Dresden bombing marked 70 years on

[mbailey]

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

[SysError]

...  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
 

[Groth]

 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

[zack1234]

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.
 

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[zack1234]

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.

[Toad]

I guess if a government actually values the lives of its civilians it won't start wars of conquest. Payback is h*ll.

[Swoop]

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."

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[Swoop]

That's not what I said, read it again. 

[zack1234]

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

[PR3D4TOR]

Swoop, it was more directed to your countryman above.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[Toad]

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?

[zack1234]

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.