Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Darkfish.
Rotterdam, London, Dresden.
One of those is different in many ways and shouldn't be used in your count
|
Rotterdam: bombing of civilians in order to force the Dutch government to surrender (not that we had any chance anyway).
London: bombing of civilians for whatever reason Hitler deemed necessary (both demoralizing the British and revenge)
Dresden: bombing of civilians supposedly targeting the German infrastructure and industry, even though not all of the infrastructure and almost no industry was targeted.
My list shows bombings of civilians for very weak and unmoral reasons. I think they all fit that list, but if you know some reason why one of them should be excluded, please tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Only because you're looking at it with hindsight. Wonderful thing that hindsight. It allows you to make all sorts of moral judgments from the comfort of your living room without recognizing that things weren't all that clear at the time they were happening.
The answers to those questions in the beginning of 1945 with an UNdefeated Germany still months away from surrender is an unequivocal yes, just it would be for any other military action that might end the war sooner.
Like I said before. In a fight to the finish you keep punching until your opponent goes down. You don't ease up just because he's on the ropes.
|
I think anyone looking at it at the time should have come to the same conclusion, but in the end that doesn't matter. Even if there was a reason to bomb Dresden, I don't think killing this much civilians was justified. They could have instead easily targeted the industrial areas outside of town, killing less people and giving a possibly bigger blow to the local industry.
And to continue your analogy, in a fight, if the opponent is only one hit away from going KO, you don't grab your sword and slash his throat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I'm not going to get into this argument, other than to say this:
August is correct about hindsight, but you are also correct with the "should be ashamed" comment. We should all have the grace to realize that yes, horrible things happen in war, and mistakes are made, but we should also determine not to use that as an excuse.
But you need to remember that part of the climate on a website like this is the occasional poster whose intent is not "we all have our bad side" but rather "no, you're the bad one, worse than I am". Sometimes a reply is made with that in mind, when the person replied to didn't mean that at all.
Sometimes we get defensive when we don't need to. And other times we need to.
|
The Germans did terrible things in the war. But we shouldn't forget that the Allies have done so as well. Denying either of them is just not in line with history. There is no such thing as a "universally good" side or a "universally bad" side. The Germans have done good things, and the Allies have done their share of war crimes. It's all too easy to say "the Germans were the bad guys so whatever we did they deserved it".