Military Historical Dates

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

guilty as charged. And nothing we have can destroy a planet. Hitting one is easy. Just pick up a rock and let go.

Bruce Willis blew an asteroid and saved Earth while Aerosmith was playing, man...

[RF]

RF:

I think you are mistaken, the one that brought planets and stars was lwd, not me. I´m afraid of the outer space...

Yes, you are right Karl. Sorry.

As for Bruce Willis, well blowing an asteroid is easy - in Hollywood, or anywhere else, in front of the cameras.

[Karl Heidenreich]

From February 13 to February 15, 1945 a war crime was commited against the city and people of Dresden.

From Frederick Taylor:

"The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th century warfare and a symbol of destruction."

From wikipedia:

A number of factors have made the bombing a unique point of contention and debate. These include the beauty of the city, and its importance as a cultural icon; the deliberate creation of a firestorm; the number of victims killed; the extent to which it was a necessary military target; and the fact that it was attacked toward the end of the war, raising the question of whether the bombing was needed to hasten the end.

The bold is mine.

The arrogance of the "morality" still an issue to be examined.

Warmest regards,

[alecsandros]

Hello Karl,
I hope nobody asserts that the bombing of civilian areas (both by the Germans as, much more drasticaly, by the Allies) is compatible with a "moral" stance. Maybe wars are intrinsicaly amoral? As no moral principle is better justified and justifiable to the fighter than the principle of survival. By all means, that's not saying I'm excusing the death camps or the Tokyo fire bombings!
Just that I feel the force of Oppenheimer's words almost all the time I hear about the overall morality of battles... "Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"
Just a thought...

[Karl Heidenreich]

alecsandros:

Hello Karl,
I hope nobody asserts that the bombing of civilian areas (both by the Germans as, much more drasticaly, by the Allies) is compatible with a "moral" stance. Maybe wars are intrinsicaly amoral? As no moral principle is better justified and justifiable to the fighter than the principle of survival. By all means, that's not saying I'm excusing the death camps or the Tokyo fire bombings!
Just that I feel the force of Oppenheimer's words almost all the time I hear about the overall morality of battles... "Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds"
Just a thought...

[Bgile]

I can't imagine any justification for the Bombing of Dresden. It was IMO completely inexcuseable and I can't imagine it not being considered a war crime, but it wasn't because the perpetrators were members of the winning side.

The fire bombing of Japan and the nuclear weapons I can imagine had an air of desperation about them. There was a desperate hope that we wouldn't have to fight our way across Honshu; a horrible blood bath with civilians charging machineguns with pitch forks. I don't think that necessarlily represented war crimes because the people responsible couldn't see any reasonable alternative. Dresden wasn't like that. Germany was defeated and surrender was only a matter of time.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Steve:

I can't imagine any justification for the Bombing of Dresden. It was IMO completely inexcuseable and I can't imagine it not being considered a war crime, but it wasn't because the perpetrators were members of the winning side.

The fire bombing of Japan and the nuclear weapons I can imagine had an air of desperation about them. There was a desperate hope that we wouldn't have to fight our way across Honshu; a horrible blood bath with civilians charging machineguns with pitch forks. I don't think that necessarlily represented war crimes because the people responsible couldn't see any reasonable alternative. Dresden wasn't like that. Germany was defeated and surrender was only a matter of time.

I do concurr with you and want to add that, in the case of Japan, there are strategic considerations that were not applicable to the Dresden issue. As you pointed out the Americans were in front of a grim perspective, even a victory one, in which the landings of Olympic would have been bloodbaths. There was a difference in the national psychology of Germany and Japan. In the latter, for whatever reasons and means, the civil population would have fought against the invasion forces, which wasn`t the case of the German civilians.
Of course, on moral grounds, we are still in a vaccum because we must consider the following: the bombing of civilian targets, whatever their nature, is inmoral and illegal. Let´s say that the firebombings over Japan caused, what?, one million casualties (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki)... innocent casualties. The alternative? Over half a million American casualties plus some two or three million japanese. Are numbers the only justification? `
The question, here, is that this issues are beyond any moral approach (more or less alecsandros´ point). It´s just military practicality. Hamburg, Berlin, Schweinfurt, Tokio, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, answered to this military neccesity. They were bombed in order to win the war.

Dresden? It served no military purpose, neither. So, it can be regarded as a plain war crime in every aspect of the expression. The pretty thing is that no one was ever charged for it, and in that I disagree with Steve: if no one was ever charged it was because it would have been an official admision of a war crime perpetrated by the winners. Who will go to Nuremberg? Churchill? "Bomber Harris", Spatz, Ike, Konev? Hard, uhm?

[Bgile]

Dresden? It served no military purpose, neither. So, it can be regarded as a plain war crime in every aspect of the expression. The pretty thing is that no one was ever charged for it, and in that I disagree with Steve: if no one was ever charged it was because it would have been an official admision of a war crime perpetrated by the winners. Who will go to Nuremberg? Churchill? "Bomber Harris", Spatz, Ike, Konev? Hard, uhm?

I don't disagree with that at all. Today we try soldiers for war crimes, including the deliberate killing of individual civilians. Is that the right thing to do? Probably, as long as the circumstances are taken into account. It definitely interferes with combat efficiency, but our society won't stand for any other way. It's a built in combat disadvantage of a democracy.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Steve:

It definitely interferes with combat efficiency, but our society won't stand for any other way. It's a built in combat disadvantage of a democracy.

Indeed and is a luxury of democratic weakness whilst the fate of the nation is not as stake. But that kind of conduct will definitely defeat the US when fighting a real war in which the fate not only of the US but that of western society will be decided.

[RF]

I can't imagine any justification for the Bombing of Dresden. It was IMO completely inexcuseable and I can't imagine it not being considered a war crime, but it wasn't because the perpetrators were members of the winning side.

The fire bombing of Japan and the nuclear weapons I can imagine had an air of desperation about them. There was a desperate hope that we wouldn't have to fight our way across Honshu; a horrible blood bath with civilians charging machineguns with pitch forks. I don't think that necessarlily represented war crimes because the people responsible couldn't see any reasonable alternative. Dresden wasn't like that. Germany was defeated and surrender was only a matter of time.

These bombings would not have happened if the Axis powers had not started the war, and started the war by bombing civilians.

They started it. The Allies finished it. And in war you do not play to the rules of cricket or of Queensbury.

So you won't see me denouncing the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or indeed the bombing of Rome or Budapest.

Remember Harris - what they sowed they reaped, many times over.

[RF]

It's a built in combat disadvantage of a democracy.

That depends on the rules you play by.

If a country had committed the attack on the twin towers instead of terrorists, the mood in the US immediately after it would have called for all manner of unrestricted bombing on that enemy country, and some would want to include a nuclear response.

[Bgile]

These bombings would not have happened if the Axis powers had not started the war, and started the war by bombing civilians.

They started it. The Allies finished it. And in war you do not play to the rules of cricket or of Queensbury.

So you won't see me denouncing the bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or indeed the bombing of Rome or Budapest.

Remember Harris - what they sowed they reaped, many times over.

I'm sorry, but I can't condone that. It's a very slippery slope you have gone down. According to your logic, when a German commander orders the bombing of London, that justifies the killing of every man, woman and child in Germany. Because a megalomaniac starts a war his entire population can be justifiably killed. War is, after all, not played by the rules of cricket or Queensbury.

Saddam Hussein killed civilians, so we should drop nuclear bombs on every city in Iraq and go in and slaughter every survivor. After all, he started the war so those people deserve it.

I don't much care for that kind of logic.

[lwd]

From February 13 to February 15, 1945 a war crime was commited against the city and people of Dresden.
...

Nope. Not a war crime.

[lwd]

I can't imagine any justification for the Bombing of Dresden. It was IMO completely inexcuseable and I can't imagine it not being considered a war crime, but it wasn't because the perpetrators were members of the winning side.....

Dresden was most defintily not a war crime. Further more it was an important rail node among other reasons for it's being attacked. Nor was this the first time it was hit.

[RF]

The logic will never be attractive and isn't intended to be.

If those obedient to what Churchill described as the ''maniac'' attack then all of their support systems and logistics are targets; that is because I would prefer to stay alive and live in a country free from the sort of tyranny that would be imposed as the price of losing.

The fact remains that the war had popular support (when it started) in both Germany and Japan. Millions voted for Hitler in reasonably free elections in Germany, at a time that Mein Kampf was becoming a bestseller. Millions of Germans (and Japanese) were implicated in war crimes and breaches of human rights, including breaches of international treaties.

Iraq is not as clear cut, but the support system for Saddam Hussein was the Ba'ath Party and the Republican Guard; not so much popular support here as most of the population were forced to toe a line. However some four million Iraqi's fled that country, the majority I believe supported the overthrow of Saddam prior to the war that did it.

A slippery slope? Maybe. But a sense of purpose and reacting in cold blood to the threats posed by aggressors is the way to deal with that situation. Our motives are different and ultimately for the better.