The website agrees with you does it? Don't you mean you agree with the website?

The above quote sounds like B grade propaganda from some 1940s newsreel to me. Does the site define what the 'target' was? Coz if it was the city of Dresden in general it wouldn't be to hard to acheive accuracy.

The website agrees with me because the context of the sentence in question is the debate over my claim that the Dresden bombing was highly accurate.

I agree that the RAF Bomber Command review of Dresden sounds like a 1940s newsreel. Nonetheless, it is from the UK Ministry of Defense website! No clear target is defined, they claim the purpose of the attack was to create 'confusion'. It certainly seems to have created confusion on this thread... :confused:

Incidentally, the USAF Historical Report on Dresden (which I wrote about earlier on this thread) concurrs with the RAF report on the 'success' and accuracy of the Dresden bombings. So anyone on this thread who believes that the civilian and architectural damage to Dresden was a result of poor targetting is in disagreement with the historical records kept by the US and UK air forces.

To use your analogy: if a guy holds a knife to your throat, kick him in the balls by all means! I'd do the same... :D
If, on the other hand, he isn't using a knife but throwing rocks at you and is hiding in a crowd of civilians, you are not justified in using a flamethrower to wipe them all out just to get at him.


Strawman: You abused the analogy. To carry the analogy further, I would be bombing other countries to get to the knife weilder/ rock thrower, since the two people represented two nations.

If the crowd is giving him the rocks, then yes, the flame thrower will be used. I am not going to let myself be stoned to death simply because I don't want to hurt the crowd. Better yet, the first person who screams and rolls on the floor in agony as they release pungent smells of burning hair and flesh will help the others understand that giving this man rocks will not be tolerated.


Edit: Also, I don't care for the argument that in a 'just' war all tactics are just. Every side in a war always believes it's own side 'just'. This kind of argument leads directly to war crimes.

So you can be a judge of what war crimes are, but you cannot be a judge of what a just war is?

I have already stated that:
But I did not know this thread was about whether the United States entering WW II was just.... I thought it was about the bombing of Dresden. It is my opinion that if the war is just.... ALL TACTICS are just.


I choose to judge whether the war is just, before I start judging whether the tactics used in acheiving victory were just. If the war was injust, (as Hitlers invasion of France, Russia, etc.... ) then any tactics of response are completely just. And look at Germany at the time, they looked like the United States today... even worse. They thought they were going to rule the world. The civilians had a hand in this too.

You know, really convinced people are rarely of the opinion that they are evil and their wars are not just... but people who consider themselves in the right should not take any crimes of the other party as a free ticket to do even worse!


Some Arabs probably consider the war in Iraq as an INJUST invasion,

" If the war was injust, (as Hitlers invasion of France, Russia, etc.... ) then any tactics of response are completely just"

they would it consider their right to bomb civilians in Europe and the US! They even do! We should throw atomic bombs at any nations with populations that sympathize with such terrorism! Evil things allow us to do even worse!

Well... I say NO to such terrible ways of thinking.

Draconic measures against baddies, believing in the own moral high standard what is right and what is wrong has a sore taste.

One nation must not try to surpass the cruelties of the baddies to possibly "restore justice".

You know, really convinced people are rarely of the opinion that they are evil and their wars are not just... but people who consider themselves in the right should not take any crimes of the other party as a free ticket to do even worse!


Some Arabs probably consider the war in Iraq as an INJUST invasion,

" If the war was injust, (as Hitlers invasion of France, Russia, etc.... ) then any tactics of response are completely just"

they would it consider their right to bomb civilians in Europe and the US! They even do! We should throw atomic bombs at any nations with populations that sympathize with such terrorism! Evil things allow us to do even worse!

Well... I say NO to such terrible ways of thinking.

Draconic measures against baddies, believing in the own moral high standard what is right and what is wrong has a sore taste.

One nation must not try to surpass the cruelties of the baddies to possibly "restore justice".


First of all, If I am even going to continue, I want to know... was America just in fighting in World War II?

Oh yes. They liberated Europe, including Germany.

Is this the perfect and ultimate justification for "minor" warcrimes, like trying to justify the bombing cities? Was this really necessary? The same applies to the Hiroshima-thread.

If you think it was, please stop discussing with me. I do not agree.

What do you want to point out?

Oh yes. They liberated Europe, including Germany.

Is this the perfect and ultimate justification for "minor" warcrimes, like trying to justify the bombing cities? Was this really necessary? The same applies to the Hiroshima-thread.

If you think it was, please stop discussing with me. I do not agree.

What do you want to point out?


If it was just, then why are the soldiers who died valiently, and bravely, who sacrificed their lives defending the world from the tyranny and oppression of war, worth less than the civilians of the country that instigated the war?

Why is it perfectly ok to blow soldiers arms off, to burn them with napalm, and to tear their faces off with shrpanel? Because they are more brave than civilians? Perhaps it is because they are men, and women are more valuable. Perhaps it is because they are not "innocent" children... even though, if the war was just, they were certainly innocent victims.

Why are soldiers worth even one cent less than civilians? Why does no-one ask if shooting an American soldier was a war crime? Some of them were only 18 years old. They had their whole life ahead of them, yet the German people decided that American, British and French people must die, for the sake of Empire.

WW II was a war crime. We did what we had to do to stop it. If it meant killing every single German in the world, so be it. The first American soldier to die was an innocent civilian before Germany delclared war.

Why would we play nice? Is there any reason to play nice? Would playing nice lead to victory any faster?

Sorry, your morale is compared to international standards rather pre-WW1/2.

You are also utterly pathetic, believing in simple and primitive views of a "righteousness" that bears the seed of destruction and evil.

bye

Sorry, your morale is compared to international standards rather pre-WW1/2.

You are also utterly pathetic, believing in simple and primitive views of a "righteousness" that bears the seed of destruction and evil.

bye

So that explains why a soldier's life is worth less how?

Back to the original topic I think the bombing of Germany was justified. Dresden would have been justified if it happened in February 44 instead of 45. By then it was blatantly obvious Germany had lost the war and I doubt the bombing helped end the war a day earlier. I would hesitate to call it a war crime though- a mistake, bad judgement or a decision made for the wrong reasons yes.

Wars tragic. There were tit for tat raids etc in the war. WW2 was the 3rd "total" war (WW1 and the USA Civil war being the other 2) which involved the entire resources of each nation involved. Resources that rightly or wrongly included civilians. The Germans paid for Hitlers decisions but so did the Poles, Russians, Jew etc. Glad I wasn't there.

I think we all agree not to live in that time under that regime. Nevertheless even in total wars there are rules to be kept. One of these rules is to prevent the killing of innocent people if possible. Only targets of military value are allowed to attack. If civilians die as collateral damage it is excused. But not as main targets. This is forbidden at leasts since the conventions of The Hague.
To see them as a factor in the life of the enemy state and attack them is very near to the way such people like Bin Laden and Hitler and Stalin think/thought. These guys left the civilized world.They´re the worst scum of humanity. But this NEVER justifise nor excuses the death of civilians. To see them as military targets is already a war crime.
Zardnaar, even if a target is of military value and there is no reason to attack it not but the big population which are in danger of the attack, an attack must be stopped or canceled, if the destruction of the target does not justify the danger.
To the Dresden attack: There were three waves in order to attack, when after the first wave the defense was regrouping and so out of order for that time. The US tried that already in Schweinfurt, but they didn´t succeed, but the British in Dresden. It WAS planned to have so many planes over the city.

Adler

So anyone on this thread who believes that the civilian and architectural damage to Dresden was a result of poor targetting is in disagreement with the historical records kept by the US and UK air forces.

So the RAF and USAAF are admitting they set out to basically kill people and and destroy as much of the city as possible. Is that what you're saying?

I can not speak for Boleslav but THAT IS the TRUTH. Ask Harris. He was proud of that!

Adler

So the RAF and USAAF are admitting they set out to basically kill people and and destroy as much of the city as possible. Is that what you're saying?

Well, don't take it from me - google the reports for yourself!

Every report I have read about Dresden claims a different justification. Dresden was bombed because it had 120plus war producing factories, or Dresden was bombed because it was a major communications centre, or Dresden was bombed to create 'confusion' (which is as close to an admission that the purpose of the bombing WAS to kill people and destroy the city as you'll find in an official document) or Dresden was bombed because the Russians asked us to do it, or Dresden was bombed because we wanted to show the Russians what Allied power could do. Over the course of this thread all these explanations have been dug out by various people from historical documents. I find the lack of consistency between them troubling and suspicious. The Allies simply don't have their stories straight!

No document or report I have read so far justifies the bombing of Dresden through the subsequent loss of human life.

Here's what is known from the RAF and USAF reports - the Allies felt that the bombing of Dresden went according to plan. A firestorm was created - these aren't created accidentally - which destroyed or damaged 85% of one of the most architecturally significant cities in Europe. Yet this bombing raid also left 75% of those 120plus war machine factories untouched. If you want me to explain that rationally, I don't think I can. This was not the Allies' finest hour.

:hmm: It could well be that Dresden was bombed for a combination of those millitary reasons, after all, military decisions are rarely based on one aspect.

I just read in the Spiegel magazine an interview with Ian Kershaw. He sais there the bombings itself had the main aim to terrorize the population in order to make an uprising. But he said because of that bombings it was impossible for the Germans to do so. You can make hardly demonstration when sitting in the bunker. So although Dresden was not mentioned it is another hint for the bin Laden like point of view of the Bomber Command.

Adler

I'll come back here when there's something worth discussing I think :mischief:

I just read in the Spiegel magazine an interview with Ian Kershaw. He sais there the bombings itself had the main aim to terrorize the population in order to make an uprising. But he said because of that bombings it was impossible for the Germans to do so. You can make hardly demonstration when sitting in the bunker. So although Dresden was not mentioned it is another hint for the bin Laden like point of view of the Bomber Command.

Adler


Hmmm... Bin Laden like. That analogy is very poor indeed. I am not sure why you can with a straight face compare Bin Laden's struggle to the the struggle of the allies in WW II, or their way of thinking. The situations are so, so very far from any resemblence to each other.

Hmmm... Bin Laden like. That analogy is very poor indeed. I am not sure why you can with a straight face compare Bin Laden's struggle to the the struggle of the allies in WW II, or their way of thinking.
Aaaa. I see now. Depending of your way of thinking you can or you cant kill civilians. :goodjob:

The situations are so, so very far from any resemblence to each other.
Why?

The allies werent trying to set up a theocracy, theres one reason.

Ok. We have something yet:

You try to set up a theocracy => You cant massacre civilians.
You dont try to set up a theocracy => You can massacre civilians.

Something else?

and the allies were attacked first, while bin laden attacked america first.

In my mind, since the allies were fighting against an enemy who was fighting a war against the civilians of europe, the allies could declare war on the civilians of Germany, and they did.

WHile bin laden declared war on the civilians of america, I believe america is fair in declaring war on the civilians of bin laden, whoever they may be.

and the allies were attacked first, while bin laden attacked america first.
Bin Laden dont think such thing, obviously. He think America attacked first.

In my mind, since the allies were fighting against an enemy who was fighting a war against the civilians of europe, the allies could declare war on the civilians of Germany, and they did.
Is this some sort of moral justification? So, if my neighbor kills the family of a third person I kill my neighbor's family.

WHile bin laden declared war on the civilians of america, I believe america is fair in declaring war on the civilians of bin laden, whoever they may be.
Precisely this same words but in the other way around, have been said many times by Bin Laden.

Bin Laden dont think such thing, obviously. He think America attacked first.


He thinks wrong, I didnt see any boats exploding in front of arab targets, no the USS cole was a product of islamic terrorism. I didnt see terrorists flying planes into Riyadh. I didnt see rhetoric before september 11th (I do now though) by governments.

I saw plenty of rhetoric against Western civilians by muslim extremists back in the mid-nineties.

Is this some sort of moral justification? So, if my neighbor kills the family of third person I kill my neighbor's family. War is not a moral game, if it were there wouldnt have been the halocaust. If one side has morals and the other does not, the moral side has a distinct disadvantage.

Precisely this same words but in the other way around, have been said many times by Bin Laden. Good for him, if he were right do you think nearly the entire world would be hunting him right now? Obviously not.

Besides, this is not about islamic terrorism, it is about the bombing of Dresden, do not try to sidetrack the debate by deflecting it elsewhere.

He thinks wrong, I didnt see any boats exploding in front of arab targets, no the USS cole was a product of islamic terrorism. I didnt see terrorists flying planes into Riyadh. I didnt see rhetoric against muslim extremists before september 11th (I do now though) by governments.

I saw plenty of rhetoric against Western civilians by muslim extremists back in the mid-nineties.
Errr.. Lets see. America dont need boats exploding ... america has aircrafts and all that stuff, and there are other things, Israel for instance... That sort of things. It is a matter of opinion of course. The problem is that opinions are like the ass, everyone has one...

Good for him, if he were right do you think nearly the entire world would be hunting him right now? Obviously not.
Oh no. He is not right, but you neither.

War is not a moral game, if it were there wouldnt have been the halocaust. If one side has morals and the other does not, the moral side has a distinct advantage.
Once again, if this is true, how would anybody blame Bin Laden because 11-S ?

Besides, this is not about islamic terrorism, it is about the bombing of Dresden, do not try to sidetrack the debate by deflecting it elsewhere.
This is your best argument for now. ;)

Errr.. Lets see. America dont need boats exploding ... america has aircrafts and all that stuff, and there are other things, Israel for instance... That sort of things. It is a matter of opinion of course. The problem is that opinions are like the ass, everyone has one... That doesnt even touch my statement, Israel is not america, using Israel as an argument against america is the same as using the Ottoman Empire as an argument againsst Turkey. They are two very different places whose pasts are interconnected but have nothing to do with each other. Other than selling them weapons (which all arms-producing countries do the world over) what do they do other than offer them moral support in their fight against yet another terrorist: Yasser Arafat.


Oh no. He is not right, but you neither. Wow, easy to say hes not right then following it up with....


Once again, if this is true, how would anybody blame Bin Laden because 11-S ? I again quote what I said in the first post "Bin Laden declared war upon the civilians of the united states, not the other way around. If it were the other way around, wouldnt governments support bin laden? I dont know of any governments other than Afghanistan which openly supported Bin Laden. This is all the reasoning you need to say Bin laden is wrong, the entire world, excepting extremists, are against him. Just like Hitler.


This is your best argument for now. ;) Are we finished yet?

That doesnt even touch my statement, Israel is not america, using Israel as an argument against america is the same as using the Ottoman Empire as an argument againsst Turkey.
I see. Now america has nothing to do with Israel, ME... BTW i said it is matter of opinion and it is not the question... BTW, It does not concern me who is right in this topic. I am not justifing 11-S, in any case you are who is justifing it. Capisci?

But a very interesting analogy (to say something).

I again quote what I said in the first post "Bin Laden declared war upon the civilians of the united states, not the other way around. If it were the other way around, wouldnt governments support bin laden? I dont know of any governments other than Afghanistan which openly support Bin Laden. This is all the reasoning you need to say Bin laden is wrong, the entire world, excepting extremists, are against him.
Laying aside the implicit "innocence" in this paragraph, can you read? I said BL is right?

Wow, easy to say hes not right then following it up with....
Yes it is easy.

Are we finished yet?
If you cant argument something minimally interesting to justify killing civilians, yep.

I see. Now america has nothing to do with Israel, ME... BTW i said it is matter of opinion and it is not the question... BTW, It does not concern me who is right in this topic. I am not justifing 11-S, in any case you are who is justifing it. Capisci?

But a very interesting analogy (to say something). I justify nothing. Bin Laden struck first, he is the one who has put civilians on the death sentence for his own ambitions. It is he who should be destroyed, ignoring the lives of any sympathizer who may get in the way.


Can you read? I said BL is right? Personal insults, the lowest form of a failing argument.


Yes it is easy. Hypocrite.


If you cant argument something minimally interesting to justify killing civilians, yep. oh I did justify it, civilians were legitimate targets in nazi germany, and civilian targets who are sympathetic to Bin Laden are legitimate targets. Nazi germany, like Bin Laden, brought the battle to the civilians, it is they who should be utterly, and completely destroyed. Morals are nothing in wartime if they are not universally respected.

Personal insults, the lowest form of a failing argument.
:lol: OTH that almost is poetry.

oh I did justify it, civilians were legitimate targets in nazi germany, and civilian targets who are sympathetic to Bin Laden are legitimate targets.
Even admiting this (then spaniards should kill 1/5 of the basques and british should kill even more in Ireland and so on... ) We all know that everybody in Dresden was SS...

Morals are nothing in wartime if they are not universally respected.
I know. It is because many people think like that because morals are not respected.

oh I did justify it, civilians were legitimate targets in nazi germany, and civilian targets who are sympathetic to Bin Laden are legitimate targets. Nazi germany, like Bin Laden, brought the battle to the civilians, it is they who should be utterly, and completely destroyed. Morals are nothing in wartime if they are not universally respected.
You repeat yourself with the "they attacked first" thing. No civilians were killed in ME before 11-S? How many americans civilians were killed in WW2?
And why the "they attacked first" argument give you the right to kill civilians?

Doesnt matter how many american civilians were killed in WW2, how many European civilians died at the hands of Nazi Germany and its unjust war? That is reason enough for me to not give a damn about Dresden.

Then there was a reason to defeat Nazi armies and to win the war, there was not reason to descend to its level. In Dresden there was not even a reason of (lets say) legitimate revenge or "an eye for an eye", as Russians (for instance) had.

Thats your opinion. I dont believe morals during the second world war were right, I think the allies should have been of the opinion of "win at all costs" no matter the destruction to Germany.

Just hope that not many share your morale views, Immortal. You speak easily of killing people, do not forget that things like that tend to be a boomerang.

Or are you just trying to surpass or even think on a lower level than those evildoers you want to kill, sitting far away and having no clue of cruelties?

The morale league you are in is rather low.

Im not the one who set up deathcamps for jewish, slavic, homosexual, Jehovah's witnesses, and disabled persons.

Im not the one who advocates killing civilians, Im saying there are no civilians to the nazi, therefore there shouldnt have been such a thing as civilians to the allies.

My conscience is clean, is the German peoples?

I pity your simple and stupid view of the world.

I have a clean conscience btw, you should be ashamed.

But after all, it is easy to mark the strong adolescent if it is not you to fight such a war, perhaps this would open your eyes.

Warned for flaming/getting personal. We don't need that here. - XIII

I didnt fight that war, you are correct, if I had I can assure you that I would have treated nazis no better than they treated the people of Poland.

EDIT: BTW your use of the phrase "Let them hate so long as they fear." in your signature is very ironic.

Again Thorgalaeg, you are trying to argue firt which is just, so again, I must ask you:

Was Bin Laden just in attacking America?

Was America just in attacking WW II?

Why can you be a judge of what a warcrime is, yet you cannot judge what a just war was?

I prefer to judge first whether the war was just, and then decide whether a war crime was commited.

Alright, gentlemen, no need to get personal. If you want to debate the topic, fine - just stop commenting on each other, with personal flames.

Next guy who does it again gets it.

Add: On 2nd thought, I'll just close this.