Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hcrana on April 08, 2015, 02:15:28 PM
-
Oh, I've got yer Trigger Warning right here....
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1043763525637785&set=vb.127439507270196&type=2&theater
"I will never forgive the people who ordered those raids."
-
It was very evil what Germany started :old:
Coventry,London,manchester,liverpool,newcastle,belfast loved all those Narzzies bombers.
Amsterday,Warsaw,Stalingrad,Leningrad they thought Narzzie bombers was fantastic as well.
Pearl Harbour they also thought the japanese bombs were nice as well.
How many people did the Germans kill in WWII?
-
"We were supposed to be the good guys."
-
On both sides of a war there are no Heros and Villains. Remember that wars are fought and based on the prowess of killing man, and war, is cold blooded murder.
-
"We were supposed to be the good guys."
Exactly.
-
Its very easy to criticize the methods used to combat real hardcore evil, because sometimes half-measures result in LOSING. They wouldn't be around to criticize if the allies had LOST. War sucks, plain and simple.
Look at some of the stuff currently being done to combat ISIS... That little town up by the Turkish border that was fought over for a couple months. The town is mostly leveled, but ISIS is gone. What's worse, the town being destroyed or the town existing and ISIS still raping/torturing/murdering everyone they can? Based on what we all know about ISIS, I am convinced that nothing but what occurred would have been sufficient to drive ISIS out of that town and to halt their progress.
20 years from now if ISIS is only a horrible memory, someone who lived there will criticize the US for leveling the town. If ISIS survives, nobody who cares about that town will be alive to speak out about it either way.
-
Oradour-sur-Glane
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Car_in_Oradour-sur-Glane4.jpg/1024px-Car_in_Oradour-sur-Glane4.jpg)
Lidice
(http://img.radio.cz/pictures/historie/heydrich/heydrich14.jpg)
Sadly, there was no one left to condemn the person that cut the orders.
-
And you would not condemn such barbarism?
-
I'll gladly condemn the people who make any warfare necessary. Once it starts I'm in favor of ending it and my inclination is not to second guess those in charge of ending the war quickly. The atomic bomb drops are the perfect example. Those were horrible, horrific actions. The people who ordered them felt that those horrific actions were necessary to bring the emperor immediately into the decision making process of ending the war, and to save the hundreds of thousands of lives expected to be lost if a full scale invasion was required. On their own, they're horrific. But because I know that war ALWAYS leads to horrific acts on both sides, I am not inclined to quickly condemn acts necessary to bring the war to an end. Very often even if in hindsight a particular action was later not deemed necessary, at the time it was ordered it was honestly considered essential and the lesser of evils.
Level a village that is a single source manufacturing point for a critical military supply, or risk the war dragging out another year? Easy to second guess 10, 20, 50+ years later. At the time, certainly a tragedy but the whole war was a tragedy start to finish and maybe this one would speed the end of the war.
Few things deserve contempt as much as armchair quarterbacks second-guessing actual LEADERS, both military and civilian, in a time of war who had to make horrible decisions that they thought were still utterly necessary to prevent an unthinkable evil from winning. Take the time to figure out what happened so maybe next time there is better information available to maybe make a better decision, and we all win. But condemning the decision makers is generally the cowardly and contemptible act of someone who lives in luxury now because of those same decisions made long ago.
-
So the criticism itself is of a lesser moral quality than the act per se? That's a neat bit of logical legerdemain.
-
Few things deserve contempt as much as armchair quarterbacks second-guessing actual LEADERS... condemning the decision makers is generally the cowardly and contemptible act of someone who lives in luxury now because of those same decisions made long ago.
My second-favorite logical fallacy. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and maybe you should read the source material, too: http://www.amazon.com/The-Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb/dp/067976285X
-
So the only crime the Nazis were guilty of was losing the war. Check.
-
So the only crime the Nazis were guilty of was losing the war. Check.
That's ridiculous and you know it. Find one source, one single source, that the holocaust was thought by anyone to be an act of military necessity. One single source.
-
Few things deserve contempt as much as armchair quarterbacks second-guessing actual LEADERS, both military and civilian, in a time of war...
Yeah, like that 6-year war veteran in the video. :rolleyes:
What actually is contemptible are the modern day brown shirts who justify any atrocity, past or future, in the name of nationalism. Though they usually prefer to use the term "patriotism".
-
Find one source, one single source, that the holocaust was thought by anyone to be an act of military necessity. One single source.
http://www.archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt
q.v., et al.; alas.
-
That's ridiculous and you know it. Find one source, one single source, that the holocaust was thought by anyone to be an act of military necessity. One single source.
Obviously the Nazis deemed it necessary. How dare you question them you armchair quarterback.
-
So the only crime the Nazis were guilty of was losing the war. Check.
So by your argument, anytime someone defeats a predatory or genocidal assailant, the victor is guilty of the same or worse atrocities as those that made the defense required, and not only that, after the war is over the genocidal assailant who started the whole thing is guilty only of losing the war?
You're a loon. And a fairly obvious troll. On a small scale, think of a guy who starts killing his neighbors, kills a few dozen of them, and he operates out of his home. His home is occupied by his wife who doesn't participate in the killing, but who provides support. His home is also occupied by his 2 children who he is training to continue his exercise in murder. He's a wiley bandit, and we know that tomorrow he's going to kill another 10 people so we have to stop him tonight, and the only way we are sure we can do it is to attack him while he's in his house, which will probably kill his wife and kids. What is the moral thing to do? Who is guilty of the inevitable tragic results? Does the killing of his whole family to stop his murderous rampage make "us" as bad as or worse than him?
And what do I think about some jerkwad armchair quarterback who a week later, discovers that oh yea if we'd done this one thing differently we could have stopped him without killing his whole family, and therefore the person who ordered the raid was guilty of an unnecessary crime? Nevermind that at the time any other known course of action would have resulted in 10 more dead people due to the indecision or inability to make a moral distinction between killing "innocents" who are supporting or shielding a mass murderer, and the victims (and future targets/victims) of the mass murderer? I'll back up the leader who is able to make that moral distinction almost any day over some loser armchair quarterback who thinks he's smarter than the people who were actually there having to make the tough choices.
The winner writes the history books but its pretty clear to me that trying to crucify the people who stopped hitler and who were desperate to find an alternative to an infantry invasion of Japan is despicable.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/warning_political_thread_zpsfyjfbhbo.png~original)
-
Obviously the Nazis deemed it necessary. How dare you question them you armchair quarterback.
Prove that they deemed it necessary. Available documentation that I've read indicates that it was considered a social program not a military action. And of course you are essentially making the point that the holocaust was a military action and therefore potentially justifiable under some circumstances. I have not and would not make nor support that claim.
-
There is no morally justifiable reason to deliberately kill non-combatants. None. It doesn't matter if you march people to the showers or burn them to death in their homes. It's senseless slaughter no matter the methods employed or how you rationalize it. Murder.
-
Prove that they deemed it necessary. Available documentation that I've read indicates that it was considered a social program not a military action. And of course you are essentially making the point that the holocaust was a military action and therefore potentially justifiable under some circumstances. I have not and would not make nor support that claim.
Quotes from the Center of Holocaust And Genocide Studies:
Practical aspects
Another main element in the shaping of the Final Solution was the practical aspect. To large parts of the Nazi bureaucracy, especially the occupation powers in Eastern Europe, mass murder was the solution to serious practical problems. This was first of all the case with the overcrowded Polish ghettos, to which more (German) Jews were deported beginning in the autumn of 1941. To kill the Polish Jews – beginning with those incapable of working – was a practical solution to this real (but self-contrived!) problem.
On the eastern front, the German offensive had not been completed in the course of the autumn of 1941. The Red Army had not been defeated in another ‘Blitzkrieg’, and the German war machine had come to a stop as winter approached. In this situation it was deemed impossible to provision this enormous area. The provisioning of the German army had the highest priority, of course, followed by the local population. At the bottom of this ‘food hierarchy’ came the Jews. Jewish women, children and the elderly, in particular, were of no use to the Germans, and killing them thus became the solution to this ‘problem’.
Security aspects
According to the Nazis’ anti-Semitic ideology it was a logical notion to view all Jews as a potential threat against the Third Reich. The Jews, particularly in the German-occupied parts of the Soviet Union, were seen as a threat lingering behind the front. But the Nazis seem to have viewed the local Jews as cooperating with partisan- and resistance groups in other German-occupied countries around Europe as well. From a security point of view it was thus ‘logical’ to remove this threat against Germany by getting rid of the Jews. In Western Europe this happened by deporting the Jews to extermination camps and concentration camps, in Eastern Europe members of the so-called Einsatzgruppen shot thousands of Jews on the spot.
Economic aspects
Some historians have focused on the economic aspects of the Final Solution. According to these scholars, many German planners and bureaucrats simply viewed the Jews as completely superfluous. This attitude was particularly widespread in the Nazi regime’s many economic institutions. In the new Nazi Europe, which these bureaucrats were busy planning, there was no room for inferior races like the Jews. This cynical attitude also applied to the local Eastern European populations, but the Jews remained firmly at the bottom of this ‘population hierarchy’. What was to happen with these Jews? According to the planners, the easiest thing was to let them starve to death, but many viewed this as inhuman and very uncivilised. In their opinion it was much more effective, quick and humane, to have them murdered in the extermination camps.
-
There is no morally justifiable reason to deliberately kill non-combatants. None. It doesn't matter if you march people to the showers or burn them to death in their homes. It's senseless slaughter no matter the methods employed or how you rationalize it. Murder.
QFT
-
"All this was done in our name"
-
Prove they deemed it necessary?
They continued to kill Jews, homosexuals and gypsys until they very last day...
I would say they PROVED their intent...
IN by God
JGroth
-
IF the germans had utilized the jews(MANY having fought valiantly in WW1)those of lower means in the EAST(IE:peasents, etc)
as compatriots in the fight against soviets, instead of wasting resources killing them, stalins russia would have fallen.
Just my 5cents
JGroth
-
This topic has been debated over and over and over...............
I'm glad the war ended. I mourn the deaths incurred on all sides.
But the reality is, World War 2 ended in 1945. Nothing I can do to change anything that happened then, but I can damn sure work to prevent a recurrence today.
Bringing up this topic, YET AGAIN, is nothing but the cry of someone in need of attention. Typical troll.
Beating this dead horse is and will always be, beating a DEAD horse.
-
There is no morally justifiable reason to deliberately kill non-combatants. None. It doesn't matter if you march people to the showers or burn them to death in their homes. It's senseless slaughter no matter the methods employed or how you rationalize it. Murder.
I disagree. Non-combatants that harbor or support combatants become legitimate targets. Some non-combatants may become unavoidable collateral casualties if they are unfortunate to be too close to legitimate targets when the boom happens. This is very unfortunate, tragic even, but it isn't murder. Sucks, but that's war for you. Its a great reason to stay out of wars, I think, because neither side comes out feeling good about it and the tragic events can't be un-done no matter who "wins". Geneva conventions and the US interpretation of the laws of armed combat fully support this determination (although the JAG may use slightly different words to explain the same thing). Glad you're not in charge because sometimes hard decisions need to be made.
Don't worry, its not just me. Every nuke certified USAF officer made that same choice before they completed certification. Some people like you can't handle the grave responsibility, opt out, and are given other things to do.
-
Prove they deemed it necessary?
They continued to kill Jews, homosexuals and gypsys until they very last day...
I would say they PROVED their intent...
IN by God
JGroth
So you're saying that their continued mass murder of Jews by the nazis had a military objective? You jumped into the middle of a conversation there buddy and totally missed what was going on, by god.
It was predator claiming that killing the jews was a legitmate military action no different than US bombing raids aimed at turning off enemy military material production. I am arguing that there the difference between the two actions is crucial to making moral, if tragic and horrible, military decisions in time of war. If you don't see the difference between the holocaust and allied bombing raids then I am very sorry for you because you're pretty much justifying Hitler's worst crimes if that's how you see it.
-
Golly Gee..Wiz Bang...they spent money they COULD NOT afford, diverting same from feeding their populace, their solders, their health care for both. From their armaments to even defend themselves...but..according to your 'blessed' perception does NOT prove their intent????
I yield to your superior intellect...all hail!!!
JGroth
-
As for a 6 year veteran's statements being truth or "right" because he's a veteran... I wouldn't dream of taking anything away from his experience or minimize what he went through but I've spent 19 years fighting the war Saddam Hussein started when he invaded Kuwait and which still hasn't ended yet, and has expanded to multiple theaters. 6 years fighting a world war is unbelievably hard but I've been doing this 3 times as long and I'm still at work every day overseeing in real-time these very real decisions that seem to be dismissed as mystical theoretical rainbow unicorn fart issues. My job has been killing people, threatening entire populations with nukes, and training the next generation of killers for 3 times that number of years.
I'm sorry but a veteran with an opinion is not always right when making statements about legitimacy of operations they were part of but did not have to make decisions about. Feel free to check out USAF laws of armed conflict instructional briefings. Google will probably turn up a whole bunch of briefings on the subject of legitimate targets. The strongest argument against horrific attacks like the Dresden and Tokyo firebombings come from the principle of proportionality. That idea was known and generally followed by those who ordered the attacks, but they still felt they were necessary to bring the war to a timely end with the goal of ultimately saving more lives. I'm 100% in favor of learning from what transpired so that stuff doesn't have to happen again, but second guessing them is chickenpoop.
-
Eagl, save yourself the effort. The last time anyone tried to explain total war and the results thereof the thread simply got locked and, as you can plainly see, your opponent failed to learn anything.
If it was his family/nation going into the ovens perhaps he'd change his mind.
You never know though; he might just be the kind to kneel for the sword to the neck.
-
Golly Gee..Wiz Bang...they spent money they COULD NOT afford, diverting same from feeding their populace, their solders, their health care for both. From their armaments to even defend themselves...but..according to your 'blessed' perception does NOT prove their intent????
I yield to your superior intellect...all hail!!!
JGroth
They intended to kill them all. There isn't a military objective in that. It was genocide, and you don't take military objectives by killing a subpopulation of your own citizens. Sorry jgroth you're supporting hitler's train of thought here by making the holocaust a legitmate military action. It wasn't, no way no how. I say it again. There is no way the holocaust was a military action. It was something else entirely that had to be stopped as quickly as possible. Trying to make it into a military action gives it a moral basis that simply doesn't exist.
-
Eagl, save yourself the effort. The last time anyone tried to explain total war and the results thereof the thread simply got locked and, as you can plainly see, your opponent failed to learn anything.
If it was his family/nation going into the ovens perhaps he'd change his mind.
You never know though; he might just be the kind to kneel for the sword to the neck.
True that Toad. People take all sorts of strange positions without thinking it through. A friend of mine refused to kill the rabbit in survival training, stating that he would die before killing the rabbit. Same guy enjoyed a burger with me the next week. Jumping into the middle of a discussion and trying to justify the holocaust as some sort of military action... That's a first for me. I've never seen anyone try to turn the holocaust into some sort of military action except some neo-Nazi fringe nutters. That's lunacy.
-
YOUR error is the supposition that one countries view of 'military necessity' would correlate with yours...common.
JGroth
-
Your ball.
JGoth
-
Survival of my family is all I need Groth. My families won't go into the ovens while I'm alive, and I'm wearing the uniform and flying or supporting combat ops daily with numerous allied nations all going the same direction and using very similar ROE, so I'm not just arguing hypotheticals. I do this every day at work and have been doing so my entire adult life, considering that desert storm kicked off before I turned 21 and I was in uniform when that happened.
And when the lotus eaters come begging for my help I'll be there even though they damn me now. It's been that way for a long time, I suppose. For now, I don't want to see anyone else put in the ovens, or more recently, burning in a cage for a propaganda video on liveleak. Armchair quarterback and the rabbits will hate me now, praise me if I or others like me save them and their families, then turn around and damn us the next day. It's always like that for people like me and, apparently, people like you.
-
And I fully appreciate your attempt to identify me as someone who 'defends' holocaust...
I hope you sleep well...I do you sod.
JGroth
PS please..bring it.
-
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
Kipling. Tommy
-
And I fully appreciate your attempt to identify me as someone who 'defends' holocaust...
I hope you sleep well...I do you sod.
JGroth
PS please..bring it.
As a matter of fact I routinely have nightmares about the operations I've participated in. An awful lot people doing my job are pretty messed up after 10 or so years of this. Part of the business. You're welcome.
As for the holocaust, you're the one who jumped into the middle of an argument and started spouting nonsense about how the continuation of the atrocities until the last day proved that the Nazis felt it was a military necessity. That's pretty sick.
-
Thank you Toad. Kipling had it right back then and its true now more than ever.
Its tommy this and tommy that, and throw him out, the brute!
-
Well put, Toad...
but question was whether genocide was major thrust of the Nazis war plan...
eagle was gonna dispute this with...facts?
JGroth
-
Tiresome..getting late...put your 'proof' out there..
I do not have patience for childish retorts...
JGroth
-
FOCUS...if you can.
JGroth
-
Groth, you know darn well Hitler wanted to take over the world. The holocaust was a nothing but a social adjustment to him, utter madness. His military objectives involved taking territory. Once he took it, his dream of a society free of jews and others not good enough to live was nothing but swatting bugs to him. Complete lunacy, nothing to do with his military objectives of taking over the world. On the last day of the war there was no possible military objective to continuing the murder, yet they continued.
Its beyond me how you can think that the murders were part of a military objective. Hitler viewed the genocide as nothing worse than picking lint off his coat, cleaning house as it were. That's one reason why he had to be stopped in a total war effort, not just contained. Stalin showed us very well what containment of a murderer leads to. And that's another decision (containment vs. war vs. the soviet union in spite of the millions of murders that were committed there) that I won't second guess because it wasn't my call. I do hope that we learned something about it. Maybe some people have learned something, evidenced by our combat actions with the stated intent to destroy ISIS instead of merely containing it. You going to second guess that one too? You can enlist, get elected, or at least vote if you want to be part of the decision instead of criticizing from the sidelines.
-
What trip
Hitler did or did not wanna do this or do that...
Pull your stupie head outta your arse...
HE HATED JEWS ..dude..wtf
HE decided what was military obfulkinkine objective...NOT you you arse...
Wake the flip UP you obtuse idiot.
He left clues all over.....
JGroth
PS lil child..this is getting tiresome....get a grip or log the F off
-
Seriously WTH.....are you saying HITLER did NOT consider killing all the jews in europe and east russia as part of his military objective??? You WILL post proof??? Or will YOU just shrivel up and crawl away???
Dollars to stale donuts you have NOTHING...
Just saying, all friendly...live long and prosper..but head
Jgroth
-
Sweet dreams... EAGL
JGoth
-
Even a casual reading of the source material (q.v.) reveals that the Nazi policy of genocide was considered integral to the German war effort. Obviously misguided, but unequivocally the case.
-
My point...which doesn't make it pretty...
JGroth
-
At any rate, the question at hand is: what constitutes "military necessity"? Which makes a beggar of the question: "am I my brother's keeper?" These mincing words are not to be borne in the face of 4,000 pounds of napalm dropped on your strategic baby formula factory.
-
At any rate, the question at hand is: what constitutes "military necessity"? Which makes a beggar of the question: "am I my brother's keeper?" These mincing words are not to be borne in the face of 4,000 pounds of napalm dropped on your strategic baby formula factory.
And of course they're all baby formula factories. CNN told me so :)
-
Again, chillins..
who decides military necessity....
If it is 'eagl'.....or Hitler?
JGroth
-
Dang......
bring it or admit ....
or don't....it's OK
your moma said give it up, as your WRONG
JGroth
-
Even a casual reading of the source material (q.v.) reveals that the Nazi policy of genocide was considered integral to the German war effort. Obviously misguided, but unequivocally the case.
:rofl
"Considered" is the key word "Considered"
Goths stating that jews could have been used properly by the Germans to defeat Stalin is very funny. Its like stating the North Koreans would be very useful to the US in fighting IS in the those backward countries :rofl
No such thing as Narzzies, they were Germans.
Two world wars caused by the same country.
Churchill was awesome.
Hitler could not get wood :rofl
At least Britain kept its honor :old:
Speer.."five more Dresdens and the war would have finished"
We beat them twice because we are Awesome :old:
-
There is no morally justifiable reason to deliberately kill non-combatants. None. It doesn't matter if you march people to the showers or burn them to death in their homes. It's senseless slaughter no matter the methods employed or how you rationalize it. Murder.
When did war and morality become synonymous? If we could we ask about Sherman's orders through Georgia.
Like it or not, civilian casualty gets attention and vacuums up support from the general population for resistance.
From ancient times to present; the surest way to win a war; destroy everything in your path.
Who was it that said ~'bring the enemy to their knees, men seek retribution for slight grievances; great ones, they can not'?
-
So you're saying that their continued mass murder of Jews by the nazis had a military objective? You jumped into the middle of a conversation there buddy and totally missed what was going on, by god.
It was predator claiming that killing the jews was a legitmate military ...
Lol, that must be the biggest straw man I've seen in a while. I'm "claiming" killing the civilian population of Germany is no more morally legitimate than killing the Jews. There are practical and logical reasons sure, but not moral. It is perhaps slightly ironic, but immeasurably tragic that the Jews and the German civilians were killed for the same practical and logical reasons. Germany had an army to feed.
Non-combatants that harbor or support combatants become legitimate targets.
By that logic all civilians who contribute to a nation's economy becomes a "legitimate target". That would make 9/11 legitimate and just about every other terrorist attack. You use the word "legitimate" about something that has been outlawed by just about every country in the world since 1949. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 grants immunity for civilians, hospitals, and medical staff, and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the conventions state: “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.”
These laws were made for a reason, and that reason was the barbarity of WWII. So that such slaughter would never happen again. Any professional soldier who harbors views contrary to the laws of warfare are not worthy of wearing the uniform.
-
Eagl, do these butchers look civilian to you?
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/1372159315_brutal-germans-ww2-nazi-killing-squads-eisantzgruppen-004.jpg)
-
Do these German civilians look like "legitimate military targets" to you?
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Dresden-bombing.jpg)
-
What does killing people in gas chambers have to do with feeding the German army :rofl
Never read that before :rofl
I read a paper by Overy who stated that the USSR supplied more food products to the Germans and when they invaded Russia the food supply stopped :rofl
Hitler killed that German child no one else, the bombing of Germany was instigated by the German people.
They supported Hitler whole heartedly in his war aims.
Twice in a century they caused two world wars :old:
They lost twice because they were not very good at finishing wars, it was everyone elses fault not the german people
-
The lock is strong with this thread.
INZ.
-
Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.
-Curtis Lemay
War is evil. And any beligerent hoping to achieve victory must become war. And every side at some point must decide if the price of victory and the cost of defeat is worth committing to that transformation.
That was kind of the point of the film "Platoon".
-
What I learned from this thread is:
There are a lot of people out there who seek equivalency to fit their agenda instead of applying reason.
Groth likes to troll when his alcohol consumption gets out of control, which seems quite frequent.
There is no value to reasoning with those who care little for it.
-
And of course they're all baby formula factories. CNN told me so :)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II:
"Immediate reactions after the [Dresden] attacks and post-war discussion of whether or not the attacks were justified has led to the bombing becoming one of the moral causes célèbres of the war. A 1953 United States Air Force report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which they claimed was a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Several researchers have claimed that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre. Critics of the bombing argue that Dresden—sometimes referred to as "Florence on the Elbe" (Elbflorenz)—was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains."
A controversial decision even at the time.
-
In 1949, four years after the end of the war in Europe, 196 countries, including all the warring parties of that war agreed that such barbarism is immoral and a crime. After 1949 the bombing of Dresden and indeed the entire allied bombing campaign would have been judged a war crime and a crime against humanity by the same countries that committed these very acts a mere four years earlier.
It is a soldier's sworn duty to abide by the laws and regulations that govern the armed forces and the laws of war. That includes the Geneva Conventions which have been ratified and is considered law. It is disappointing that present and former service members publicly express views that are in conflict with the laws of war you've sworn to abide by. In my opinion at least, your service is no longer required.
-
There is 'war' going on right now.....those instigating it do not seem to adhere to preds 'laws of war'...
And, those 'laws of war' will be cast aside when ever a belligerent sees it as in their own best interests..and they will NOT be calling pred, or anyone, for guidance, they will act.
What should be taken from this discussion is 'war is hell', and should be avoided.
Gonna have a beer...
JGroth
-
That's why we call them 'terrorists' and not 'soldiers'. That's why they're considered 'unlawful combatants' and are not afforded any protection by the laws of war. That's why we call them 'badguys'.
-
Dresden was a essential rail transport link to the East :old:
Transporting what?
Unicorns and Rainbows
The Germans set the benchmark for how the war was to be fought.
The denile of German crimes and the stance of blaming the Allies for being just as bad is not a issue :)
The real problem will be in 30 years time these people say "Yes" the German people DID put children in ovens and we glad they did :)
-
Just to be IN on this...
Zack has said it already...
Germany brought it on themselves...no matter what you want to say about it...and if you don't believe they brought it on themselves...well your just out of your mind...
Yes...the Dresden Bombing was awful...everyone can and will agree with that...
Who said anything worth doing is worth doing right?
Maybe we could have just taken Hitler to the bargaining table and said "hey man...this war business has got to stop...how about we give you all the land that you have acquired so far if we can just make the killing stop"
Hey and maybe if we would have the Holocaust wouldn't have happened...right?
Would WWII have ended when it did if the Allies would have been more concerned about civilian casualties than waging war?
NO!!!
That's right and the only way to win a war is to be more violent than your enemy...you make him not want to wage war anymore just out of the shear terror of what might become of him and his family...
-
The denial of German crimes and the stance of blaming the Allies for being just as bad is not an issue :)
This is a false dichotomy. Obviously, one can criticize the Allies' decision-making without excusing "German crimes." Moreover, the question itself is certainly an issue... for historians at any rate.
-
Historians are they a special breed like Doctors living in a moral higher plane to the rest of us?
I have an attic full of WWII books not the picture book ones people read.
I have a copy of Mien Kampf signed by the man himself. :)
That tash proved he was a wrong un :)
Churchill was awesome and he was half colonial as well which must have been a pretty hard cross the bear :)
-
Historians are they a special breed like Doctors living in a moral higher plane to the rest of us?
No, historians ask questions about history. I don't know of any who consider themselves morally superior to the bulk of humanity on that basis; but then, the question doesn't usually come up in history books, since it's entirely irrelevant.
-
Your right not one historian will admit he might be wrong.
Typical sweeping statement "since it is entirely irrelevant"
David Irving was a so called historian, when the Soviets found out what he was upto with thier AGFA GERVAERT narzzie archive they booted out :rofl
On a final note because i am going for a poo, lots of coin has been made out of writing books on this topic :)
-
Please explain your objection to my "typical sweeping statement" (typical of what, one might well ask?, but I digress): how, exactly, is an author's perception of his own moral qualities (as opposed to the possible moral questions pertaining to the facts at hand) relevant to the facts? Writers on both sides of this question are presumably susceptible to the same thing; is it just people who disagree with your point of view who merit the scrutiny?
-
.
-
.
Good point!
-
Good point!
Decided not to get involved.
Would be a great subject to have a rational, non emotional discussion on, but i dont think thats a reality here.
-
Please explain your objection to my "typical sweeping statement" (typical of what, one might well ask?, but I digress): how, exactly, is an author's perception of his own moral qualities (as opposed to the possible moral questions pertaining to the facts at hand) relevant to the facts? Writers on both sides of this question are presumably susceptible to the same thing; is it just people who disagree with your point of view who merit the scrutiny?
My point of view is irrelevant i am not rich or famous :old:
-
I hate this kind of drivel. The hyper articulate stick poking. The reducto ad absurdism. The chest beating righteousness. Please lock this terrible waste of electrons.
-
My point of view is irrelevant i am not rich or famous :old:
Non sequitur, old bean; non sequitur.
-
I hate this kind of drivel. The hyper articulate stick poking. The reducto ad absurdism. The chest beating righteousness. Please lock this terrible waste of electrons.
Those eyelids just painted on, or what? If discussions of topics you find unpleasant fill you with hatred, they're easy enough to avoid.
-
Would be a great subject to have a rational, non emotional discussion on, but i dont think thats a reality here.
Hope springs eternal.
-
"That's why we call them 'terrorists' and not 'soldiers'. That's why they're considered 'unlawful combatants' and are not afforded any protection by the laws of war. That's why we call them 'badguys'."
Interesting point. If you don't like the enemies actions, or maybe just do not like them..you would call them a name..and 'consider' them outside 'the' laws protection. AND treat them differently..worse(?) then you would treat an enemy you liked.
Rather refutes your position....
I'd better drink more..I have a fanboy to keep impressed.
J(hic)Groth
-
The Kumbaya Theory of warfare will only get you so far..than your own prejudices, legit or no, will put you in the gutter, with us 'less enlightened'...every time.
JGroth....whoops..need a beer! Cheers diseased Leporidae!
-
If you don't like the enemies actions, or maybe just do not like them..you would call them a name..and 'consider' them outside 'the' laws protection. AND treat them differently..worse(?) then you would treat an enemy you liked.
Rather refutes your position....
International law is clear on this, so I think the argument falls rather flat. If our governments are going to pick and choose which laws they'll obey and which treaties they'll honor, I'd say we're due for another revolution... nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!
-
I agree, hcrana...... awaiting enlightenment by pred....
more alcohol needed...bunnies are fierce..or a farce? 20 gauge will fix em every time.
JGroth
-
"That's why we call them 'terrorists' and not 'soldiers'. That's why they're considered 'unlawful combatants' and are not afforded any protection by the laws of war. That's why we call them 'badguys'."
Interesting point. If you don't like the enemies actions, or maybe just do not like them..you would call them a name..and 'consider' them outside 'the' laws protection. AND treat them differently..worse(?) then you would treat an enemy you liked.
Rather refutes your position....
I'd better drink more..I have a fanboy to keep impressed.
J(hic)Groth
I always wonder why we called it the "war on terror" and yet we had no "real armies" on the other side.
semp
-
I dunno, I grew up at a time when peace was maintained by both sides stated willingness (and capability) to incinerate the other's civilians en masse.
And don't give me that crap about military targets within cities - couple megatons here and there are not precision weapons.
-
I understand we no longer have neutron bombs... do you think Red China and Puten disabled theres??
Just rename an enemy....and laws do not apply
I'd better drink more...rabbits need excuse to exist
20 gauge baby
JGroth
-
What?
Seriously, wtf?
-
Seriously...wtf hell..do we or not?
Better drink more...have image to uphold.
JGroth
-
So who is hcrana anyways? Has anyone searched the old Dresden threads?
-
See Rule #4
-
I want my peerage, dammit. Already got a moose.
-
The spoilt academics I know routinely put in 12-hour days... until they get tenure. Then they all start showing up nude for lectures, where they read the newspaper while eating bon-bons.
-
Yes
Come the revolution you can have Brighton Pier :old:
-
Oh boy! Baron Rana of Brighton! It's a colonial's dream come true, I tellsya. Y'all can come visit me at my beachfront estate, I promise. We can pass the time punk-baiting.
-
http://www.highlandtitles.com/ (http://www.highlandtitles.com/)
Laird hCrana
Sounds almost Scottish
JGroth