Dresden Memorial

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

It's just a shame it wasn't a nuclear bomb they dropped instead of incenidary bombs

.
Yo. Then, why don't allow Nukes to Vietnam? They for sure have some justification for revenge.

On Topic:
You can very well call Dresden a warcrime in Germany today. If that's rarely done without mentioning London etc in the media, it partially happens for the same consensus reasons like they always bring a Conservative and Social Democrat. Media in Germany in general tries to not openly support one side.

Problem is, the current anti-Dresden debatte is utilized by Neo-Nazis ("Bombenholocaust"), so you better stay away from it at the moment.
Also, we have no quarrels with the Americans for their bombing - that kind of bombardments are widely considered justified. And even a bastard like McNamara got second thoughts.
But that statue of Harris in London is an insult in my eyes. Dresden wasn't a singular event, there were dozens of equally useless raids. I completely fail to understand why GB has such a problem to admit this was a warcrime.

 

[Scuffer]

But that statue of Harris in London is an insult in my eyes. Dresden wasn't a singular event, there were dozens of equally useless raids. I completely fail to understand why GB has such a problem to admit this was a warcrime.

It is the problem of glorififying victory. Consider the statues in Germany if the war had gone that way. It is better for the beaten to forget, but while WWII veterans (military and civilian) still live in the UK, removing symbols of victory over facsism is impossible. I would like to see them go, but now it is impossible. In 20 years, maybe. Admitting to a war crime against Hitler's Germany? That may take longer still. They are too interwoven

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

It is the problem of glorififying victory

Good point. But I think it's not only victory, it's just hard or near impossible to admit 'Heroes' who got glorified for decades are not really adorable persons.
We currently have that debatte with Mölders, a fighter ace. Since WW2, he was considered one of the few 'innocent' war heroes (like Rommel, or Lütjens), and as such the Bundeswehr named a Destroyer and a Fighter Squad after him (plus countless roads in barrcks districts etc). Recently, his involvement in the Legion Condor bombing raids came up - and the military isn't exactly happy about the political decision to remove his name everywhere...
The Destroyer is out of duty since 2 years already anyway.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

.
Dresden wasn't a singular event, there were dozens of equally useless raids. I completely fail to understand why GB has such a problem to admit this was a warcrime.

Bombings such as Dresden were widely accepted as a legitimate military action during WW2, and even throughout the Cold War. It would not have been considered a war crime at the time, and to judge the past by the standards of the future is ridiculous.

It would be like posthumously convicting a 16th-century doctor for malpractice. At the time, they simply did not know that attacks on civilians were largely ineffective.

 

[privatehudson]

I'd personally rather not start removing statues symbols and memories of those that were involved in defeating Nazi Germany, I'd rather we preserve those as part of the knowledge of how disgusting war is and what debts we owe those that fought against Hitler's insanity back then. I am more than a little disturbed to hear that Harris has a statue, but see little point in trying to effectively ignore the contribution of those that took part in the war by removing all statues and symbols relating to them.

 

[Scuffer]

But I think it's not only victory, it's just hard or near impossible to admit 'Heroes' who got glorified for decades are not really adorable persons.
We currently have that debatte with Mölders, a fighter ace....

Very true. They are from time that sitting here we can not understand, and would not condone if we did. Churchill was hardly an angel, with enthusiam for gassing Kurds, but was recently voted Greatest Briton. In the end it all depends on who gets to write the history books.

 

[kronic]

It always amazes me that Germany tries to fight Nazism by banning political parties and activities.

It seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

Maybe. But the US didn't have a Nationalsocialist government yet.

And again, so far only 2 parties have been banned in 55 years.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

They have a point, don't they?

No, they don't. Germany was the aggressor, the Allies were just defending themselves. That's a fundamental moral difference.

If some guy would try to rape a woman and the woman happens to have a gun and shoots him she isn't as evil or even more evil than the wannabe-rapist. In fact she isn't evil at all because it was a justified act of self-defense.

If the criminal would survive and try to sue her afterwards then that would be compareable to what those people who ***** about Dresden do. IMO it is offensive and disgusting. Aggressors whining that their victim actually fights back..

War is about life or death. Trying to regulate mass-murder like it's some kind of game is pervert, immoral and plain out insane. I wouldn't hesitate to use all necessary means to stop someone who tries to take my life or the lives of my beloved ones away. I reject the very notion of "war crimes". Britian could have nuked Germany with full moral justification. I mean why should a single Brit die to save German lifes?
The aggressor takes all the blame IMO.

 

[carlosMM]

A question for Germans and others:

Why can't you compare the Dresden bombing with Hiroshima, Vietnam, Bagdad, or what ever you don't like about American warfare, without being a neo-nazi / ultra rightwinger?

I'm affraid I have to conclude the German established politics once effectively do everything feed neo-nazism, in there over-done anxiety to prevent it.

One can compare it. the problem is that most poeple who DO compare it have a right-wing agenda (or at least: most who compared it had a right-wing agenda. THus, when you do it, you must be carefull to distance yourself from it.

I personally have never called the bombings of Hamburg, Pforzheim, Dresden etc. anything but a war crime. A horrilbe one. Far more so than Hiroshima. but I have also always been carefull not to claim they were the 'same' as the Nazi war and other crimes.

Nobody EVER called me a neo-nazi for that. Not once!

 

[carlosMM]

No, they don't. Germany was the aggressor, the Allies were just defending themselves. That's a fundamental moral difference.

If some guy would try to rape a woman and the woman happens to have a gun and shoots him she isn't as evil or even more evil than the wannabe-rapist. In fact she isn't evil at all because it was a justified act of self-defense.

I beg to differ: bombing Dresden was NOT self-defnece, not even extended.

The aggressor takes all the blame IMO.

Basically, you take every civilian who was in Dresden into 'Sippenhaft' for being German. Also, you nix all rules for the attacked - that is aginst any principle of law. An attacked may defend himself, but he is also responsible for minimizing the damage he does. 'If all else fails' he may do whatever it takes.


But yes, the fundamental difference is that Germany AS A STATE started a war and commited war crimes by intent and without any military aim, while the British and Americans USUALLY did not. They overdid their defence in a few cases, and some individuals (Bomber Harris, e.g.) are AS GUILTY as INDIVIDUAL Nazi war criminals, but as a general rule blame should be put 99:1.

(yes, to me it doesn't matter whether you kill someone because he is jweish or because his state leadership bombed your home town and you want revenge. If you know he is defenceless and there is no strategic gain at all, it is totally unimportant what despisable hate makes you do it - you should hang for it.)

 

[Stapel]

No, they don't. Germany was the aggressor, the Allies were just defending themselves. That's a fundamental moral difference.

Let me put that in perspective:

If I walk on the street, and beat the hell out of just whomever I meet on the street, I am committing a crime.
If I walk on the street, see that some dude is stealing my radio from my car, and I beat the hell out of him, I'm still committing a crime.

The point is: I don't think the two should necisarilly be compared.

Without firing up the discussion of the Dresden bombing actually was a crime (it probably is according to our 2005 standards, but it is quite hard to say today whether it was according to 1945 standards), I do think people have the right to debate it was, without pointing out the victims were living in a nation that was rules by a dictatorial government that was the aggresor.

 

[Stapel]

One can compare it. the problem is that most poeple who DO compare it have a right-wing agenda (or at least: most who compared it had a right-wing agenda. THus, when you do it, you must be carefull to distance yourself from it.

I personally have never called the bombings of Hamburg, Pforzheim, Dresden etc. anything but a war crime. A horrilbe one. Far more so than Hiroshima. but I have also always been carefull not to claim they were the 'same' as the Nazi war and other crimes.

Nobody EVER called me a neo-nazi for that. Not once!

What if you felt the need to demonstrate your point of view in a 5000-people gathering, with the hypothetical aim of removing Harris' statue.

How would German established politician react?

Are you sure you won't be labelled as a neo-nazi?

 

[carlosMM]

What if you felt the need to demonstrate your point of view in a 5000-people gathering, with the hypothetical aim of removing Harris' statue.

How would German established politician react?

Are you sure you won't be labelled as a neo-nazi?

I never would. Simply as that.

Thos who want to remove the monument want to remove part of history, for various reasons. It is not like the monument went up before the people who decided to have it knew about the crime commited. no, he got a monument FOR a crime. And I think that should still stand, as much a reminder of diferent perspective as a reminder of the actually good he DID achieve. After all, the monument is to him, not solely his errors.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

I beg to differ: bombing Dresden was NOT self-defnece, not even extended.

It was. Crushing the spirit of the civilian population also helps winning a war. Civilians are part of a nation's war machine just like soldiers. Everyone in Germany who did anything productive contributed. Every factory worker, every farmer etc. Without these people the war machine couldn't go on.
Resistance or leaving the country were the only options. Otherwise you were a tool of the nazi regime and deserved to be threated as such.

Also, you nix all rules for the attacked - that is aginst any principle of law. An attacked may defend himself, but he is also responsible for minimizing the damage he does. 'If all else fails' he may do whatever it takes.

In mortal combat there are no laws and as I said before I think it's sick wanting to implement any anyway.

But yes, the fundamental difference is that Germany AS A STATE started a war and commited war crimes by intent and without any military aim, while the British and Americans USUALLY did not. They overdid their defence in a few cases, and some individuals (Bomber Harris, e.g.) are AS GUILTY as INDIVIDUAL Nazi war criminals, but as a general rule blame should be put 99:1.

As I said before their is no moral equality between aggressive and defensive violence.

(yes, to me it doesn't matter whether you kill someone because he is jweish or because his state leadership bombed your home town and you want revenge. If you know he is defenceless and there is no strategic gain at all, it is totally unimportant what despisable hate makes you do it - you should hang for it.)

Not the "state leadership" of Germany is responsible for the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe. The German masses are. The millions of German soldiers at the frontline, their women back home in the ammo factories etc. They did it! Hitler and his comrades were just a few insane ranting men.
Not Hitler flew over London to spit bombs out of his very own mouth. German bomber pilots did it using equipment built by German factory workers.
Also there is a big difference between justice and insane hatred. Killing someone who never did anything bad to you is insane hatred (what the nazis did to the jews). Destroying the cities of people who destroyed your cities is justice.

 

[carlosMM]

It was. Crushing the spirit of the civilian population also helps winning a war. Civilians are part of a nation's war machine just like soldiers. Everyone in Germany who did anything productive contributed. Every factory worker, every farmer etc. Without these people the war machine couldn't go on.

Wrong - this may be true for Hamburg and other industrial centers, but definately not for Dresden. The factories were long gone, the town was full of refugees, and the British knew by now that carpet bombing civilians did NTO reduce the willingnes to resist.

Resistance or leaving the country were the only options. Otherwise you were a tool of the nazi regime and deserved to be threated as such.

Yeah right! I'd love to know what you would have done.

In mortal combat there are no laws and as I said before I think it's sick wanting to implement any anyway.

Right, then Germany didn#t commit a war crime when it bombed Coventry, correct?

As I said before their is no moral equality between aggressive and defensive violence.

There is no equality, but there also is no removal or moral rules from the defender.

Not the "state leadership" of Germany is responsible for the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe. The German masses are. The millions of German soldiers at the frontline, their women back home in the ammo factories etc. They did it! Hitler and his comrades were just a few insane ranting men.
Not Hitler flew over London to spit bombs out of his very own mouth. German bomber pilots did it using equipment built by German factory workers.

I find your understanding of the human pysche and of our history slightly lacking. If you really believe that, then you have no grasp whatsoever of the mindset and information and cultural and social pressure people lived under back then. Have you ever TALKED to anyone who was a grown adult back then? Have you ever questioned them how they were raised and educated? And not only in Germany, btw....

Also there is a big difference between justice and insane hatred. Killing someone who never did anything bad to you is insane hatred (what the nazis did to the jews). Destroying the cities of people who destroyed your cities is justice.

The Old Testament has ceased to be the guiding factor in most European's lives around the year 500 A.D.
It is in NO WAY anymore a base for laws, be they national or international.

 

[Stapel]

Destroying the cities of people who destroyed your cities is justice.

I really hope you never become a judge then.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

@Carlos

I'm perfectly aware of social pressure. I experience it every day. Weakness is not an excuse for me, though. Quite some people did fight against the regime, yet they suffered the same pressure. You know there are people who actually have morals, courage and a backbone and there's scum..
It's probably correct to say that most people are just dumb, weak sheep and because of this they have to suffer through things like Dresden. Without their support for the nazi regime it wouldn't have happend.
Maybe you're one of them, I'm not.
So I've no sympathy for this lowlife. If things get nasty they are the ones who hang people like me on the market place because of "social pressure".

 

[Mario Feldberg]

I really hope you never become a judge then.

I don't plan to. I wouldn't want to be part of the injustice systems in modern Europe that let murderers, rapists and other filth run around freely.

 

[carlosMM]

@Carlos

I'm perfectly aware of social pressure. I experience it every day. Weakness is not an excuse for me, though. Quite some people did fight against the regime, yet they suffered the same pressure. You know there are people who actually have morals, courage and a backbone and there's scum..
It's probably correct to say that most people are just dumb, weak sheep and because of this they have to suffer through things like Dresden. Without their support for the nazi regime it wouldn't have happend.
Maybe you're one of them, I'm not.
So I've no sympathy for this lowlife. If things get nasty they are the ones who hang people like me on the market place because of "social pressure".

Yes, kill all sheep, jsut for the heck of it. They might turn into a mob any day, after all


sorry, but your 'I am perfect and fearless and I would never have gone along' arrogance stinks to heaven.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

@ Carlos

I don't have to kill the sheep. The sheep kill themselves. With mass-suicides like the nazi madness for example.

BTW I never claimed to be perfect or fearless but please realize that not all people are like you, either. Just because you can't imagine that someone would put his ethics over his well-being doesn't mean that other people can't do it. It happend before, quite often actually. You don't have to be superman to do it. I've proven to myself that I can withstand social pressure. I've proven that I can made up my own mind and that my opinion is my own and not the one spread by the mass-media. So, yes I'm quite certain I wouldn't "go along".