[quote=42 Regular;1160369]quote]



I will deal with this later on...

Another intelligent response...

Remember this is the same individual that told me to "look it up" when I asked him to substantiate his claim. I plan to hold you to your own standard...look it up and if you are too lazy to do a quick search then you can remain ignorant

Never met the man...

From a mainstream Canadian news publication:

Ceremonies were held across Canada Thursday to remember the millions killed in the Holocaust, with politicians and private citizens affirming their determination not to let such a thing happen again.

Among the speakers in Ottawa was Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who called the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews "perhaps the greatest crime" of the 20th century.

Holocaust Memorial Day marked in Canada and around the world

This is what germans think of when people talk about war. The cornerstone of the strong pacifistic, isolationist spirit which has infested large parts of our society. And finally, the reason why our secretary of defence cannot mention the word war when he is interviewed on our military intervention in Afghanistan.

It was simply a wrong and not excuseable act...

The fact that the Allies did it and that Germany started the war does not chance that in any way...

If you murder the murder of your child, you still be sent to prison for murder...

The moral of the story is... war is inhuman and a crime by definition.
And it is always easier to excuse certain crimes when the nation in question has won...


BTW:
British, as all imperial nations, have a long history of war crimes... in fact firebombing and targeting civilians as a means of terror warfare was a british strategy long before WW2...

__________________

Thanks for putting it into the right context, Zoido.

For those interested in more details google:
"14. Februar 1942" & „Area Bombing Directive“ & "Arthur Harris"

"Victor's justice" is best explained by learning that there's a memorial for the guy responsible for these attacks (Arthur Harris) in London.

Imho, guilt of others can't be used to defend immoral behavior at all, since guilt can only apply on the person(s) in charge of the decision leading to and/or the deed itself. So it's pointless to excuse these attacks with the cruelties of the german forces. It was revenge - comprehesibly, but still immoral!

All,

I did not intend for this thread to be turned into the flame war it has become. But, thanks to the undying efforts of some, it has.

The simple fact of the matter is that Dresden was a legit military target. Not only did it have a massive military barracks complex (Albertstadt) capable of housing and supporting around 20,000 troops, but it was also a major rail hub (on the Berlin-Prague-Vienna, Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig lines) and industrial center. Some of the factories produced anti-aircraft and field guns, targeting optics, as well as gears and differentials. There are also eyewitness accounts of the massive amounts of men and materiel moving through the city. Given the level of bombing technology available at the time, I don't think the outcome would have been any different.

Now, did it hasten the end of the war? I would say certainly not. However, war is war, and war is hell. You never let up on your enemy, never give him an ounce of breathing room. Pound him into the ground until he gives up. Both sides in this war fought hard, and used pretty much everything at their disposal. I believe no blame can be leveled from either side.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

The “Florence of the Elbe”….its a beautiful city now, I just wish I had gotten to see it before the bombing….

I think Thor has hit it on head…regards legit. target from a military standpoint, but I don’t discount that Rotterdamn, Coventry etc. in light of some of Churchill’s comments regards Germans overall, did not play a part regards a certain attitude of revenge…..

One can make a case that the strategic bombing of Germany was a wasted effort and in the end did not impact the war in a great way, but that is of course hindsight. The strategic bombing study concluded that in the Oil industry, and that alone was the air campaign really effective.

As far as it being terrorism…well, I think that in today’s terms that word is misused in this case.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

War is always a series of horrible crimes which is why the person who starts a war is a war criminal.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

The malicious carpet bombing of a civilian inhabited city is forbidden by Article 23 of the 4th Hague Conventions of 1907. In fact article 27 was violated as well as no care was taken to protect religious, artistic and scientific sites. If the city was undefended Article 25 would have been violated as well...

I wouldn't even go so far as saying that. I mean, some are forced to choose war. Also, I believe there are certain justifications for starting a war.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Art. 23.

"In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given"

-4th Hague Conventions of 1907

Sadly, that is what happens when a military target is in a place like Dresden. Therefore, since the target was a military one, I do not believe those articles were violated. Besides, article 23 does not mention carpet bombing at all, nor does it say anything about civilian inhabited cities. Article 27 also has the text as far as possible. Given the nature of the targets within Dresden, I belive there was no way to avoid hitting religious, artistic, scientific sites.

It is a shitty deal, but that is war.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Where was that declared?

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

The problem is, that quite obviously moral superiority was claimed by the Allies...

Firebomings are sterialized to the neccessary evil while terror actions like massacers or horrible anti-partisan revenge operations are commonly accepted as warcrimes.

Even the nukes on Hiroshima & Nakasaki are seen as live saveres... (though that comment is only vallied in the context of the 7 nukes that would have been used in operation downfall...)

So you can't put a thread online and look away when the moral implications kick in...

__________________

I agree there is a double standard today as it pertains to those events. Believe me, I work very hard trying to correct that where ever I see it.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

You would be mistaken; Article 23 deals specifically with assaulting military targets....

The conventions say nothing about military targets being exempt from Article 23; in fact it specifically covers the bombardment of cities etc...and the rules that apply to such acts

Article 23 falls under: CHAPTER I - Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments

These violations make the allies war criminals. Nobody released the Nazi's from their war crime liability under the excuse that such things are merely a part of war...