Dresden POW survivor video interview

[FLOOB]

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".

[rabbidrabbit]

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.

[hcrana]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[Groth]

 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
                                                 

[PR3D4TOR]

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'.

[zack1234]

Dresden was a essential rail transport link to the East

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

[puller]

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...

[hcrana]

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.

[zack1234]

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

[hcrana]

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.

[zack1234]

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

On a final note because i am going for a poo, lots of coin has been made out of writing books on this topic

[hcrana]

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?

[mbailey]

.

[hcrana]

.

Good point!