NationStates Jolt Archive

IIRC, there was a large railroad marshalling yard there, which was vital not only for German communications, but was also used to transport Jews to the death chambers and concentration camps (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jjlace/part17.html).

Since the Allies at this point leveled most other major German cities (Leipzig, Berlin, etc.), the only real target left was Dresden and its railroad.

Really, I don't understand what was so bad about it. The Luftwaffe was the first to conduct mass bombings of civilian populations anyways, and yet they don't receive nearly as much flak for the Blitz as the AAC did for Dresden.

IIRC, there was a large railroad marshalling yard there, which was vital not only for German communications, but was also used to transport Jews to the death chambers and concentration camps (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jjlace/part17.html).

Since the Allies at this point leveled most other major German cities (Leipzig, Berlin, etc.), the only real target left was Dresden and its railroad.

Really, I don't understand what was so bad about it. The Luftwaffe was the first to conduct mass bombings of civilian populations anyways, and yet they don't receive nearly as much flak for the Blitz as the AAC did for Dresden.

The bombing of any civilian population is "a bad thing," whether Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Lenningrad, London, Paris, on and on. As a matter of fact, war itself is "a bad thing," which is all the more reason to be well-prepared to fight.

It was sustained firebombing. Initially the bombing was justifiable, but it got far too excessive.

It was sustained firebombing. Initially the bombing was justifiable, but it got far too excessive.

Yes. It seems to have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire for revenge.

Dresden harbored (estimated) some 650.000-1.3 million people during the end of WW2. As the Red Army advanced from the East, refugees in Dresden thought it was a safe heaven, which turned out to be a grave mistake. The city was completely destroyed (just like Hamburg) and Dresden had no strategical importance whatsoever. The war was already over in Feburary 1945, so why it happened at all, I have no idea. I assume it was some sort of revenge. Nothing else can explain the ruthless murder of tens of thousands of civilians. Even if Dresden had a strategical importance, the indiscriminate firebombing of civilian targets is a war crime and in the case of Dresden, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was of epic proportions.

Dresden harbored (estimated) some 650.000-1.3 million people during the end of WW2. As the Red Army advanced from the East, refugees in Dresden thought it was a safe heaven, which turned out to be a grave mistake. The city was completely destroyed (just like Hamburg) and Dresden had no strategical importance whatsoever. The war was already over in Feburary 1945, so why it happened at all, I have no idea. I assume it was some sort of revenge. Nothing else can explain the ruthless murder of tens of thousands of civilians. Even if Dresden had a strategical importance, the indiscriminate firebombing of civilian targets is a war crime and in the case of Dresden, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was of epic proportions.

there was a need for dresden to be bombed, it was a major manufacturing center and basicly held up what was left of the eastern front. The issue is what parts of dresden that were bombed didn't have most of the factorys. Read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747570787/pd_ka_0/202-6848589-2803025) book, i found it incredible.

there was a need for dresden to be bombed, it was a major manufacturing center and basicly held up what was left of the eastern front. The issue is what parts of dresden that were bombed didn't have most of the factorys. Read this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747570787/pd_ka_0/202-6848589-2803025) book, i found it incredible.

There's no question that the initial bombing was a justifiable military action, but it went too far.

Killing people is not moral. I don't see how you could pretend it is.

Bombs suck. They rip people from their loved ones, widow men and women, orphan children, tear souls violently from their physical bodies before their time, and generally cause death and despair all round.
War murders the innocent.
You cannot deny that fact.

Killing people is not moral. I don't see how you could pretend it is.

So what should the world have done when Nazi Germany started conquering their neighbors? Held a peaceful protest and politely asked them to stop?

-snip-
Seeing how you live in Dresden (so says your profile), I was definitely expecting you to post here.

Indeed, fire-bombing Dresden was terrible. Speaking of which, anybody else here read Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut?

Well I don't need to read a book. I got a grandmother and a grandfather who lived through it, barely. They have first hand info :)

There was no need to bomb Dresden. And it sure wasn't for military reasons. It was because they knew that the city was swamped with refugees. So it would make an easy target. Having no defences what so ever. The Allies, Churchill specificly, always targeted the civilian population on purpose. It wasn't any different in Dresden. And while the bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe are condemend as warcrimes I still have to see someone say the same about the Allied bombing campaign. Which killed 10 times more civilians then the Luftwaffe campaign. From 1944 to 1945 more German civilians where killed through bombing then in the 4 years before put together.

So what should the world have done when Nazi Germany started conquering their neighbors? Held a peaceful protest and politely asked them to stop?

The idea that war is wrong applies to everyone. Germany shouldn't have started the war.

The idea that war is wrong applies to everyone. Germany shouldn't have started the war.
Exactly - if there's one thing about I've learned about war, it's that all the sides, regardless of being "good" or "bad," will commit atrocities.

The Americans, British and Germans all had the bombing of civilian populations for the purposes of demoralisation of the enemy, as an openly-stated strategy, which was given a high priority. The public, in these countries, broadly supported this. Indeed, after the German bombing of Coventry early in the war, resulting in heavy civilian loss of life, there were calls for revenge along similar lines.

Today, these acts are considered war crimes, but were deemed acceptable then. Applying modern standards of morality to those events leads to a flawed analysis. For example, to point at the presence of infrastructure for the transportation of slave labourers as a justification for the bombing of Dresden, is revisionist thinking. That was never the justification then. The justification then (openly stated) was that large numbers of enemy civilians dying would undermine the enemy's morale and war effort.

The idea that war is wrong applies to everyone. Germany shouldn't have started the war.

But they did. How were the allies supposed to respond?

Dresden harbored (estimated) some 650.000-1.3 million people during the end of WW2. As the Red Army advanced from the East, refugees in Dresden thought it was a safe heaven, which turned out to be a grave mistake. The city was completely destroyed (just like Hamburg) and Dresden had no strategical importance whatsoever. The war was already over in Feburary 1945, so why it happened at all, I have no idea. I assume it was some sort of revenge. Nothing else can explain the ruthless murder of tens of thousands of civilians. Even if Dresden had a strategical importance, the indiscriminate firebombing of civilian targets is a war crime and in the case of Dresden, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was of epic proportions.

It did have a strategic value. Like I said in the first post, there was a railroad marshalling yard that was important for German communications.

While yes, the death of civilians/refugees was deplorable, the Allies had little choice in the matter.

There was no need to bomb Dresden. And it sure wasn't for military reasons. It was because they knew that the city was swamped with refugees. So it would make an easy target. Having no defences what so ever. The Allies, Churchill specificly, always targeted the civilian population on purpose. It wasn't any different in Dresden. And while the bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe are condemend as warcrimes I still have to see someone say the same about the Allied bombing campaign. Which killed 10 times more civilians then the Luftwaffe campaign. From 1944 to 1945 more German civilians where killed through bombing then in the 4 years before put together.

Please, read the first post.

There was a railroad yard that was highly important to Nazi communications.

Yes, the deaths of civilians in war is sad, but it is inevitable when large groups of noncombatants reside near targets of strategic value (Ploiesti, Hamburg, Berlin, etc.)

Please, read the first post.

There was a railroad yard that was highly important to Nazi communications.

Yes, the deaths of civilians in war is sad, but it is inevitable when large groups of noncombatants reside near targets of strategic value (Ploiesti, Hamburg, Berlin, etc.)
Communications with what?

As long as people cannot separate in their minds, the modern-day politically-correct justification for an act, from the actual reasons something was done at the time, this discussion, and countless others all over the world, will be full of people talking ----.

If it makes people feel better about their country, believing that something in history was justified because of x, fine. But don't try to rewrite the history of those who actually did it, for other motives.

So what should the world have done when Nazi Germany started conquering their neighbors? Held a peaceful protest and politely asked them to stop?
Or just ignore it like the Europeons tend to do when people are slaughtered, then protes America when they try to clean up Europes messes.

Communications with what?

Primarily for actions on the Eastern Front with Russia, and as a secondary priority, to coordinate the shipments of Jews for the Final Solution.

Look, I'm not saying that the deaths of all those civilians was a good thing. All I'm saying is, that Dresden wasn't a horrible war crime that most history books makes it out to be.

ive never been able to get through my head why it was so horrible to bomb dresden given what the germans had already done in ww2.

it was an horrific event. no doubt about that. many many civilians were killed. i just don't see why we should hang our heads in shame when the germans did the same thing over and over.

im not saying im RIGHT. im saying i just dont see why im wrong.

Primarily for actions on the Eastern Front with Russia, and as a secondary priority, to coordinate the shipments of Jews for the Final Solution.
You do realise that the death camps by that time were already occupied by the Soviets and the Western Allies do you?

All I'm saying is, that Dresden wasn't a horrible war crime that most history books makes it out to be.
I read a history book or 2 in my time. And in non of those the Dresden bombing was considerd a warcrime. As opposed to the Luftwaffe bombings. Which by the way didn't even had half the death tole that the Allied campaign had.

ive never been able to get through my head why it was so horrible to bomb dresden given what the germans had already done in ww2.

it was an horrific event. no doubt about that. many many civilians were killed. i just don't see why we should hang our heads in shame when the germans did the same thing over and over.

im not saying im RIGHT. im saying i just dont see why im wrong.
Those who say it is not wrong are wrong. There is nobody defending the bombings Germany did in that war, those were just as much wrong. But the bombing of Dresden, especially in February 1945 when the war was largely already over, was unneccessary and history has long since shown that neither was Germany solely responsible for the war nor was the bombing justified. Germany and Japan comitted war crimes just as much as the Americans/Britains/French/Russians. In world war 2, nobody was innocent and two wrongs never make a right neither do countrys collect "suffering points" to use up for revenge. This is the exact same argumentation why the "war" between Israel and Palestine has been going on for ages now.

Seeing how you live in Dresden (so says your profile), I was definitely expecting you to post here.

Indeed, fire-bombing Dresden was terrible. Speaking of which, anybody else here read Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut?


Yeah, strange but good.

WHY MUST WE HAVE WAR?!? WHY IS THERE NOT PEACE?!? DEAR GOD, WHY?!?!?


*sigh*

*grumble* because fighting is a part of the human psyche and battling unleashes and satisfies our inner need for combat...

(I should know-- I once participated in a free-form, grudgeless wrestling tournament at a camp for girls and it felt damn good to fight)

I have no inner "need" for combat or "need" to kill other human beings. Speak for yourself.

I dont usually give this type of answer, but....

Anyone who thinks that the Bombing od Dresden was justified, or even "Not so bad"....


Is an idiot, whos just trying to stir things up.

The word "war crime" always seemed odd to me. I've always felt war itself is a crime. Whether you shoot or burn with flamethrowers or blow to pieces with grenades or unleash bubonic plague on or nuke or use nerve gas or fire bombs filled with poisonous spiders...the fact remains that they are still dead.

You can't justify war by "cleaning it up".

War is full of atrocities left and right, some worse than others. I think when anyone kills someone randomly in combat, it is an atrocity. When someone murders civilians outside of the war campaign, that is a worse atrocity. When prisoners are tortured and killed, that is even a worse atrocity.

So what do you do if another country attacks you? Well, you must defend yourself, but that doesn't make the war justified. Only necessary.

I may be mincing words here, but I've come across enough people who say things like "Our country was going soft from not having a war for too long" or "We should attack any country we think might be a threat" and so on...

When it comes to how a war is conducted, I find it vaguely humorous that we try to civilize the mass killing of humans, like in the old days when the opposing generals would have tea the day before the battle.

The winners write the rules, and determine what "war crimes" are and aren't.

I have no inner "need" for combat or "need" to kill other human beings. Speak for yourself.

Well said.

Let me first state, to avoid misunderstanding, that Hitler is on the very top of my list of ppl the world could have done without.
But until I turned sixteen (long ago) my view, as tutored by school, were that all germans in ww2 were swines and the allies were knights in shining armour. Then a teacher took two hours to depict the Dresden bombing, in detail. Not as a "look what the allies did", but as a picture of the human capability of destruction. My world came tumbling down as I grew up very fast, realising that there exists no such thing as a clear cut case.
I am grateful to that teacher, that gave my world colours rather than just black and white.
I said that I would, at the time, have been hard pressed to second-guess the decision to bomb Dresden - as ppl here have said, there was a war going on. But look at it from a distance and you'll see that while there were military targets in Dresden, at that moment and under the circumstances that was almost an afterthought.

Later, I also found evidence and documentation about the targets like lamp factory and sigarette factory (boosts the soldiers morale) and the hoax (lie) about the importance of the railroad (wich wasn't a real target and allready in use in 24h after the massacre). I also read the German police report about he victims and for them (most acurate source) it was between 65.000 and 87.000 people. Millitary loses were about 90 persons, the rest were POW and civilians. Lot's of policemen, firemen died to while doing there job. Most Dresden clinics were completely destroyed to wich gave a number of (only in the hospitals) about 1900 registred dead women and babies.

It is not without merit to say that the Dresden-bombing came to be because of political rather than military considerations, just as there are indications that the second A-bomb were dropped more to try the PU-type too, and to make the russians believe there were plenty of them.
It is up to each to decide if political motives for bombing Dresden is morally acceptable or not - for me the answer is not.

Just my two cents


PS Oh yes, BTW, the flames from Dresden were visible from the south of Sweden, imagine that...

Yep, people *still* rewriting history.

Let me state things more simply.

AT THE TIME the justification for bombing Dresden (and many other cities in Britain, Germany and Japan) was that killing large numbers of civilians would undermine public morale and damage the enemy's war effort.

TODAY people are unwilling to accept that their side set out on that policy with that purpose in mind, because moral standards have changed, and so justify it by saying that the bombing happened in order to save Jews, or disrupt communications, or other BS.

Erm, no. Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris for example, explicitly stated that the goal of his air raid strategy was first and foremost to inflict large numbers of civilian casualties. I really doubt he gave a damn about railroads or jews.

TODAY people are unwilling to accept that their side set out on that policy with that purpose in mind, because moral standards have changed, and so justify it by saying that the bombing happened in order to save Jews, or disrupt communications, or other BS.

Erm, no. Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris for example, explicitly stated that the goal of his air raid strategy was first and foremost to inflict large numbers of civilian casualties. I really doubt he gave a damn about railroads or jews.


Can't agree more because it is the truth. Bomber Harris stated himself that his main target were the Germans civilians "to break morale". :rolleyes: In fact bombing civilians just had the same result as the people that died from Luftwaffe airraids (but still very few compared to the German numbers) in our countries.

Really, I don't understand what was so bad about it. The Luftwaffe was the first to conduct mass bombings of civilian populations anyways, and yet they don't receive nearly as much flak for the Blitz as the AAC did for Dresden.

If every human would act on 'an eye for an eye' then the world would be gone already, starting with a nuke on the USA because they got nuked by Japan. Reference: mafia / gang / clan wars.

The firebombing of Dresden was mainly a fear tactic, to try and kill the germans out of the war. They burned down some nice old Lutheran Cathedrals as well, which many in my church seem to resent.

I find nothing wrong with it myself. It seems like most of those living in Germany were indoctrinated, voted the Nazis into the Reichstag, and enthusiastically supported the "Final Solution". Such a population was beyond a cure short of decimation or annihilation. Dresden was really, in terms of foreign policy, an amputation. The symptoms were made better, and the disease was closer to being cured. Of course, the Germans never did completely recover until about twenty years ago.

I find nothing wrong with it myself. It seems like most of those living in Germany were indoctrinated.

So if i find that those who live in the same country as you do are indoctrinated i may somehow bomb a city in that country? Well, thats unfortunate, because i do think you are indoctrinated.

So if i find that those who live in the same country as you do are indoctrinated i may somehow bomb a city in that country? Well, thats unfortunate, because i do think you are indoctrinated.
Oh, really? Do we have statues of some Orwelian dictator everywhere? Do we attend rallies because we are forced to? And finally, do we want to kill everyone who isn't American? The Germans were bent on killing all non-Germans. Jews were just first because they were the most politically feasible.

Oh, really? Do we have statues of some Orwelian dictator everywhere? Do we attend rallies because we are forced to? And finally, do we want to kill everyone who isn't American? The Germans were bent on killing all non-Germans. Jews were just first because they were the most politically feasible.

Sorry, you didn't understood what i meant to imply by stating that. I'm not saying the USA is the 'Third Reich'. My post has the intention it had though: you're starting to take a more pragmatic point of view already. In the previous post you said indoctrination. Now you give examples of indoctrination, and quite extreme examples of indoctrination: 1) statues 2) forced to do things 3) ethnic / religious holocaust.

Have you ever looked indoctrination from a different point of view, with self-reflection and self-criticism as to you and your government? Perhaps the flag is a way to indoctrinate, one-liners like 'god bless america', statue of liberty. But i have more concrete ones: the threat of terrorists. Is it really such a threat? Well in the aspect of Iraq, it wasn't. That's what the comission investigated, and concluded it wasn't. According to this investigation the CIA indoctrinated the Bush administration. The Bush administration indoctrinated the people of the USA. A lot of people believed it; they were indoctrinated. But it goes far more realistic. If look at to how you are raised, you tell me: How often did you have to do things while you had no choice?

I'm Dutch, and i tell you, i'm indoctrinated. Its not hard to admit, i'm not proud of it, its the blatant truth though. And, i am able to give you examples of that -- if you want.

Sorry, you didn't understood what i meant to imply by stating that. I'm not saying the USA is the 'Third Reich'. My post has the intention it had though: you're starting to take a more pragmatic point of view already. In the previous post you said indoctrination. Now you give examples of indoctrination, and quite extreme examples of indoctrination: 1) statues 2) forced to do things 3) ethnic / religious holocaust.

Have you ever looked indoctrination from a different point of view, with self-reflection and self-criticism as to you and your government? Perhaps the flag is a way to indoctrinate, one-liners like 'god bless america', statue of liberty. But i have more concrete ones: the threat of terrorists. Is it really such a threat? Well in the aspect of Iraq, it wasn't. That's what the comission investigated, and concluded it wasn't. According to this investigation the CIA indoctrinated the Bush administration. The Bush administration indoctrinated the people of the USA. A lot of people believed it; they were indoctrinated. But it goes far more realistic. If look at to how you are raised, you tell me: How often did you have to do things while you had no choice?

I'm Dutch, and i tell you, i'm indoctrinated. Its not hard to admit, i'm not proud of it, its the blatant truth though. And, i am able to give you examples of that -- if you want.
No thank you. And yes, we are all indoctrinated to one extent or another. But the term "indoctrination" is generally used only in the extreme cases, as I've mentioned above.

It did have a strategic value. Like I said in the first post, there was a railroad marshalling yard that was important for German communications.

While yes, the death of civilians/refugees was deplorable, the Allies had little choice in the matter.

Let's assume that the Railroad was of vital importance (though one can't help wonder why it was for communications. I was under the impression that they had telephones back then).
This still doesn't explain the massive use of firebombs on the civilian areas of the city. Why use firebombs? Surely normal ordinance directed at the railway target would have been effective. How was using firebombs over parts of the city nowhere near the 'strategic' target valid?
Why was firebombing those non-strategic parts necessary and why did the Allies have no choice but to do this?

Yes, yes, there was infrastructure there. However, do you need to level the city to get rid of one facility? I can't imagine one needing to.

No thank you. And yes, we are all indoctrinated to one extent or another. But the term "indoctrination" is generally used only in the extreme cases, as I've mentioned above.

Problem is, where do you draw the line? With your point, you say that if you find one has 'extreme indoctrination', there is no problem bombing them. Who decides the definition 'extreme indoctrination'? The 'slightly indoctrinated'? Can't we better decide on other merits than (extreme) indoctrination?

Really, I don't understand what was so bad about it. The Luftwaffe was the first to conduct mass bombings of civilian populations anyways, and yet they don't receive nearly as much flak for the Blitz as the AAC did for Dresden.

That's because Dresden was the first attack of the war that was entirely targetting of citizens rather than being collateral damage.

The Dresden bombings were to try and end the BofB (by having the luftwaffe switch from military to civillian targets) because the British were going to lose and Operation Sea Lion would have ended the war for England.

The ends really do justify the means in wars of survival, had the Dresden bombings not taken place, the Battle of Britain would have ended in Luftwaffe victory, England would have fallen, so the American entry would have only occured in the pacific theatre, the Soviets would have been left to fight alone, and they and the rest would be history....

Problem is, where do you draw the line? With your point, you say that if you find one has 'extreme indoctrination', there is no problem bombing them. Who decides the definition 'extreme indoctrination'? The 'slightly indoctrinated'? Can't we better decide on other merits than (extreme) indoctrination?
Oh they were showing more than indoctrination. They didn't bother hiding the fact that their conquest was as much about blood as about anything else. They were quite a hateful society. The Japanese were there, too, and the Soviets were extremely close, and were saved, more or less, by being on the Allied side of WWII, and the death of Stalin. In short, Germany was the host of a virus, and it was about to spread like wildfire. There was only one solution after appeasement: eradication of this virus.

That's because Dresden was the first attack of the war that was entirely targetting of citizens rather than being collateral damage.

The Dresden bombings were to try and end the BofB (by having the luftwaffe switch from military to civillian targets) because the British were going to lose and Operation Sea Lion would have ended the war for England.

The ends really do justify the means in wars of survival, had the Dresden bombings not taken place, the Battle of Britain would have ended in Luftwaffe victory, England would have fallen, so the American entry would have only occured in the pacific theatre, the Soviets would have been left to fight alone, and they and the rest would be history....

where to start...

First of all, the Battle of Britian was from August - October 1940, with night bombing of London and other targets (including Coventry which was very nearly levelled) until May 1941

Dresden was bombed in February 1945, over two days and two nights and essentially burned to the ground with an unknown but estimated 60,000 deaths. More than the entire London Blitz and close to the entire number of Londoners killed during the entire war.

The first bombing of a major city in World War 2 with the aim of frightening civilians into surrender or collapse was in September 1939 (poor Warsaw)

the last city bombed in World War 2 was Tokyo (August 13, 1945)

The following cities were essentially destroyed by bombing alone during the war... evey Japanese city over 50,000, most German cities of that number

although Stalingrad the day before that epic battle began lost about 30,000 or more civilians in a fire raid by the Luftwaffe, London took very heavy damage, and several other English cities, plus Rotterdam in 1940, took heavy damage.

The British and Americans were much better at destroying cities than the Axis, better airplanes, bigger airplanes, more tonnage per trip and more effort focused... in their defense, they thought they could shorten the war by breaking Axis morale, or at the very least, generate an industrial and economic collapse

Didn't work

Although it did draw off critical amounts of German resources, severely reduced German industrial growth (which kept pace of the bombing but didnt take off like it could have.... check a kinds of references on this, and the bottom line is that bombing did shorten the war, just not the way the planners hoped)

But Dresden was probably, in HINDSIGHT, unnecessary. It was not an important part of the German economy, it just hadn't been bombed yet. Churchill himself, and his principal subordinate, CINC of the RAF Portal, ordered all heavy bombing halted when the effects became apparent. (although it really wasn't necessary anymore anyway)

A couple of reliable historians believe that among the other reasons, Harris wanted to keep his bombers under his control and out of Eisenhowers (who had grabbed them number of times before)

Interservice rivalries have a long and sad history

And Dresden wasn't even as bad as some of the losses Japanese cities took (Tokyo lost 130,000 people in one night around the same time to US Bombing)

there is NO CREDITABLE EVIDENCE that it was a plot to scare the Soviets, or kill a maximum number of Germans or what have you (although Harris was a rather bloodthirsty type at times, so maybe HE didn't mind a few more dead Germans)

While Dresden was being leveled, an estimated 3 million Germans, unknown numbers of others (at least another million or more) were in full flight from the vengeful Red Army overrunning East Prussia and southeastern Germany. Death toll may be as high as a million.

From January 1944 - August 1945 1 MILLION people died each month during World War 2

Dresden was just a sympton of the horror

Oh they were showing more than indoctrination. They didn't bother hiding the fact that their conquest was as much about blood as about anything else. They were quite a hateful society. The Japanese were there, too, and the Soviets were extremely close, and were saved, more or less, by being on the Allied side of WWII, and the death of Stalin. In short, Germany was the host of a virus, and it was about to spread like wildfire. There was only one solution after appeasement: eradication of this virus.

To me, the most disturbing component of both the Holocaust, and the Gulag Archipilego (soviet) is how regular middle class type civil servants went along with it to improve their careers. Scary how seductive evil can be.

Oh they were showing more than indoctrination.

What's the definition of what they were showingwhich makes you believe the action of murdering innocent civilians is justified?

In short, Germany was the host of a virus, and it was about to spread like wildfire. There was only one solution after appeasement: eradication of this virus.

What kind of virus? 8/10 of US and 1/3 of UK people are hosting a parasite which affects their ability to react... doesn't say very much either... ;)

ah, my mistake, mistaked the terror bombing that shifted the BoFB campaign which was the first case of "terror" bombing between the major powers.

war itself is "a bad thing,"
Right here you almost lost me.


which is all the more reason to be well-prepared to fight.
And then here you hit a home run.

Oh they were showing more than indoctrination. They didn't bother hiding the fact that their conquest was as much about blood as about anything else. They were quite a hateful society. The Japanese were there, too, and the Soviets were extremely close, and were saved, more or less, by being on the Allied side of WWII, and the death of Stalin. In short, Germany was the host of a virus, and it was about to spread like wildfire. There was only one solution after appeasement: eradication of this virus.
Do you honestly think that the entire German society was as Hitler?

Do you honestly think that the entire German society was as Hitler?

No, Not ALL Germans were evil. The bomb plot if nothing else proved otherwise.

A wise man (I regret I forget who exactly) once said that for evil to triumph good men need but stand aside.

Too many Germans stood aside. Too many took civil service jobs in the SS, Gestapo, Organization Todt, etc...

Too many valued their careers over what was right.

But so did many Soviets, and people like them are everywhere, including places like the US and Britain and other places.

We just have to make sure we don't stand aside

Look at the bright side, an advisor of Roosevelt seriously recommended that ALL industry in Germany be stripped and it be made an agricultural country, and if Germans starved to death, they deserved it. This was after the first camps were found.

Fortunately for everyone, including the United States and Germany his advice was overruled.

[...]

A wise man (I regret I forget who exactly) once said that for evil to triumph good men need but stand aside.

[...]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke, English philosopher

Too many took civil service jobs in the SS, Gestapo, Organization Todt, etc...

Too many valued their careers over what was right.

On a second note, i find this too simple. If you consider the circumstances it wasn't just this. It started far before 'SS' or 'Gestapo'. It even started before Hitler became a dictator, and it might happen again at your country before or without being a dictatorship...

Also, there are [known] examples of 'good' Germans in WOII, like Schindler.

It had to be done. The Germans indiscriminantly bombed London and murdered millions of civilians for mere fun. They needed to be taught a lesson. I also think it is wrong to apply today's morality to the situation of WWII. In a total war where your civilians are being bombed I would expect my government to release the dogs of war and get revenge.

Gigatron posted this in the 9/11 thread:


"9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world."

Let's change 9/11 to Dresden and Americans to Germans shall we and see what he says.

It had to be done. The Germans indiscriminantly bombed London and murdered millions of civilians for mere fun. They needed to be taught a lesson. I also think it is wrong to apply today's morality to the situation of WWII. In a total war where your civilians are being bombed I would expect my government to release the dogs of war and get revenge.
Were the German citizens the ones who ordered London bombed? As I recall, that was their government, not the innocent civilians.

It had to be done. The Germans indiscriminantly bombed London and murdered millions of civilians for mere fun. They needed to be taught a lesson. I also think it is wrong to apply today's morality to the situation of WWII. In a total war where your civilians are being bombed I would expect my government to release the dogs of war and get revenge.

As posted above: the battle for brittain happened 2, 3 years before that in '42 with turning point in '43. The bombing of Dresden happened in '45.

Anyway, according to you, if i hit you, you have the right to hit me back? Don't you think Japan have the right to nuke the US? Are you aware WOII was partly (note how other reasons existed too, such as bad economy) a revenge to the burdens of WOI, which were all put upon Germany?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke, English philosopher

"The greatest evil of mankind is indifference. The opposite of love is not hate. It is not caring. the opposite of good is not evil, but indifference to good and evil. the opposite of right is not wrong, but an indifference to right and wrong." - Eli Weisel

what was wrong with the dresden bombing was very simple: it was the killing of civilians with overwhelming force. thousands of people were burned alive, crushed, and died of smoke inhalation. it's the same thing that's wrong with hiroshima and nagasaki, with guernica, with the carpetbombing of baghdad, with the bombing of london, and with the allied bombing of towns in occupied france, or the napalming, defoliation, and bombing of vietnam.

it's wrong because people fucking died, and it was initiated by those who could abstract the damage they were inflicting into calculations and strategy and psychological impact and shock and awe, and could ignore the real visceral effects of their actions, and could pretend that every last person they killed was not a person, but an enemy, or at worst an unfortunate byproduct of war.

it's wrong because if you died like that, your family would know it was wrong.

On a second note, i find this too simple. If you consider the circumstances it wasn't just this. It started far before 'SS' or 'Gestapo'. It even started before Hitler became a dictator, and it might happen again at your country before or without being a dictatorship...

Also, there are [known] examples of 'good' Germans in WOII, like Schindler.

I mentioned them (at least the Bomb Plot men)

and yes, it could happen just about anywhere if we aren't careful

"The greatest evil of mankind is indifference. The opposite of love is not hate. It is not caring. the opposite of good is not evil, but indifference to good and evil. the opposite of right is not wrong, but an indifference to right and wrong." - Eli Weisel

what was wrong with the dresden bombing was very simple: it was the killing of civilians with overwhelming force. thousands of people were burned alive, crushed, and died of smoke inhalation. it's the same thing that's wrong with hiroshima and nagasaki, with guernica, with the carpetbombing of baghdad, with the bombing of london, and with the allied bombing of towns in occupied france, or the napalming, defoliation, and bombing of vietnam.

it's wrong because people fucking died, and it was initiated by those who could abstract the damage they were inflicting into calculations and strategy and psychological impact and shock and awe, and could ignore the real visceral effects of their actions, and could pretend that every last person they killed was not a person, but an enemy, or at worst an unfortunate byproduct of war.

it's wrong because if you died like that, your family would know it was wrong.

you do know Eli Weisel survived Auschwitz right?

umm, there has not been a carpet bombing of Baghdad or any other civilian city since the Korean War (Pyongyang got the last one)

of course war is wrong

but sometimes its the only way to the greater good or to prevent a lesser evil

just think how many people would have lived if we had simply surrendered to Hitler or Stalin

until one of them (either will do) had them shot or gassed

By the way, carpet bombing is when a flight or more of bombers drop sufficient bombs to totally destroy ALL structures in a given area. Last used against the Republican Guard in the First Gulf War, not used on civilian cities since the Korean War.

A three plane flight of B52s in the Vietnam war or the First Gulf War would literally kill EVERYTHING in a mile radius of the strike.

That is carpet bombing.

Precision air strikes (well, relatively precise) against specific targets on NOT the same as carpetbombing. The occasional (and almost always accidental) bomb hitting an innocent civilians house are tragedies, wrong and horrific.

But not intended. Intentions make all the difference

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke, English philosopher

thanks by the way for finding the accurate quote. It deserves to be remembered accurately.

"The greatest evil of mankind is indifference. The opposite of love is not hate. It is not caring. the opposite of good is not evil, but indifference to good and evil. the opposite of right is not wrong, but an indifference to right and wrong." - Eli Weisel

Don't forget apathy. I looked for some 'apathy quotes'...

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." -- Montesquieu, French philosopher
"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." -- Robert Maynard Hutchins (post enlightenment)

There are some more, perhaps even better ones, but i'm lazy ;). Best quotes (and philosophic material) are to be found in the Age of Enlightenment IMO although i'm mostly aware of Europe-related quotes. Kant wrote some work related to this subject (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Belangrijkste_werken_online) as well.

This is a quote from a friend of mine. I love it.
I've been loving too much, caring too little -- TormentoR
...

(Perhaps i'm bluring the discusson a bit by now. Sorry :fluffle: :))

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

Check out this Wikipedia entry about Dresden. It's really good :)

Oh, really? Do we have statues of some Orwelian dictator everywhere? Do we attend rallies because we are forced to? And finally, do we want to kill everyone who isn't American?

Well you have a statue of "Adolf" Bomber Harris, he was worse the Reichsmarshall and has more blood on his hands then most top nazi's like Goering.

Having a statue for Harris is the same as having a statue for Goering (wich doesn't exist in a civilised naion).

Well you have a statue of "Adolf" Bomber Harris, he was worse the Reichsmarshall and has more blood on his hands then most top nazi's like Goering.

Having a statue for Harris is the same as having a statue for Goering (wich doesn't exist in a civilised naion).

fact:

Harris was an Air Marshal in the Royal Air Force (that is British), was not American, and was not given a knighthood after the war like practically every single other British commander of rank.

Guess the British were a little bothered by the blood too.

But all of the senior British and American Air Force officers were convinced that bombing would end the war sooner and therefore result in fewer deaths.

Didn't work out that way, but that is what they thought.

Evil actions done for noble reasons are still noble. If a million people have to die so that a billion live, you kill the million. It's still sad, but the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.

fact:

Harris was an Air Marshal in the Royal Air Force (that is British), was not American, and was not given a knighthood after the war like practically every single other British commander of rank.



That is not new for me so why do you post it? Guess that about 99% on NS knows his nationality.

What has the knighthood story to do with it , he still has his statue.

I've seen pictures of bodies shrunk by heat. They even fit in buckets.

That is not new for me so why do you post it? Guess that about 99% on NS knows his nationality.

What has the knighthood story to do with it , he still has his statue.

the implication based on the thread was that he was American for one thing

Not to sure about your percentages (he isn't exaclty a major figure in American high school history books for one thing, and many people here are American High School students)

and the rest of the statement was relevent (the part you didn't quote)

Dear God. Dear fucking God. It's horrible.

If I must say one thing, it is that I hate suffering.