What happened today February 13th, 64 years ago?
-
If the Germans didn't want their cities bombed they shouldn't have waged war in Europe, end of story.
They reaped what they sowed, like the atom bombs on Japan!
-
@petercharles said:
If the Germans didn't want their cities bombed they shouldn't have waged war in Europe, end of story.
Yeah, I was actually afraid of such responses.
IMO no nation or any civilian "deserves such a punishment". If you look at it like this, the allies were no better than the Nazis themselves at all.
@unknownuser said:
They reaped what they sowed, like the atom bombs on Japan!
Well, in this particular case the US "may" have had other reasons than just being as bestial as their current enemies were taken for: in February, 1945, the Allies met in Yalta and made a deal that 3 months after the end of the European war, the Soviet Union will declare war on Japan (note that until then they hadn't been at war!).
The European war ended on May 8/9 - the Americans dropped the bombs on August 6/9; exactly 3 months later. In the meanwhile, cold war already started to shape and the US obviously wanted to put an end on the Pacific war before the SU gains much space there.
Pure, "everyday" politics...
-
Hindsight is alway 20/20 and historical revisionism can be limitless.
The total civilian casualties as result of WWII was 41,753,400.
Of this number the total civilian casualties for the three major Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) was 2,265,100.
Thus the percentages of civilian death during WWII break down as:
Allied Civilian Deaths: 94.575%
Axis Civilian Deaths: 5.425%Conclusion: The Axis powers were responsible for almost 95% of civilian deaths or 39,488,300 civilians.
These numbers do not include concentration camp deaths or biological unit deaths. The final total of civilians deaths breaks down as:
Allied Civilian Deaths: 85%
Axis Civilian Deaths: 15%
-
@gaieus said:
@petercharles said:
If the Germans didn't want their cities bombed they shouldn't have waged war in Europe, end of story.
Yeah, I was actually afraid of such responses.
Stop hiding from the truth.
Too many people are trying to re-write history, overstating the deaths in Dresden, denying gas chambers in the death camps, etc, etc. -
I've also studied it and come to pretty much the same conclusion as the author on that blog. It's a given that the death of a single innocent civilian in war is a death too many. However, the best guestimate is around 25,000 casualties (London had 20,000...equally innocent), That is a very long way from half a million. The city council itself positively accounts for 18,000, but obviously one needs to add several thousand displaced persons on top of that. That posted flyer is blatant propaganda and is more than double the wildest overestimations that have ever been quoted. Also, it starts "The war is over, Germany has lost." That's complete BS. Britain was still under V1 and V2 attack for a full 6 weeks after Dresden. They only stopped then because the launch sites had been pushed so far back as to be out of range.
It's a myth that it was not strategic. It hadn't been particularly strategic, which is why it hadn't been bombed. However, the Russians pouring into East Prussia changed all that. Certainly it was a hub for the civilians fleeing from them, but it was also a hub for German forces moving to meet them. Also, because it hadn't been bombed at all...and no one thought it would be...it represented an entire city-full of buildings with roofs (something of a rarity by that stage) so was being used intensively for command centres, troop rest areas and the like. It was also an important railway hub, which is why the Russians asked specifically for the rail yards to be obliterated.
The RAF briefing immediately prior to the mission made much of these facts. It also hinted at a political reason...that it demonstrated just what combined British and US bombing could do. This wasn't meant so much as a message of "Shock and Awe" to the Germans, but was aimed at the Russians, just like the atomic bombs a few months later. In effect, it was saying "Don't think we will allow you to roll westwards indefinitely. If we can do this to the Germans, we can also do it to you."
It was a terrible event; and demonstrates just how helpless ordinary people become when caught up in a war. That's a rather good reason not to start one in the first place. It's a shame the recent encumbents of the chief political offices of the US and UK never learned that lesson.
-
Peter, does the fact that the nazis committed genocide on a huge scale give us the right to do it? No. Just because they waged war on us it doesnt then give us the right to bomb the cr*p out of them.
Obviously it may be necessary but that doesnt mean it is right.
-
My views are probably due to my age, being closer to the aftermath of the events, seeing city centres being rebuilt, rationing in the austerity of the post war period, knowing those who fought and lived, knowing relatives of those who fought and died. Had there not been so much misplaced pacifism in the '20's and '30's many countries who should have stood up to Germany earlier didn't because they couldn't. If they had, there would have been no '39-'45 war.
At school the question posed was "why do we study history" and answered with "to learn and not make the same mistakes again". The meek DO NOT inherit the earth, they are enslaved or die under the jackboot of the oppressor be that a German Nazi or a Russian Communist. Pacifism did not bring down the Berlin wall, only strong commitment NOT to be out gunned by Communist aggressors.
-
It wasn't genocide on the part of the Allies, Remus. That's a word that's bandied about far too readily these days, resulting in a dilation of what real genocide actually is. It was war; and sometimes horrible decisions have to be made...like the one to return thousands of White Russians to Stalin's tender mercy at the end of the war...to almost certain death. That bombing mission was just the latest in a long line and had perfectly valid strategic objectives. No, it wasn't 'right'; nothing in war is right in the normal measure of things.
Hindsight is easy. We know the Allies won, but that wasn't certain, even then. You have to remember that this was barely two weeks after the Battle of the Bulge...the bloodiest US engagement of the entire war. That German offensive came completely out of the blue. What other surprises did they have up their sleeve? The atomic bomb, maybe? Absolutely no one was in any mood to start soft-pedalling.
What would your reaction have been if the Allies had decided to ease off as the war seemed to be drawing to a conclusion...and then London or New York disappeared under a mushroom cloud? There was a very real fear of exactly that...German scientists hadn't been making heavy water in Norway just for the fun of it. It's never over till its over.
-
Hi Gus R
This is another one of those big issues that stirs deep emotions.
It used to be very simple. The Allies wore the good guy white hats and the Axis powers wore the bad guy black hats.
In total war crimes are committed by both sides because all that really matters in these circumstances is ensuring that you win.
The spoils of war go to the victor and the victor gets to write the official history of what took place. And only those on the losing side get convicted of war crimes!As time time passes, these events can be judged without emotions swaying our judgement and it becomes obvious, that like most other things in life, nothing is completely black and white.
As more time passes we may eventually get a more balanced view of this terrible period in history. That time is not now. In many European "democratic" countries you can spend a long time in prison for expressing views that go against the "official" view of this period.
I would suggest that it is best not to take everything on face value.
As an example of this I would like to point out that the photo you submitted in your post is one of those alleged to be a photo-montage forgery produced in the Soviet Union.
This type of thing certainly happened and has been documented by the Germans themselves, since this was neither illegal nor unusual during time of war. Allied forces also carried out such acts.War is a horrible and nasty business.
That is why it is so important that you make sure you are on the winning side by whatever means.Regards
Mr S -
@petercharles said:
Stop hiding from the truth.
Too many people are trying to re-write history, overstating the deaths in Dresden, denying gas chambers in the death camps, etc, etc.It was far from my intentions. I would never deny gas chambers (as I have been to Aushcwitz and Birkenau as well - although not that "proof" is the reason).
What happened there (and elsewhere - not necessarily only in camps lika that) was the most evil and cynic thing in history I believe. Sorry if my words were not clear.
-
@mr s said:
War is a horrible and nasty business.
That is why it is so important that you make sure you are on the winning side by whatever means.I've always been somewhat of a pacifist. I can admit that for me my pacifism has been more of a lazy viewpoint rather than a well thought out philosophy. Reading Mr S' quote above it has me thinking it gets to the heart of why so many are willing to support & even personally engage in acts of war. History has shown us that being on the loosing side can be a most serious misfortune. I recently saw a documentary about the Aztecs and their horrific sacrificing their prisoners of war - many, many thousands at a time. The idea of my being a pacifist seems ridiculous to me if they were attacking my village. Faced with either fighting or the reality of the fate of being their prisoner, I'm sure I'd fight.
-
Ross that is a very topical issue; there is no clear distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. There is a very good documentary series currently showing on Al jazeera that questions what the difference is. By todays standards, the allied partisan resistance fighters in WW2 would have been classed as terrorists. http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2009/02/20092565012929122.html
There is no internationally agreed definition.
@unknownuser said:Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and barroom brawls."
@unknownuser said:
The Patriot Act defined “terrorist activity” so broadly that it encompasses virtually any deed, even if carried out under threat of death or against a brutal regime. The Patriot Act also liberalized the definition of “terrorist organizations”: In addition to the Tier I and Tier II lists of known and actual terrorist groups, a terrorist organization could now be any “group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not,” which engages in any form of “terrorist activity” thusly defined.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
Advertisement