Dresden Anniversary

[SportscarBruce]

I haven't seen one mention of this date either on cable news or in the programming of so-called history channels. Understanding the significance of the single greatest mass killing in the pages of human history I feel it deserving of mention;

"In the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as a half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time."

http://www.cityofsound.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/29/firebombing_of_dresden.jpg

"February 13/14 1945: Holocaust over Dresden, known as the Florence of the North. Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600.000 refugees from Breslau, Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill had asked for "suggestions how to blaze 600.000 refugees". He wasn't interested how to target military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden. More than 700.000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people. One bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 o centigrade. More than 260.000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the centre of the city can't be traced. Approximately 500.000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night."

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

http://www.historycentral.com/WW2/events/images/firebombingofdresden.gif

[Daniel]

I haven't seen one mention of this date either on cable news or in the programming of so-called history channels. Understanding the significance of the single greatest mass killing in the pages of human history I feel it deserving of mention;

"In the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as a half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time."

http://www.cityofsound.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/29/firebombing_of_dresden.jpg

"February 13/14 1945: Holocaust over Dresden, known as the Florence of the North. Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600.000 refugees from Breslau, Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill had asked for "suggestions how to blaze 600.000 refugees". He wasn't interested how to target military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden. More than 700.000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people. One bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 o centigrade. More than 260.000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the centre of the city can't be traced. Approximately 500.000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night."

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

http://www.historycentral.com/WW2/events/images/firebombingofdresden.gif
IMHO one of the worst warcrimes ever.

[Hondo]

George Bush Sr. was in the Pacific, can't blame him.

What would you like people to say? It was wartime. Thats what happens during wars.

[Daniel]

George Bush Sr. was in the Pacific, can't blame him.

What would you like people to say? It was wartime. Thats what happens during wars.
People kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people on purpose in just one day just for the sake of it?

I say this every time but what the Americans did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely justified as it was done to facilitate an earlier and less bloody end to the war in the pacific, this was a war crime.

[markabilly]

George Bush Sr. was in the Pacific, can't blame him.

What would you like people to say? It was wartime. Thats what happens during wars.
we hung germans for making war on civilians due to their bombing of london and such other places in WWii.....this was previously discussed in some other thread, as he who loses, gets hung as a war criminal , and the winner can commit no war crimes, as he is celebrated as a war hero and walks the path of righteousness

the a-bombs on japan might be different since that seemed to trigger the inevitable surrender; however the usa fire bombed the hell out of tokoyo and other places, causing huge civilian deaths.

makes u wonder why they did not pick a better military target that would have been just as effective i think with japan

the other thing is feb 1945, the war there was close to being over. the only advantage of dresdan is that it saved the military from having to feed so many people :( , Sicko is the only word for it.

[Hondo]

We could have surrendered and avoided all of it.

If the Axis would have won, you can bet there would have been some hangings. It's about who wins not who was the best sport.

[Daniel]

We could have surrendered and avoided all of it.

If the Axis would have won, you can bet there would have been some hangings. It's about who wins not who was the best sport.
No one's suggesting that the Allies should have rolled over, just that killing 500,000 mostly innocent souls is not the right way to go about things.

[SportscarBruce]

Depending on if you subscribe to the school textbook or internet-based alternative explanations Dunkirk was either 1) a screwup of epic proportions on part of a German military (which to that point completely out-manuvered the Allies) or 2) the placing the panzers in park was intended as a peace gesture. What isn't disputable is the fact that almost 340,000 military personnel escaped with their lives. Add in the fact Paris was spared from destruction, Rudolph Hess's peace mission was received with what amounted to a life sentence, and the Dresden bombing (along with Hamburg) places a burden of doubt upon history's treatment of WWII.

[Easy Drifter]

Yes it is very unfortunte that the firebombing of Dresden was more effcient than the Nazi firebombing of London. :(

[SportscarBruce]

Yes it is very unfortunte that the firebombing of Dresden was more effcient than the Nazi firebombing of London. :(

Did the Nazis utilize white phosphorus or jellied gasoline in their bomb loads?

[Hondo]

Depending on if you subscribe to the school textbook or internet-based alternative explanations Dunkirk was either 1) a screwup of epic proportions on part of a German military (which to that point completely out-manuvered the Allies) or 2) the placing the panzers in park was intended as a peace gesture. What isn't disputable is the fact that almost 340,000 military personnel escaped with their lives. Add in the fact Paris was spared from destruction, Rudolph Hess's peace mission was received with what amounted to a life sentence, and the Dresden bombing (along with Hamburg) places a burden of doubt upon history's treatment of WWII.

or 3, Hitler became worried about going too far, too fast and halted the tanks until their infantry and logistic trains could catch up. After all, Goring's air force would prevent an evacuation.

[Eki]

The axis powers lost over 4 million civilians vs. 8 million military deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

It's unbelievable that Finland lost only about 2000 civilians vs. about 90,000 military deaths in its wars against the Soviet Union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

The only explanation is that the Soviet Union wasn't after civilians. It's not like they lacked air power.

Guernica.

You reap what you sow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

[DexDexter]

The axis powers lost over 4 million civilians vs. 8 million military deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

It's unbelievable that Finland lost only about 2000 civilians vs. about 90,000 military deaths in its wars against the Soviet Union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

The only explanation is that the Soviet Union wasn't after civilians. It's not like they lacked air power.

That's not it. Their airforce wasn't very efficient in the Winter War and Germans destroyed so much of Soviet Union's airpower at the beginning of Barbarossa that they never fully recovered from that (the airforce I mean). They did try to bomb Helsinki with a huge number of planes in February 1944 but Finnish air defenses and the poor Russian pilots meant that damage was quite limited. Stalin had more of his own civilians killed than anybody in the history, I don't think he cared for the citizens of other countries.

[Eki]

Stalin had more of his own civilians killed than anybody in the history, I don't think he cared for the citizens of other countries.
Maybe he didn't care enough to target them. He probably didn't see Finnish civilians a threat to his power like he saw his own civilians.

[Eki]

Their airforce wasn't very efficient in the Winter War and Germans destroyed so much of Soviet Union's airpower at the beginning of Barbarossa that they never fully recovered from that (the airforce I mean).
In addition to the planes they built by themselves the got planes from the US (although I think those were mostly fighters not bombers).

[Eki]

Guernica.

You reap what you sow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

Small potatoes compared to Dresden:


The Basque government reported 1,654 people killed, but modern research suggests between 200 to 400 civilians died.[1][2]

[Easy Drifter]

I was born in London.
The hospital I was born in was bombed.
My Father's office was destroyed.
Both houses my parents had lived in were destroyed.
Relatives and friends of my parents were killed and maimed.
Tell me if I give d--- about Dresden.

Luckily we were in Canada by then. My parents were Cdn.

[Rollo]

I say this every time but what the Americans did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely justified as it was done to facilitate an earlier and less bloody end to the war in the pacific, this was a war crime.

Materially, that statement is faulty.
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2009/08/justify-this.html
http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2009/08/horse-1022-bomb-was-unjustified.html
Two rather well researched pieces from a tremendously gifted and talented author.

[Mark]

I certainly don't agree with what they did. However you have to understand the circumstances at the time. It was an absolute literal fight to the death, either we killed the Germans or they killed us. I'm sure the attitude at the time was that if there are half a million less Germans around, that's half a million less to resist us.

[Daniel]

I certainly don't agree with what they did. However you have to understand the circumstances at the time. It was an absolute literal fight to the death, either we killed the Germans or they killed us. I'm sure the attitude at the time was that if there are half a million less Germans around, that's half a million less to resist us.
That's BS though Mark. Those people weren't going to resist, at least not to the point where HALF A MILLION people were going to die.

[Mark]

That's BS though Mark. Those people weren't going to resist, at least not to the point where HALF A MILLION people were going to die.

As I say, different times. When you've been fighting for the survival of your country for 5 years, killing the people who represent your enemy becomes to seem reasonable. Note for the hard of thinking: I'm not saying I think it was reasonable at all!

The fact is that, if defeating Germany meant destroying every living thing with their borders, then that's what they would have done. It's very difficult for those of us who have not lived through it, to appreciate what it must have been like.

[Daniel]

As I say, different times. When you've been fighting for the survival of your country for 5 years, killing the people who represent your enemy becomes to seem reasonable. Note for the hard of thinking: I'm not saying I think it was reasonable at all!
Fair enough. But in retrospect we HAVE to look back on this and realise that it was wrong. To put it into context, as many people were killed that night in Dresden as were killed in the Boxing day Tsunami AND the recent Haiti quake COMBINED.

If the Dresden bombings are fine then so was the massacre at My Lai, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the violence in Rwanda........

It's a slippery slope

[Mark]

btw Dresden city council said in 2006 that the number of fatalities was between 18,000 and 25,000.

[Daniel]

btw Dresden city council said in 2006 that the number of fatalities was between 18,000 and 25,000.
That'll teach me to believe a wiki!

[Mark]

Further to that however, I read a good history book recently and the author claimed that area bombing of cities etc by both sides achived precisely nothing during WW2 and if "not one single bomb had been dropped by either side, the outcome of the war would have been exactly the same"

[Daniel]

Indeed I've seen many sources which put the figure from 18,000 up to 35,000. It was Goebbels who stated at the time that up to 135,000 lives were lost, but he made this claim to 60,000 brain washed National Socialists during a propaganda speech.. :\
I think my point still stands. Well cept for the bit about 500k people dying of course.

[Mark]

I think my point still stands. Well cept for the bit about 500k people dying of course.

Estimates are that approx 40 million civilians died during the second world war.
Add to that a further 20 million combatants.

These are numbers which are just impossible to contemplate in our time.

[Daniel]

I think thats everyone's point though. Nobody here is excusing the Dresden bombing, but stating that this type of tactic was also used by the Germans too. There's a line in the film Full metal Jacket, "Ain't war hell".. :)
The point is though, what tactical or strategic reason was there for burning those people alive? The a-bombs ended the war and saved a lot of people from dying, the bombing of Dresden, Hamburb, London, Coventry, Liverpool etc did sod all.

[Daniel]

One other point is that incendiary bombs were used by the Luftwaffe too over Coventry and had the same desired effect as what the RAF intended with Dresden. The difference was the scale of the assault.. :)
I'm not saying that that was right. All I'm saying is two wrongs don't make a right.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying that that was right. All I'm saying is two wrongs don't make a right.

And neither, in cancelling each other out, do they have the slightest strategic effect.

One fire-storm versus the Holocaust.

Seems they got off lightly in comparison.

[chuck34]

As others have stated, perhaps the bombing of Dresden did no Military good. However, it was a political and morale message. The leaders of the Allied powers HAD to send a message to the German people that said something to the effect "This is what you get if you keep supporting these a-holes, so throw them out on your own." The other thing was that London and other areas of England were still being bombed indisciminately by V-1's and V-2's. And at that time there was still the fear of those being tipped with either biologial warheads or worse.

So while the bombing probably wasn't a total military "win". It served other purposes.

[Daniel]

As others have stated, perhaps the bombing of Dresden did no Military good. However, it was a political and morale message. The leaders of the Allied powers HAD to send a message to the German people that said something to the effect "This is what you get if you keep supporting these a-holes, so throw them out on your own." The other thing was that London and other areas of England were still being bombed indisciminately by V-1's and V-2's. And at that time there was still the fear of those being tipped with either biologial warheads or worse.

So while the bombing probably wasn't a total military "win". It served other purposes.
I agree. My point is as always that there doesn't seem to be any guilt about what was done.

[Garry Walker]

I agree. My point is as always that there doesn't seem to be any guilt about what was done.

Well, USSR and western powers won the war, so their crimes are forgotten. That is always the case

No one talks that western troops shot capture german soldiers, no one mentions the crimes soviet soldiers committed against german people.

As for dresden, it was not needed, it served no purpose whatsoever. The war was won ages ago. But that is war, these things happen.


One fire-storm versus the Holocaust.

Seems they got off lightly in comparison.

Because all german people are collectively responsible for holocaust, right?

[Mark]

As for dresden, it was not needed, it served no purpose whatsoever. The war was won ages ago. But that is war, these things happen.


The allies were beginning to think the war had been won. But they were shocked by the scale of the German counter offensives at the battle of the bulge, and it was argued that Germany needed to be put down, once and for all.

[Daniel]

Well, USSR and western powers won the war, so their crimes are forgotten. That is always the case

No one talks that western troops shot capture german soldiers, no one mentions the crimes soviet soldiers committed against german people.

As for dresden, it was not needed, it served no purpose whatsoever. The war was won ages ago. But that is war, these things happen.

Because all german people are collectively responsible for holocaust, right?

Too right on both accounts Garry.

[chuck34]

I agree. My point is as always that there doesn't seem to be any guilt about what was done.

I am sad that so many had to die, not only in that city, but all over the world. But am I going to apologize for what happened to Dresden, no. War is hell, sorry but that's how it is. The Allied planners of the war saw a need to do it, and I agree with them. As I said it wasn't needed in a strict military sence, but it was needed in a morale sence. Not only to lift the Allied morale, but to crush the German morale. One of the factors leading up to that war was the fact that the Germans had been embarased after WWI, but their spirt was not crushed. This was a way to crush their spirt. Right or wrong, at the time that was the thinking, and I can see that point. Trying to revise history and put our hindsight and morals on to them is wrong and serves no purpose. Look at their mindset, and reasoning behind what they did, at the time.

[Mark]

This was a way to crush their spirt. Right or wrong, at the time that was the thinking, and I can see that point..

That was Hitler's objective in bombing London and part of the reason for bombing Germany. But killing people doesn't usually make them agree with you. In fact it usually irks them somewhat.

[BDunnell]

I agree. My point is as always that there doesn't seem to be any guilt about what was done.

The British attitude to it is far more 'positive' than, say, the widespread Japanese attitude to their wartime actions. Take the close links between Coventry and Dresden, for example. We may not prostrate ourselves in front of the Germans about Dresden, but I think this would be inappropriate, because both 'sides' have genuinely moved on.

[Garry Walker]

The allies were beginning to think the war had been won. But they were shocked by the scale of the German counter offensives at the battle of the bulge, and it was argued that Germany needed to be put down, once and for all.

1)The war was won after Battle of Kursk already. Everyone knew it.

2) Bombing dresden was 3 weeks after Battle of the Bulge had ended and served no military purpose. That was never going to "put germany down"

3) Western front for Germany was completely out of resources after BotB

[Daniel]

I am sad that so many had to die, not only in that city, but all over the world. But am I going to apologize for what happened to Dresden, no. War is hell, sorry but that's how it is. The Allied planners of the war saw a need to do it, and I agree with them. As I said it wasn't needed in a strict military sence, but it was needed in a morale sence. Not only to lift the Allied morale, but to crush the German morale. One of the factors leading up to that war was the fact that the Germans had been embarased after WWI, but their spirt was not crushed. This was a way to crush their spirt. Right or wrong, at the time that was the thinking, and I can see that point. Trying to revise history and put our hindsight and morals on to them is wrong and serves no purpose. Look at their mindset, and reasoning behind what they did, at the time.
With all due respect this is BS. The German army fought to the bitter end in Berlin, if like the Japanese they'd surrendered early I could agree. All this did was piss people off and kill thousands of innocent people.

[BDunnell]

I am sad that so many had to die, not only in that city, but all over the world. But am I going to apologize for what happened to Dresden, no. War is hell, sorry but that's how it is. The Allied planners of the war saw a need to do it, and I agree with them. As I said it wasn't needed in a strict military sence, but it was needed in a morale sence. Not only to lift the Allied morale, but to crush the German morale. One of the factors leading up to that war was the fact that the Germans had been embarased after WWI, but their spirt was not crushed. This was a way to crush their spirt. Right or wrong, at the time that was the thinking, and I can see that point. Trying to revise history and put our hindsight and morals on to them is wrong and serves no purpose. Look at their mindset, and reasoning behind what they did, at the time.

By that point of the war, many Germans recognised they were staring defeat in the face. I would suggest your version of the German public viewpoint circa early 1945 is the revisionist one here.

[Daniel]

The British attitude to it is far more 'positive' than, say, the widespread Japanese attitude to their wartime actions. Take the close links between Coventry and Dresden, for example. We may not prostrate ourselves in front of the Germans about Dresden, but I think this would be inappropriate, because both 'sides' have genuinely moved on.
I agree somewhat but you can't forgive someone or indeed move on till you admit the wrong that was done.

[Garry Walker]

But am I going to apologize for what happened to Dresden, no.

No one is wanting that. Why should you apologize for something that happened before you were born and for something that you had ZERO control over.

But we can still debate over whether such an attack was needed or not at such a time in the war.

[Mark]

But we can still debate over whether such an attack was needed or not at such a time in the war.

Well I think we can all agree that it was not 'needed'. But hindsight is perfect and we don't know the thinking at the time.

[Garry Walker]

By that point of the war, many Germans recognised they were staring defeat in the face. I would suggest your version of the German public viewpoint circa early 1945 is the revisionist one here.

Just as a sidenote, Der Angriff (nazi propaganda paper) was even in april 1945 saying that final victory is close, as german troops are approaching the surrounded Berlin from every part. I am sure quite many of them fell for it, even when their cities were getting bombed daily.

[Daniel]

Just as a sidenote, Der Angriff (nazi propaganda paper) was even in april 1945 saying that final victory is close, as german troops are approaching the surrounded Berlin from every part. I am sure quite many of them fell for it, even when their cities were getting bombed daily.
I wonder how many people simply used it as an excuse to be a bit escapist and believe that it was all going to be good.

[chuck34]

By that point of the war, many Germans recognised they were staring defeat in the face. I would suggest your version of the German public viewpoint circa early 1945 is the revisionist one here.

Have you talked to the people of Dresden? My sister worked there for about 6 months a few years back, and was quite worried how she would be recieved. So in talking to the locals, many of whom lived through the bombing, she came to find that most of them didn't "blame" anyone for the bombing of their town, except Hitler.

I'm sure that there are others who feel/felt differently, but that was her sence of the people's mood.

[SportscarBruce]

btw Dresden city council said in 2006 that the number of fatalities was between 18,000 and 25,000.

Well, if a politician says it then it has to be true. After all, when there's nothing but piles of ashes left how is one supposed to ascertain numbers? Perhaps a law against Dresden Revisionism should have been passed across all of Europe as was the case with the Holocaust in order to guard against examination...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I love the naval gazing and guilt from you Daniel. You were born 25 years or so AFTER the act, yet you condemn this as the most EVIL thing done during a war with 40 million civilians dead. Dresden was a footnote compared to the Japanese in China (it is one thing to drop bombs from planes while the Luftwaffe takes pot shots at you, it is another to rape and pillage a nation as large as China with the hatred the Japanese employed), the Nazi extermination of their "undesirables" and Jews, or the cruelty in which Stalin treated his own soldiers (the reason the Russians fought so nastily is because of the guns behind them at times) and any Germans captured. This was a war full of nasty, cruel acts beyond the wasteful and silly act of strategic bombing. Dresden was a waste in today's eyes, but Daniel, you sit in your comfy chair, facing no threat, not having to dive into a bomb shelter every night. The fact is the German's wanted to wipe British cities off the map in 1940 and throughout the war.

The fact they didn't was as much to their own incomptance in not building heavy bombers, than lack of desire. AS it was pointed out, it isn't a war crime to be better at dropping bombs than the other side. Not in a war where an eye for an eye was the way things worked. It is wrong in today's comfortable world, but in the 40's, this was a fight to the death, and while Dresden was overkill, total war is total war. No one in Germany is as bent out of shape now as the people in the UK who feel guilt. Guilt is a silly emotion..in this case it is there to make liberals feel good about winning. I don't need to feel guilty my side won. I know by not speaking German we won...and I am glad for it. We protect the democratic values we want to keep now and don't let the world go that far wrong again by being wary and careful, not feeing guilt.

[BDunnell]

...no one mentions the crimes soviet soldiers committed against german people.

In fact, one now sees this mentioned quite a bit, which is good, for those deeds were horrific.

There is an interesting comparison here, in fact. We wouldn't seek to condone the raping and pillaging committed by the Soviet forces in Germany on the grounds that 'it was a long time ago' or any other mitigating circumstances. Why should we condone other actions from the same era on those grounds?

[BDunnell]

No one in Germany is as bent out of shape now as the people in the UK who feel guilt.

Very true. But quit the whining about 'liberals' one post in a while, will you?

[BDunnell]

Have you talked to the people of Dresden? My sister worked there for about 6 months a few years back, and was quite worried how she would be recieved. So in talking to the locals, many of whom lived through the bombing, she came to find that most of them didn't "blame" anyone for the bombing of their town, except Hitler.

I'm sure that there are others who feel/felt differently, but that was her sence of the people's mood.

Personally, I wouldn't have felt the need to bring it up. The Germans are generally quite fed up with people worrying about such matters, in my experience.

[Daniel]

I love the naval gazing and guilt from you Daniel. You were born 25 years or so AFTER the act, yet you condemn this as the most EVIL thing done during a war with 40 million civilians dead. Dresden was a footnote compared to the Japanese in China (it is one thing to drop bombs from planes while the Luftwaffe takes pot shots at you, it is another to rape and pillage a nation as large as China with the hatred the Japanese employed), the Nazi extermination of their "undesirables" and Jews, or the cruelty in which Stalin treated his own soldiers (the reason the Russians fought so nastily is because of the guns behind them at times) and any Germans captured. This was a war full of nasty, cruel acts beyond the wasteful and silly act of strategic bombing. Dresden was a waste in today's eyes, but Daniel, you sit in your comfy chair, facing no threat, not having to dive into a bomb shelter every night. The fact is the German's wanted to wipe British cities off the map in 1940 and throughout the war.

The fact they didn't was as much to their own incomptance in not building heavy bombers, than lack of desire. AS it was pointed out, it isn't a war crime to be better at dropping bombs than the other side. Not in a war where an eye for an eye was the way things worked. It is wrong in today's comfortable world, but in the 40's, this was a fight to the death, and while Dresden was overkill, total war is total war. No one in Germany is as bent out of shape now as the people in the UK who feel guilt. Guilt is a silly emotion..in this case it is there to make liberals feel good about winning. I don't need to feel guilty my side won. I know by not speaking German we won...and I am glad for it. We protect the democratic values we want to keep now and don't let the world go that far wrong again by being wary and careful, not feeing guilt.

Try almost 40 years after the act :D

[DexDexter]

Maybe he didn't care enough to target them. He probably didn't see Finnish civilians a threat to his power like he saw his own civilians.

Soviet Union simply didn't have strategic airforce like the US or Britain, no Lancasters or Flying Fortresses. As I said, they lost the core of their airforce in the opening days of Barbarossa and while they produced more than enough planes, the organisation wasn't there, particularly in the bomber side. I don't know where this Stalin didn't consider Finnish civilians as threat comes from, echoes of Finlandization?

[DexDexter]

1)The war was won after Battle of Kursk already. Everyone knew it.

2) Bombing dresden was 3 weeks after Battle of the Bulge had ended and served no military purpose. That was never going to "put germany down"

3) Western front for Germany was completely out of resources after BotB

Offtopic, but talking about the war, I don't get this whole D-day and Western front thing. It is so obvious how bias history writing is, I mean the world is full of stuff about the D-day and how meaningful it was in defeating Germany. Same goes for overestimating the meaning of the Ardennes offensive somebody mentioned over here.

In reality while Allies lost a few thousand soldiers at Normandy in the first days, a much much bigger operation called Bagration was happening in Belorussia which resulted in the total destruction of German Army Group Centre and left a huge gap in the German front. Casualties were horrible on both sides. I don't see too much about that in the papers...

[Daniel]

Offtopic, but talking about the war, I don't get this whole D-day and Western front thing. It is so obvious how bias history writing is, I mean the world is full of stuff about the D-day and how meaningful it was in defeating Germany. Same goes for overestimating the meaning of the Ardennes offensive somebody mentioned over here.

In reality while Allies lost a few thousand soldiers at Normandy in the first days, a much much bigger operation called Bagration was happening in Belorussia which resulted in the total destruction of German Army Group Centre and left a huge gap in the German front. Casualties were horrible on both sides. I don't see too much about that in the papers...
Yes and the Russians did it all on a sniff of vodka and with ****ty weapons too.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Very true. But quit the whining about 'liberals' one post in a while, will you?

Did you quote me on this? Heck Ben, liberal guilt fuels a lot of the stupidity but I don't believe I mentioned it. If I DID, you would have quoted me...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Offtopic, but talking about the war, I don't get this whole D-day and Western front thing. It is so obvious how bias history writing is, I mean the world is full of stuff about the D-day and how meaningful it was in defeating Germany. Same goes for overestimating the meaning of the Ardennes offensive somebody mentioned over here.

In reality while Allies lost a few thousand soldiers at Normandy in the first days, a much much bigger operation called Bagration was happening in Belorussia which resulted in the total destruction of German Army Group Centre and left a huge gap in the German front. Casualties were horrible on both sides. I don't see too much about that in the papers...

The Russians didn't do PR the way the Allies did. Most SERIOUS historians view Russia's role in beating the Germans in a more respectful light, but it does have to be said also that ask the Polish or Czechs how much they loved the Russians libreating them? I do think we romantize the D-Day invasion because in the end, the people liberated by the western allies had something to be thankful for over time.....whereas in Eastern Europe, it was substituting dictators for 40 more years..

[BDunnell]

Did you quote me on this? Heck Ben, liberal guilt fuels a lot of the stupidity but I don't believe I mentioned it. If I DID, you would have quoted me...

Er...


Guilt is a silly emotion..in this case it is there to make liberals feel good about winning.

[BDunnell]

The Russians didn't do PR the way the Allies did. Most SERIOUS historians view Russia's role in beating the Germans in a more respectful light, but it does have to be said also that ask the Polish or Czechs how much they loved the Russians libreating them? I do think we romantize the D-Day invasion because in the end, the people liberated by the western allies had something to be thankful for over time.....whereas in Eastern Europe, it was substituting dictators for 40 more years..

And there were a lot of Western media correspondents covering D-Day, it being virtually on our doorstep.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Er...

Touche Ben...

But tell me again how I am wrong? I missed that part. The only people worry about this 50 years later are not the people of Dresden whose grandparents and parents were under those bombs, but people like yourself and Daniel who by most definition are political libreals;who seem like you want to dig up ole Bomber Harris and put him on trial. It is OVER for crying out loud.....

[SportscarBruce]

Touche Ben...

But tell me again how I am wrong? I missed that part. The only people worry about this 50 years later are not the people of Dresden whose grandparents and parents were under those bombs, but people like yourself and Daniel who by most definition are political libreals;who seem like you want to dig up ole Bomber Harris and put him on trial. It is OVER for crying out loud.....

At what date will 9/11 be considered over? :confused:

[Mark in Oshawa]

At what date will 9/11 be considered over? :confused:

I am thinking as long as people who were adults that day are around. The point is Bruce, if the GERMANS worried about this as much as Daniel or yourself did, it would make sense. I can guarntee you the Arab world doesn't give a rat's behind about 9/11 really. At least, you don't see it in their general populace. Dresden has to be one of the few world's tragedies where the guilt of the people whose grandparents did the deed is greater than the sorrow of those who suffered.....

Enough of it...it is over, the Germans accepted with grace our apologies years ago. Many in Germany understand that it is a good thing that Hitler is long gone. If wasted the energy and bile for this on things like the misjustice of what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe, or the plight of Armenians in Turkey, or the youth of Iran who are tired of the Shiite theocracy running THAT nation, it would be energy better spent.

[Eki]

Soviet Union simply didn't have strategic airforce like the US or Britain, no Lancasters or Flying Fortresses. As I said, they lost the core of their airforce in the opening days of Barbarossa and while they produced more than enough planes, the organisation wasn't there, particularly in the bomber side. I don't know where this Stalin didn't consider Finnish civilians as threat comes from, echoes of Finlandization?
The Soviets built over 5,000 IL-4 bombers. I haven't heard they were used to carpet bomb civilians.

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/Ilyushin-IL-4.html


One of the great bombers of the war which can be termed as a “Forgotten Aircraft”, the Ilyushin IL-4 was overshadowed in Western thinking by the British and American aircraft. In spite of this, well over 5,000 IL-4s were produced between 1937 and 1944. The system was a commendably success. Its design was sound although a poor defensive armament array ultimately led to high and unacceptable losses to the extent that production was completed by 1944. Still, it kept serving till the end of the war.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Soviets built over 5,000 IL-4 bombers. I haven't heard they were used to carpet bomb civilians.

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/Ilyushin-IL-4.html

The Soviets didn't carpet bomb their enemies, that is true. Too impersonal. They raped, pillaged and enslaved them.

as for the IL-4, it had limited range, 2 engines, limited arms, and carried 2200 lbs of bombs. The light bomber Mosquitoes the RAF used had a 4000 lb bombload and would run circles around it. The Lancaster could carry 10000 lbs in regular trim, and the Dambusters carried 24000 lbs of bombs. The Boeing Superfortress would carry 12000 lbs of bombs almost 400mph for 3000 miles. If that is the best the Russians could do, it isn't a wonder they didn't get into carpet bombing. I suspect if the Soviets had 3000 Flying Fortresses, Dresden, Berlin and the rest would have gotten a lot of Soviet attention....

[janvanvurpa]

I am sad that so many had to die, not only in that city, but all over the world. But am I going to apologize for what happened to Dresden, no. War is hell, sorry but that's how it is. The Allied planners of the war saw a need to do it, and I agree with them. As I said it wasn't needed in a strict military sence, but it was needed in a morale sence. Not only to lift the Allied morale, but to crush the German morale. One of the factors leading up to that war was the fact that the Germans had been embarased after WWI, but their spirt was not crushed. This was a way to crush their spirt. Right or wrong, at the time that was the thinking, and I can see that point. Trying to revise history and put our hindsight and morals on to them is wrong and serves no purpose. Look at their mindset, and reasoning behind what they did, at the time.

Only problem with your fantasy is the British ---and the Americans---knew from pre-war studies looking to WWI that aerial bombing was so hated by civilians and soldiers at the front alike, that bombing of civilians STIFFENED the WILL to FIGHT.
The British knew they shared the same history and valure and culture to a overwhelming extent as the Germans and extroplated that bombing of civilians would with all certainly , do the same as it did when British were bombed....yet they chose to do it....

And to those who say "it's over" (now, when the pointlessness of slaughtering so many in Dresden,----(for revenge for what? I thought the raids on Hamburg and the rest were 'revenge' enough is exposed as the cynical purposeless murder it was) I say
No, it's not over, not when you apologists take up the myth of American moral superiority and wrap it around YOURSELVES.

YOU apologists for murder keep it alive, so the truth of the idiocy and cynicism and mass murder whereever it occured needs to be re-stated to counter your arm chair post facto revisionist stories.

[chuck34]

Personally, I wouldn't have felt the need to bring it up. The Germans are generally quite fed up with people worrying about such matters, in my experience.

Yes many have moved on and are not worrying about such matters. So why are you?

And my sister was worried about how she (as an American who's grandfather fought in the European Theater) would be accepted in Dresden because she was working as a Civil Engineer helping to rebuild one of their Cathedrals that was bombed in the raid of which we are speaking. So yeah, she felt the need to bring it up.

[chuck34]

Only problem with your fantasy is the British ---and the Americans---knew from pre-war studies looking to WWI that aerial bombing was so hated by civilians and soldiers at the front alike, that bombing of civilians STIFFENED the WILL to FIGHT.
The British knew they shared the same history and valure and culture to a overwhelming extent as the Germans and extroplated that bombing of civilians would with all certainly , do the same as it did when British were bombed....yet they chose to do it....

And to those who say "it's over" (now, when the pointlessness of slaughtering so many in Dresden,----(for revenge for what? I thought the raids on Hamburg and the rest were 'revenge' enough is exposed as the cynical purposeless murder it was) I say
No, it's not over, not when you apologists take up the myth of American moral superiority and wrap it around YOURSELVES.

YOU apologists for murder keep it alive, so the truth of the idiocy and cynicism and mass murder whereever it occured needs to be re-stated to counter your arm chair post facto revisionist stories.


I'm not going to debate this with you. You can take your guilt and go over to Germany and do all the apologizing that you wish. You can do your best to make us all feel so guilty that we won the damn war. But I'm not gonna play your twisted game. You think you know your facts, but I seem to remember going through this with you in the past. You put up a bunch of reports that seemed to support your argument thinking I wouldn't read them. Then when I did and called you out on what you thought you knew, you up and disapeared for a while only to reappear when you thought we'd all forgotten.

But I'm not going through this with you again.

[janvanvurpa]

I'm not going to debate this with you. You can take your guilt and go over to Germany and do all the apologizing that you wish. You can do your best to make us all feel so guilty that we won the damn war. But I'm not gonna play your twisted game. You think you know your facts, but I seem to remember going through this with you in the past. You put up a bunch of reports that seemed to support your argument thinking I wouldn't read them. Then when I did and called you out on what you thought you knew, you up and disapeared for a while only to reappear when you thought we'd all forgotten.

But I'm not going through this with you again.

Silly boy, silly response, as always. I swear you must be no more than 14 years old.
I have no guilt at all, as i didn't plan or execute this mass murder.
And I am not "apologizing" for it.
I am simply stating, and no sane person ---whoooops! guess that excludes you!----would argue that it was of any value and like the Hamburg raids, cold calculated mass murder.

Nothing can justify it.

Only idiots would try.

[Hondo]

The point is though, what tactical or strategic reason was there for burning those people alive? The a-bombs ended the war and saved a lot of people from dying, the bombing of Dresden, Hamburb, London, Coventry, Liverpool etc did sod all.

I have not made it through the entire thread yet but so far you have forgotten the fun we had fire bombing Japanese cities. Tokyo alone makes Dresden look like child's play. Although a poor concept even more poorly executed was Japan's plan to fire bomb the USA Pacific Northwest to start huge forest fires that would sweep down and engulf the entire west coast.

I am amazed that an argument on Dresden could run into 4 pages. It was war. It was what was being done in wars at that time. That one side or another had better or more weapons is irrelevant. In war you do what ever you can do to destroy the enemy's will and ability to make war. Enemies don't generally keep you informed as to what works best so you try everything you can think of, be it fire bombing or giving blankets with smallpox to Indians.

I think it's silly to smugly pass judgement on decisions made in wartime in the 1940's while sitting comfortably in 2010.

[chuck34]

Silly boy, silly response, as always. I swear you must be no more than 14 years old.
I have no guilt at all, as i didn't plan or execute this mass murder.
And I am not "apologizing" for it.
I am simply stating, and no sane person ---whoooops! guess that excludes you!----would argue that it was of any value and like the Hamburg raids, cold calculated mass murder.

Nothing can justify it.

Only idiots would try.

It's freaking war. War is hell. What is war other than murder on a mass scale? This will be my last response to you, unless you stop the stupid insults, it's WAAAAY past old now.

[Daniel]

It's freaking war. War is hell. What is war other than murder on a mass scale? This will be my last response to you, unless you stop the stupid insults, it's WAAAAY past old now.
Chuck, people get killed in the crossfire but I just never feel it's right to go out and murder civilians who are not involved in the war in any way at all.

[chuck34]

Chuck, people get killed in the crossfire but I just never feel it's right to go out and murder civilians who are not involved in the war in any way at all.

Ah, but there's the problem. Who are these "civilians who are not involved in the war in any way at all"? Isn't the guy working in the bearing factory involved in the war? How about the farmer growing the food that the soldier eats? What about the seemstress making the uniforms? Etc.

[Daniel]

Ah, but there's the problem. Who are these "civilians who are not involved in the war in any way at all"? Isn't the guy working in the bearing factory involved in the war? How about the farmer growing the food that the soldier eats? What about the seemstress making the uniforms? Etc.
I know for instance about the raids on Schweinfurt and the ball bearing factories and that sort of thing isn't a problem for me. If someone if directly contributing the the war effort like that then they know the risk.....

[chuck34]

I know for instance about the raids on Schweinfurt and the ball bearing factories and that sort of thing isn't a problem for me. If someone if directly contributing the the war effort like that then they know the risk.....

How do you define "directly contributing to the war effort"? It can be (and was) argued that everyone in the country, who wasn't directly sabotaging the Nazi war machine, WAS directly contributing to the war effort.

I'm not saying that this is the right thinking for 2010, but it IS what they were thinking in 1945.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I know for instance about the raids on Schweinfurt and the ball bearing factories and that sort of thing isn't a problem for me. If someone if directly contributing the the war effort like that then they know the risk.....

Daniel, your argument is just fell apart. Whether the Allies bombed Schweinfurt or Dresden, it was ALL part of a strategy to take the German populace out of their comfort that the war was not on their doorstep. WHat was in the city was often guessed at. If you level Schweinfurt and not bomb Potsdam or Dresden EVER, you think the Germans are not going to shift the production? All Cities in the Reich were either contributing material, men or something to keep the war going. Ditto for the cities of the UK.

The Luftwaffe during the Blitz tried and failed to raze London. They razed Coventry. They did a nice tattoo on many English cities. It was not considered a war crime by the standards of the time. Adolfo Galland was not on trial at Nuremburg for escorting Heinkels over the UK, nor was any other Luftwaffe commander prosecuted for bombing raids of Allied civilians. Goering as a political person was prosecuted NOT for his role in ordering bombers over Britain, but his Nazi related activities. So if WE the victors didn't prosecute bomber pilots and the like for flying missions to flatten British cities, why in the hell would we waste time putting "Bomber" Harris or Curtis LeMay on trial?

Revisionsist NONSENSE. IN the light of day, yes, it is a really nasty thing to do to bomb the other guy's home rather than his factory. It is a tragedy when civilians die, but this is applying 2010 sensiblities to a conflict where the alternative to losing was speaking German and having Adolf Hitler and his successors use our populations to his own nefarious purposes. The knashing of teeth and the self-flagglation is a comfort you have when you have won and have the freedom to discuss it. You think you would bring up how the Soviet Red Army treated civilians if you lived in 1970's Moscow? Not in public you wouldn't. This was a war for freedom and the fact people can naval gaze all this justifies winning the war, and if it took razing Dresden as part of it, then that is the reality...

[Hondo]

1)The war was won after Battle of Kursk already. Everyone knew it.

2) Bombing dresden was 3 weeks after Battle of the Bulge had ended and served no military purpose. That was never going to "put germany down"

3) Western front for Germany was completely out of resources after BotB

The war was won by the Allies when:

Hitler didn't immediately shift the German economy to a war/production economy after Sept '39.
Hitler failed to realize his early successes stemmed from unorthodox battle plans being executed by audacious field commanders against war weary enemies. He actually believed the press clippings about him being a military genius and took full command of the army instead of realizing he was a lucky politician better served by laying out his political objectives and allowing the army to best figure out the strategy for obtaining them.
Hitler's declaration of war on the USA.

[BDunnell]

Touche Ben...

But tell me again how I am wrong? I missed that part. The only people worry about this 50 years later are not the people of Dresden whose grandparents and parents were under those bombs, but people like yourself and Daniel who by most definition are political libreals;who seem like you want to dig up ole Bomber Harris and put him on trial. It is OVER for crying out loud.....

I don't actually agree with Daniel's point of view, but, as ever, read into my posts what you will...

[BDunnell]

Yes many have moved on and are not worrying about such matters. So why are you?

I'm not at all. My grandfather fought the Germans in World War Two. I wouldn't even consider being concerned about how a German would react to me who knew this fact.

[BDunnell]

In war you do what ever you can do to destroy the enemy's will and ability to make war.

In which case — and I don't disagree with that point — do explain why the carpet-bombing of cities was deemed a useful tactic on those grounds, given that it had failed to have anything like that effect on Britain in 1940?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't actually agree with Daniel's point of view, but, as ever, read into my posts what you will... Well you keep thinking I am just a knee jerk reactionary on this, so I guess neither one of us is reading each other too well.

My point hasn't changed, this is all the rage to self flaggellate society for the sin of freedom, comfort and captialism by people who keep trying to judge the past by today's standards. If you are ok with Dresden, that's fine. AS someone who had a grandfather in uniform, you likely understand from him how much a near thing losing WW2 was seen.

[anthonyvop]

People kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people on purpose in just one day just for the sake of it?


Dresden contained Numerous industrial facilities that supported the Nazi war effort.

The attack was 100% justified. if any crime was committed it was the Nazis who were guilty of putting their people in harms way.

[anthonyvop]

In which case — and I don't disagree with that point — do explain why the carpet-bombing of cities was deemed a useful tactic on those grounds, given that it had failed to have anything like that effect on Britain in 1940?

The German's attack on London during the battle of Briton was not in the same size or scope as the Allied's raid in Germany.
Even then the Germans did achieve much. It diverted much need resources from from other places. So it was successful in some ways. The problem with the Germans is they didn't have the right equipment to do the Job better.

Cities like Dresden were important Military targets. They housed numerous strategic industries and transportation hubs. The Attack on Dresden wasn't an Attack on the city itself but on the Huge Railway marshaling yards. The Allies had put off it's destruction because of the proximity of Civilians but it became to important of a target.

[Easy Drifter]

Read my post near the beginning of this thread.
I am likely the only person posting who was alive during WW2. I remember little and spent almost all the war safe in Canada. But my parents had friends and relatives killed in the bombing in the UK.
After the war we, and that includes me, were friends with one of those who was in Lancasters and on the Dresden raids. He was a tail gunner and flew over 25 missions. Of his entire squadron he and one other tail gunner were the only ones who were in the squadron when he joined that survived. The tail gunners had the highest mortality of all.
I also knew many veterans and civilians on both sides. All I knew just accepted what had happened.
In the late 50's and 60's there were a lot of German race drivers in Ont. Some were veterans but most had been yougsters. The same with the Anglo (Cdn and English) drivers. There was little if any animosity.
The only semi bitter veteran I knew fought in Special Forces in Burma, behind Japanese lines. He had a Samuri sword he took off a Japanese Officer he killed. In the mid 80's he was going to return it to the family. He got as far as Hong Kong when too much came back to him. He did go to Japan but the sword did not.
It was a different time. At the time of Dresden the UK was just a few years away from the danger of invasion and that played on minds.

[Hondo]

In which case — and I don't disagree with that point — do explain why the carpet-bombing of cities was deemed a useful tactic on those grounds, given that it had failed to have anything like that effect on Britain in 1940?

Because as usual, the British, being British were an entirely different breed of animal than the Hun and on the German it would work or at the least, prevent him from getting a good night's sleep for work the next day.

You are enough of an aviation historian to know that unescorted daylight bombing was unsustainable and to combine the term "high altitude level bombing" with any claim of accuracy was ridiculous, even with the Norden Bombsight. Area bombing was the best they could do. If nothing else, it may have made the enemy population feel better to know they were pounding the other side too.

At one time, the entire Allied strategic bombing program was under consideration of being shelved due to a lack of results.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bombing civilians was a policy that is weak in the cold light of day, but people in the 40's didn't examine what was "right". They just thought of winning...

[Eki]

Read my post near the beginning of this thread.
I am likely the only person posting who was alive during WW2. I remember little and spent almost all the war safe in Canada. But my parents had friends and relatives killed in the bombing in the UK.
After the war we, and that includes me, were friends with one of those who was in Lancasters and on the Dresden raids. He was a tail gunner and flew over 25 missions. Of his entire squadron he and one other tail gunner were the only ones who were in the squadron when he joined that survived. The tail gunners had the highest mortality of all.
I also knew many veterans and civilians on both sides. All I knew just accepted what had happened.
In the late 50's and 60's there were a lot of German race drivers in Ont. Some were veterans but most had been yougsters. The same with the Anglo (Cdn and English) drivers. There was little if any animosity.
The only semi bitter veteran I knew fought in Special Forces in Burma, behind Japanese lines. He had a Samuri sword he took off a Japanese Officer he killed. In the mid 80's he was going to return it to the family. He got as far as Hong Kong when too much came back to him. He did go to Japan but the sword did not.
It was a different time. At the time of Dresden the UK was just a few years away from the danger of invasion and that played on minds.
They say that also the Soviets did the raping and pillaging in Germany in revenge of what the Germans had done in the Soviet Union. Does it make it right?

It may have been a different time, but people are still the same. Many seem to think that tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are justified because al Qaeda killed few thousands of American civilians.

[BDunnell]

You are enough of an aviation historian to know that unescorted daylight bombing was unsustainable and to combine the term "high altitude level bombing" with any claim of accuracy was ridiculous, even with the Norden Bombsight. Area bombing was the best they could do. If nothing else, it may have made the enemy population feel better to know they were pounding the other side too.

Of course.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They say that also the Soviets did the raping and pillaging in Germany in revenge of what the Germans had done in the Soviet Union. Does it make it right?

It may have been a different time, but people are still the same. Many seem to think that tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are justified because al Qaeda killed few thousands of American civilians.

This thread is yet another chance for you to hijack it with your typical anti Iraq war crap. Stay with the tour Eki...

[Malbec]

The Luftwaffe during the Blitz tried and failed to raze London. They razed Coventry. They did a nice tattoo on many English cities. It was not considered a war crime by the standards of the time. Adolfo Galland was not on trial at Nuremburg for escorting Heinkels over the UK, nor was any other Luftwaffe commander prosecuted for bombing raids of Allied civilians. Goering as a political person was prosecuted NOT for his role in ordering bombers over Britain, but his Nazi related activities. So if WE the victors didn't prosecute bomber pilots and the like for flying missions to flatten British cities, why in the hell would we waste time putting "Bomber" Harris or Curtis LeMay on trial?

Revisionsist NONSENSE. IN the light of day, yes, it is a really nasty thing to do to bomb the other guy's home rather than his factory. It is a tragedy when civilians die, but this is applying 2010 sensiblities to a conflict where the alternative to losing was speaking German and having Adolf Hitler and his successors use our populations to his own nefarious purposes. The knashing of teeth and the self-flagglation is a comfort you have when you have won and have the freedom to discuss it. You think you would bring up how the Soviet Red Army treated civilians if you lived in 1970's Moscow? Not in public you wouldn't. This was a war for freedom and the fact people can naval gaze all this justifies winning the war, and if it took razing Dresden as part of it, then that is the reality...

Mark please stop this. I mean it. Stop writing utter nonsense. If you don't understand a topic don't post.

The Luftwaffe officers you named were not tried because bombing civilians was classified as a normal act of war, they were not tried because it WAS A WAR CRIME. It was there in black and white, deliberately targetting civilians has never been legal under international law whether you shoot them in the head or bomb them. Given the public nature of the Nuremburg court hearings they were not tried because the most obvious defense would have been to say "but you did it too". The Allies did NOT want their own behaviour to be cast in the same light as Nazi atrocities and therefore did not attempt to try them.

The same argument was used by Admiral Doenitz when charges were initially made against him for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare which is again against international law. His lawyers pointed out that unrestricted submarine warfare was precisely what the US had also carried out against Japan (albeit with more success) and that was the line their defence would take. Doenitz didn't make it to the courtroom because the charges were dropped.

Goering showed the wisdom of this approach when he made his speech defending Nazism. Do you not think that the Allied lawyers dreaded a similar speech by a Luftwaffe officer drawing a direct comparison between the USAF/RAF and the Luftwaffe's own bombing policies in public?

[Malbec]

Ah, but there's the problem. Who are these "civilians who are not involved in the war in any way at all"? Isn't the guy working in the bearing factory involved in the war? How about the farmer growing the food that the soldier eats? What about the seemstress making the uniforms? Etc.

Bombing factories related to the war effort or military bases located within cities is justified in my view. The problem with Dresden though is multifold and there is a reason why the bombing of that city is more controversial than, say, the bombing of Hamburg earlier.

Firstly the military district Albertstadt wasn't targetted at all.

Secondly the industrial areas were mainly in the peripheries of the city. The town centre was heavily inhabited by civilians and refugees. The bombing targetted the city centre, not the peripheries where the factories were.

Thirdly the Russians were days/weeks from taking the city which was isolated from the rest of Germany to the west as the railways had been previously bombed and weren't functioning, hence the large number of refugees choking the streets.

If the bombing of Dresden was intended to be to hurt industrial output or its military capability why weren't those parts of town bombed?

If Dresden was days away from falling into Allied hands was any gain in cutting output for a few days worth the tens of thousands of deaths that would have inevitably occurred?

It was pure retribution and totally unnecessary, something that could not be said for Schweinfurt or Hamburg.

[Malbec]

It's freaking war. War is hell. What is war other than murder on a mass scale? This will be my last response to you, unless you stop the stupid insults, it's WAAAAY past old now.

Yeah war is hell, lets forgive anything that happens in war! Heck if some hillbilly marine decides its a good idea to rape a 14 year old Iraqi girl and burn her alive let him off, after all its war, its only natural such things happen!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark please stop this. I mean it. Stop writing utter nonsense. If you don't understand a topic don't post.

The Luftwaffe officers you named were not tried because bombing civilians was classified as a normal act of war, they were not tried because it WAS A WAR CRIME. It was there in black and white, deliberately targetting civilians has never been legal under international law whether you shoot them in the head or bomb them. Given the public nature of the Nuremburg court hearings they were not tried because the most obvious defense would have been to say "but you did it too". The Allies did NOT want their own behaviour to be cast in the same light as Nazi atrocities and therefore did not attempt to try them.

The same argument was used by Admiral Doenitz when charges were initially made against him for ordering unrestricted submarine warfare which is again against international law. His lawyers pointed out that unrestricted submarine warfare was precisely what the US had also carried out against Japan (albeit with more success) and that was the line their defence would take. Doenitz didn't make it to the courtroom because the charges were dropped.

Goering showed the wisdom of this approach when he made his speech defending Nazism. Do you not think that the Allied lawyers dreaded a similar speech by a Luftwaffe officer drawing a direct comparison between the USAF/RAF and the Luftwaffe's own bombing policies in public?

Dylan, it WASN'T a war crime in the standards of the day. Of course it is in retrospect but if you think for one second anyone was thinking of legalities during the conduct of the war, you are crazy. I know the Geneva Accords specifically state you don't involve civilians but if every "crime" against every innocent in that war was prosecuted, how long you figure the trial would have lasted?

Your point is valid, but my point was that no one as going to hold anyone to account on this stuff because it just was the way the war got fought. Both sides prosecuted a war against everyone, and last time I looked, winning the war was the first goal, not getting style points. What you and Daniel keep arguing about is holding 1940's leaders to modern day standards of conduct, and it just is a waste of everyone's time. Leave history to be history....no one in that conflict was worrying about anything but surviving...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah war is hell, lets forgive anything that happens in war! Heck if some hillbilly marine decides its a good idea to rape a 14 year old Iraqi girl and burn her alive let him off, after all its war, its only natural such things happen!

The US military investigated just about every crime against Iraqi civilians from what I had read in the news. There was no whitewash of stupidity being committed by soldiers and marines in Iraq. We hold military personnel to a lot harsher standard and that isn't a bad thing....

[Malbec]

Dylan, it WASN'T a war crime in the standards of the day. Of course it is in retrospect but if you think for one second anyone was thinking of legalities during the conduct of the war, you are crazy. I know the Geneva Accords specifically state you don't involve civilians but if every "crime" against every innocent in that war was prosecuted, how long you figure the trial would have lasted?

Again WRONG Mark.

There is no such thing as being illegal retrospectively. Laws only act prospectively. You know that don't you?

You also know that as well as Luftwaffe officers the US considered trying Japanese bomber officers for bombing Chinese civilian areas in the Tokyo trials but pulled back for exactly the same reasons, they knew that it wouldn't look good to prosecute someone for something that the Yanks had done in a much greater scale.

If bombing civilians wasn't a war crime why did the US even consider trying them?


Your point is valid, but my point was that no one as going to hold anyone to account on this stuff because it just was the way the war got fought. Both sides prosecuted a war against everyone, and last time I looked, winning the war was the first goal, not getting style points. What you and Daniel keep arguing about is holding 1940's leaders to modern day standards of conduct, and it just is a waste of everyone's time. Leave history to be history....no one in that conflict was worrying about anything but surviving...

I am not talking about modern day standards.

Remember Guernica Mark? You should do, it was the first case of civilian bombing that hit the Western media. Do you know the revulsion it caused? It wasn't palatable or acceptable to the people of the time however much you argue. But that isn't my point overall. People like you, Fiero and Chuck use arguments that may defend some aspects of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe but seem utterly unaware that Dresden was a different case entirely. Why didn't you respond to the points I raised indicating how Dresden was different?

[Malbec]

The US military investigated just about every crime against Iraqi civilians from what I had read in the news. There was no whitewash of stupidity being committed by soldiers and marines in Iraq. We hold military personnel to a lot harsher standard and that isn't a bad thing....

Exactly.

This argument that 'war is hell, anything is excused' is a load of rubbish utterly lacking any intellectual merit.

We hold our military to certain behavioural standards. It is Dresdens legacy that we now demand bombing targets are strictly chosen on their military value with the highest regard for civilian life.

It is not some 'liberal' tendency to reexamine past military efforts and question the moral basis of the decisions taken at the time, such reexaminations asks strong questions of how we want our military to behave. If we didn't question military behaviour and demand justice we'd end up like the Israelis who don't prosecute their soldiers for flagrant abuses even when there is third party evidence. Their military continue to behave with little regard for international law, not something I want our armed forces to do.

[chuck34]

I'm tired of this. You guys win. The US are all a bunch of horrible people. Always have been, always will be. We should be exterminated from the face of the earth, or at least confined within our own boarders.

This is rediculous and I'm sick and tired of trying to change people's minds who will never see the US as anything other than evil. So go on believing what you want, but I'm done.

[Daniel]

I'm tired of this. You guys win. The US are all a bunch of horrible people. Always have been, always will be. We should be exterminated from the face of the earth, or at least confined within our own boarders.

This is rediculous and I'm sick and tired of trying to change people's minds who will never see the US as anything other than evil. So go on believing what you want, but I'm done.
Huh? It's the British that we're discussing here Chuck.

[BDunnell]

I'm tired of this. You guys win. The US are all a bunch of horrible people. Always have been, always will be. We should be exterminated from the face of the earth, or at least confined within our own boarders.

This is rediculous and I'm sick and tired of trying to change people's minds who will never see the US as anything other than evil. So go on believing what you want, but I'm done.

With those comments, you effectively disqualify yourself from engaging in such a discussion anyway, in my view. Which country's actions are we debating here?

[BDunnell]

It looks like most people here agree that this was dreadful in regards to the loss of civilian life which occured.

My question is, what do people here think should be done 65 years after this infamous event, and what kind of outcome would be realistic?

Nothing. What would be the point? We enjoy friendly relations with Germany and the Germans now, and much has in fact been done, such as the friendships between Dresden and Coventry I mentioned earlier. However, some attitudes may need revising.

[SportscarBruce]

It looks like most people here agree that this was dreadful in regards to the loss of civilian life which occured.

My question is, what do people here think should be done 65 years after this infamous event, and what kind of outcome would be realistic?

Remembering the dead and the pursuit of historical clarity through institutions of learning and media would be a good start, it's in fact the reason I posted this topic. All the excusemaking diversions which followed do nothing towards achieving these aims.

[chuck34]

Huh? It's the British that we're discussing here Chuck.

Ok the West are all horrible. Whatever. Frustration spilling over and typing faster than thinking. My point still stands though. Some will never see that what the Allies did at the time made sence to them. Applying 2010 logic to events of 1945 makes no sence. Others just seem to be anti US/UK on everything.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is extermely perverse that Dylan and Daniel keep going on this self flagellation of Britain's role in the bombing of Dresden. I have never ONCE said bombing civilians is right in a moral way, nor did I EVER advocate it is an effective method of waging war BUT I have pointed out that in the end no one prosecuted anyone for it. Yes, I was wrong on WHY (Gee Dylan, you can be right but have a little less contempt for those who don't agree with you) but the point is both sides did it, no one on either side was prosecuted for it, and both sides of the war have gotten past it. Or so I thought....but I guess in UK, guilt for a practice that was common in WW2 still lives.

Yes Dylan, I know all about Guerncia and how it was a small town in the North of Spain the Germans flattened for no other reason than to prove they could do it. I do NOT consider Dresden the same immoral act for 2 reasons:

1)Dresden was a major center, and was no less a target than many British cities. The fact it had been left alone to that point of the war was as much a function of its location at the greatest range of the Lancasters and Fortresses, as much as anything else. It wasn't until 1944 it was a target worth the distance and trip. So the narrative that it was a useless target left alone in the past is a bit facetious. Every city was a target, and THAT was the way both sides chose to conduct the war. Dylan pointed out to me rightly why no one was prosecuted but it still doesn't change the fact by 1945 no city within range of bomber or missle wasn't ducking for cover.
2) The second reason I don't think Dresden is in the same class with Guernica is that it had not much in the way of heavy industry but as a major center for a population and a railway marshalling yard, it had some military value. Guernica from what I have read had zero value as a target other than for terror. The Germans came right and made it plain why they did it. Also, lets never forget there was a perception (wrong or not) that air power could weaken the will of a nation to fight. It was nonsense, but in 1944, I think just about every leader in Allied nations wanted this war over and was willing to grasp at strategic bombing as a tool to make it happen. IT was a war crime if you want to hold every nation strictly to that Geneva Convention standard. That said, fine, put everyone on trial, and who has clean hands? No one. Furthermore, what does it do for society to run around demeaning men who served with honour in those bombers who are now in their 80's and 90's and call them war criminals? They conducted war in the manner their nation asked them to and the other side had shown no issue with doing the same. To take this tack on here is one thing. Go to a nursing home full of RAF vets and call them war criminals Daniel. I dare you......

Enough already....if it makes you feel better and morally superior to the rest of us to call Dresden a war crime, fine...but leave me out of it. The people of Dresden forgave us a long time ago. Too bad we cant forgive "ourselves" for something that those consumed with the most guilt never had to deal with. It wasn't an abstract argument to those alive then.....

[Daniel]

Ok the West are all horrible. Whatever. Frustration spilling over and typing faster than thinking. My point still stands though. Some will never see that what the Allies did at the time made sence to them. Applying 2010 logic to events of 1945 makes no sence. Others just seem to be anti US/UK on everything.

That's not it though Chuck, really it isn't. What the US did @ Schweinfurt, in the Romanian oilfields, Japan with the A-bombs etc etc was worthwhile and helped to win the war whereas this was pointless slaughter, if they'd got these people to dig their own mass graves and then shot them at the edge of the pit there would have been outrage, burn them to death however? I just don't think there is ever an excuse for killing civilians needlessly and to no end. It's not being anti-western at all, the Russians did a load of terrible things and if someone brings them up I'll have a whinge about that too.

[Daniel]

Go to a nursing home full of RAF vets and call them war criminals Daniel. I dare you......

I wouldn't Mark, everyone knows they only did what they did because they were ordered to. I bet a lot of them were horrified to see what they'd done. Being so many thousand feet above the city kind of detaches you from what you're doing. I certainly think that if you put those men on the ground with some flamethrowers or molotov cocktails then they wouldn't have barbecued all those people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's not it though Chuck, really it isn't. What the US did @ Schweinfurt, in the Romanian oilfields, Japan with the A-bombs etc etc was worthwhile and helped to win the war whereas this was pointless slaughter, if they'd got these people to dig their own mass graves and then shot them at the edge of the pit there would have been outrage, burn them to death however? I just don't think there is ever an excuse for killing civilians needlessly and to no end. It's not being anti-western at all, the Russians did a load of terrible things and if someone brings them up I'll have a whinge about that too.

Daniel, the thing is, Schweinfurt was flattened in 43, yet aircraft and miltary production barely stopped in Germany. The ball bearing plant that was a target may have been flattened, but the German's made up for it pretty quick. None of the cities flattened in the act of strategic bombing really helped the cause in the end other than making the German populace miserable. So to hold Dresden up to a higher standard, as if it was somehow different is ridiculous. AS pointed out, the main reason it had been untouched until late 44 and into 45 was because of its location in the far east corner of the Reich. It wasn't until late in the war that bombers could get that far without losses, since the RAF didn't have escorts, and needed the Luftwaffe's night fighters to be pretty much knocked from the sky to be able to make a run at Dresden.

Dresden was wrong, but every aspect of strategic bombing in retrospect was illogical. That is my point, 2010 sentiments being applied to the reality of 1944 is just pointless.....

[Daniel]

Dresden was wrong

*snip*

That's the only point I was trying to make. At the end of the day you can't go crying over spilt milk but to admit that mistakes were made is the best way of ensuring they're never made again.

[Mark in Oshawa]

*snip*

That's the only point I was trying to make. At the end of the day you can't go crying over spilt milk but to admit that mistakes were made is the best way of ensuring they're never made again.

You were calling it a war crime as if you wanted justice. You I know have called Churchill a war criminal. This wasn't a tirade to say it was just wrong, you wanted more than that.

War is wrong...yet show me a nation that at some point hasn't been in one.....

Lets really save the scorn for people who go out of their way to do evil, as opposed to those just caught up in the madness of war...

[Daniel]

You were calling it a war crime as if you wanted justice. You I know have called Churchill a war criminal. This wasn't a tirade to say it was just wrong, you wanted more than that.

War is wrong...yet show me a nation that at some point hasn't been in one.....

Lets really save the scorn for people who go out of their way to do evil, as opposed to those just caught up in the madness of war...
Yeah but wtf are we going to do about it now even if everyone agreed it was a war crime?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah but wtf are we going to do about it now even if everyone agreed it was a war crime?

NOTHING....and I unlike you I don't feel guilt about it either. It is over...it is done, and while it may have been morally wrong, nothing about the whole way war was conducted in WW2 makes sense to our modern morality, but we were NOT there, and it is always silly to try to judge those acts in the calm of modern day society. There was no style points awarded, only victory mattered. I wont sully those who served, nor their leaders at this point by calling them war criminals.

[Daniel]

NOTHING....and I unlike you I don't feel guilt about it either. It is over...it is done, and while it may have been morally wrong, nothing about the whole way war was conducted in WW2 makes sense to our modern morality, but we were NOT there, and it is always silly to try to judge those acts in the calm of modern day society. There was no style points awarded, only victory mattered. I wont sully those who served, nor their leaders at this point by calling them war criminals.
I don't feel guilty either. By that stage my grandfather was in a POW camp somewhere in Germany waiting to be liberated.

[Mark in Oshawa]

IMHO one of the worst warcrimes ever.

You say that and then "don't feel guilt"? I am not buying it Daniel.....you just called the government of the UK of that time war criminals....

[Daniel]

You say that and then "don't feel guilt"? I am not buying it Daniel.....you just called the government of the UK of that time war criminals....
Up until 4 and a half years ago I'd never even set foot on UK soil so why should I feel guilt. To retrospectively consider myself part of the allied war effort purely because I was born in an allied country is just silly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Up until 4 and a half years ago I'd never even set foot on UK soil so why should I feel guilt. To retrospectively consider myself part of the allied war effort purely because I was born in an allied country is just silly.

I wasn't diminishing your right to have the opinion, I was merely pointing out that calling the UK's leaders of that time war criminals was your point, and if your guilt over this isn't there, that is fine, but I can tell you that I save my scorn for people or military leaders who did atrocities for their own amusement and enjoyed the process.....

[SportscarBruce]

I wouldn't Mark, everyone knows they only did what they did because they were ordered to. I bet a lot of them were horrified to see what they'd done. Being so many thousand feet above the city kind of detaches you from what you're doing. I certainly think that if you put those men on the ground with some flamethrowers or molotov cocktails then they wouldn't have barbecued all those people.

Reminds me of lyrics to a song by Ministry;

"all the locals hide their tears of regret
open fire 'cos I love you to death
sky high, with a heartache of stone
you'll never see me' cos I'm always alone"

and, in the general sense of this topic among others concerning the unspoken history of WWII:

"what you will know must never live to be found
cos it's the subject of the eyes of the drowned"

wB-H7uxYGYc

"i'm in love with this malicious intent
you've been taken but you don't know it yet" :s mokin:

New World Order; 100 years in the making but cracks in the facade of lies are beginning to show...

[janvanvurpa]

Daniel, the thing is, Schweinfurt was flattened in 43,[quote]

Wrong, of course.
even after "Black Thursday" production at SKF, FAG and Fichtel and Sachs was never reduced just 17%.

That's hardly flattened.


[quote:10lbqbw2]
yet aircraft and miltary production barely stopped in Germany. The ball bearing plant that was a target may have been flattened, but the German's made up for it pretty quick.

Why do you write things you clearly make up?




Dresden was wrong, but every aspect of strategic bombing in retrospect was illogical. That is my point, 2010 sentiments being applied to the reality of 1944 is just pointless.....[/quote:10lbqbw2][/quote:10lbqbw2]


Plenty of primary source material showing that US and British military planners thought it was needless THEN but POLITICAL calculations, and the fact there was thousands of bombers laying around just waiting to be used---and explicit desire to demonstrate to the Soviets what Air power could do led to a situation of---in my opinion---they mounted the raid "because they could", not because they should....

Yes there were "Ultra" intercepts showing German 'plans' to move x many divisions Eastward to meet the Soviets, and as a rail junction, Dresden's rail yards theoretically could have been deemed a juicy target but come on German "plans' at the time were fantasy and eveybody knew that.
and the fact that rail lines West of Dresden were severely damaged or cut made that moot anyway.


The major point is it was unneeded slaughter of primarily women, children and old people on a major scale, and judging from the fact the city center was targeted and not the rail yards or any military of industrial areas on the outskirts of the city, it was intentionally killing of these civilians---although the largest figure I ever saw was 50,000 prior to this thread---somebody type an extra zero?-----at a time it was not needed.

There's nothing that can be done about it except to recall it for what it was and to point out the attempts to re-write the history ---easily available---and it mitigate it by saying "they did it too" (Yes but "they' were ther most murderous brutal savaged the world had ever seen and thus they were "bad guys', we're supposed to be the Good guys)...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I see Jan posted something. Probably says I am full of crap and I made it all up....If not me..someone else. Jan...here is a clue...I don't care what you say any more. You could be 100% right and I still wouldn't believe you because some of your delusional rants have left me stunned in their breathtaking contempt you hold most of humanity in.....

[SportscarBruce]

"Yes but "they' were ther most murderous brutal savaged the world had ever seen"

But Mr. Vive le Prole-le-ralliat, the most bloodthirsty regime the world has ever known was our "ally". So why did we assist them foodstock, weapons, and political leverage? Bombing Dresded was in large part in response to demands on part of the Soviet leadership. Or has Bernard Shaw-like disinformation tactics shielded us from the truth?


Stalin is century's bloodiest figure

In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine, Stalin determined to force Ukraine's millions of independent farmers - called kulaks - into collectivized Soviet agriculture, and to crush Ukraine's growing spirit of nationalism.

Faced by resistance to collectivization, Stalin unleashed terror and dispatched 25,000 fanatical young party militants from Moscow - earlier versions of Mao's Red Guards - to force 10 million Ukrainian peasants into collective farms. Secret police units of OGPU began selective executions of recalcitrant farmers.

When Stalin's red guards failed to make a dent in this immense number, OGPU was ordered to begin mass executions. But there were simply not enough Chekists (secret police) to kill so many people, so Stalin decided to replace bullets with a much cheaper medium of death - mass starvation.

All seed stocks, grain, silage and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. (Ethiopia's Communist dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam used the same method in the 1970s to force collectivization. The resulting famine caused one million deaths.)

OGPU agents and Red Army troops sealed all roads and rail lines. Nothing came in or out of Ukraine. Farms were searched and looted of food and fuel. Ukrainians quickly began to die of hunger, cold and sickness.

When OGPU failed to meet weekly execution quotas, Stalin sent henchman Lazar Kaganovitch to destroy Ukrainian resistance. Kaganovitch, the Soviet Eichmann, made quota, shooting 10,000 Ukrainians weekly. Eighty per cent of Ukrainian intellectuals were executed. A party member named Nikita Khruschchev helped supervise the slaughter.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, mass starvation created by Kaganovitch and OGPU hit full force. Ukrainians ate their pets, boots and belts, plus bark and roots. Some parents even ate infant children.

Britain, the U.S. and Canada were fully aware of the Ukrainian genocide and Stalin's other monstrous crimes. (Soviet Leader Josef Stalin committed genocide in the '30s, then became an ally against Hitler in the '40s)

The precise number of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin's custom-made famine and Cheka firing squads remains unknown to this day. The KGB's archives and recent work by Russian historians show at least seven million died. Ukrainian historians put the figure at nine million or higher. Twenty-five per cent of Ukraine's population was exterminated.

Six million other farmers across the Soviet Union were starved or shot during collectivization. Stalin told Winston Churchill he liquidated 10 million peasants during the 1930s. Add mass executions by the Cheka in Estonia, Lativia and Lithuania, the genocide of three million Muslims, massacres of Cossacks and Volga Germans, and Soviet industrial genocide accounted for at least 40 million victims, not including 20 million war dead.While the world is now fully aware of the destruction of Europe's Jews by the Nazis, the story of the numerically larger holocaust in Ukraine has been suppressed, or ignored. Ukraine's genocide occurred eight to nine years before Hitler began the Jewish Holocaust and was committed, unlike Nazi crimes, before the world's gaze. But Stalin's murder of millions was simply denied or concealed by a left-wing conspiracy of silence that continues to this day. In the strange moral geometry of mass murder, only Nazis are guilty.

Socialist luminaries like Bernard Shaw, Beatrice and Sidney Webb and Premier Edouard Herriot of France, toured Ukraine during 1932-33 and proclaimed reports of famine were false. Shaw announced: "I did not see one under-nourished person in Russia." New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Russian reporting, wrote claims of famine were "malignant propaganda." Seven million people were dying around them, yet these fools saw nothing. The New York Times has never repudiated Duranty's lies.

Modern leftists do not care to be reminded their ideological and historical roots are entwined with this century's greatest crime - the inevitable result of enforced social engineering and Marxist theology.

Western historians delicately skirt the sordid fact that the governments of Britain, the U.S. and Canada were fully aware of the Ukrainian genocide and Stalin's other monstrous crimes. Yet they eagerly welcomed him as an ally during the Second World War. Stalin, who Franklin Roosevelt called "Uncle Joe", murdered four times more people than Adolph Hitler.

"None of the Soviet mass murderers who committed genocide were ever brought to justice. Lazar Kaganovitch died peacefully in Moscow a few years ago, still wearing the Order of the Soviet Union and enjoying a generous state pension."

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/21/p22696

[janvanvurpa]

I see Jan posted something. Probably says I am full of crap and I made it all up....If not me..someone else. Jan...here is a clue...I don't care what you say any more. You could be 100% right and I still wouldn't believe you because some of your delusional rants have left me stunned in their breathtaking contempt you hold most of humanity in.....


You seem totally unable to read simple things and draw correct conclusions.
I have open contempt of fools that make up crap and write utter nonsense about things they know nothing about, but somehow you conclude i have contempt for most of humanity.

Here's a clue: YOU and the other few North American Right-wing extremists and apologists writing endless bile and rants are not most of humanity.

The example you just wrote "I don't care if ...you're 100% right..."
has been obvious to anybody who reads your endless pontificating on EVERYTHING.

And your smiley smearing of anybody who corrects any of your seriously silly blunders, like today's "Schweinfurt...flattened' when there was just minor damage in all the raids including Black Thursday when 70-75 bombers were lost, --is an example of your basic lack of morals.
You write nonsense and vilify those who call you out on it.


Maybe you could try not writing nonsense....just a thought.

[janvanvurpa]

"Yes but "they' were ther most murderous brutal savaged the world had ever seen"

But Mr. Vive le Prole-le-ralliat, the most bloodthirsty regime the world has ever known was our "ally". So why did we assist them foodstock, weapons, and political leverage? Bombing Dresded was in large part in response to demands on part of the Soviet leadership. Or has Bernard Shaw-like disinformation tactics shielded us from the truth?



http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/21/p22696

We were speaking of military operations, and those Germans at the time sure as hell killed a lot more people than anybody in history....military and civilian....and in an amazingly short period of time from 22 Jun 41 to 8 May 45.

Don't ever suppose, or attempt to infer I would support anything the monster Stalin and his thugs did to the citizens of Soviet union...

But he led them to the defeat of the German war machine---and had stopped them far before Lend-lease supplies became available, don't forget that.
So while USA and the Commonwealth are building up their forces and fighting around the periphery in small engagements, the Soviets were killing an average of 1100-1200 German soldiers a day for years on end.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jan..you say something? I have you on ignore. I may not always be right, but with the exception of yourself, I hold most who I disagree with or find myself on the wrong side of to be worthy of respect. You on the other hand, well you are most of what you accuse me of often. So as I said, ...did you say something?

[airshifter]

That's not it though Chuck, really it isn't. What the US did @ Schweinfurt, in the Romanian oilfields, Japan with the A-bombs etc etc was worthwhile and helped to win the war whereas this was pointless slaughter, if they'd got these people to dig their own mass graves and then shot them at the edge of the pit there would have been outrage, burn them to death however?[b] I just don't think there is ever an excuse for killing civilians needlessly and to no end.[b] It's not being anti-western at all, the Russians did a load of terrible things and if someone brings them up I'll have a whinge about that too.

If you think killing innocents is acceptable under any circumstances, then IMHO you are just as terrible as the people who took part in it.

Based on that if all of Europe was now Germany the innocents they killed should have been forgiven. That also excuses the US raids in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I suppose if the world powers were to kill all people in Afghanistan you could accept that, as there would be no more terrorists in the country.

The end, in my opinion, does not ever justify the means if those means inflicted intentional harm on innocent civilians.



As for the debates on what are war crimes, it will never end. There are references to standards, guidelines, suggestions, and laws of war dating back to the times of the Old Testament. Yet the reality is that often even the most basic moral guidelines are ignored during time of war. Unless all involved follow the principles of the laws of war, there will always be retaliation that escalates over time.

By nature war is not a civil undertaking, and probably never will be. It would probably be easier for all of humanity to accept that a trail for war crimes that takes place years after the fact won't bring back wasted human lives, and that a better and easier path would be to work harder to avoid anything that resembles war.

[Daniel]

If you think killing innocents is acceptable under any circumstances, then IMHO you are just as terrible as the people who took part in it.

Wow, I've never put someone onto my ignore list just for one post but that takes the cake and you win the prize for that ridiculous statement :)

It would be nice to think that no civilian will ever get killed in the pursuit of the bad people but let's be realistic, this will never happen. All I'm against here is the needless slaughter of civilians which achieves nothing at all in the big scheme of things.

[BeansBeansBeans]

So as I said, ...did you say something?

Is there any point in asking, since you can't view his replies?

[Daniel]

Also how can Mark see that Jan posted anything seeing as Jan hasn't been quoted in anyone elses posts?? Spooky wooo :eek:
When someone you've ignored posts you can see that they've posted and choose to view their post but of course by default their post doesn't show up.

[Daniel]

Ah right cheers Daniel you obviously have the experience I lack. I physically ignore people rather than the electronic option, at least then you can see the insults you are ignoring.. :p :)
I do :) But I tend to end up reading the posts anyway but the ignore is a warning for me to not reply to this fools posts.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ah right cheers Daniel you obviously have the experience I lack. I physically ignore people rather than the electronic option, at least then you can see the insults you are ignoring.. :p :)

I have Jan the electronic ignore but I can see that he has made posts. A little bird told me however he took another go at me.

I can accept being wrong, or forgetting something I should have known. Dylan slagged me and I don't have him on ignore, but what goes on with the great northwest socialist and I is a long standing, and a mutual loathing.

People may not like me posting or can disagree, but that is the point of this forum. It is opinions....not a court of law. My opinion has been swayed on occasion and I have changed how I see a few topics by intelligent and interesting ideas. But when it is obvious there is a poster who just holds you in SUCH contempt, you have to ignore him...and I do.

[SportscarBruce]

If I were given Administrator powers over this forum (haha like that would ever occur) I would first delete the off-topic personal attacks which divert attention from the genuine topics and then issue warnings to the violators. But alas such a responsibility is subject to selective enforcement.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If I were given Administrator powers over this forum (haha like that would ever occur) I would first delete the off-topic personal attacks which divert attention from the genuine topics and then issue warnings to the violators. But alas such a responsibility is subject to selective enforcement.
Well Bruce, I discovered that a long time ago.....I think it may involve pictures of someone with a goat, but I COULD be wrong....

[anthonyvop]

If I were given Administrator powers over this forum (haha like that would ever occur) I would first delete the off-topic personal attacks which divert attention from the genuine topics and then issue warnings to the violators. But alas such a responsibility is subject to selective enforcement.

That would pretty much erase 90% of your posts

[SportscarBruce]

That would pretty much erase 90% of your posts

Really? Me hijacking threads with off-topic blather and personal insults? Me thinks you just don't care for my position on certain topics.

[airshifter]

Wow, I've never put someone onto my ignore list just for one post but that takes the cake and you win the prize for that ridiculous statement :)

It would be nice to think that no civilian will ever get killed in the pursuit of the bad people but let's be realistic, this will never happen. All I'm against here is the needless slaughter of civilians which achieves nothing at all in the big scheme of things.

Which once again ignores the fact that it is killing of innocent civilians and a war crime by all accounts.

If stating that selective acceptance of war crimes is a twisted view gets me on ignore, then I'm glad you'll quickly run from logic and regard for all noncombatants, regardless of whether they are on the winning or loosing side.

[markabilly]

George Patton was right, after germany, we should have kept on going until we got to the pacific ocean, and millions of Russians would still be alive and Stalin would have blown his brains out or been hung.....

[anthonyvop]

But he led them to the defeat of the German war machine---and had stopped them far before Lend-lease supplies became available, don't forget that.
So while USA and the Commonwealth are building up their forces and fighting around the periphery in small engagements, the Soviets were killing an average of 1100-1200 German soldiers a day for years on end.

Of course the US and UK's Strategic Bombing campaign didn't help the Soviets one bit.

The criminal mass wave attacks by the Soviet Military leadership sure was effective also.

The US and Uk wasted a good war by using strategies that were as effective but lessened casualties.

And the Russians had it tough as well. Short supply lines. One enemy. Fighting on their own territory.

Those greedy American's weren't content with one war but had the audacity of fighting the Japanese in the Pacific at the same time.
Then there was those ostentatious 3 fronts the US and the UK had. Just showing off we were.

[Eki]

And the Russians had it tough as well. Short supply lines. One enemy. Fighting on their own territory.

At least three enemies. Germany, Finland and Hungary.

[anthonyvop]

At least three enemies. Germany, Finland and Hungary.
How could we forget the Finns fight on the side of the Nazis?

Eki,
The Finnish History class failed you again.

You also forgot that Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were part of the AXIS. The US and UK fought them as well The Vichy French, Iraq and Thailand.

The Danes were on & off with Germany.

[Eki]

You also forgot that Italy, Romania and Bulgaria were part of the AXIS.
Italy and Bulgaria didn't fight against the Soviet Union. Bulgaria even tried to avoid it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria


After regaining control of Southern Dobrudzha in 1940, Bulgaria became allied with the Axis Powers, although it declined to participate in Operation Barbarossa (1941) and never declared war on the USSR. During World War II, Nazi Germany allowed Bulgaria to occupy parts of Greece and of Yugoslavia, although control over their population and territories remained in German hands. Bulgaria became one of only three countries (along with Finland and Denmark) that saved its entire Jewish population (around 50,000 people) from the Nazi camps through different rationales and the continued postponement of compliance with German demands.[42] However, the Nazis deported almost the entire Jewish population of the Bulgarian-occupied Yugoslav and Greek territories to the Treblinka death camp in occupied Poland.

[janvanvurpa]

Of course the US and UK's Strategic Bombing campaign didn't help the Soviets one bit.

The criminal mass wave attacks by the Soviet Military leadership sure was effective also.

Watch a lot of TV do you?



The US and Uk wasted a good war by using strategies that were as effective but lessened casualties.

US and even moreso UK were very adverse to casualties. Everybody wrote about it at the time, politically the publics in both places would not tolerate high KIA numbers so the only way both could pursue their smaller scale peripheral tactics was because there were the absolute bulk of the enemy forced in Russia getting slaughtered.
The Commonwealth had lost nearly 900,000 killed just 20-24 years before, they had good reason to be wary.

USA, well they've always been like you: big talkers but never engage enemies on anything like level playing field.



And the Russians had it tough as well. Short supply lines. One enemy. Fighting on their own territory.

What an idiot.
Short supply lines?
Try a front a thousand miles long, vopster.
You didn't hear they evacuated their industries to the URALS?

Oh just a thousand miles away and "their own territory" devastated beyond belief.

God, you're stupid.
Like I say: Watch a lot of TV to learn your history?


Those greedy American's weren't content with one war but had the audacity of fighting the Japanese in the Pacific at the same time.
Then there was those ostentatious 3 fronts the US and the UK had. Just showing off we were.

Until AUG 1944 there were more Commonwealth troops ENGAGING the Japanese than American.

Look at the numbers in the Island hopping campaign; the figures in CBI were orders of magnitude larger....


We were consciously letting the Russians carry the brunt in Europe and the Chinese and Commonwealth carry the bulk in Asia

[chuck34]

[quote="janvanvurpa"]

Only a fool would engage an enemy on the field of battle with a level playing field.

[markabilly]

Only a fool would engage an enemy on the field of battle with a level playing field.
As a shrewd lawyer once said, the last thing I really want for my clients is a fair jury and true justice....

[janvanvurpa]

Only a fool would engage an enemy on the field of battle with a level playing field.

Clearly what I am saying is the USA has only fought enemies who had been bled out, were second or third rate and far smaller populations,
not "concentrating forces locally for penetration and breakthrough", everybody does that.
I'm saying that engaging the enemy first when they've already suffered 10 times the losses USA would suffer in the entire war maybe isn't reasons for bragging for the next 70 years about what sort of great warriors you have.

And that's without even considering the populations of the enemies being less than half in one case, and less than one third in the other.

[chuck34]

Clearly what I am saying is the USA has only fought enemies who had been bled out, were second or third rate and far smaller populations,
not "concentrating forces locally for penetration and breakthrough", everybody does that.
I'm saying that engaging the enemy first when they've already suffered 10 times the losses USA would suffer in the entire war maybe isn't reasons for bragging for the next 70 years about what sort of great warriors you have.

And that's without even considering the populations of the enemies being less than half in one case, and less than one third in the other.

So the populations of the two enemies must be equal? Those damned Russians, how dare they pick on those poor defensless Nazis.

[amodio]

Ehem.... I'm sure they were all very good Nazis. Especially since their boss was Herman Goring, second only to Hitler in the party.
We participate in the annual remembrance of the destruction of Dresden but have always and I think will always refuse to apologize.
It was about sending the German people a message! Never again! We let them off at the end of WW1, let them just go home and they thought us soft or decadent. 6,000 000 jews, 20,000 000 soviets, don't know how many Poles, Czechs, French, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Greeks and others but enough was enough! :)

Also I don't think the Nazis were involved in bombing raids, I could be wrong however. The were the equivilent of our RAF and not linked directly with the Nazi party I do believe.. :) [/QUOTE]

[amodio]

Not sure what Dresden has to do with motorsport but what I want to know is, Is it illegal to wear a helmet in a car on a public road?
I was told it was many years ago and the fact that Rally drivers have to remove their helmets on public roads.....
Can't get a definitive answer.

[anthonyvop]

Watch a lot of TV do you?



US and even moreso UK were very adverse to casualties. Everybody wrote about it at the time, politically the publics in both places would not tolerate high KIA numbers so the only way both could pursue their smaller scale peripheral tactics was because there were the absolute bulk of the enemy forced in Russia getting slaughtered.
The Commonwealth had lost nearly 900,000 killed just 20-24 years before, they had good reason to be wary.

USA, well they've always been like you: big talkers but never engage enemies on anything like level playing field.



What an idiot.
Short supply lines?
Try a front a thousand miles long, vopster.
You didn't hear they evacuated their industries to the URALS?

Oh just a thousand miles away and "their own territory" devastated beyond belief.

God, you're stupid.
Like I say: Watch a lot of TV to learn your history?


Until AUG 1944 there were more Commonwealth troops ENGAGING the Japanese than American.

Look at the numbers in the Island hopping campaign; the figures in CBI were orders of magnitude larger....


We were consciously letting the Russians carry the brunt in Europe and the Chinese and Commonwealth carry the bulk in Asia

Read a lot of Commie propaganda don't ya?

Oh, And the insults you spew like "stupid" and "idiot" only reinforces my belief that you are just a disgruntled wannabee hippie with delusions of grandeur.
Keep on biting the hand that feeds ya. We know who you are and we tolerate you mainly out of pity.

[janvanvurpa]

Read a lot of Commie propaganda don't ya?

Oh, And the insults you spew like "stupid" and "idiot" only reinforces my belief that you are just a disgruntled wannabee hippie with delusions of grandeur.
Keep on biting the hand that feeds ya. We know who you are and we tolerate you mainly out of pity.


You feed me? You re-writing bits of drivel feeds me?
You are an idiot.

And a f***ing parasite.
And I don't tolerate morons and idiots too well, as you see clearly enough..

Noticed like the coward you are Vop that you refuted nothing, and of course shrunk from defending your own incoherent ravings.

Chickenhawk to the end like all you neocons.

Pitiful....

[Camelopard]

Oh, And the insults you spew like "stupid" and "idiot" .... We know who you are and we.....


I dare say that you vop, are the one that usually starts the name calling. :confused:

Please enlighten us vop, who are 'we' in the above post? More hollow threats? Should I be scared? Poor little wannabe soldier, haha, don't make me laugh. :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

A blind squirrel will find the odd nut.......

[Garry Walker]

Italy and Bulgaria didn't fight against the Soviet Union. Bulgaria even tried to avoid it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria

Italy did fight against soviet union. I believe they had about quarter million of men fighting there. Of course, on the whole, the italian army was not very good.
In most part, the italian army was destroyed in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Even Spain had the "blue division" fighting on the eastern front, consisting of about 20 000 men.

So read your history books for once.





USA, well they've always been like you: big talkers but never engage enemies on anything like level playing field. That is one of the most idiotic things ever said on any forum.



We were consciously letting the Russians carry the brunt in Europe and the Chinese and Commonwealth carry the bulk in Asia

What was wrong with that? Why should USA have sacrificed their men to have less soviets die (when Stalin was going to have them shot for whatever reason anyway)?

[Daniel]

USA, well they've always been like you: big talkers but never engage enemies on anything like level playing field.

I have to pull you up on this. You don't send your men off to die on a level playing ground, you stack it as much in their favour as you can

[janvanvurpa]

I have to pull you up on this. You don't send your men off to die on a level playing ground, you stack it as much in their favour as you can


God is the point so hard?
It's an "If this, then that" concept.
Not talking on the ground tactic or stategy, talking about what armchair "netizens' do.
IF Americans are going to brag incessantly about what Uber-mensh and deadly fighters they are, and they do, (and do it with the intention of basking themselves in other people's glory, ie "WE" won WWII", then maybe they should chose to brag about how they won a fair fight, not how they fought a country that had suffered millions dead in battle before USA started doing anything and which had 80% of its forces engaged or some 3rd world country they fought for 10 years.

Germany vs France showed some serious fighting between similar sized and technology, Germany highly developed and extremely organised vs Soviet Union really was a surprise at the time since soviet Union was nowhere nearly as organised or efficient or, after the military and industrial purges geared up for war.

Basically I'm just sick of Americans non-stop nonsensical and historically inaccurate, and utterly superficial "stories" about the supposed superiorty of American fighting skills and self agrandisement and how idiots TODAY puff their lame chests out for what a huge worldwide coalition did so long ago.

[janvanvurpa]

That is one of the most idiotic things ever said on any forum.



What was wrong with that? Why should USA have sacrificed their men to have less soviets die (when Stalin was going to have them shot for whatever reason anyway)?

see above Walker.
not talking the tactics or strategy of the time.
The point is about how one group of ill-read people tell and repeat stories about how USA won the war.....from their telling and comic book entertainment like History Channel would lead one to believe... singlehandedly.


which really is the most idiotic thing I have seen in this day and age..

[chuck34]

God is the point so hard?
It's an "If this, then that" concept.
Not talking on the ground tactic or stategy, talking about what armchair "netizens' do.
IF Americans are going to brag incessantly about what Uber-mensh and deadly fighters they are, and they do, (and do it with the intention of basking themselves in other people's glory, ie "WE" won WWII", then maybe they should chose to brag about how they won a fair fight, not how they fought a country that had suffered millions dead in battle before USA started doing anything and which had 80% of its forces engaged or some 3rd world country they fought for 10 years.

So again ... Was the US supposed to jump in the war before we were in the war so that we could have fought "a fair fight"? On the one hand you seem to love going on about how great the Red Army was (and it really was, don't get be wrong), but then on the other you blast the US for having superior numbers. Do you honestly believe that had the Soviets not had overwhelming numbers that they would have withstood the Nazi Blitz? You can't have it both ways, either numbers are an advantage or they are somehow "unfair".


Germany vs France showed some serious fighting between similar sized and technology, Germany highly developed and extremely organised vs Soviet Union really was a surprise at the time since soviet Union was nowhere nearly as organised or efficient or, after the military and industrial purges geared up for war.

I don't understand your thinking at all. Are you seriously saying that armies aren't supposed to exploit their advantages? And you seem to be forgetting that the US also had a type of purge to it's military. Sure it wasn't bloody or violent like the Soviet's, but the military was gutted throughout the 20's and 30's. So it did take us a while to build back up. Oops did I say "us", I beg your forgiveness oh wise one.


Basically I'm just sick of Americans non-stop nonsensical and historically inaccurate, and utterly superficial "stories" about the supposed superiorty of American fighting skills and self agrandisement and how idiots TODAY puff their lame chests out for what a huge worldwide coalition did so long ago.

Listen, I'm sorry if I offend you by taking pride in my country. It's a nasty habit I suppose. But I'm not gonna change. I love the United States, and I'm proud of what we did back then. Yes I said "we", get over it.

And it isn't just me who thinks what the US did in the war was so essential. Why don't you go read up on what Churchill or Stalin thought. They both courted us quite heavily even before we joined the war because they knew they needed the industrial output and manpower of the US to beat the Nazi war machine. To top it all off, an American was selected as Supreme Allied Commander, but I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with what the rest of the Allies thought about the US.

[BDunnell]

Listen, I'm sorry if I offend you by taking pride in my country. It's a nasty habit I suppose. But I'm not gonna change. I love the United States, and I'm proud of what we did back then. Yes I said "we", get over it.

And it isn't just me who thinks what the US did in the war was so essential. Why don't you go read up on what Churchill or Stalin thought. They both courted us quite heavily even before we joined the war because they knew they needed the industrial output and manpower of the US to beat the Nazi war machine. To top it all off, an American was selected as Supreme Allied Commander, but I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with what the rest of the Allies thought about the US.

All of what you say in the second paragraph there is entirely accurate. But I'm sure that you, as an intelligent bloke, must rankle at the manner in which the American role in WW2 has been aggrandised over the years by movie-makers in particular to a degree that, to say the least, irritates others yet which is lapped up by a certain section of American public opinion as being truthful?

[chuck34]

All of what you say in the second paragraph there is entirely accurate. But I'm sure that you, as an intelligent bloke, must rankle at the manner in which the American role in WW2 has been aggrandised over the years by movie-makers in particular to a degree that, to say the least, irritates others yet which is lapped up by a certain section of American public opinion as being truthful?

Perhaps some movies pump us up a bit, but they're just movies.

I would venture to say (and have in past discussions of this sort) that the allied success in WWII is sort of a 3 legged stool (along with the Free French and other Allied nations, I don't mean to diminish any of them either). The US, UK, and Soviet Union. Any one of them isn't there, or "falls". The rest go with them. But Jan seems to only want to diminish the role that the US played in the war. Surely you can see how that, to say the least, irritates some.

[Mark in Oshawa]

All of what you say in the second paragraph there is entirely accurate. But I'm sure that you, as an intelligent bloke, must rankle at the manner in which the American role in WW2 has been aggrandised over the years by movie-makers in particular to a degree that, to say the least, irritates others yet which is lapped up by a certain section of American public opinion as being truthful?

Ben, I have to agree. Hollywood has perpetuated the myth that everyone was just marking time until the US showed up to save us all.

Or Hollywood has just more or less ignored history and rewritten it for people they figure are too dumb to handle the truth. Best example? The story of Stag Luft III that is "the Great Escape". If one reads the story as written by Paul Brickhill (who was an RAF prisoner in the camp), you realize it was a wonderful story. There was however maybe one American in it. By the time the movie got done, there were many Americans, No Canadians (the real Tunnel King was not the Pole Charles Bronson portrayed but Wally Floody of Toronto) and all sorts of crap was added in. Not real. A fun movie, but annoying if you knew the truth.

I look at that U boat pic with Jon Bon Jovi in it a few years ago where they jump on the sinking U boat to steal an Enigma machine. The Brit's had theirs befor the war and it was all just BS.

No...USA did a great job getting into the war, and did a great thing in producing the massive amounts of war material the Allies needed. Their soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines were good people. But no....the USA didn't do it by themselves....and were 3 years late getting into the first one, and 2 years late on WW2.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Perhaps some movies pump us up a bit, but they're just movies.

I would venture to say (and have in past discussions of this sort) that the allied success in WWII is sort of a 3 legged stool (along with the Free French and other Allied nations, I don't mean to diminish any of them either). The US, UK, and Soviet Union. Any one of them isn't there, or "falls". The rest go with them. But Jan seems to only want to diminish the role that the US played in the war. Surely you can see how that, to say the least, irritates some.
Chuck...put him on ignore...it helps your blood pressure. It is typical Jan...

[chuck34]

Chuck...put him on ignore...it helps your blood pressure. It is typical Jan...

I know I should, but to be honest this is "fun" for me. I like debating people. I don't let them get under my skin ... usually. ;-)

[janvanvurpa]

Listen, I'm sorry if I offend you by taking pride in my country. It's a nasty habit I suppose. But I'm not gonna change. I love the United States, and I'm proud of what we did back then. Yes I said "we", get over it.

.

why is it so difficult to grasp that the main message is that we should be able to grant the same right to be proud of their country and their accomplishments at arms to others as we so vigorously try to appropriate all to ourselves?

I am also proud of what we did for good, even if it was at times very flawed and very costly to others, but being that I'm only half American I don't tend to think in the invariably black or white, pure good or pure evil way which so characterizes the bulk of Americans.

Be honest and look at the responses from such typical level headed red blooded all Americans as Vopster. He write simplistic stuff, which when countered his answer is "Read a lot of Communist propaganda?"

Pointing out what is easily available to read including actual SHEAF documents in some effort to contextualize the relative "weights' of who did the actual fighting is not diminishing US involvement, its an attempt at a gentle nudge back toward reality..

And yet it infuriates some, nearly always Americans or wannabee Americans.

Put another way, efforts at popping an inflated bubble belief is not deminishing what USA actually did at the time, it's popping an inflated "belief" of current people who have no actual memory or involvement in the actual events, and that inflated "belief" is the source of much ill will and even resentment to many in the world.

Or put yet another way, trying to make Americans lok at little less like idiots is out of love and pride for this country, but I guess you and your friends on-line have decided that there is only one approved way to have pride in the country.

Is your motto Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, oder was?

[janvanvurpa]

Perhaps some movies pump us up a bit, but they're just movies.

I would venture to say (and have in past discussions of this sort) that the allied success in WWII is sort of a 3 legged stool (along with the Free French and other Allied nations, I don't mean to diminish any of them either). The US, UK, and Soviet Union. Any one of them isn't there, or "falls". The rest go with them. But Jan seems to only want to diminish the role that the US played in the war. Surely you can see how that, to say the least, irritates some.
I would say a 4 legged one.
If the Chinese had not tied down about 2,500,000 Japanese (and Korean) troops in endless low scale guerrilla war of attrition, then USA, and the Commonwealth might had just a slight bit harder time out there in the Pacific and in Burma.

[BDunnell]

I would venture to say (and have in past discussions of this sort) that the allied success in WWII is sort of a 3 legged stool (along with the Free French and other Allied nations, I don't mean to diminish any of them either). The US, UK, and Soviet Union. Any one of them isn't there, or "falls". The rest go with them. But Jan seems to only want to diminish the role that the US played in the war. Surely you can see how that, to say the least, irritates some.

Absolutely.

[chuck34]

why is it so difficult to grasp that the main message is that we should be able to grant the same right to be proud of their country and their accomplishments at arms to others as we so vigorously try to appropriate all to ourselves?

I am also proud of what we did for good, even if it was at times very flawed and very costly to others, but being that I'm only half American I don't tend to think in the invariably black or white, pure good or pure evil way which so characterizes the bulk of Americans.

Be honest and look at the responses from such typical level headed red blooded all Americans as Vopster. He write simplistic stuff, which when countered his answer is "Read a lot of Communist propaganda?"

Pointing out what is easily available to read including actual SHEAF documents in some effort to contextualize the relative "weights' of who did the actual fighting is not diminishing US involvement, its an attempt at a gentle nudge back toward reality..

And yet it infuriates some, nearly always Americans or wannabee Americans.

Put another way, efforts at popping an inflated bubble belief is not deminishing what USA actually did at the time, it's popping an inflated "belief" of current people who have no actual memory or involvement in the actual events, and that inflated "belief" is the source of much ill will and even resentment to many in the world.

Or put yet another way, trying to make Americans lok at little less like idiots is out of love and pride for this country, but I guess you and your friends on-line have decided that there is only one approved way to have pride in the country.

Is your motto Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, oder was?

That is actually a well thought out response that isn't infused with your usual mean spirited insults (except the "Vopster" bit). Did someone hijack your keyboard? :-)

The main thing to take away from this is that, wether you intend to or not, most of your posts come off as mean spirited and condecending, and they appear to be ment to tear down any and all accomplishments that the US did in WWII. And like I keep saying, you seem to only want to build up the Soviet portion of the war. Perhaps it does need some building up, especially after all the Cold War years where we in the West were not really supposed to think of the Ruskies as ever being any sort of good.

But when you make comments degredating the US for "only fought enemies who had been bled out, were second or third rate and far smaller populations," but fail to mention the VASTLY superior population the Soviets had over the Nazis, you come off sounding VERY hypocritical.

Every country had their advantages. As an over simplification Germany had surprise/Blitz, Soviets had their population, the US had industrial power, the UK had good radar and other tech. In order to have a "fair fight" as you seem to be advocating, shouldn't the Soviets left their population at home? The US shut down most of their factories? The Brits switched off their radar? The Germans slowed things down?

[chuck34]

I would say a 4 legged one.
If the Chinese had not tied down about 2,500,000 Japanese (and Korean) troops in endless low scale guerrilla war of attrition, then USA, and the Commonwealth might had just a slight bit harder time out there in the Pacific and in Burma.

Absolutely, but we have been discussing the European Theater. So now you want to give the US some credit for fighting on two fronts?

[Eki]

Even Spain had the "blue division" fighting on the eastern front, consisting of about 20 000 men.

They were volunteers. Spain was not in war with the USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division

Even neutral Sweden had volunteers fighting both in the Finnish army in the Winter War and the German Viking SS. It doesn't mean Sweden was in war with the USSR. Read your history books for once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Wiking

[janvanvurpa]

That is actually a well thought out response that isn't infused with your usual mean spirited insults (except the "Vopster" bit). Did someone hijack your keyboard? :-)

The main thing to take away from this is that, wether you intend to or not, most of your posts come off as mean spirited and condecending, and they appear to be ment to tear down any and all accomplishments that the US did in WWII. And like I keep saying, you seem to only want to build up the Soviet portion of the war. Perhaps it does need some building up, especially after all the Cold War years where we in the West were not really supposed to think of the Ruskies as ever being any sort of good.

But when you make comments degredating the US for "only fought enemies who had been bled out, were second or third rate and far smaller populations," but fail to mention the VASTLY superior population the Soviets had over the Nazis, you come off sounding VERY hypocritical.

Every country had their advantages. As an over simplification Germany had surprise/Blitz, Soviets had their population, the US had industrial power, the UK had good radar and other tech. In order to have a "fair fight" as you seem to be advocating, shouldn't the Soviets left their population at home? The US shut down most of their factories? The Brits switched off their radar? The Germans slowed things down?

Every single post ever is written in the same tone.
I have always said if there are dimetrically opposed reactions to the exact same words, and some saying "Brilliant" and others saying "that's stupid" then the difference is soley due to the preconceptions of the reader or listener.
It can be nothing else.

Further i believe very strongly from 50 years of experience that one should "do unto others " as they do to everybody else. Doing otherwise is foolish, so some folks they clearly inted to insult get their own words and attitudes right back at them, and then of course they cry.

[janvanvurpa]

But when you make comments degredating the US for "only fought enemies who had been bled out, were second or third rate and far smaller populations," but fail to mention the VASTLY superior population the Soviets had over the Nazis, you come off sounding VERY hypocritical.

but it is well known that Soviet Union had a much, approaching twice, population as Germany, seems tautology to mention it, while I have met ZERO Americans in the last 40 years who have even the vaguest idea of the a0 pre war populations of the various countries and b) the combat casualties of even USA much less any of the other combatants, it seems that that bit of forgotten history bears reminding like for example how Canada, fought longer, and in proportion to population, and harder and lost more men than USA.
MOST even young Canadians know that.
ZERO that I have encountered Americans have any idea.
Indeed most have no idea of the date the war started, or ended;
few know who the major parties involved.

And bear in mind working in my motorsports business here in Seattle, the most literate city in the country, my contact is with folks with above average incomes and allegedly education...

Only heaven knows what its like in Bumfawk Egypt.....


Every country had their advantages. As an over simplification Germany had surprise/Blitz, Soviets had their population, the US had industrial power, the UK had good radar and other tech. In order to have a "fair fight" as you seem to be advocating, shouldn't the Soviets left their population at home? The US shut down most of their factories? The Brits switched off their radar? The Germans slowed things down?

For the third time i am not talking in theatre tactics or strategy, but rather the creation and perpetuation of mythos..

CF "the Great War in Modern Memory"
by this guy here, seen in France,1945:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Pfussell1945.jpg/215px-Pfussell1945.jpg
Paul Fussell
from Wiki;

Fussell was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1943, at age 19. In October 1944 he landed in France, as part of the 103rd Infantry Division. On November 11, he experienced his first night on the front lines. He was wounded while fighting in France as a second lieutenant in the infantry, and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. Fussell suffered from depression and rage for years following his military service. In his 1996 autobiography[2] he associated those problems with the dehumanization of his military service and his anger at the way the United States government and popular culture romanticized warfare. Since the 1980s Fussell has been an outspoken critic of the glorification of armed conflicts [3]. An early influence was H. L. Mencken, but he shed Mencken as a mentor, calling him "deficient in the tragic sense", after his wartime experience.

There is a small but not insignificant chance as a combat 2nd Lt he might have just a wee bit better idea about the manufacture and dissemination of the stories we tell ourselves about what was done...

[Camelopard]

Perhaps some movies pump us up a bit, but they're just movies...... (my editing)



Ha, just like the movie about some bloke called Charley and his war..... ho hum :)

[chuck34]

Every single post ever is written in the same tone.
I have always said if there are dimetrically opposed reactions to the exact same words, and some saying "Brilliant" and others saying "that's stupid" then the difference is soley due to the preconceptions of the reader or listener.
It can be nothing else.

If you honestly think that there is never any conotation to anything you or anyone else writes, I feel sorry for you.


Further i believe very strongly from 50 years of experience that one should "do unto others " as they do to everybody else. Doing otherwise is foolish, so some folks they clearly inted to insult get their own words and attitudes right back at them, and then of course they cry.

If you truly believed in "do unto others" then you wouldn't hurl the insults even if they are thown at you first. You miss the whole point of of that doctorine.

[chuck34]

(my editing)



Ha, just like the movie about some bloke called Charley and his war..... ho hum :)

I used the movie as an illustration of something in an entirely different thread.

Go READ about Charlie Wilson and tell me if the movie was exagerated or understated.

[janvanvurpa]

If you honestly think that there is never any conotation to anything you or anyone else writes, I feel sorry for you.

Of course there is implied things.
But I said if there is diametrically opposed reception or "reading" of my words then the reasons for the polar views are within the readers head and its preconceptions.

That's a pretty neutral comment.




If you truly believed in "do unto others" then you wouldn't hurl the insults even if they are thown at you first. You miss the whole point of of that doctorine.

I believe that one should do unto others as I would wish they'd do unto me.
When people write things which are full of overt or implied hate, well then to help them understand how their words are taken, I'll write in their tone. And as we see, most don't like to be on the receiving endwhat seems a narrow minded, dogmatic tone, but never wonder if it might be in their tone or words that has generated such a response.

And when people disrespect the simple truth, or write their own limited experiences as "the way it is" with no mitigating or qualifying phrases, that is in and of itself an affront to humanity and to individuals.
In other words if somebody shows no humanity or respect to any other, why should one try and be polite back?
Our Canadian friend who write great epics of the way things are in USA and uses phrases "Americans think......" is an absurdity and is insulting, why in heavens name should somebody even be civil when the the guys words are already insulting.?
And it really matters not if he intended to be insulting or is aware of it, words imply things, and i have suggested several times that 'maybe the use of some qualifying phrases like "In my visits to USA, it seems that....." which would be an acknowledgment that an OPINION is being expressed and implying the understanding that there might be different views on the subject.
But NOOOOOoooooooooooooOOOOOO.

And really, false fronts of propriety are also prima facia dishonest, nobody is actually offended at language used in speaking in everyday life, so haughty, and phony posturing about language is basically dishonest.
Again why should anybody try and be polite when somebody is already constructing a faux platform of 'rectitude"?

[Mark in Oshawa]

(my editing)



Ha, just like the movie about some bloke called Charley and his war..... ho hum :)

No....that movie actually mirrors a very good book, and it explains why Afghanistan fell into the mess of the Taliban in the first place...

[chuck34]

Of course there is implied things.
But I said if there is diametrically opposed reception or "reading" of my words then the reasons for the polar views are within the readers head and its preconceptions.

That's a pretty neutral comment.




I believe that one should do unto others as I would wish they'd do unto me.
When people write things which are full of overt or implied hate, well then to help them understand how their words are taken, I'll write in their tone. And as we see, most don't like to be on the receiving endwhat seems a narrow minded, dogmatic tone, but never wonder if it might be in their tone or words that has generated such a response.

And when people disrespect the simple truth, or write their own limited experiences as "the way it is" with no mitigating or qualifying phrases, that is in and of itself an affront to humanity and to individuals.
In other words if somebody shows no humanity or respect to any other, why should one try and be polite back?
Our Canadian friend who write great epics of the way things are in USA and uses phrases "Americans think......" is an absurdity and is insulting, why in heavens name should somebody even be civil when the the guys words are already insulting.?
And it really matters not if he intended to be insulting or is aware of it, words imply things, and i have suggested several times that 'maybe the use of some qualifying phrases like "In my visits to USA, it seems that....." which would be an acknowledgment that an OPINION is being expressed and implying the understanding that there might be different views on the subject.
But NOOOOOoooooooooooooOOOOOO.

And really, false fronts of propriety are also prima facia dishonest, nobody is actually offended at language used in speaking in everyday life, so haughty, and phony posturing about language is basically dishonest.
Again why should anybody try and be polite when somebody is already constructing a faux platform of 'rectitude"?

Ok what you have just described is the doctrine of "do unto other, as they do unto you". Which is fine, we all do it at some points in time. But that is clearly not "do unto others, as you want them to do unto you". That means wether they are mean, stupid, or completely off topic.

[Daniel]

Perhaps some movies pump us up a bit, but they're just movies.

I would venture to say (and have in past discussions of this sort) that the allied success in WWII is sort of a 3 legged stool (along with the Free French and other Allied nations, I don't mean to diminish any of them either). The US, UK, and Soviet Union. Any one of them isn't there, or "falls". The rest go with them. But Jan seems to only want to diminish the role that the US played in the war. Surely you can see how that, to say the least, irritates some.

Couldn't agree more