Dresden and the Neo-Nazi march

Terrible - yes.
War Crime - I don't think so.

Remembering the bombing is something that should b done but the politics of the few Neo-Nazies may well have soured the event for the majority of German people.

Their (The Neo's) attempt to compare the bombing with the genocidal cleansing of the ethnic races in the Death Camps made me feel hollow and sick.

My wife is Jewish and lost many of her elder family in these camps.

May I point out that I have no hatred towards German people but hate the atrocities in these camps commited during WW2.

Deane

Most of the British were keen to finish the war as fast and soon as possible with a minimum loss of British life.

They had endured years of hardship, shortages of food and goods and were in no mood for sympathy for the Germans.

This, together with the fact that Dresden was a supply chain centre as well has an intelligence base, meant that the decision to bomb ruthlessly was justifiable.

It is easy to criticise now but you would take a different view if your very survival was at risk.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Deane

Most of the British were keen to finish the war as fast and soon as possible with a minimum loss of British life.

They had endured years of hardship, shortages of food and goods and were in no mood for sympathy for the Germans.

This, together with the fact that Dresden was a supply chain centre as well has an intelligence base, meant that the decision to bomb ruthlessly was justifiable.

It is easy to criticise now but you would take a different view if your very survival was at risk.

Regards

Mick

Spoken like a comfortably off early retiree that man, respect for your sheer afrontery & ignorance³

Fritz Von Thanks for the valentines card sweetie XXXX

No you stupid little man, but I used to know a few people who were around in the war and can remember what they said.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

Couldn't agree with you more.

Dropping nukes on the Japanese was a terrible thing, but then again, so were the alternatives.

Aric

With all respect, Mick and Aric, justifying the means by referring (after the fact) to the ends can, to borrow a phrase, be reprehended by the plainest understanding.

Long-time-dead, the news story was very brief and included no report of the comparisons to which you refer. Like you I see no comparison and such claims are peurile and offensive.

I mean only to make the point that just because the war was won by the side of the historians doesn't mean never saying sorry.

Deane

I think about the grey areas of morality quite a bit - whatever was done by the Allies was justified by the alternative world they opposed.

Yes, it may be a war crime - but not of our making, It is the past.

My Dad always thought that the atom bomb was dropped as a warning to the Russians.

Adam,

I agree with your first sentence wholeheartedly. I don't think it was a war crime however.

Deane,

You know full well the American and British leaders weighed the odds so to speak before making their decision. War is not a time for philosophy, at least the opaque question you refer to. The consequences of invading Japan would have been the same. There are no innocents in war. What's different about an American boy or Japanese boy fighting for their country (probably not really thrilled by it) than an American or Japanese citizen whose job it is to supply the weapon or ammo? They both serve their country. That means they support their country and it's actions taken.

I'm always left somewhat stupified when someone suggests that the German people were innocent of the shame that WWII brought. Please! One madman blathering on about superior races and ethnicities is not enough to start a war, let alone sustain it. The German people are equally to blame. To have the wool pulled over your eyes is no excuse.

If you're an accomplice to murder you're just as guilty as the guy who pulled the trigger.

There may have been some innocents in Germany who did not support the war. But they were in the minority - leastwise, any majority would have the responsibility to rise up, and usurp power from the dictator. Because of this, that's the only reason why I stated in my earlier post that the Dresden firebombings were terrible. For the few who did not and could not support the war, and couldn't fight the good fight.

The rest of them deserved what they got.

Aric

Deane,

Please don't take any offense to my post. I wasn't directing it at you, which after reading it certainly could be interpreted that way.

Any way, I respect you and your opinions, although on this issue I must disagree with you.

Just to clear the air.

Aric

Aric

Of course no argument can be advanced that war is not a terrible thing. Civilians are always affected whether directly or indirectly.

But your post makes a clear case that to target civilians is not only permissable but fair. Your line of reasoning is used by terrorists the world over.

Oh, and don't worry about disagreeing with me on anything. I consider civilised debate to be a form of inquiry rather than mere conflict. Conflict is when it gets personal (you twit )

Deane

Deane,

I was not intending for my post to be misconstrued to the extent that you took it. The very definition of a terrorist is to cause terror, in fact, that could be the only reason why they do what they do.

A population that agrees with, aides and abides in the slaughter of 6 million people needs to be stopped at whatever the consequence. Unfortunately there will always be innocents that are caught in the wrong place.

The Japanese theater was a little different. But I would support the US's decision again if I were faced with the same dilemma. A nation that so fiercely threw aside life - literally throwing themselves into battleships, aircraft carriers etc. - would have been absolutely horrific in a total land invasion. The cost of life would have easily superceded the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact, I put a LOT of blame on the Japanese leaders of the time for the second bombing.

They were asked to yield but did not.

Aric

p.s. - glad you did not take offense

Aric

I did not misconstrue your post. Your assembly of statements was its own construction - not mine. Your answer is not on point but only supports what you have already said by accusing the entire (presumeably non-Jewish) population of Germany of being so guilty of atrocity during WWII as to deserve whatever they got.

My assertion that your line of reasoning parallels that of terrorists is limited in scope. I did not compare the whole of terrorism to your line of reasoning so I do not see that your statement of the aims of terrorists answers my point.

The end does not justify the means. Do you, on principle, agree?

Deane

I recall reading that UK ministerial papers from that period have recently been de-classified, which show that one motive for the bombing of Dresden - after two brutal wars against Germany - was to create a level of destruction that was so horrific that it would reverberate through generations of Germans and prevent Germany from contemplating initiating another war for a long, long time. Whether the bombing was morally justified for this or other reasons is another question, but at least that objective seems to have been achieved.

Ross

War is a dreadful thing although sometimes necessary. Men sometimes do dreadful things in war - sometimes premeditated sometimes in the heat of the moment.

Was Dresden the right thing to do. To answer the question looking back after sixty years will not yield the right answer. The answer has to be looked at at that time - was it the right thing to do then? Clearly the carpet bombing was intended to do more than destroy selected targets, it was intended to create terror I guess in the hope that Hitler would take notice. Form the Allied perspective, in the eyes of the politicians, the commanders of the armed forces, the public as a whole I guess it was considered the right thing to do.

I do not know enough about the Dresden bombing and the reasoning behind it at the time but I guess the principle motive was an attempt to persuade Hitler to surrender. On that basis was it the right thing to do? One part of me says yes and yet the other part of me says no. I wonder how long the plan to carpet bomb Dresden and other cities was muted before being serioulsy planned and carried out. The real insight would be to understand what the people behind it were thinking of.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I've just heard a news story on the wireless about 5000 Neo-Nazis marching in Dresden on the anniversay of the fire-bombing, asserting that it should be declared a war crime. Much as I detest their politics I cannot help but sympathise with their position. The Allied forces did some dreadful things during the war so maybe its time to come clean about some of them?

Deane

You are, I am afraid, by suggesting that Dresden was a war crime merely playing into the hands of neo-nazis and other assorted scrotes and appeasers.

The Second World War was not just "any" old war, it was fought to preserve civilised values and baasic human decency against an aggressively expansionist regime of quite unbelievable barbarity. It was also a regime that, it is becoming increasingly clear, had the tacit support of a far greater number of ordinary German citizens than used to be thought. Germany was not an innocent country led into the abyss by madmen, it was complicit in its own destruction.

While the loss of over 30,000 lives in the Dresden bombings is of course highly regrettable, the town was a legitimate target for strategic bombing (you may not of course believe that strategic bombing is a legitimate form of warfare, but that's another question).

The whole issue of Dresden has also been used over the years by various neo-Nazis and Hitler apologists as a stick to beat the Alllies with. For many years it was claimed that 100,000 died in the firestorm, but this figure is now known to have come from the "research" of one David Irving, an infamous Holocaust denier and Nazi apologist whose methods and scholarship have been - time and again - exposed as skewed.

Also, they started it, the Allies had to finish it. Or would you rather they won?

Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
I do not know enough about the Dresden bombing and the reasoning behind it at the time but I guess the principle motive was an attempt to persuade Hitler to surrender. On that basis was it the right thing to do? One part of me says yes and yet the other part of me says no. I wonder how long the plan to carpet bomb Dresden and other cities was muted before being serioulsy planned and carried out. The real insight would be to understand what the people behind it were thinking of.

Mike

Mike

At that point in the War, it was accepted by Allied intelligence (and just about everyone else) that Hitler would never surrender. In fact, it was known as far back as 1942. Dresden was part of a general policy to destroy Germany's infrastructure, ensuring that defeat was inevitable. Unfortunately for the residents of important cities like Dresden, this policy meant bombing them out of existence.

Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
No you stupid little man, but I used to know a few people who were around in the war and can remember what they said.

Regards

Mick

I'm amazed that you actually know some German's, though being an Internationalist I suppose you would do really, innit.

Fritz Von Shabby Nazi tricks

Not quite sure what Adam Merideth means by the actions of the allies being justified by the world they opposed. Millions of people died in the war under the noble, but mistaken belief they were fighting fascism. Churchill had no problems with Fascism as an ideology, he was an open admirer of Mussolini.
The second world war was an imperialist slaughter between an ailing Britain, desperate but unable to hang on to its empire, and an emerging Germany and United States, eager to grab a share of world markets.
War crimes and atrocities were commited by all participants. Of course the Holocaust is without parallell in its terrible barbarity and any comparison with anything else insults the memory of the 6,000000 jews murdered there ( along with millions of Soviet p.o.w.s, disabled, gypsies, gays, etc..) But, ultimately, murder is murder, whether of a jew, a Dresden civilian or resident of Coventery. I am not of the opinion that a British life is more valuable than any other nationality.

The hijacking by Neo-N*zis of Dresden’s commemoration of the anniversary of the bombing was repellant, but not completely unexpected. The extremist NPD has been building support in Saxony amongst the usual groups of unemployed and disaffected who support right-wing extremism whether in France, England or Germany. The mainstream German political parties have been caught off guard by the resurgence of the far right and have made moves, unsuccessfully, to ban the NPD (and also to score a few points off each other). I don’t think what’s happening in Saxony is representative of the whole of Germany, but is acting as a warning to take action to limit the rise of extremism, particularly in the economically disadvantaged East.

The bombing of the other German cities is accepted by the Germans as the fruits of a war started by themselves, and there is tentative acceptance that Dresden was a legitimate target. The timing of the attack, and the fact that even Churchill thought it was going too far has to lead to the raising of a few eye-brows. Did its limited strategic value really warrant the deaths of 35,000 civillians so late in the war ?

All in all, disappointing that the spirit of reconciliation was overshadowed by right-wing scum who do not represent modern-day Germany.

Brian

quote:

Originally posted by Brian OReilly:
All in all, disappointing that the spirit of reconciliation was overshadowed by right-wing scum who do not represent modern-day Germany.
Brian

My thoughts exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Millions of people died in the war under the noble, but mistaken belief they were fighting fascism. Churchill had no problems with Fascism as an ideology, he was an open admirer of Mussolini.

Eh?

quote:

The second world war was an imperialist slaughter between an ailing Britain, desperate but unable to hang on to its empire, and an emerging Germany and United States, eager to grab a share of world markets.

You are either perverse or quite unforgiveably ignorant. Back to school with you! Or are you getting your world wars mixed up?

Shocking, absolutely shocking.

quote:

War crimes and atrocities were commited by all participants. Of course the Holocaust is without parallell in its terrible barbarity and any comparison with anything else insults the memory of the 6,000000 jews murdered there ( along with millions of Soviet p.o.w.s, disabled, gypsies, gays, etc..) But, ultimately, murder is murder, whether of a jew, a Dresden civilian or resident of Coventery. I am not of the opinion that a British life is more valuable than any other nationality.

It's not a question of British lives being more valuable than a German one.

Like I said, absolutely bloody shocking!

Kevin

Oh dont take my word for it. Have a read of Kolko's 'The politics of war' or A.J.P. Taylor's 'Origins of the Second world war'. I'm not getting my wars mixes up. There is a compulsive argument, made by Taylor, that WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

Deane

Does the end justify the means? You maintain it does not. Do I agree?

Philosophically I do. In reality I think this is next to impossible.

I think that all of our decisions are rooted in past experiences, either direct or extrapolated. We've all made decisions in the past that produced results we were neither expecting or did not know the consequences of.

But we learned. Often times we were reprimanded. And these experiences, through time, were shaped to form a sort of cheat sheat, so to speak, that addresses potential problems and dilemmas for each of us.

The overriding end all/be all is morality. Is it something that truly must be learned? Or can a human being that's locked away from ALL human contact, history be expected to behave morally when introduced to society? He or she would behave exactly as a child would. I maintain that. Some would agrue that every human intrinsically possesses a sense of morality. I'm not so sure. I think human survival can look like morality in a guise, but are they the same?

Let us address the Japanese bombings. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that there were only two courses of action the US leaders could take: nuclear bombing or land invasion.

Morally what is the right decision? You may not agree with me, but I maintain that depends on who's making the decision. To the Japanese, I'm sure they felt a land invasion was moral - in the context of war that is. Dropping bombs was probably, most likely considered the easy way out. But we all know the American leaders had a different sort of morality. If you could find a way to win the war that did not put your own soldiers' lives on the line, are you not morally obligated to take that route?

Honestly, how else should the Generals of the time made their decision. The object of any war is the end. The end must justify the means. If it does not, then why are you fighting?

As for the terrorists, I'm sure they feel morally just. To them, the end justifies the means.

So what? Morality in practice is relative. To us it does not and thus we wage war against them.

I would say then, that philosophically correct war - if ever there was such a thing - can only be made when someone is fully independent from the two sides fighting.

And I would also say, that the above statement is extremely hard to realize in practice.

Aric

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Oh dont take my word for it. Have a read of Kolko's 'The politics of war' or A.J.P. Taylor's 'Origins of the Second world war'. I'm not getting my wars mixes up. There is a compulsive argument, made by Taylor, that WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

Well, I have read the Taylor tome in question; I am familiar with Gabriel Kolko, although I have not read the particular book you mention.

It is perfectly fair to say that 39-45 was a continuation of 14-18 but I think your interpretation is incredibly simplistic. You completely ignore the fact that the Nazi regime was an avowedly aggressive and expansionist one - which quite frankly, had to be stopped (it's not a great deal to do with Britain holding on to its empire). Although I do not subscribe to the view that the Second World War was a "good" war, it had to be fought. Don't forget, also, that both books are quite old now and do not represent cutting-edge scholarship nor do they take into account the huge amount of new material released from Soviet archives. And, as far as I know (I stand to be corrected if this is not the case), doesn't the Kolko book deal largely with the last two years of the war, rather than the all-important period 1930-42?

As for Churchill, well, no one could possibly in a trillion years describe him as a liberal; he did indeed make embarrassingly friendly noises about Mussolini in 1927; he chose to stay quiet on Il Duce's Abyssinian adventure in '35 and was equivocal about the Spanish Civil War and Japan's invasion of anchuria. However, that doesn't necessarily make him a fascist, merely a product of his class and his time. I think it was also due to the fact that he saw fascism as a uniquely German threat. But let's give Winnie his due - he was the first major politician, with the possible exception of Chamberlain (that's Austen, not Neville) - to see the dangers inherent in the rise of Hitler. He was the right man for a particulaarly important job - something the British public understood, hence their rejection of him in 1945.

I still stand by my original criticisms of your post - real understanding of history, and especially of events as complex and important as the Second World War requires much hard work and wide reading and a dollop of healthy skepticism - not regurgitating the first book you come across that happens to fit in with one's worldview.

Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Deane

You are, I am afraid, by suggesting that Dresden was a war crime merely playing into the hands of neo-nazis and other assorted scrotes and appeasers.

The Second World War was not just "any" old war, it was fought to preserve civilised values and baasic human decency against an aggressively expansionist regime of quite unbelievable barbarity. It was also a regime that, it is becoming increasingly clear, had the tacit support of a far greater number of ordinary German citizens than used to be thought. Germany was not an innocent country led into the abyss by madmen, it was complicit in its own destruction.

While the loss of over 30,000 lives in the Dresden bombings is of course highly regrettable, the town was a legitimate target for strategic bombing (you may not of course believe that strategic bombing is a legitimate form of warfare, but that's another question).

The whole issue of Dresden has also been used over the years by various neo-Nazis and Hitler apologists as a stick to beat the Alllies with. For many years it was claimed that 100,000 died in the firestorm, but this figure is now known to have come from the "research" of one David Irving, an infamous Holocaust denier and Nazi apologist whose methods and scholarship have been - time and again - exposed as skewed.

Also, they started it, the Allies had to finish it. Or would you rather they won?

Kevin

Kevin

My opinions and my positions on matters important to me are the product of thought and (I hope) discussion. I hope I keep an open mind. Whether or not some of my opinions, thoughts or suggestions are similar or the same as those of skinheads is not something I labour myself about. As for playing into their hands - well, if my post is used in neo-nazi publicity it will be unfortunate indeed but other than that or some other unlikely scenario I don't see how their interests are advanced my opening a discussion on the Naim forum. The proposition that I'm playing into "their" hands is just silly.

Let me be quite clear - my God is the God of the Jews NOT the god of the christians. While I am a gentile I am sypathetic to Jewish interests. I HATE NAZISM IN ANY FORM AND I DETEST SKINHEAD SCUM AND NATIONAL FRONT ARSEHOLES. I CAN'T STAND RACISM EITHER. I hope that's clear.

I'm glad my Government refused entry to David Irving. It astounds me that so-called revisionist historians can get a soapbox in our society especially when they are "revising" events that happened in living memory.

"it was fought to preserve civilised values and baasic human decency" Can you see the inconsistency in what you are saying?

Deane