MovieChat Forums > Dresden (2006) Discussion > War crime or legitimate military target?

War crime or legitimate military target?

posted 18 years ago by Thusnelda
106 replies | jump to latest

I'd just like to make my point on some arguments uttered on the board referring to the movie "Schindler's list". As the discussion on Dresden has NOTHING to do with the holocaust, especially is not intended to "relativize" it by hinting at massacres and crimes comitted by others, I decided to continue the discussion on a board more appropriate, where it fits. I think the board on a movie about Dresden is such a place.

Thusnelda -

NoRevisionism -

I never heard of the German "mini" bomb.

I did not talk of a "mini bomb". I referred to the fact that Allieds threw about 10 times more bombs on Germany than vice versa. Thus, it was much less ("mini"), although it was still terrible what the nazis did. Moreover, even the prosecuters in the Nuremberg Trials did not accuse the nazi big shots also of their bombing, because it was a small amount compared to what the allieds threw on Germany.

In military terms YES it could be said that Coventry and London were viable military targets.

O.k. Especially Coventry as the centre of the UK arms production.
Nevertheless, we have to examine with scrutiny these bombings as well as the ones of London and others: Any loss of human life is tragic and should be avoided if possible in any way.

And so was Dresden.

No.
Let me put it that way:
I could even agree with you that Dresden was a legitimate target as for e.g. being a hotspot of the railway system etc. The fact is: The railways weren't even bombed. The Dresden railway station was bombed 3 weeks later by the Americans. You could only claim Dresden being a military target, if the military facilities had been targeted at all: But they weren't. The bombing was ONLY aimed at civilians, NOT at military facilites etc. THAT is the point you don't understand.

And so was Berlin.

Depends on where they bombed: Military facilities or deliberately civilians.
In Berlin, as far as I heard: Both.

It was not mass murder.

Of course it was. Your beloved "hero" Churchill is a mass murderer.

The attempted gassing & machine gunning of an entire people or race would be considered deliberate planned mass murder.

If I deliberately kill 1.000 people - they will never make a whole people, but this will definitely be a mass murder. Don't you agree?

Incidental casualties as a result of a strategic bombing campaign are not mass murder.

EXACTLY!!!
But the victims of the Dresden bombing (and in other cities) were NOT incidental casualties - but killed deliberately! That is exactly the point we're dissenting about.

In order to terrorize the Germans and to have less Germans to deal with after the occupation.

Germany began the war by bombing cities.Warsaw,London,Rotterdam,ect.ect.

No. Britain.

The Allies ended the war by the same means.

Double-No:

1. The nazis did not deliberately mass murder to that extent via air war.

2. The bomb war did not end the war but prolonged it.

What may be "common knowledge in Germany" may not be the entire historic truth.

*sardonicsmile*

The whole war issue is a very touchy thing in Germany. If even left-wing renowned historians in Germany admit Allied war crimes against Germans, it must be true. Just have a look at the books I recommended in an earlier posting: One is written by a left-wing historian-journalist whose earlier books cover up nazis crimes and how many nazi big shots got away with it. The other 2 are published by the renowned middle-leftwing political German magazine "Der SPIEGEL" which even cooperates with the New York Times. Mr. Friedrich was even repeatedly on "SPIEGEL TV" and gave interviews about it - and noone (even no BRITISH historians) disagreed. Have you ever read the respective quotes from Mr. Churchill himself?

Some may not trust German "common knowledge".

Because all Germans are evil?

Yours,

Thusnelda

PS:

Number of German civilians of the "firestorm" that were deliberately massacred by allied bombings: more than 600.000.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Hello Thusnelda -

As I said before if you believe Great Britain to be the aggressor during WWII then you do require a complete re-education that we cant begin here.
First these bombs used during WWII as you know were "dumb" bombs. Gravity bombs. It was "area bombing" or "carpet bombing" and in the use of incendiary bombs the purpose is to start fires. The logic both German and Allied was to drop enough tonnage on a target to destroy it. You couldnt destroy a factory without hitting the houses near it also.
Dresden had viable military targets. And many residents of Dresden worked in war related industries. Those skilled workers were also viable military targets. This was an industrial age war. Industry and its skilled workers were as much a target as soldiers at the front.

Do you believe if the Germans had had access to the thousands of B-17 and Lancaster bombers that the allies did that the Nazis wouldnt have reduced England to dust?
The very fact that the Germans did not have such numbers of bombers is a testament to the success of the bombing campaign.

The civilian casualties that resulted from the Dresden raid were not victims of mass murder. I explained the difference before.
I do not minimize the casualties or discount them. The results of the raid were terrible.
The result of the bombing campaign shortened the war. That is without doubt.
Churchill is not my "beloved hero" but he is no mass murderer.

Perhaps the version of history I was taught is a different version that you were taught. Germany as a loser undoubtably has a different perspective on the Second World War. I dont believe Germans are "evil" but I also believe its ludacris to play the victim.

[–] Thusnelda 18 years ago

Hello Thusnelda -

Hello NoRevisionsm -

As I said before if you believe Great Britain to be the aggressor during WWII

I never said that nor do I believe that. I just referred to the bombing.

then you do require a complete re-education that we cant begin here.

No need, see above.

First these bombs used during WWII as you know were "dumb" bombs.

Yes. The problem is where you throw them.

Gravity bombs.

Jap.

It was "area bombing" or "carpet bombing" and in the use of incendiary bombs the purpose is to start fires.

Jes.

The logic both German and Allied was to drop enough tonnage on a target to destroy it. You couldnt destroy a factory without hitting the houses near it also.

Exactly. Noone complaints about that. I agree. :-)

Dresden had viable military targets.

Yes.
The problem was: THEY weren't attacked in particular, for instance not the railway station, which was destroyed 3 weeks later by the US.

And many residents of Dresden worked in war related industries. Those skilled workers were also viable military targets.

This is the point we disagree:
The Allieds regarded (not only in Dresden, but in many other cities as well) the civilians as military targets, because they worked (had to work) in the industries. If you "only" want to kill skilled workers, you can do this by targeting the industrial plants - not the residential areas.
Moreover, if you attack the civilians, you can try to stir turmoil among the population, and finally, you have less people to deal with after the war. - This was why the civilians were attacked.
Do you agree?

Well, but this definition of a military target goes too far - argueing this way, you can attack any civil population everywhere whenever you want. Moreover, it is against all martial laws, treaties etc..

Let me put it that way:
If the problems in Iraq continue, and some generals would suggest to mass bomber quarters of Baghad and other cities where civilians live (not: work), killing hundreds of thousands Iraqis, because this is a way to get rid of them, - would you accept it as a way to end the war?

Can you agree that this is the point where we disagree?

This was an industrial age war. Industry and its skilled workers were as much a target as soldiers at the front.

No.
Deliberately targeting refugees, women and children as well?

Do you believe if the Germans had had access to the thousands of B-17 and Lancaster bombers that the allies did that the Nazis wouldnt have reduced England to dust?
The very fact that the Germans did not have such numbers of bombers is a testament to the success of the bombing campaign.

No. It's a proof of the Brits mass murderous politics.

The civilian casualties that resulted from the Dresden raid were not victims of mass murder. I explained the difference before.
I do not minimize the casualties or discount them. The results of the raid were terrible.

Yes.

Why didn't you hang Churchill?

The result of the bombing campaign shortened the war. That is without doubt.

No. According to all historians, it even prolonged it. Because, e. g., the bombers used to kill civilians could not be used to destroy arms productions - it reduced the capacity.

Churchill is not my "beloved hero" but he is no mass murderer.

I did not only refer to his deeds in WWII.

Perhaps the version of history I was taught is a different version that you were taught.

I wasn't taught about the course of WWII in school AT ALL - due to the Allieds' rule over Germany, who also controlled the school books.
And now guess, why the bomb war wasn't even mentioned - because your arguments hold water? ;-)

All I learned about these issues is from renowned left-wing historians - that have not been contradicted. I cited the books in a previous post.

Germany as a loser undoubtably has a different perspective on the Second World War.

Germany has a different objective, not just because they lost the war, but because they want to be objective.

I dont believe Germans are "evil" but I also believe its ludacris to play the victim.

They don't "play" the victim, but individuals were also victims.

Yours,

Thusnelda

PS:
I like your nickname. It shows me that you're a good guy with a good motivation.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Hello Thusnelda,

As to the bombing of the workers homes near industrial plants. It stands to reason that most workers lived close to the factories. Nobody was commuting back then.

As to why Churchill wasnt hung. He wasnt a war criminal. He wasnt a mass murderer. The Dresden raid as well as the strategic bombing campaign in gereral were military operations. Not a war crime.

As to the bombing of cities in general. I think it was the Hague II provisions (i dont have specific info)that stated against bombing "undefended" cities.
Dresden qualified as a defended city. Dresden ,with the anti-aircraft batteries and day and night fighter protection was qualified as a defended city.
Again,I'm not saying the effect of the raid was not terrible in loss of life.
But it was not a war crime.

And as to learning about the Dresden raid from "left-wing" historians.
My experience is that nothing useful can be learned from the "left-wing"
They have an agenda that I do not agree with.

I think your making progress and with time you will see things in the proper light.

[–] LookinGood 18 years ago

As to the bombing of the workers homes near industrial plants. It stands to reason that most workers lived close to the factories. Nobody was commuting back then.

This does not go for Dresden. I lived there, and daily walked across the river from Neustadt to Johannstadt. Johannstadt was one of the quarters that was nearly 100% destroyed in the Feb 13, 1945 raids. The only thing that is left of that quarter is the old kerbstones, with lowerings every 15 metres, leading to houses that are gone. A quarter that had 4-story houses and small shops and workshops. This goes for the Altstadt and most of the surrounding quarters too. And Dresden had a good tram system for commuters even before the war (including cargo trams delivering stuff along their lines). Just an observation from someone who knows the city.

BTW, I watched the first part of "Dresden", but didn't bother to see part two. Too much like the run-of-the-mill "boy meets girl under tragic circumstances" with some really unbelievable stuff thrown in (the guy walked from Magdeburg to Dresden with a bullet wound??).

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

How much was left of Oradour sur glan in France or Lidice in Czechoslovakia ?

[–] LookinGood 18 years ago

If you want to say "You lot deserved this", then please do so openly, instead of making veiled comments.
Just for the record, I do believe that "what comes around, gets around". Still, I couldn't live in Dresden and walk past the giant heap of rubble that was the Frauenkirche (or past other burnt-out ruins still visible in the city center) thinking, "Well, blame yourselves." Compassion is a non-academic gut reaction, if you will.

And I don't think that you should bring Oradour-sur-Glane or Lidice into this discussion. It will weaken your point that Dresden was no war crime, because the annihilation of those villages *were* war crimes.

L'G, looking forward to some interesting discussion about the film, but fearing that the usual holier-than-thou crew will bring any attempt down (that is not aimed at you, NoR., just a general observation about IMDb boards, sadly).

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

No. I'm not saying "deserved" has anything to do with it.
As I said to the also highly intelligent Thusnelda, I have a problem with the aggressors playing the victim.
I would just prefer to reserve my sympathy for honest victims of the Nazi period.

Although I agree it could be said that Germany itself eventually was a victim of Nazism.

[–] LookinGood 18 years ago

I have a problem with the aggressors playing the victim.
I would just prefer to reserve my sympathy for honest victims of the Nazi period.

Fair enough. That is possible to do for you as a non-German (I assume).
For me, as a German, with no other nationality to claim, it is not. I have to live with the history of my country, warts and all. I as a German cannot adopt such a position, that would be hypocrisy.

I couldn't tell my grandmother who lost a brother in the ruins of a bombed out house: "Get a grip. It's entirely your own fault." See the difference? I know that she, like most Germans, looked the other way. But she is still family, and no-one deserves to lose his teenage brother (she was 22 at the end of the war). At the same time, I feel sympathy for the father of a friend who was tortured in a German concentration camp, and when he expressed his deep mistrust towards Germans, I understood it completely. How would I dare starting an argument with him?

I was in no way "playing the victim" with my above post. Quoting myself here: "Just for the record, I do believe that "what comes around, gets around". " In other words, while I was sad learning the history of Dresden and seeing the ruins, I see it as a consequence of Germany starting this war (spelt out clearly enough?).

[–] Michel-15 16 years ago

"Dresden had viable military targets. And many residents of Dresden worked in war related industries. Those skilled workers were also viable military targets."

My grandmother lived in Dresden on February 13th. 21 years old, working in a butcher's store and taking care of my 6 months old mother. Of course I know we began the war, but what do you want to tell me about military targets?

[–] Thusnelda 18 years ago

As far as I learned in German mass media, in the very beginning and later in the course of WWII, the Germans severly bombed and deliberately destroyed very great parts of Warsaw, killing at least 200.000 Polish civlians and soldiers.

This is usually regarded as a war crime.

NoRevisionsm - do you agree?

Yours,

Thusnelda

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Its a difficult answer.

It cant be denied that Germany and Poland were at war. Since they were still at war at the time of the bombing of Warsaw it could be argued that Warsaw was a military target. Was the bombing of Warsaw part of a strategic bombing campaign? I dont think thats the case. Was Warsaw bombed to destroy military fortifications and factories within the city. Or was Warsaw bombed indescriminatly to facilitate its surrender.
I think both answers are true. And if thats the case both answers fall within the bounds of a military action.

The bombing of Warsaw was the first aerial bombing of a major city during WWII. Because of that the Warsaw bombing received a lot of attention and caused great uproar against Germany.

As I said its a difficult answer.

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

You're absolutely right, Thusnelda. The bombings of Dresden and Japan were war crimes, no doubt about that. And the allies were fully aware of that. American then-secretary of defence, Robert MacNamara, quotes the colonel in command of the B-24 bombers, Curtis LeMay, as saying: "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."

But, as always, it is the winners of the war who write history.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

During WWII the U.S. Secretary of War was Henry Stimson.
The U.S. Secretary of Defence was Cordell Hull until 1944.
He was then succeeded by Edward Stettinius until 1945.

Robert MacNamara was Secretary of Defence between 1961 & 1968.
That would be the Vietnam era.
Curtis LeMay was an USAAC General in the European theater between 1942 to 1944. In 1944 he was transferred to the Pacific theater.

If the winners of war write history then you didnt read it. From your post I dont think you read the losers version either.

"Whats that smell" It was your post.

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

You're right, I should have written "previous secretary of defence", I'm sorry if my post seemed a bit misleading, but the message is still clear, you anal bastard.

By the way, did I say that LeMay referred to Dresden? No, I you read closely I write: "The bombings of Dresden and Japan were war crimes, no doubt about that." And the tactics of firebombing civilian targets in Japan resembled the firebombings of Dresden.

Try to read it properly next time, you flaming tard.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

"previous secretary of defence"

Previous to who ?
Previous to Robert McNamara was Thomas Gates.

As to General LeMay's remarks. He also said.

-"there are no innocent civilians,so it doesnt bother me so much to be killing
innocent bystanders"
-"if the war is shortened by a single day then the attack will have served
its purpose"

And to the "warcrimes" Gen.Lemay was speaking hypothetically had the U.S. lost the war. Then surely the victorious Axis would have considered him a war criminal.

I hope you read this properly.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Gen.LeMay meant "had the U.S lost the war" as a bad thing.
I suppose you wish the Allies had not been victorious.

That explains a lot about you and the intelligence of your posts.

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

"Gen.LeMay meant "had the U.S lost the war" as a bad thing."

No, he meant that "had the U.S lost the war", the Nazis would have treated the allies in the same way that the allies treated the Nazis: as war criminals.

"I suppose you wish the Allies had not been victorious."

Ooh, touché! Well, if you don't have any real argument, you can always resort to ad hominem! So, now you're implying that I'm a Nazi sympathizer? That explains a lot about you and the intelligence of your posts.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Yeah, your right flameboy. The allies should have dropped nerf bombs.

I dont think your a Nazi sympathizer. I think your a Nazi apologist.

"What's that smell?"
It was your last post.

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

Nazi apoligist? Please, tell me when I've either defended the Nazis or depreciated any of their atrocities. Or are you just full of sh*t?

I guess that if you don't have any real arguments, you can always resort to ad hominem, which seems to be your MO.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

ad hominem ! ad hominem !! AD HOMINEM !!!

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

I see you have no real arguments left.

"What's that smell?"

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

No use trying to discuss with NoRevisionism. Everytime he gets backed into a corner he calls on the admins to deleted his opponent's posts. It's happened to me twice, already.

BTW, not only Nazis were killed in Dresden, but also good and decent civilian Germans, regardless of preference for political ideology.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

"opponent"
You give yourself way too much credit.

Again, is it MY fault that people cannot follow the IMDB guidelines for posting.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

I like that one. If I ever fail to follow the IMDB posting guidelines then I deserve to have my post deleted.

I feel thats fair. But to unbalanced,anti-semetic,hate mongering,conspiracy theorists I know it will just seem like "another smokescreen".

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shanayneigh 18 years ago

The only conspiracy theorist in here is you, Revisionist. you're the one posting conspiracy theories about Hitler being Jewish.

"What's that smell?"

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

jeez dude !! I have no idea if Hitler was jewish or gay or from Pluto !!!!!

I just know when u tell Hitler worshipers that Hitler was Jewish it drives them banannas.

And thats what I explained I was doing several times.

Have your mommy read my old posts to you so that you can hear for yourself.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were military actions intended to bring about the end of the war.

It worked.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki actually saved lives.

If your interested in learning about what would have happened had the U.S. invaded mainland Japan look into the Battle of Saipan.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

"see my point"

Your analogies are idiotic.

Your anti-American. Thats fine. Your views are bent because of that.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Then you have made the same leap of idiocy that this fool has.

[–] Rothenon 18 years ago

Unbelievable. NoRevisionism - you are a disgusting and totally sick person. On the one hand you condemn nazi cruelties and holocaust and your ID shall obviously suggest to everybody what great antifascist you are, and on the other hand you're glorifying most terrible war crimes which killed hundred thousands of civilians with sick comments like "Hiroshima & Nagasaki actually saved lives".
You would be a great nazi. Maybe you don't realize that, but actually you already are a nazi in mind, whatever you are pretending. Your attitude would have been ideal for becoming a SS officer in a KZ, they exactly talked about the imprisoned and murdered people with the same scorn like you are talking about the victims of war crimes.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Again....thank you. Its nice to have fans.

If anyone doesnt agree with you they are a Nazi officer in the KZ.
Thats a very specific fantasy that you have.

I also suggested reading up on the Saipan campaign. The Japanese leaders had convinced the people that the Americans were "barbarians" who would slaughter and rape them. Thousands of civilians committed suicide in wake of the American advance. Extrapolate that onto an Allied attack on mainand Japan.

In that light "Hiroshima & Nagasaki actually saved lives"

Here endeth the lesson.

[–] Rothenon 18 years ago

This has nothing to do with how much you agree with me about something or not. This is how you define yourself by your own messages on this board. I haven't said that you are a nazi officer, I haven't even said that you are a nazi politically, which I believe that you are not. But you are trying to justify war crimes with the same cynism like nazis regarding the victims of their terror, and you're de facto saying that methods which are considered and condemned as war crimes become legitimate in a war against nazis. Then tell me, where is the (moral) difference between nazis and those who fight against them? And do you really want to make me believe that the A-bombs were dropped on Japan only to avoid a mass suicide among civilians? Even if that would be true - how can you justify the real killing of hundred thousands of people by using weapons of mass destruction with a calculation about hypothetical fictive victims?

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

The bombing of Hiroshima & Nakasaki wasnt only to avoid civilian casualties. The bombing also saved hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers/Marines & Airmen.
I dont usually bring that up because most non-Americans would say "good let hundreds of thousands of Americans die and get wounded!! serves them right for being American !!"
But both are valid reasons.
I believe Dresden,Hiroshima & Nagasaki and even the German bombing of Warsaw and Coventry to be military actions.
Its hard to make a case for Auschwitz being a military operation.

And thats the difference. A military operation compared to a organized, systematic murder of an entire race or religion.

[–] tardezyx 18 years ago

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were military actions intended to bring about the end of the war.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki actually saved lives.

a) hiroshima & nagasaki were military actions intended to bring up results how effective a-bombs really are and ended up in a war crime (unintentionally question mark).

b) hiroshima & nagasaki should intimidate the sovjets.

c) hiroshima & nagasaki should prevent an invasion of honshu (japan).

the first bomb itself killed 70,000-90,000 people (enough for your 'save american lives' reason which implements that american lives would have more value than others btw) but the consequences of the radiation increased the number up to over 240,000 (offically). three days later the second bomb killed 36,000-50,000 people (fair enough, i guess). for comparison: the conventional bombing on tokio on 09-03-1945 killed 100,000 people - therefore your reason of saving lives became pointless. not to mention that there are clues that the japanese emperor was willed to give up before the a-bombings.

as you certainly know the staff of the us-army avoided street-fights in big cities (they were frightened of the eventual casualties) and so they let the sovjets take berlin. i guess, that's the main reason of hiroshima & nagasaki: they simple won't invade the island and fight through japanese cities (they seldomly fought in german cities before).

http://www.aktivepolitik.de/hiroshima.htm

As to why Churchill wasnt hung. He wasnt a war criminal. He wasnt a mass murderer. The Dresden raid as well as the strategic bombing campaign in gereral were military operations. Not a war crime.

churchill gave the order to sink a part of the french fleet stationed in the meridian sea after france capitulated - 1,267 french marines died. he gave the order to bomb directly residential areas of german cities on 08-25-1940. this 'moral bombing' did not end until the war was won.

i already said in another posting that there is no country that never did or was connected to a war crime, neither england or usa or (insert country here). unusual situations need unusual behaviours and now there comes coventry to mind. of course churchill copied hitlers tactic of terror against the civilians and in the end there was the revenge in dresden. try to think logically. military necessary? dresden was as military necessary as a sixth wheel on your car is necessary for your drive from home to work.

I also suggested reading up on the Saipan campaign. The Japanese leaders had convinced the people that the Americans were "barbarians" who would slaughter and rape them. Thousands of civilians committed suicide in wake of the American advance. Extrapolate that onto an Allied attack on mainand Japan.

the Saipan campagne was 14 months before hiroshima & nagasaki and the capitulation of japan. the japanase culture is extremely different compared to ours in europe and usa. its a custom with great honour to make suicide if you've sullied your name.

second to that it is naive thinking that whole japan commit suicide:

a) the japanese & korean soldiers & civilians were not able to flee.
b) they rather committed suicide as to live in shame as captives (-> culture).
c) saipan was a small island compared to the great japanese empire and 14 months before the end of the war there was no reason why not to win in the end for japan.
d) were there thousands (no, millions compared to the size of the islands saipan-honshu) of civilians who committed suicide after the emperor capitulated ('in wake of the american advance')? - no.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Without a doubt as an American, American lives are worth more to me than others. Just as I imagine you care about the lives of the people of whatever country you are from.

As to the Russians taking Berlin. If they felt like losing a million men doing it then let them.

About the sinking of the french fleet at anchor.
GOOD. The French had surrendered and the fleet could have been used by the Nazis or by the Vichy government.

And about the Saipan campaign. I never thought the ENTIRE nation of Japan would commit suicide. But without a doubt many more on mainland Japan would have. The atomic bombs forced the surrender of Japan. The emperor would not have surrendered as quickly without them.

[–] tardezyx 18 years ago

Without a doubt as an American, American lives are worth more to me than others. Just as I imagine you care about the lives of the people of whatever country you are from.

unfortunately, your imagination is shaped by national thinking and terribly wrong except you still believe in darwinism. one makes a fool out of himself saying 'mr. a is worthier than mr. b'. only because mr. a is on this side of the pacific and mr. b isn't - it's discrimination. see 'rassenlehre' (racial theory?). however, that is a clear disqualification that you have to admit.

really, i can not agree. the only ones i care much more about than any others in the world are my family and my best friends. but nothing would justify a murder of 1+x humans to save their lifes from any other point of view than mine. and we don't talk about your family and your best friends and a couple amount of people who died. we talk about a rather unknown number of fellow citizens (for you and for me) and hundreds of thousands other unknown citizens who suffered more pain than one nearly can imagine.

and they still suffer. that is the point and the accusation - it was a war crime.

As to the Russians taking Berlin. If they felt like losing a million men doing it then let them.

do you know the german term 'engstirnig'? - narrow minded. of course the sovjets didn't felt like losing one million men and as a result of the german misdeeds in russia they raped and pillaged around in germany (revenge). the americans wouldn't permit of such atrocities but they needed the sovjets for two reasons:

a) for the two front war and taking berlin
- i already mentioned that the americans were afraid of big city fights

b) for the war vs. japan
- ask yourself why nobody reacted when stalin decided to change the border of poland to oder-neiße. the war wasn't over yet in the pacific.

About the sinking of the french fleet at anchor.
GOOD. The French had surrendered and the fleet could have been used by the Nazis or by the Vichy government.

true, but churchill didn't declare war to france. therefore it was a war crime and - as you will - a military operation, of course.

And about the Saipan campaign. I never thought the ENTIRE nation of Japan would commit suicide. But without a doubt many more on mainland Japan would have.

define 'many'. lets say the americans would have bombed hiroshima and nagasaki with normal bombs. after that they prepared for an invasion. do you believe over 100,000 would had commit suicide ? do you really think the japanese emperor would have called out for another 'total war' after he saw what happened to germany? japan didn't have the german technologies (v2, atomic program, etc). they had no 'führerkult'. they were surrounded by the sovjets, china and the usa. they were losing on island after another. how long do you think would it had last until japan capitulate? in fact, the emperor was willing to capitulate before hiroshima & nagasaki. it was only a question of time - a couple of days or perhaps weeks.

The atomic bombs forced the surrender of Japan. The emperor would not have surrendered as quickly without them.

true, the surrender might have delayed for two weeks or a month. im not saying that it didn't save lives and helped to end the war earlier. but it still remains as a war crime. you just avoid admitting it and i don't know why.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

I feel no shame in being a patriot. Just as if you - from whatever country you are from would feel pride in your own country. I suppose you can attach greater Darwinian or racial meaning to if you want.

Sometimes an apple is just an apple.

Great Britains declaration of war on Germany covered the British attack on the French fleet as Vichy was an ally of Nazi Germany.
No seperate declaration was required.

Stalin wanted Berlin. In fact he pushed Zhukov and Konev his top two Generals into competition to take the city.
Why get between a dog and his bone ?

It was Soviet willingness to expend manpower and Anglo-American industry and airpower that won WWII. The Americans and English recognized this.
In addition to being legitimate military targets Dresden,Hiroshima and Nagasaki also served the purpose of showing the Soviets what Allied-American airpower could do.

In the end Germans and Japanese must ask themselves a question.

Are you better off without facisism ?

The Allies freed those two countries from facism. After the war both countries were rebuilt. Both countries were prevented from falling under communist control. Both countries have stable governments,strong economies and are no longer threats to their neighbors. Both countries have enjoyed the umbrella of freedom that the U.S. has provided the postwar world.

Hate the U.S. if you want. Nothing changes those facts.
Your welcome.

[–] tardezyx 18 years ago

I feel no shame in being a patriot. Just as if you - from whatever country you are from would feel pride in your own country. I suppose you can attach greater Darwinian or racial meaning to if you want.

Sometimes an apple is just an apple.

first i am a human. i don't care much about nations, borders, religions, skin-color and (insert characteristic of any group here). imo you are a victim of status. be proud of whatever you think - but don't forget that you are only another human like everybody else and part of the big sea.

well, let me teach you something about patriotism. perhaps it will open your mind (i'll try to make it short):

one of the first advanced civilizations were where iraq is now. the next were in greek (macedonia), italy (rome) and northern africa (carthago). a big jump in time and the advanced civilizations were germany, france and england. then someone discovered america and all those advanced europeans civilized it (and killed the natives... but that is another story). now there are these nice united states, but what is most fascinating is the fact what built the usa.

it was the work of the whole mankind. every advantage needed a former discovery and those discoveries began with the first ape that walked uprightly and did find out how to use a stone as a tool.

i know that it's easier to believe you would be something special or you have to defend your country, your customs, your land - hold your borders against all those evil foreigners (who of course all hate the usa). but that is *beep* what i want to say is that you and i are not worthier than any other human in the world. it might be a creepy picture for you but this realization is just another discovery. try to live with it.

Great Britains declaration of war on Germany covered the British attack on the French fleet as Vichy was an ally of Nazi Germany.
No seperate declaration was required.

this might be right. i will make further investigations.

Stalin wanted Berlin. In fact he pushed Zhukov and Konev his top two Generals into competition to take the city.
Why get between a dog and his bone ?

the first reason that comes to mind is to avoid splitting germany and stop the communism. the next is to catch hitler and get all the fame. however, usa decided to save it's soldiers and ended up in a cold war.

It was Soviet willingness to expend manpower and Anglo-American industry and airpower that won WWII. The Americans and English recognized this.
In addition to being legitimate military targets Dresden,Hiroshima and Nagasaki also served the purpose of showing the Soviets what Allied-American airpower could do.

you still deny it. hiroshima, nagasaki and dresden were pointless for ww2. the war was lost for the axis even without those horrifyingly bombings.

The Allies freed those two countries from facism. After the war both countries were rebuilt. Both countries were prevented from falling under communist control. Both countries have stable governments,strong economies and are no longer threats to their neighbors. Both countries have enjoyed the umbrella of freedom that the U.S. has provided the postwar world.

Hate the U.S. if you want. Nothing changes those facts.
Your welcome.

with your obvious diversion from the topic you made a slippery fool of yourself.

a) nowhere i said that i hate the usa.
b) neither i said that it wasn't good to destroy fascism.

i begin to think that you might think i want to harm you or the usa (or are you just another bugging troll?). there is no reason for that, really. just live with the fact that the usa and england are not perfect and did some mistakes. like germany, japan and russia... nearly every other country did. it's so because we all only are humans and no perfect software code that never misses.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Congratulations on just being a human from planet earth. Its a very nice outlook on the world. I'd like to hear about it and then sing "Kumbyah" around the campfire while we toke up on the hookah. But I live in this world.

I appreciate the patriotism lessons. You did waste your time.

I deny nothing about Hiroshima,Dresden or Nakasaki. They were all military operations. Until the Axis surrendered they were military targets.

As to the U.S.A. & Gt.Britain being perfect. I never said they were. Of course they are not.

[–] tardezyx 18 years ago

and i don't live here ? ridiculous. now i'm sure this discussion leads nowhere.

you can't accept the simpliest occurences of life. but that's ok. unfortunately, people with the same feelings for their country around the world are one cause for wars. that doesn't mean they want to mass murder people or drop some a-bombs here and there. it's just they can't accept the fact that where they were born was a random stroke of luck or bad luck. but that is another big discussion and i already realized you are not open minded for that sort of things.

you repeated the phrase 'they were military targets' in every post. nobody said they weren't (except for dresden's railroad station which wasn't bombed on 12th & 13th february 1945). are you reading at all ? i will not tell you (or your hand - cause i don't notice any progress) again why those three were war-crimes.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 18 years ago

Less I be called a "bugging troll" I think this conversation has been mined out.

Many thanks lordtarbos for the exchange. I appreciate your positions and they are well stated.

Take care.

[–] peeseebeeb-1 18 years ago

I think that Lordtarbos seems to have overlooked the fact that Hitler apart from starting the bombing war against civilian targets, was trying his very best to develope weapons of mass destruction. Germany developed long range missiles such as the V1 and V2 which were totally indiscriminate in as much as they were aimed in the general direction of London and other British cities without any attempt to destroy military target. The campaign and loss of life in Britain may have been much greater if production of these weapons had been accelerated. Further, does Lordtarbos imagine that Hitler would not have demanded the use of nuclear weapons against the British mainland if he had been successful in developing them? I think not. The only difference to this saga would be the transposition of blame and recipients. Nobody is glad of the pain and suffering caused during WW2, but let us not lose sight of the fact that Germany has been the cause of two world wars in the 20th Century. Both, to some extent, were wars of attrition. Europe, let alone the main combatants could not sustain the loss of life promised by the state of the war. A short, sharp shock such as the destruction of Dresden was needed to reduce the German psyche of superiority and 'Uber Alles' and reduce their morale thereby shortening the war. As for Japan, the Emperor may indeed have contemplated surrender as a nation, but many of the generals who lived by the laws of Bushido would not have countenanced surrender so easily and also needed to be threatened by the thought of annihilation of the Japanese people. Something they would not have believed possible without a practical demonstration.

[–] tardezyx 16 years ago

... but let us not lose sight of the fact that Germany has been the cause of two world wars in the 20th Century

what a narrow minded view you got. in fact, it was not only britain and poland, that forced the war against germany and expanded it to a world war. but that is a complete other topic, including high financial aimes around the city of london and the wall street.

just one question which comes to mind: as britain and france were protectors of poland why they did not declare war to russia as they did to germany?

A short, sharp shock such as the destruction of Dresden was needed to reduce the German psyche of superiority and 'Uber Alles' and reduce their morale thereby shortening the war.

nice myth. it is a comfortable justification that frees any type of guilty. and what did you write here:

I think that Lordtarbos seems to have overlooked the fact that Hitler apart from starting the bombing war against civilian targets

perhaps he had the same pseudo-justification? and that is no excuse for killing civilians, on either side.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 16 years ago

"what a narrow minded view you got. in fact, it was not only britain and poland, that forced the war against germany and expanded it to a world war. but that is a complete other topic, including high financial aimes around the city of london and the wall street"

Explain exactly who prior to that "forced" Germany into the Rhineland,annex Austria,take the Sudetenland,the remainder of Czechoslovakia & the annexation of Memel from Lithuania?

I suppose after war was "forced" upon Germany they were furthur "forced" to take Denmark,Norway,Belgium,Luxemboug,The Netherlands & France.

Read a book now & then.

[–] tardezyx 16 years ago

Explain exactly who prior to that "forced" Germany into the Rhineland,annex Austria,take the Sudetenland,the remainder of Czechoslovakia & the annexation of Memel from Lithuania?

perhaps the germans who still lived there and still were more part of germany than any other country? and whats most interesting: that has nothing to do with the agressions against germans in poland but with the fear of the british empire as germany had risen as world power - again.

I suppose after war was "forced" upon Germany they were furthur "forced" to take Denmark,Norway,Belgium,Luxemboug,The Netherlands & France.

to quote wiki:

"In the early morning of April 9, 1940 – Wesertag ("Weser Day") – Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, ostensibly as a preventive maneuver against a planned[citation needed], and openly discussed[citation needed], Franco-British occupation of both these countries. After the invasions, envoys of the Germans informed the governments of Denmark and Norway that the Wehrmacht had come to protect the countries' neutrality against Franco-British aggression."

-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Weserübung

fall gelb happened because the war versus france would have been harder to win if the germans had run directly into the maginot-line ;) and to plan-revisions.

-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Plan_revisions

Read a book now & then.

read a good book now & then.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 16 years ago

So after actually going to war with Gt.Britain was it continued fear of Gt.Britain that led Germany to invade Russia?

"the Germans informed the governments of Denmark and Norway that the Wehrmacht had come to protect the countries'neutrality"

I bet the Danes & Norwegians were so thankful !!
The Nazi's were just so helpful !!

And finally do you really think quoting "wiki" anything lends any support to your theories?

[–] tardezyx 16 years ago

So after actually going to war with Gt.Britain was it continued fear of Gt.Britain that led Germany to invade Russia?

the war with russia was the only one hitler wanted to fight at all ("lebensraumtheorie"). but with the new circumstances and the western front it was not his intention to invade russia before beating or a settle peace with GB.

now, why did hitler start "barbarossa" anyway? oh, its wiki again:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov#Publications_and_ideas
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Präventivkriegsthese

I bet the Danes & Norwegians were so thankful !!
The Nazi's were just so helpful !!

ask danes or norwegians, who already lived in that time. or read historic papers if they either prefered german or british occupation...

And finally do you really think quoting "wiki" anything lends any support to your theories?

i could not care less.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 16 years ago

As for using "wiki" as a source of reliable information you state:

"i could not care less"

I believe you.

Your a Nazi apologist.

[–] tardezyx 16 years ago

"i could not care less"

aye, as long as you've not quoted one single source in the whole discussion.

Your a Nazi apologist.

is that your argumentation? ridiculous. you start boring me.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] NoRevisionism 16 years ago

My source is accepted historic fact not a revisionist political agenda such as yours.

You've spent your last intellectual bullet - now go away.

[–] nowlang 16 years ago

LordTarbos,

Very good discussion and very well stated and outstanding rhetoric! Tell me, what nationality are you?
I am a Naval Officer (retired) and learned (or deducted) from studies at the war college that as you said, the Axis was beaten and Hiroshima/Nakasaki could have been spared the atomic holocaust. On the other hand, GEN LeMay was "conventionally" burning one Japanese city after another and in some cases causing more casualties (slow death from burning injuries) than instant atomic vaporization (radiation casualties notwithstanding).
I fully agree with you, all humans are equal and share parents, friends, longing for love, ... As such, they are equals and one is not valued more than foreigners whether German, Russian or Iraqi...
I was impressed by your comments,
Thank you
Lancelot

[–] tardezyx 16 years ago

lancelot,

nice to hear that there are others who know that there are no such differences we are supposed to believe in. in fact, i can not grasp the sense in killing someone i do not even know.

i appreciated your post and to answer your question: im german.

- AC /.

the human mind is vacant and will be filled with hate, rejection and envy. thats why there is war.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andrew-jones5 18 years ago

Most of that is wise after the event twaddle.

A war crime? the act its self was a crime, In the context of the war no.

In your rush to win this argument you mkae a number od insulting surgestions and errors. And some have absured idea.

'Work is the curse of the drinking classes' Oscar Wilde

[–] mattywray99 18 years ago

In my opinion Dresden was a ligitimate Target as the Germans had bombed Coventry (a historic city) we retaliated by bombing Dresden, German bombers bombed Hull Sheffield and London every night at the height of the Blitz trying to terrorise the British people, arguing that dresdon was not a Legitimate Military target is Like Saying the Lancaster was not the most succesful bomber of the second world war because there were german soldiers in Dresden making it under the Geneva convention a legitimate target and also saying it was mass murder is wrong becausedeath is a consiquenceof war, at war and people caught in a bombing raid knew they would die, i mean you put yourself in the positionof someone whose leader and henchmmen are perverted and psycho, whose army is in retreat, whose airforce is being destroyed and whose navy has failed in its task

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LookinGood 17 years ago

"as the Germans had bombed Coventry (a historic city) we retaliated by bombing Dresden,"

Uh, I think you got your timeline in a knot there. Coventry has nothing to do with Dresden, militarily, or otherwise. The bombings were separated by more than four years (Nov. 1940 and Feb. 1945).
The only thing connecting these cities is that they both have become a symbol of the terrors of war. They are twinned since 1959 (which was in the middle of the Cold War).
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters."

[–] crissttigaldames 17 years ago

Incredible that some people here can really say that what the allies did in Dresden (and in all of Germany) was a lagitimate military objective.
Someone can only think that if they think what Norevisionism thinks: that ALL CIVILIANS are legitimate military objectives in a war. Which is such a sick idea that I almost don't know what to say. Just that little kids, babys even, are to that sort of people "legitimate objectives". Not to mention that that goes against all international treaties and human rights principles.

And the argument that "well, Germany started the war" is comepletly absurd. First, because it has NOTHING to do with the subject, and second because considering that the war was a result mainly of the Versailles Treaty, and that was mainly France's responsability...
Anyway, it's a gross generalization. The little kids who were in Dresden did not begin the war, did they?.

I used to be a big fan of Winston Churchill, until I learned about all of this (and that was years ago). He is only an example of the manipulation of History. He was a was criminal.

"The Love you take is equal to the Love you make" The Beatles.

[–] wrongshui 17 years ago

Karma sucks balls.

[–] Jack Doyle 17 years ago

this here is what goes around (trying to conquer the world) and this is what comes around (having your sky blotted out with thousand of bombers)

you reap what you sow

[–] crissttigaldames 17 years ago

No, it isn't what "comes around". Those bombs didn't simple fell. They were thrown by pilots, of an army, of a county, ordered by someone, who didn't care about human life. It was a war-crime. No one was judged, and we're having this argument because the allies won the war. It is that simple.

"The Love you take is equal to the Love you make" The Beatles.

[–] Jack Doyle 16 years ago

no it wasn't a war crime, it was justice, and if killing a thousand or a million germans saved one jew, one allied soldier, one resistance fighter it was worth it, if you stand up with evil then you get what you deserve.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nowlang 16 years ago

Hi,
Sorry to join this late.
I read your comments about the cause of WWII i.e. Versailles and the French and I think that this is not true.
Versaille was the location where the treaty marking the end of WWI hostilities was signed, it involved Germany and it's allies (Austria, Hungary,...) and the Western allies (France, British Commonwealth (Canada, Australia,...), US,... There was more animosity between France and Germany because most of the Western Front of WWI took place on the French soil and that part of the country was completely leveled by trench warfare. Germany was left intact from the actual destruction (they suffered tremenduously from the loss of life and British blocade). Germany was stripped of it's colonies and lost a substantial amount of territory in the buffer region between the two countries - Understand that borders then were somewhat flexible and changed according to the social-political breeze of the day. Most people in the buffer zone spoke both French and German plus had loyalties to both countries.
The world was in crisis and many countries including Germany suffered tremenduously from the Depression, the stage was set for extreme political parties and fostered the rise of fascism.
Churchill, who had suffered a great blow to his leadership in WW I was what England needed to stop Hitler and eventually slow Stalin. He warned the Americans (but was pushed aside) about Stalin and the eventual birth of the Cold War.
Bottom line, Hitler had broken so many promises that by the time he invaded Poland, a sovereign country, France and England had no other choice but to stand up to him. Hitler had to be stopped and understood nothing other than bare force, meaning war.
Thank you,
Lancelot