Bombing of Dresden, Germany during WWII - Atrocious War Crime? Or "Necessary Evil"

[betmen]

i don't know how you can say they were "in the same ballpark" when the nazi's tried to take over the world, and the soviets acted in response to it.


hell, germany tried to take over the world 2x. i will never trust a german as long as i live.


ww2 is a clear case of a war with good guys and bad guys. i understand that it's tough to look for morality when a war is involved, but i know you're smart enough to know that hitler wanted to take the world over by force, and the state actors who fought against him did not.

Oh man you're so wrong , even before the war the communist regime has already have slave labor camp it called the gulag. before the war soviet made a pact with germany and help germany with their's war machine by exporting raw material. stalin had a thought of sharing europe together with germany before hitler betrayed him. you know before joining the allied, soviet is also the most hated regime by allied country.

Holodomor(Extermination by hunger) 1932-1333 in ukraine killed 4 mil people in just one year, set-up by stalin policy of ejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement.

How the f^ck can you call stalin and his regime of terror good guy?? killing a rapist so you can rape and torture the victim your self is a good act??

[betmen]

"Necessary Evil" of war? And completely justifiable, and acceptable - both in the context of the war (at the time), and also stands up to historical scrutiny.

IMO, it was nothing short of a war crime. It was completely unnecessary. Unlike the arguments (and damn good ones) you can make for nuking Japan.

So what made you think the second bomb in japan was necessary but dresden bombing is not???

[Rostov Papa]

So what made you think the second bomb in japan was necessary but dresden bombing is not???

Because the Japanese were not going to surrender, and this was designed to save the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions.

The bombing of Dresden had no impact whatsoever on Germany surrendering.

Japan had stated outright they would never surrender, and would die first.


Oh, I see where you said "SECOND" bomb. You know what, you're right, second one probably wasn't necessary.

I just think that based on the state of things at the time, they clearly went out of their way to bomb an area that was unnecessary, adn would have no imapct on the war. Whereas the atomic bombing of Japan seemed to be more goal-oriented.

Finally, Germany never even bombed USA territory. Japan did.

[Rostov Papa]

From wiki, an RAF memo to airmen, I thought the last part was interesting:








What are you saying here JoeyJoeJoee, the Germans were the good guys and the world would be a better place if they had won? because that's how you're sounding.

No, not at all. I'm just saying that "winners write history," and the line between "good" and "bad" is not as clear as we are taught.

I'm also saying that people should be able to research, and challenge "official" versions of accounts of the war, without suffering arrest, and imprisonment.

9/11 revisionism is allowed, and not even close to the taboo that being a WW2 revisionist is.

Did you know that Germany wanted PEACE with Britain? They wanted nothing to do with UK. I know UK had treaty with Poland. But Germany tried many times for peace.


It's just not that easy to say "Germany had no right to attack Poland," because these conficts and historical "scores" go back before World War I.

I just want people to research for themselves, and don't automatically believe the version we're told.

[betmen]

Because the Japanese were not going to surrender, and this was designed to save the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions.

The bombing of Dresden had no impact whatsoever on Germany surrendering.

Japan had stated outright they would never surrender, and would die first.


Oh, I see where you said "SECOND" bomb. You know what, you're right, second one probably wasn't necessary.

I just think that based on the state of things at the time, they clearly went out of their way to bomb an area that was unnecessary, adn would have no imapct on the war. Whereas the atomic bombing of Japan seemed to be more goal-oriented.

Finally, Germany never even bombed USA territory. Japan did.

First is not the U.S that bomb dresden it was the allied, the allied consist of The dutch, france and graet britrain who's land is ravage by german of course they had hating for the germans.

and you talk about dresden bombing, what about rotterdam bombing by the germans, the germans bomb the city of rotterdam after negotiations resulted in a ceasefire.

And you still have the gut to tell us the germany want peace with great britrain. after Hitler betrayed soviet, after Hitler made promise not to claimed another european teritorry when he invade czech and signed treaty with british prime minister and france president or when Hitler own deputy Rudolp hess fly to england to treat with allied then hitler himself dissowned him?? Do you think hitler gonna stop if british accept the peace term? do you think Hitler not gonna capture another strategic country then unleashed another war machine to the world??

[sleazyfellow]

No, not at all. I'm just saying that "winners write history," and the line between "good" and "bad" is not as clear as we are taught.

I'm also saying that people should be able to research, and challenge "official" versions of accounts of the war, without suffering arrest, and imprisonment.

9/11 revisionism is allowed, and not even close to the taboo that being a WW2 revisionist is.

Did you know that Germany wanted PEACE with Britain? They wanted nothing to do with UK. I know UK had treaty with Poland. But Germany tried many times for peace.


It's just not that easy to say "Germany had no right to attack Poland," because these conficts and historical "scores" go back before World War I.

I just want people to research for themselves, and don't automatically believe the version we're told.

You must of watched Adolf hitler: the greatest story never told...

Even though I think all sides were at fault for ww2, that's a long 5 hour propaganda piece that paints hitler as a good man. He's not, he's up there with Mao and Stalin as the worst leaders in history. P4p he's probably the best public speaker (either him or king) in the 20th century and he did do wonders for Germanys economy in a short time but look what he did to his own people.

[Rostov Papa]

First is not the U.S that bomb dresden it was the allied, the allied consist of The dutch, france and graet britrain who's land is ravage by german of course they had hating for the germans.

and you talk about dresden bombing, what about rotterdam bombing by the germans, the germans bomb the city of rotterdam after negotiations resulted in a ceasefire.

And you still have the gut to tell us the germany want peace with great britrain. after Hitler betrayed soviet, after Hitler made promise not to claimed another european teritorry when he invade czech and signed treaty with british prime minister and france president or when Hitler own deputy Rudolp hess fly to england to treat with allied then hitler himself dissowned him?? Do you think hitler gonna stop if british accept the peace term? do you think Hitler not gonna capture another strategic country then unleashed another war machine to the world??

Check your facts - the US played a large role in the bombing of Dresden. In fact, it was only US and British bombers and bombs used, if I'm not mistaken.

[paulf]

Did you know that Germany wanted PEACE with Britain? They wanted nothing to do with UK. I know UK had treaty with Poland. But Germany tried many times for peace.


It's just not that easy to say "Germany had no right to attack Poland," because these conficts and historical "scores" go back before World War I.

I just want people to research for themselves, and don't automatically believe the version we're told.

I did my research when I took courses on Genocide and WWII in college, I don't need to read through tons of biased, non-peer reviewed articles on the internet to come to a conclusion about WWII.

Hitler was looking to make Germany the most powerful nation in the world via conquest; that does not mean he was out to conquer every single square foot of the earth in doing so, but that does not make his plan any different.

Hitler tried to avoid war with England? No. He may have not wanted war with England, but he didn't try to avoid it. Poland and Czechoslovakia had
agreements with England that, should Germany invade, England would come to their defense. Hitler invaded both countries... does it sound like he was trying to avoid wars?

Even after annexing part of Czechoslovakia, all parties, except the Czech government, came to an agreement to avoid war and allow Hitler to keep what he'd taken. It was called the Munich Pact.

Then Hitler threw the pact out the window and took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Just couldn't help himself.

Hitler didn't want to go to war with England and France because he had conquered all he had planned in Europe, outside of his weird, unfulfilled dream of invading Sweden, and wanted to focus 100% on the invasion of Russia.

Keep in mind he wasn't planning on, ya know, having the Russians be his subjects or anything; Russia (the part deemed livable at the time) was to be repopulated by German blood, with the remaining Russians allowed to go off and try their luck in Siberia.

What were Hitler's plans after Russia? Break down the war machine and live happily ever after in German Utopia, or keep it rolling and conquer the whole ****ing world?

Its impossible to answer, because we were lucky enough to never have to find out.

[Rostov Papa]

I did my research when I took courses on Genocide and WWII in college, I don't need to read through tons of biased, non-peer reviewed articles on the internet to come to a conclusion about WWII.

Hitler was looking to make Germany the most powerful nation in the world via conquest; that does not mean he was out to conquer every single square foot of the earth in doing so, but that does not make his plan any different.

Hitler tried to avoid war with England? No. He may have not wanted war with England, but he didn't try to avoid it. Poland and Czechoslovakia had
agreements with England that, should Germany invade, England would come to their defense. Hitler invaded both countries... does it sound like he was trying to avoid wars?

Even after annexing part of Czechoslovakia, all parties, except the Czech government, came to an agreement to avoid war and allow Hitler to keep what he'd taken. It was called the Munich Pact.

Then Hitler threw the pact out the window and took the rest of Czechoslovakia. Just couldn't help himself.

Hitler didn't want to go to war with England and France because he had conquered all he had planned in Europe, outside of his weird, unfulfilled dream of invading Sweden, and wanted to focus 100% on the invasion of Russia.

Keep in mind he wasn't planning on, ya know, having the Russians be his subjects or anything; Russia (the part deemed livable at the time) was to be repopulated by German blood, with the remaining Russians allowed to go off and try their luck in Siberia.

What were Hitler's plans after Russia? Break down the war machine and live happily ever after in German Utopia, or keep it rolling and conquer the whole ****ing world?

Its impossible to answer, because we were lucky enough to never have to find out.

Fair enough answer. Nice detailed response.

I tend to believe like with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle... In the middle of how the winners tell history, and the bias that comes from the losing side. I take some from both sides that to me, makes sense based on pragmatism.

Well, there's no way he could have conquered the world. It's silly to believe he would have the ability to even have the logistics to reach the USA if he had won on the Eastern front,and taken Russia.

YOu know how hard it is to occupy territory you've conquered? Much less continue to "conquer the world"? Much less with pissed of Russians.

Most likely if he was able to convince England to agree to a truce, and leave them be. He would have taken the Eastern front. However, his man power, supplies, etc. would be so dwindled, that it'd be a damn struggle to just keep the territory he conquered, much less conquer more territory.


SO based on pragmatism, and the allowance of BS from both accepted stories that are taught in colleges, and schools, and the bias from the losing side (those obsessed with Hitler), I believe Hitler wanted to reclaim what was lost from the Weimar Republic, and other old Germanic territories, and maybe 1/4 of Russia. The whole "we'd be speaking German here in USA" if Hitler had won, is for the birds.

[Rostov Papa]

Also, don't you find it odd that challenging the accepted story of what we are told is illegal in many European countries?

They literally throw academics in prison for this.

In USA thank god this isn't the case; but it's gotta be the most taboo subject there is.


I'm going to stop discussing it after this post. I find too many people speak from the heart, rather than with their head on this subject. Because we have been drilled since grade school about this.