... JGroth
Thousands and thousands were resettled. Given homes, farms..even business' that were already established.
They KNEW where those places had come from......
-
A taste..just for you..[urlhttps://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEV79i_t9UzzwAEsgPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0b2ZrZmU3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=yhs-avg-fh_lsonsw&va=german+resettlement+of+poland&hspart=avg&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw][/url]
more? German settlement in the former eastern territories of Germany and pre-war Poland dates back to the medieval Ostsiedlung. Germany used the presence and the alleged persecution of Volksdeutsche as propaganda tools in preparation for the invasion of Poland in 1939. With the invasion, Poland was partitioned between Germany and the Soviet Union according to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. This was followed by population exchanges, and included Baltic Germans who were settled to occupied Poland.
Germany's Generalplan Ost strategy for Central and Eastern Europe envisioned the creation of a Greater Germany, which was to be built by means of removing a variety of non-Germans from Poland and other areas in Central and Eastern Europe, mainly Slavs and Jews believed by Nazis to be subhuman. These non-Germans were targeted for slave labor and eventual extermination. While Generalplan Ost's settlement ambitions did not come into full effect due to the war's turn, millions of Germans mostly from Central and Eastern Europe were settled by the Nazis to replace Poles removed or killed during the occupation. Germany deported millions of Poles either to other territories, to concentration camps or as slave workers.
Note:"..millions of Germans.....were settled by the Nazis to replace Poles removed or killed during the occupation."
Millions..that's a big number..even for you. And that is just Poland.
JGroth
-
Keep trying..maybe in 20-30 years it will all be forgotten, and then you will be revered as correct. :)
Let's face it...the allies(less the russians) treated the defeated Japanese and Germans pretty well, considering how they treated those they conquered.
Now..use some proof, show me I was wrong..
JGroth
-
There were no extermination camps in Germany for exactly the reason of hiding it from the German people.
"Hilde?"
"Yes, honey."
"Did you ever wonder what happened to all of our Jewish neighbors?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well...they're gone."
"Don't worry about it, sweetheart, I'm sure they're happy wherever they went."
- oldman
-
In summation..yes, Dresden was horrific...so was Guernica...
like someone said once.."..They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.." till it's over.
JGroth
-
Pointless.
-
Best you've got? No surprise here.
Next time, stay on the porch.
JGroth
-
Hey Adolph, Benito and Hirohito…..don't START nothing, won't BE nothing.
As William T. said….war is hell.
…and y'all started it.
-
Gotta be honest, Germany is lucky to be still on the map.
-
Gotta be honest, Germany is lucky to be still on the map.
Having married a former Soviet citizen, and traveled to Germany more times than I care to remember, I have a very thorough understanding of that sentiment
-
Having married a former Soviet citizen, and traveled to Germany more times than I care to remember, I have a very thorough understanding of that sentiment
Only If Soviets killed about 30 million sitizens of Nazi germany, only then and only then we'd be even. Sooo.....remember that Germany, and you are welcome :D
-
Yeah I guess genocide would be perfectly acceptable to you guys. Bunch of redneck neo-nazis on this bbs.
-
Guy who defends nazis calling names...classic..and as classy as he gets.
They say everyone losing an argument on internet will play the nazi card........what a stand up guy.
I asked you to disprove my rebuttal of your contention 'no germans lived near concentration camps..' you folded pretty fast...
Next time stay on the porch.
JGroth
-
Yeah I guess genocide would be perfectly acceptable to you guys. Bunch of redneck neo-nazis on this bbs.
Are you high? After all the atrocities committed by Nazi germany we did not equally retaliate. Noble gesture from "sub humans", wouldn't you agree ? And Nazis are still wildly respected for some reason. Plenty of Waffen SS battalions were pardoned, even though US troops as well as Soviets shot them on sight.
-
Yeah I guess genocide would be perfectly acceptable to you guys. Bunch of redneck neo-nazis on this bbs.
Well, that's a great way to kill the thread. See you folks later.
- oldman
-
Yeah I guess genocide would be perfectly acceptable to you guys. Bunch of redneck neo-nazis on this bbs.
So the bombing of Japanese cities was ok?
Lets see if we get a answers to this question?
-
Well, that's a great way to kill the thread. See you folks later.
- oldman
+1
-
So the bombing of Japanese cities was ok?
Lets see if we get a answers to this question?
Just like it was OK to bomb russian cities.
-
There is no legitimacy in the deliberate slaughter of civilians. No matter the politics, race, religion or the actions of the enemy. No matter the outcome of the war. Killing defenseless men, women and children is pure evil regardless of the rationale behind it. Regardless of how and where and why they are killed. Pure evil.
So the bombing of Japanese cities was ok?
What an insane question!
-
"Legitimate target"
There is no legitimacy in the deliberate slaughter of civilians. No matter the politics, race, religion or the actions of the enemy. No matter the outcome of the war. Killing defenseless men, women and children is pure evil regardless of the rationale behind it. Regardless of how and where and why they are killed. Pure evil.
Well stated.
-
What an insane question!
No it is not insane, are you American?
-
What if I am? What's that got to do with anything?
-
Why will they be talking about Dresden in 100 years time?
This is the reason for bombing of German cities:
They tried to terror bomb Britain by orders of Adolf Hitler.
Bomber Command bombed Berlin first. Some say Bomber Harris did it to provoke Hitler to redirect the Luftwaffe from air fields to anything else. Others say that it was an accident and that all that was hit on that first raid on Berlin was a garden shed.
They put children in ovens
Churchill and cabinet approved the bombing of cities in Feb 1942. At the Wannsee conference (Jan 1942) only the deportation process was agreed to. How to carry out the exterminations was not settled.
My only point being that Churchill, who had once argued against the bombing of civilian targets, did not know about the ovens in Feb 1942 because they did not exist at that point in time.
Concentration camps were around since the Berlin Olympics, the Germans wanted to keep undesirables hidden and away and so they established a process that "confined without trial...[To]...A concentration camp, a place where people were detained or confined without trial. Prisoners were kept in extremely harsh conditions and without any rights." Concentration camps were not a secret, but I do not think that Churchill really cared about them at the time.
The Americans did not agree to the bombing of civilian targets until 1944 (Berlin), and even then people like Gen Doolittle tried to challenge the order. (Up until then they would only go after military targets, and yes, if they were in cities, then and only then would they bomb the city.)
Allied command knew about the extermination camps in 1944, but even after repeated pleas, they chose to not target them. The Allies could have put a stop to the efficiency of the Nazi extermination process and saved 100,000s of lives.
-
We can discuss the effectiveness of bombing industrial targets to the end of time, and there are many opinions both for and against. That's why I said it was useless speculation. However, the deliberate killing of civilians and the wanton destruction of civilian property is another matter entirely. What effect it had on the war effort is not measurable and in any case it is immoral regardless of effect. A county that has to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians to win a war does not deserve to win. Murdering civilians to "shorten the war" is even more reprehensible. Only a sociopath would sacrifice a child to save a soldier.
Again -- Well Stated.
-
My only point being that Churchill, who had once argued against the bombing of civilian targets, did not know about the ovens in Feb 1942 because they did not exist at that point in time.
The germans were committing mass executions without the ovens. The ovens were in response to the stress and workload of having to machine gun down civilians.
-
what everybody forgets, is us and them did what was right at the moment. Germans followed hitler because they thought he was actually helping them, lots of people forget that there were many officers in the german army that tried to kill hitler because he was wrong. same thing in Italy, and dont forget that japan when it surrender it had to send some of it's army to stop those who didnt want to surrender.
point is war is never right. look at us how we supported dictators south of our borders. lots of people died there.
I have family that fought and died for germany when they didnt even speak german. were born and raised in mexico, but they were called and they went because they thought it was their duty. I also have family that fought with the us. they didnt ask to go, they didnt start it, all they thought is that it was their duty to go.
yes, millions of innocent people died. from Auschwitz to Dresden. but we must learn from our mistakes.
semp
-
There were no extermination camps in Germany for exactly the reason of hiding it from the German people. Officially they were “deported to the East”. All the extermination camps were in the occupied lands in eastern Europe. Mostly Poland. It is shocking that you don't know this.
Dachau?
Bergen-Belsen?
Theresienstadt ?
Oh sure you say they weren't "extermination" camps but thousands died there.
-
No ovens. No smoke. Not in Germany. Most Germans were oblivious to the Holocaust.
-
What if I am? What's that got to do with anything?
Was Bombing Japanese cities a war crime?
Never will a American admit this.
Are you American?
-
No ovens. No smoke. Not in Germany. Most Germans were oblivious to the Holocaust.
They just didn't see "no jews allowed on side walks" signs and yellow stars on sub human shoulders.
-
The germans were committing mass executions without the ovens. The ovens were in response to the stress and workload of having to machine gun down civilians.
I agree with you. I was just replying to the "They put children in ovens" statement.
The mobile vans/trucks with exhaust pipes that feed back around into the cabins were their first attempts to be more efficient.
The camps made the process efficient and reduced the stress on the SS. (yep the SS was as worried about the stress of it all on their troops.) If they had bombed the camps the Germans would have had to go back to the mobile vans/machine guns and thousands would have been saved.
-
what everybody forgets, is us and them did what was right at the moment. Germans followed hitler because they thought he was actually helping them, lots of people forget that there were many officers in the german army that tried to kill hitler because he was wrong. same thing in Italy, and dont forget that japan when it surrender it had to send some of it's army to stop those who didnt want to surrender.
point is war is never right. look at us how we supported dictators south of our borders. lots of people died there.
I have family that fought and died for germany when they didnt even speak german. were born and raised in mexico, but they were called and they went because they thought it was their duty. I also have family that fought with the us. they didnt ask to go, they didnt start it, all they thought is that it was their duty to go.
yes, millions of innocent people died. from Auschwitz to Dresden. but we must learn from our mistakes.
semp
Many, (but not all), of the Germans that I know believe that the bombing of civilian populations made the removal of Hitler thru a coup impossible.
-
Was Bombing Japanese cities a war crime?
No it was not a war crime. Nor was firebombing Germany. Deliberately targeting civilians became a war crime in 1949.
Both the bombing of Germany and Japan were evil atrocities regardless. And yes, so was the bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London and a whole lot more. Never thought I would have to point out that the Nazis were evil.
-
No ovens. No smoke. Not in Germany. Most Germans were oblivious to the Holocaust.
It was the worst kept secret of the War. The correct statement should be "most Germans were oblivious to giving a shirt".
-
Even Hitler's secretary didn't know. The secrecy was absolute, and brutally enforced by the Gestapo and SD.
-
Killing civilians has absolutely zero impact on the military capability of the enemy.
Sorry if this had already been brought up but this comment stopped me dead in my tracks. Who exactly do you think worked in all those factories manufacturing the weapons of war?
In the US woman, who had largely stayed out of the work force, went to work in the factories supporting the war effort. Resources were in such dire need they made pennies out of steel (I have a few). To think it was different in any other country involved is simply ignorant.
That doesn't necessarily justify killing civilians but it certainly did have some effect on the military capability of the enemy.
-
Why do you assume workers in Germany lived under the same circumstances as in America? Why do you assume ANYTHING in Germany was comparable to America? Their war reality was very different, as it was in the UK. German workers critical to the war industry did not live in homes, but in bunkers. Luftwaffe radars gave ample warning of impending raids. Their families were sent to the countryside. German factories were dispersed into a "cottage industry" away from industrial centers or hidden underground in tunnels and mines. Slave labor from the occupied countries were used extensively in almost every unskilled labor capacity. When Dresden was leveled nothing essential to Germany's war effort was destroyed.
-
.... When Dresden was leveled nothing essential to Germany's war effort was destroyed.
That is the biggest reason people will be discussing Dresden 100 years from now.
-
I applaud your trying to remove all guilt from german public.....
A hopeless task.
And there WERE ovens IN germany.....why EVER did you think not? Do I need to post a link? Seriously?
Your a borderline denier of the holocaust...and a true worry, as those like you will be the ones initiating the next one.
JGroth
-
I'm not the one trying to justify murdering civilians...
-
Keep repeating that to yourself.....
JGroth
-
You know JGroth, if you get the impression from reading my posts that I'm a Holocaust denier then you're clearly a blithering rule#4. Any post of yours will henceforth be read by me within that context.
There is no legitimacy in the deliberate slaughter of civilians. No matter the politics, race, religion or the actions of the enemy. No matter the outcome of the war. Killing defenseless men, women and children is pure evil regardless of the rationale behind it. Regardless of how and where and why they are killed. Pure evil.
Your a borderline denier of the holocaust...
-
Twist..twist
JGroth
-
... Your a borderline denier of the holocaust...
.. Any post of yours will henceforth be read by me within that context.
That's a bit over the top don't you think?
You guys were making interesting points back and forth and I for one was interested in what BOTH of you had to say.
Let me ask this question, put aside Dresden. What about Hamburg? Was Hamburg, especially in the early part of the war, a fair target?
-
In the end civilian populations always end up paying for the mistakes made by the governments they themselves empower.
So it was with Carthage, with Rome and so it was with Germany and Japan.
If you are paying attention, the retribution for hosing off Hellfires into the homes of suspected terrorists, killing wives and children along with the target, is beginning to show itself amongst the civilian population of the government that is doing it. Requiem In Pace, Kayla Mueller. Let me tell you, Charlie Hebdo, I believe that is just the beginning, I'm certainly not using Copenhagen snuff anymore.
This just in: Total war is........................... ............................. .....................total war.
Always has been.
-
Let me ask this question, put aside Dresden. What about Hamburg? Was Hamburg, especially in the early part of the war, a fair target?
The industry in any city was fair target, sure. The population, no.
-
What this, IMO, is all about is that "good" people should distinguish themself from "bad" people by having a higher moral standard. That's include respecting the human life and not cause more death and suffering upon people than necessary. That includes for example treating POW:s with respect, no torture etc, and try no avoid civilian casualties as far as its possible. Dresden bombing was a step away from it, with the war already won Dresden was not a high value military target worth the destruction. Even the winning side must be able to say "OK, we made a misstake there". It might not be at the same level as deliberately killing milions of people in gas chambers but still, fire bombing a city full of civilians is not what good people should do, no matter what.
-
Exactly.
-
ok, so lets examine the situation fully.
Was Dresden unnecessary? Yes, absolutely. Then why was it done? Because the British Government had backed area bombing years before and no politician reverses a decision without a damn good reason. And also because the RAF had gotten damn good at it. Huge industrial effort had been made to supply thousands of Lancaster bombers and if they'd been sat on the tarmac not being used then some smart arsed politician would have kicked up a stink in Parliament about it.
So why was area bombing approved?
Reverse back to 1941 and have a look at the political landscape. You've got Britain, hemmed in on its island, being starved by the U-boat campaign, no fleet of landing craft or much in the way of an expeditionary force left after Dunkirk....no way to wage war. Impotent, if you will. What land forces the British had left were either dug in for defence or kicking Italian butt in North Africa. Churchill also had Stalin asking, begging, him to do something.....anything.....to help, to draw some of the tidal wave of German forces steam rolling over Russia away. And so, Bomber Harris comes along with his plan that the level bomber can win the war on its own. What else could Churchill do but approve the idea or be seen as impotent by foreign states and the British population alike?
However, we'd tried daylight bombing of Germany back in 1939 and it didn't work well. At that time in the war, without a long range escort fighter available, the only option was night-time bombing.....which means area bombing, can't precision bomb what you can't see.....which means cities are the only viable target. Result: Hundreds of thousands of de-homed workers, Germany's industrial base significantly reduced on every raid.
But the thing about the English......the thing that most of the world has discovered at least once throughout history......the thing.....the actual thing is.......the English are the cruellest, most sadistic, b*****ds in the history of the world. You foreigners have no idea just how insane I'm talking here. Christ Alive, the things the English have done to their own people don't bear thinking about........did you know there was once a not very popular king of England who was executed.....but because those in power wanted the people to think he'd died of natural causes the execution was by sticking a red hot poker up the kings backside and waiting for the steam to stop coming out of his ears. Sadistic or what!! I tell ya, Charles Manson has got nothing on your average Englishman.
'Escalation of hostilities' and 'moral standards' mean nothing to these people. One German bomber accidentally drops a 100lb bomb on our local chippy cos he was lost and it was dark and the English respond by setting your whole country on fire. When asked to do a necessary task, no matter how despicable, the English will find the best, most efficient way to complete the task. It stems from the way we bring up our children. When I was 6 there was a school bully and my dear old sweet mother said to me, if he hits you you hit him back twice as hard....and when he goes down stand on his bollocks.
In 1941 the RAF was haphazardly bombing German cities. By 1944 it was a fine art: Pathfinders go in first with expert navigators to drop flares at the target. The first wave of heavy Lancasters go in with GP bombs designed to blow out every bit of glass in every window.......so that the second wave of Lancs with incendiary bombs can start a fire which will burn out of control. And then follow up with a 3rd and 4th wave of GP bombs and incendiaries to make sure. Throw in a few bombers dropping time delay land mines designed to kill anyone trying to fight the fires and what you have there is the most efficient way of destroying a city other than an A-bomb.
Why was Dresden destroyed? Cos they started it and the RAF was good at it.
-
Why do you assume workers in Germany lived under the same circumstances as in America? Why do you assume ANYTHING in Germany was comparable to America? Their war reality was very different, as it was in the UK. German workers critical to the war industry did not live in homes, but in bunkers. Luftwaffe radars gave ample warning of impending raids. Their families were sent to the countryside. German factories were dispersed into a "cottage industry" away from industrial centers or hidden underground in tunnels and mines. Slave labor from the occupied countries were used extensively in almost every unskilled labor capacity.
That is simply wrong.
Will get sources for you tomorrow.
- oldman the redneck
-
If anyone would like to read a good book on this subject get "The Fire" by Jorg Freidrich
Excellent book about the fire bombing of Germany
-
... Because the British Government had backed area bombing years before and no politician reverses a decision without a damn good reason.
... Churchill also had Stalin asking, begging, him to do something.....anything.....to help, to draw some of the tidal wave of German forces steam rolling over Russia away.
Don't you think that Churchill was as worried, if not more, by what the Halifax family or an Edward VIII being propped up out of Spain or what ever there was left of the Chamberlain faction from stepping in and settling for terms with Hitler? What was Hess all about if not that?
By being brutal beyond reason all sides became hardened to the point were there could be no compromise.
Your point about the Brits being brutal is well taken. But the Brits have shown an ability to admit to errors -I have listed these before: (just random):
Slave Trade
Defense of the Realm Act
India
Rhodesia
The coal miners strikes (both sides)
The English National Soccer Team
-
I often thought only reason Hess went to England is someone there asked him to stop by, and turned up not having authority. Or he was totally taken in by someone.
JGroth
-
The industry in any city was fair target, sure. The population, no.
Why did the Americans bomb Japanese cities and then drop atom bombs on two of them?.
You will not answer the question because it is exactly the same as the bombing of German cities.
Answer the question!
You wont because you cannot!
I have not read once any German stating that the war was their own doing and they were to blame.
The German army killed more civilians than the "SS" fact.
-
Why did the Americans bomb Japanese cities and then drop atom bombs on two of them?.
You will not answer the question because it is exactly the same as the bombing of German cities.
Yes it is the same and I said so earlier in this thread! In fact it is worse when you consider the after effects! Why do you need to be such a nationalist rule#4.
-
Nationlists are not the same as a patriots.
Germans dying in WWII is nothing to be proud of, destroying a society that had decended to the levels of depravity as Germany did is something to be proud of.
The Allies have no blame what so ever.
Bombing civilians or "Terror Bombing" to use a German term was brought up at the Nuremberg war crime courts.
-
I guess if a government actually values the lives of its civilians it won't start wars of conquest. Payback is h*ll.
-
Don't you think that Churchill was as worried, if not more, by what the Halifax family or an Edward VIII being propped up out of Spain or what ever there was left of the Chamberlain faction from stepping in and settling for terms with Hitler?
No I really don't. Not in 1941. Not with The Blitz well underway.
Your point about the Brits being brutal is well taken.
Point of order, it's not the British that are the brutal scum, it's the English. There is a difference. The English have ruled Britain for a thousand years though, being incredibly brutal and sadistic to their own population, conquered people around England and the rest of the world alike. The thing is though, Scottish strength, Welsh guile and Celtic savagery (and Ghurkali uber awesomeness) are made all the more dangerous when commanded by people who really will stop at nothing. Where an American might say "You can't kick a man when he's down." An Englishman would say "Surely that's the best time. And while you're there break his legs to make sure he doesn't get up again". There is a damn good reason why bad guys in Hollywood movies are generally English. After being invaded by the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc.....the English have learned a very important lesson: He who is willing to go further will win.
Just thank your lucky stars it wasn't the English who had the A-bomb first cos I guarantee you half the world would be a smoking ruin.
And the message inscribed on the beacon satellite warning alien races to stay clear of this irradiated planet would be: "They started it."
-
So as long as the other side started the war we're bound by no moral limits in our response? That's an interesting point of view considering world events the last 20 years or so.
-
That's not what I said, read it again.
-
So as long as the other side started the war we're bound by no moral limits in our response? That's an interesting point of view considering world events the last 20 years or so.
The moral limits were the Allies did not outlaw the German language and start up the gas chambers to exact eye for a eye retribution.
Churchill advocated building up a Democratic Germany after the war.
The moral limits are Germany is a Democracy because of the morals of the allies
Churchill 1
Adolf 0
-
Swoop, it was more directed to your countryman above.
-
The moral limits were the Allies did not outlaw the German language and start up the gas chambers to exact eye for a eye retribution.
But you feel that firing up the ovens for the German civilians would have been quite justifiable. You have no moral qualms about acting like a Nazi as long as someone else does it first.
-
So as long as the other side started the war we're bound by no moral limits in our response? That's an interesting point of view considering world events the last 20 years or so.
“No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy” Helmuth von Moltke.
He might just as well have said no war plan.
I doubt Hitler envisioned the retribution his war of conquest would impose upon the German people.
It's all nice to sit in your armchair discussing the moral limits to total war 70 years after it happened.
I think had you been a Londoner during the Blitz your views would be quite different.
In our own time, you will have the opportunity to discuss how to counter the enemy when the enemy is a stateless organization whose primary means of waging war is to kill civilians.
For example: If certain radical forces currently beheading and burning people alive in the Middle East were to acquire a nuclear weapon or weapons and activate them in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin, what would be the proper moral response?
-
Putting people in ovens is not really a British thing to do, only the Germans of the 1940's thought Tattooing children or putting them in ovens was quite acceptable.
The fact is German society of the 1940's was evil and there is no excuse for the way they behaved.
In fact at the Dresden memorial some German has actual stated it was their own fault for being bombed.
Well done to that German even though he likes big sausage and leather shorts.
-
No you British prefer to starve and work people to death in concentration camps (which btw. was invented by the British).
-
It's all nice to sit in your armchair discussing the moral limits to total war 70 years after it happened.
Agreed.
Few Allied leaders really thought the Germans could win a World War, although the Ardennes offensive drove the potential cost in men and material to the forefront. This event combined with the fact the Yalta conference had just ended and it is readily apparent the Brits and the Americans wanted to show Stalin they were cooperative allies with the Red Army. Dresden did have a build up of German troops and war material reported by POWs and even German soldiers in Dresden. The bombing also had the desired effect to help dissuade the Russians from taking more territory than was agreed upon previously.
If I had any questions it would consist of; "If FDR had died in October or November of 1944, what would the political environment of Europe look like between 1945-1992?"
-
For example: If certain radical forces currently beheading and burning people alive in the Middle East were to acquire a nuclear weapon or weapons and activate them in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin, what would be the proper moral response?
You tell me?
-
So Nazi atrocities should not be condemned because they happened 70 years ago? What's the exact expiration date for an atrocity?
-
Nothing good is going to come from this one.