The Dresden Bombing

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne


Dont you think it is sad that you would be a perfect nazi? What drove much of their killings were based upon the notion of ubermensh and subhumans. You take it even further: they are not even humans.

[X(] That is scary indeed!



JT

I won't take offence at being spun as a Nazi. Point is this, the Nazis decided who were the untermensch and then made war on them. My position is 180 degrees opposite.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Is there a difference between 'killing a lot' and 'not killing a lot' of people? If so, who makes that definition?

? There is a diffenrence in ei. killing 100 or killing 50. The difference i believe is 50 people. There is no definition of all the feelings or families or tought involved in this. Your upbringing would guid you in deciding that.

How do we define 'The enemy'? I would demand a strong moral case before I could accept that some person (or persons) were my enemy, once proven then, and only then, would I support whatever methods were necessary to secure their defeat at a minimum cost to 'my side'.

This is all true for the Naziz as well. They were convinced. It is true for the terrorists who took down twin tower. This is true for anyone that does not feel regret for their actions, or sorrow at the time it is committed. You are no better that these, Eric.

And you are wrong. Under international law, it is the duty of a soldier to refuse any order that is in violation with internationally accepted conduict of war. This is probably not easy. Resent events in Iraq prove this. However, that is no ecuse. There are no exuse (ho do I spell that ?) That, the germans found out after the war.


JT

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne


Dont you think it is sad that you would be a perfect nazi? What drove much of their killings were based upon the notion of ubermensh and subhumans. You take it even further: they are not even humans.

[X(] That is scary indeed!



JT

I won't take offence at being spun as a Nazi. Point is this, the Nazis decided who were the untermensch and then made war on them. My position is 180 degrees opposite.

Im not saying you are a nazi. Im saying you would probably would have been a nazi if you were a young german in the 30ths. I am also saying that it is only yourself that decide how to act. Do not blame the germans for any atrocity you commit. It is ONLY YOU who decide to do that. Do not ever hide behind others failure, and use that as an exuse for your own.


JT

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne


Dont you think it is sad that you would be a perfect nazi? What drove much of their killings were based upon the notion of ubermensh and subhumans. You take it even further: they are not even humans.

[X(] That is scary indeed!



JT

I won't take offence at being spun as a Nazi. Point is this, the Nazis decided who were the untermensch and then made war on them. My position is 180 degrees opposite.

Im not saying you are a nazi. Im saying you would probably would have been a nazi if you were a young german in the 30ths. I am also saying that it is only yourself that decide how to act. Do not blame the germans for any atrocity you commit. It is ONLY YOU who decide to do that. Do not ever hide behind others failure, and use that as an exuse for your own.


JT

Semantics! You evidently don't understand either my position or Nazi ideology. Nazi ideology had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with racial superiority and the power of the will. How then would I be a Nazi if I believe in the importance of a strong moral foundation in life?

[Williamb]

Maybe the danger is believing you can make war "civilized"

I guess if you want can argue any action that results in the death of civilians as a wacrime. but the citizens arent totally exempt as they DO support a countries war effort in ways other than serving as soldiers. (in factories or working railroads, Ports.. ect)

Maybe the whole concept of a warcriminal is something that isnt workable. Should trash the whole idea.

Then when another Hitler or Bin Laden comes along dont worry about getting them to court just shoot them when they are captured.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames



I won't take offence at being spun as a Nazi. Point is this, the Nazis decided who were the untermensch and then made war on them. My position is 180 degrees opposite.

Im not saying you are a nazi. Im saying you would probably would have been a nazi if you were a young german in the 30ths. I am also saying that it is only yourself that decide how to act. Do not blame the germans for any atrocity you commit. It is ONLY YOU who decide to do that. Do not ever hide behind others failure, and use that as an exuse for your own.


JT

Semantics! You evidently don't understand either my position or Nazi ideology. Nazi ideology had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with racial superiority and the power of the will. How then would I be a Nazi if I believe in the importance of a strong moral foundation in life?

Ok. How do you think it was possible for the nazis to comitt holocaus? Or any of the other atrocities. Like starving the russian population. They must have justified this with some sort of etics. That takes a moral standing. So moral is to some degree a product of your environment (hence your upbringing). The same goes for BinLaden. To him it is morally good to kill americans. You trie to claim your moral is better than theirs. I say that would be true if you refused to use their methods. But you will not do that. As long as it is justifiable with your moral. That makes you no better than them. To use an analog: you can accept a 6 yrs old to cry and say "but they started" when he has done something wrong. But only because we do not expect him to understand better. This is expected of adults. You.





JT

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Maybe the danger is believing you can make war "civilized"

I guess if you want can argue any action that results in the death of civilians as a wacrime. but the citizens arent totally exempt as they DO support a countries war effort in ways other than serving as soldiers. (in factories or working railroads, Ports.. ect)

Maybe the whole concept of a warcriminal is something that isnt workable. Should trash the whole idea.

Then when another Hitler or Bin Laden comes along dont worry about getting them to court just shoot them when they are captured.

Yes, war is never civilized. But facing the fact that we do begin wars, it is civilized to try to make the best of it. To improve our way of solving conflicts. No one here would consider the unfortunately killing of a civilian in a war zone a war crime. But Dresden was very different from such an incident. If you would remove your enemys ability to produce material, you would kill the factory, not the workers if you had the choice. That is what civilized men do.



JT

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Not this shit again. We disscussed this to no end in the old AOW.

Germany was perfectly ok bombing civilians when they were good at it at the begining of the war. But then the British became much more proficient at it and 60 years later the Germans whine [8|].

I know.

This same topic comes up in almost every forum.

[EricGuitarJames]

Ok. How do you think it was possible for the nazis to comitt holocaus? Or any of the other atrocities. Like starving the russian population. They must have justified this with some sort of etics. That takes a moral standing. So moral is to some degree a product of your environment (hence your upbringing). The same goes for BinLaden. To him it is morally revulting NOT to kill americans. You trie to claim your moral is better than theirs. I say that would be true if you refused to use their methods. But you will not do that. As long as it is justifiable with your moral. That makes you no better than them. To use an analog: you can accept a 6 yrs old to cry and say "but they started" when he as done something wrong. But only because we do not expect him do understand better. This is expected of adults. You.

The Nazi Holocaust, the starvation of Russian prisoners had nothing to do with ethics, morality etc. etc. Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled (like me!) were considered to be less than human, inferior, no better than dogs. Therefore their murder needed no moral justification. Throughout history most atrocities committed have not been based on a moral superiority but that of race. The Crusades, the Pogroms, the enslaving of Africans had no moral justification. Your analogies are false, as is trying to spin my as having the mentality of a six year old[:)]

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Ok. How do you think it was possible for the nazis to comitt holocaus? Or any of the other atrocities. Like starving the russian population. They must have justified this with some sort of etics. That takes a moral standing. So moral is to some degree a product of your environment (hence your upbringing). The same goes for BinLaden. To him it is morally revulting NOT to kill americans. You trie to claim your moral is better than theirs. I say that would be true if you refused to use their methods. But you will not do that. As long as it is justifiable with your moral. That makes you no better than them. To use an analog: you can accept a 6 yrs old to cry and say "but they started" when he as done something wrong. But only because we do not expect him do understand better. This is expected of adults. You.

The Nazi Holocaust, the starvation of Russian prisoners had nothing to do with ethics, morality etc. etc. Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled (like me!) were considered to be less than human, inferior, no better than dogs. Therefore their murder needed no moral justification. Throughout history most atrocities committed have not been based on a moral superiority but that of race. The Crusades, the Pogroms, the enslaving of Africans had no moral justification. Your analogies are false, as is trying to spin my as having the mentality of a six year old[:)]

It is easy to disagree. If you regard all life as holy (some religions do), then you would not kill a bug. That is ethics. That gives you a fundament for moral. This guids your actions in life. If you kill 1000 jew with gas, there must be something that enables this. Let it be the fact that you regard them as subhumans. Then, that is your moral justification.

You accused me of not grasping the nazi doctrine. This is true. I believe it is impossible for anyone who was not present to fully grasp that. But I do know that they took young persons, children, who would have, in England or US, grown up to be like us, and turned them into someone who would commit genocide. How on earth do you think that was possible unless you tought them that was the right thing to do? That is ethics, Eric.

Etics and moral guides us every day. The Palestines, the Israeli, muslims that follow their version of Jiihad. All justify their actions based on this. So do you. So do I.

It is double moral to claim that atrocities committed by 'the others' are different from the very same atrocities committed by yourself. Double moral is not twice as good. It is merely a sign that the person in question does not comprehend what it is about. A 6 year old boy for instance. Or you. You claim to be outrageouse over the fact that the germans consider disabled subhumans, yet you yourself consider the germans subhumans. To say "i only do that because they consider me subhuman", is exactly along my analouge of the little boy.




JT

[EricGuitarJames]

JT, where do you get the idea that I consider the Germans to be subhuman? Why infer that I consider Jews, Slavs and Gypsies to be subhuman and consider their slaughter to be justified? What atrocities have I committed? Please explain.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

JT, where do you get the idea that I consider the Germans to be subhuman? Why infer that I consider Jews, Slavs and Gypsies to be subhuman and consider their slaughter to be justified? What atrocities have I committed? Please explain.

You justify the firebombing of Dresden. According to an earlier post they were not even humans.
I never said you considered jews, slavs and gypsies to be subhuman.
You have not committed any atrocitiy I know of. I tried to paint a picture of the situation as it may have been during WW2. It was to simplify the discussion.

I do, however, consider your toughts around morality to be very immature, that of a 6 years old boy. I do not see the point of continuing this conversation because of that. I find it rather unbeliveable that an adult person believes that actions committed in war and ethics has nothing to do with each other. All I feel is necessary to say, I have already said.



JT

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Maybe the danger is believing you can make war "civilized"

Actually the danger is believing that *nothing* is off limits in war. In reality, most soldiers obey *some* rules of war. Beliving that any kind of conduct can be justified by a state of war is the root of most war atrocities. War is never civilized, but there are "rules" that most combatants follow - which is most certainly a good thing.

The evil of war is in the means - not the ends.

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

JT, where do you get the idea that I consider the Germans to be subhuman? Why infer that I consider Jews, Slavs and Gypsies to be subhuman and consider their slaughter to be justified? What atrocities have I committed? Please explain.

You justify the firebombing of Dresden. According to an earlier post they were not even humans.
I never said you considered jews, slavs and gypsies to be subhuman.
You have not committed any atrocitiy I know of. I tried to paint a picture of the situation as it may have been during WW2. It was to simplify the discussion.

I do, however, consider your toughts around morality to be very immature, that of a 6 years old boy. I do not see the point of continuing this conversation because of that. I find it rather unbeliveable that an adult person believes that actions committed in war and ethics has nothing to do with each other. All I feel is necessary to say, I have already said.



JT

Since you don't seem capable of continuing the discussion there's no point in attempting to respond. Shame you had to resort to abuse though[:(]

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

JT, where do you get the idea that I consider the Germans to be subhuman? Why infer that I consider Jews, Slavs and Gypsies to be subhuman and consider their slaughter to be justified? What atrocities have I committed? Please explain.

You justify the firebombing of Dresden. According to an earlier post they were not even humans.
I never said you considered jews, slavs and gypsies to be subhuman.
You have not committed any atrocitiy I know of. I tried to paint a picture of the situation as it may have been during WW2. It was to simplify the discussion.

I do, however, consider your toughts around morality to be very immature, that of a 6 years old boy. I do not see the point of continuing this conversation because of that. I find it rather unbeliveable that an adult person believes that actions committed in war and ethics has nothing to do with each other. All I feel is necessary to say, I have already said.



JT

Since you don't seem capable of continuing the discussion there's no point in attempting to respond. Shame you had to resort to abuse though[:(]

Yes, you are right. I could have done better in my last posting. I apologize. I only get carried away sometimes. The reason why I want to stop this discussion is because experience tell me there will be nothing new emerging here. And I feel that is a basis for any discussion. I hope we can agree to disagree on this subject, and part as friends.



JT

[EricGuitarJames]

That's okay JT, I know how it feels. Apologies accepted[:)]

[Error in 0]

Thanks m8. I checked out you web page. Having a face on the person whom you are discussing with, makes it all rather different. Funny that [:)]



JT

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Not this shit again. We disscussed this to no end in the old AOW.

Germany was perfectly ok bombing civilians when they were good at it at the begining of the war. But then the British became much more proficient at it and 60 years later the Germans whine [8|].

I get the feeling that in order to justify any critism of the allied, the Axix powers must be 'clean' on that matter. Why cannot I argue that "ruthless morons" were on both sides, without having to read about the well known horrible things the germans did? I must take it that you as well think the Dresden incident was nothing more than just another military operation.


JT

Dont start what you cant finish. Fascism started the war and Democracy and Communism ended it. Thank god the people of today wernt around back then. They would of wrung their collective hands and tried to negotiate a peace with the monsters that were present in Japan and Germany. Instead they did what had to be done and crushed both nations ruthlessly. I for one am glad they did. Both nations havnt had the stomach for war for 6 entire decades, in fact they are now among the most ardont pacifist. Perhaps if we brought about unconditional surrender yet again wars would not come about as frequently as they do.
What our good friends the revisionest historians neglect to tell us is just how effective firebombing was.
The industry of the Ruhr was deeply impacted when large sections of the cities that held them were burnt to the ground.
Krupp works was never running at full capacity from 1942 onwards because it was constantly being hit from bombs and fire damage.
Not to mention that anyone that was being killed at night wasnt showing up to make artillary shells or tanks the next day at work.
I also dont like this talk about 'innocent' Germans and Japanese. They brought their goverments to power and were extremly happy people as long as they were winning. The bombings of Shanghei, Nanking, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Leningrad and London just made them grin ear to ear in pride. But when things started to turn against them their anchestors cried foul. I say to that tough cookies.
An earlier poster summed it up best, they reaped what they sowed.

[Jane Doe]

It's a a fair critic to the allies to tell them that the Dresden, Hiroshima [...] bombings were atrocities. Just like it's more than fair to critic the russians to have raped 2 million germans in Berlin and another 2 in East Prussia. They reaped what they sowed... yeah, but that's still inhumane. That's war.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Not this shit again. We disscussed this to no end in the old AOW.

Germany was perfectly ok bombing civilians when they were good at it at the begining of the war. But then the British became much more proficient at it and 60 years later the Germans whine [8|].

I get the feeling that in order to justify any critism of the allied, the Axix powers must be 'clean' on that matter. Why cannot I argue that "ruthless morons" were on both sides, without having to read about the well known horrible things the germans did? I must take it that you as well think the Dresden incident was nothing more than just another military operation.


JT

Dont start what you cant finish. Fascism started the war and Democracy and Communism ended it. Thank god the people of today wernt around back then. They would of wrung their collective hands and tried to negotiate a peace with the monsters that were present in Japan and Germany. Instead they did what had to be done and crushed both nations ruthlessly. I for one am glad they did. Both nations havnt had the stomach for war for 6 entire decades, in fact they are now among the most ardont pacifist. Perhaps if we brought about unconditional surrender yet again wars would not come about as frequently as they do.
What our good friends the revisionest historians neglect to tell us is just how effective firebombing was.
The industry of the Ruhr was deeply impacted when large sections of the cities that held them were burnt to the ground.
Krupp works was never running at full capacity from 1942 onwards because it was constantly being hit from bombs and fire damage.
Not to mention that anyone that was being killed at night wasnt showing up to make artillary shells or tanks the next day at work.
I also dont like this talk about 'innocent' Germans and Japanese. They brought their goverments to power and were extremly happy people as long as they were winning. The bombings of Shanghei, Nanking, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Leningrad and London just made them grin ear to ear in pride. But when things started to turn against them their anchestors cried foul. I say to that tough cookies.
An earlier poster summed it up best, they reaped what they sowed.

It was a question if they really needed to do these things in order to win the war. And they were not. You make it sound bad that some consider sparing life a good thing. That pretty much narrows you down for me [:)]

You indicate that atrocities is the way to go to avoid future wars. You are a representative for the by far most agressive country in modern times, a country that vage war based on any reason whatever. Are you suggesting that the peace loving countries that is being fed up with this, join forces with the unlucky victims, and put a firestorm in all major US cities, thus 'teaching' you to become peaceful?

If I claim Dresden was a war crime, I of course really mean that the germans were angels, and Japan only misunderstood. That goes without saying, but being as thorough as you are, you help me by pointing this out. Thanks! [;)]



JT