I have never understood the reasoning behind bombing Dresden. Somewhere along the way what constituted a legitimate target for bombing broadened from Military installations such as the Portsmouth shipyards to strategically important installations such as the Ploesti oilfields to civilian population centers, such as London, Dresden and Tokyo. I believe those targets were chosen under the logic that terrorizing and demoralizing the civilian populace would erode their support for their respective governments. Gen. Curtis LeMay said that if the allies had lost the war they would have been tried as war criminals (referring the to Tokyo bombing campaign) and he was right. I can see no justification for bombing civilian population centers.

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

what did so much damage was high heat and humidity and wind that created a fire storm. it was vengence for the blitz.

I visited Germany few days ago and we discussed about the WW2, too. The American bombings in Germany were a global war crime as they were completely targeted to civilian population and the entire culture was wiped away. The Germans even question why - now we have European Union led by Germany - what would have been the difference? The Germans think that the US intrusion to the war was only serving their own economic purposes. There are 21 US military bases in Germany still today - so the country (EU country) is occupied by a foreign enemy. NATO is still controlling the EU countries even when the Warsaw Pact has ceased when Russia gave up. I just wonder when the world is able to give some feedback to those countries which think that they can have military operation anywhere - this is the key question of our times.

Agreed that if we had lost the war, then the US Air Force Commanders would have been tried as war criminals. Gen. Curtis Lemay said so himself. Plenty of war crimes to go around, were there not. But to say our entering the war was for self-serving economic reasons is absurd! We avoided entering the war as an isolationist country until we were finally attacked, and at that point there was no denying we were in a fight for our very existence. Finland itself fought on both sides, for the Nazis and for the allies, to save itself. If we behaved in a Machiavellian fashion, Finland was far worse; Finland's guiding principal was survive without regard to the ideology of their odious allies such as Nazi Germany. Finland recruited a combat battalion of Waffen SS troops that faought on the Eastern Front.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Gross_Born.jpg There continue to be US military bases in Germany after the end of the cold war, and they are there at Germany's request; some are moving to other NATO countries, but to call them "enemy bases" is stupid as we are all on the same side in NATO. Perhaps you have not noticed but a resurgent Russia opposes NATO, so NATO does serve an important purpose.

__________________

Don't startle him, Joe - it's almost full!

I must agree with Richy here. Without excusing some Allied behavior during the war, definitely without excusing the bombing of Dresden, we did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on us and then began targeting our ships with U-boat attacks. In my opinion, the ONLY valid reason to make war is to defend against or deter aggression. That qualifies. We fought the Germans in the 1940s because we had no choice.

They started it, we finished it. End of.

__________________
"On my signal, unleash hell."

Semper Fi.

Treasach......

Well, no. Beginning of, maybe. Means we weren't wrong to fight the war.

We were still wrong to do some of the things we did in it. Like what happened at Dresden.

Who attacked USA to start the war? Germany did not. Roosevelt organized the Pearl Harbor theater (verified in several US scientific papers) only because he wanted to use that as excuse to go to Europe and rob its resources and increase its dominance.

The Germans call US bases as enemy bases. According to Americans the US bases in Iraq are also friendly as they are there because of "request" and now Iraq and USA are on the same "side". How stupid you can be. Also Soviet forces were on request in all the E European bases. Everybody in Europe know that NATO was and is an organization led by an intruder - for some countries it was an enemy ... some believe that their country was liberated by the intruders. Anyway, NATO is not an European organization.

I read your papers regarding Roosevelt organizing the Pearl harbor attack and I think they're complete bullshit. I don't know of one highly regarded WWII/20th century U.S. historian that pays those conspiracy theories any credence whatsoever.

But even assuming they were true, JAPAN bombed Pearl Harbor and we're not discussing Japan here.

The United States went to war in Europe because Germany declared war on the United States and then began targeting American convoy operation in the North Atlantic, not because Japan bombed Pearly Harbor.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Then explain to me why it was that the United States never actually robbed Germany's resources?

To the contrary, the United States poured billion of dollars and infinite resources into the reconstruction of Germany, as well as the rest of Europe.

The Economic Miracle didn't come about in a vacuum.

Now I'll completly agree with you that increasing America's dominance was part of the reason for U.S. enterance into the war as a beligerent. I would also concede that probably as early as '42 Roosevelt was certainly eyeing Europe in general as a completly untapped market for U.S. commercial interests. but to say that there was ever any intention of "robbing Europes resources" demonstrates a profound ignorance of post-war German (and European) history.

What's funny is that I spent four years living in Germany and not once did any German ever suggest that American bases were enemy bases. To the contrary, Germans always recognized the benefit of American bases to the local economy in particular and the economy as a whole more generally. I still keep in close contact with many of my German friends to this day and have been back to Germany several times over the years to visit and if anything all I hear are complaints that empty bases (due to deployments to Iraq) are hurting the economy and that they wish the troops were still in garrison rather than in the ME.

Can you please point me to a source where that has been claimed please. I've never heard that said by anyone. It seems to be the consensus that American bases in Iraq are combat bases. Never hears or read of anyone claiming anything else.

Of course if you're talking about an opinionated claim that you've read on and Internet chat forum I would suggest that you pay about as much credence to those claims as i do to your wacky conspiracy theories about Roosevelt practically piloting a Val.

Which E. European bases in particular, and assume you have sources for this claim - post them.

I agree with that.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

The Allies declared war on Germany, at the behest of powerful Jews.

LOL

Go ahead and make your argument if you want. I'm certainly willing to entertain it.

But please bear in mind that this is the Historical Discourse forum and that your Dr. MacDonald is not, by any means, an historian. In fact his efforts at historical inquiry, his methodology, and the conclusions at which he arrives have been discredited by historians far and wide, including his colleagues at CSULB.

Some statements from the CSULB History Department faculty:

Sooooo... If you're going to make an argument that, "The Allies declared war on Germany, at the behest of powerful Jews", please make it on generally acceptable historical grounds. If it's a good argument it can be made without making any reference at all to MacDonald's work or conclusions. Since I'm sure that you've researched this absurd position carefully and corroberated Dr. MacDonalds conclusions both in the historical record and in the work of esteemed contemporary historians it shopuldn't be too difficult for you.

Unless of course your only reference is a blind devotion to the work of one man, which would be so incredibly foolish as to literally defy logic.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Given your avatar, it stands to reason that you'd applaud the incineration of European civilians.

Not that it has anything to do with this topic, and not that you make even a shred of sense, but...

The "Crying Indian" is an image from a Keep America Beautiful ad campaign that ran in the mid 1970s. The role of the "Crying Indian" was played by Espera de Corti (aka Iron Eyes Cody) who was actually an Italian American actor but who's most prominent roles were as Native Americans.

In all events, my use of that image stems more from my support of Keep America Beautiful than from a desire to see European civilians "incinerated".

Here's a link to the Keep America Beautiful site:

Keep America Beautiful - I hope you'll support the cause too.

And here's one of the images from the "Crying Indian" ad campaign:



Why I continue to entertain your stupidity is completly beyond me...

So is your answer about Dr. MacDonald forth coming?

Or was this the best you're capable of?

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart