PDA

View Full Version : Nazi Violence in Germany....


Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 01:27
....a reminder that past history is recent history and if you think that the unthinkable could never happen in our time....think again.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Feb/Week2/15548407.jpg




FULL STORY (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Germany-Scuffles-Break-Out-Between-Neo-Nazis-And-Opponents-During-Protest-Over-Dresden-Bombing/Article/201002215548372?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article _Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15548372_Germany%3A_Scuffles_Break_Out _Between_Neo-Nazis_And_Opponents_During_Protest_Over_Dresden_Bo mbing)

VictorXD
14-02-10, 01:28
Why is ther guy holding an LOL on his hand?

TRfan23
14-02-10, 01:31
Neo-Nazis have caused outrage by comparing the 1945 bombing of the city to the Holocaust.

What The Hell?

Lizard of Oz
14-02-10, 01:31
Why is ther guy holding an LOL on his hand?

:vlol:

It's the beginning of a German word - he is covering the rest, I think/hope...

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 01:38
What The Hell?I thought the Nazis didn't believe in the Holocaust? :confused:

**** 'em. They're practically non-existent and they got owned big time. I think if I ever met one in real life I wouldn't be able to take them seriously. I'd just end up laughing.

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 01:43
They're practically non-existent and they got owned big time.

That's pretty much the sum of what Neville Chamberlain said.

In 1939.

Azerutan
14-02-10, 01:48
Is the last sentence of that article a sarcasm?

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 01:50
That's pretty much the sum of what Neville Chamberlain said.

In 1939.What have you been reading? :confused: Neville Chamberlain was in favor of appeasement. He knew there were a lot of them in Germany and that the country was a growing threat, he just thought the best way to stop them was through diplomacy.

I can't believe you're comparing the situation with neo-Nazis today to the Nazis that ruled Germany in 1939.

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 01:56
Neville Chamberlain was in favor of appeasement. He knew there were a lot of them in Germany and that the country was a growing threat, he just thought the best way to stop them was through diplomacy.




And the result of his dithering was catastophe. The worst war in the history of the human race.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 01:57
And the result of his dithering was catastophe. The worst war in the history of the human race.Yes, indeed. Your point?

Lemmie
14-02-10, 01:59
While the bombing of Dresden was indeed tragic, I think the phrase might be 'they had it coming.'

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 02:02
Yes, indeed. Your point?

Your point...


I can't believe you're comparing the situation with neo-Nazis today to the Nazis that ruled Germany in 1939.

Was his point!

How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

Encore
14-02-10, 02:08
^ Try reading up on how the Nazis came to power and you'll soon see the diference between an actual political movement and some troublemakers running down the streets.

While the bombing of Dresden was indeed tragic, I think the phrase might be 'they had it coming.'

Who? The german civilians? Because you know, they were the target, not the nazis themselves.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 02:09
Your point...



Was his point!My point was completely different.

Your comparison makes no sense. I said I'd probably laugh if I ever met a neo-Nazi because there are so few of them and they got owned badly during WWII.

Chamberlain on the other hand was arguing that Germany was not a threat. He believed they could be contained by simply letting them have certain parts of Europe.

Two completely different things.

On top of that, in 1939 the Nazis controlled an entire country and had a large amount of support in countries across the world (the Nazi party of America for example had several hundred thousand members at one point I think). Now they have practically no support anywhere (perhaps a thousand in a country of tens of millions) and have zero political influence. They do not control any countries and they are banned in some places.

While the bombing of Dresden was indeed tragic, I think the phrase might be 'they had it coming.'Agreed. They hit London 10 times worse.

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 02:15
Try reading up on how the Nazis came to power .

I did. For my honours degree. ;)

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 02:16
I did. For my honours degree. ;)Surely then you'd know the difference between the situation then and the situation now?

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 02:19
Surely then you'd know the difference between the situation then and the situation now?

Absolutely.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 02:21
Absolutely.Well then why make a comparison that doesn't even make sense?

Real Life Raider
14-02-10, 02:25
Well then why make a comparison that doesn't even make sense?

Go back to my original post and have a little think Tony ;)

Lemmie
14-02-10, 02:25
Who? The german civilians? Because you know, they were the target, not the nazis themselves.

The Nazi state in general. Individual citizens, of course not. It was more in answer to the comparison of the bombing to the Holocaust than anything else.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 02:27
Go back to my original post and have a little think Tony ;)The thing is though it's nothing like what Chamberlain said.

Chamberlain really said there were so few Nazis and that they got beaten badly (funnily enough, the latter only makes sense after the war)? No.

Chamberlain said they could be contained by giving them some of the things they wanted.

Again, two completely different things and for someone who says they have a degree in history it's a rather odd comparison to make. ;)

Encore
14-02-10, 02:35
The Nazi state in general. Individual citizens, of course not. It was more in answer to the comparison of the bombing to the Holocaust than anything else.

I agree that it's two diferent situations that cannot be compared, but that doesn't make the Dresden bombing "OK" in my book. By current standards it can be defined as a terrorist act.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 02:37
I agree that it's two diferent situations that cannot be compared, but that doesn't make the Dresden bombing "OK" in my book. By current standards it can be defined as a terrorist act.It's war. They did it to us over and over again. They got a taste of their own medicine. I think the whole point of bombing Dresden was to try and get them to surrender, you know kind of like they did to us for an entire year.

Sorry to sound a bit harsh lol but that's how I've always viewed it.

Endow
14-02-10, 02:38
.

Encore
14-02-10, 02:39
^ I'd vote for you :cool:

(and probably regret it later in the concentration camp :()

It's war. They did it to us over and over again. They got a taste of their own medicine. I think the whole point of bombing Dresden was to try and get them to surrender, you know kind of like they did to us for an entire year.

Sorry to sound a bit harsh lol but that's how I've always viewed it.

I thought the allies weren't suposed to behave like nazis. Here I am being all naive again.

Lemmie
14-02-10, 02:39
I agree that it's two diferent situations that cannot be compared, but that doesn't make the Dresden bombing "OK" in my book. By current standards it can be defined as a terrorist act.

Well I definitely don't think it was okay. I just think that it's understandable that people, then and now, think it is. Whereas the Holocaust doesn't share that status. I certainly wasn't saying anyone who died in the bombing deserved it, but I can see why an attack on the Nazi state would be deserved.

Catapharact
14-02-10, 02:42
By current standards it can be defined as a terrorist act.

No it can't be since Germany's Riechsmarschall made an official proclimation of "Open War" on the allies and the German Luftwaffe deliberatly targeted Civilian infrastructure. Herman Georing admitted that the War was comming to an end only after he saw American P-51 Mustangs escorting Landcaster bombers over Germany.

Encore
14-02-10, 02:44
Attacking civilians to provoke a response by the government is a terrorist act. During wartime it can be considered a "war crime" too. Just not when you end up on the winning side, evidently.

Catapharact
14-02-10, 02:48
Attacking civilians to provoke a response by the government is a terrorist act. During wartime it can be considered a "war crime" too. Just not when you end up on the winning side, evidently.

When "Open War" is declared, no one is safe. The German civilians have only the NaZi party to blame for that. Hermann G was so smug and confident in the ability of the Luftwaffe to hold off the allied airforce (and that the allies couldn't launch a counter-attack overseas) that he chose to declare open war on the allies.

Zebra
14-02-10, 03:08
:vlol:

It's the beginning of a German word - he is covering the rest, I think/hope...

Can't think of any fitting German word starting with "lol". Besides, LOL as the short form of "laughing out loud" is also widely used in German youth language.

Punaxe
14-02-10, 03:30
Can't think of any fitting German word starting with "lol". Besides, LOL as the short form of "laughing out loud" is also widely used in German youth language.

It's "LOLA ICH LIEBE DICH (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-51778-7.html)" ... Don't really get it either.

About the Holocaust comparison: if you a) believe that the Jewish people and the German people form their own, distinct, separate races, as per the NSDAP's Weltanschauung, and b) see the Dresden bombings as Allied efforts to systematically erase (a part of) the German race, the comparison becomes somewhat understandable. Also, they are probably trying to give off a message in the form of "but you were doing it too!" in their eyes absolving them and their associatiates (the Nazis) from (sole) responsibility.

What I never understand is why any demonstration should turn to violence...

Zebra
14-02-10, 04:17
It's "LOLA ICH LIEBE DICH (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-51778-7.html)" ... Don't really get it either.


Ah, okay. Didn't think of the possibility of it being a name :p.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 12:13
I thought the allies weren't suposed to behave like nazis. Here I am being all naive again.And they didn't. :)

Draco
14-02-10, 14:45
Japan is the only nation on earth that can complain about what fell from airplanes during world war deuce.

Mad Tony
14-02-10, 21:05
Japan is the only nation on earth that can complain about what fell from airplanes during world war deuce.Even then I'd say they have no right to complain (certainly more than the Germans though).

Cochrane
14-02-10, 21:09
I would not necessarily agree that no nation (or at least no axis nation) had the right to complain about at least some of the bombing runs they were faced with, but I do not think it matters that much either. The important thing is that both sides should look at the destruction both received and caused by them, and take that as inspiration to do everything to make sure it does not ever (have to) happen again.

The comparisons made by these neo-nazi groups are obviously tasteless and wrong. I wish our government did more about these people. Sure, it provides the police when necessary, but the funding for programs to get people out of the scene, or to educate them so they don't fall prey to such propaganda to begin with, is seriously lacking and in some parts even being reduced in normal budget cuts. This is a disgrace that especially Germany cannot allow to continue.

Death Mask
15-02-10, 05:35
Agreed. They hit London 10 times worse.
That is a blatant lie, the Dresden bombing was a complete massacre, far more civilians were killed at Dresden during one night than Londoners during the entire war, and the way they murdered them was also far worse, the allies used bombs that caused massive firestorm which cooked thousands of civilians to death. The the London Blitz was not justifiable in my opinion, but it was light compared to Dresden, in just one night, 16,000 acres of land were destroyed in the Dresden massacre, whereas London suffered only about 600 acres of damage during the entire war.

As for the article, I don't see anything wrong with the Germans paying tribute to their fallen ones during the war, everyone else does, why can't the German people do the same?

TheBloodRed
15-02-10, 05:39
KKK and Neo-Nazi rallies are held every year in the neighboring town of Yorktown where I live. Trust me, it is scary as hell if you were to stumble upon some of them during rally. xD

maniakatosheto
15-02-10, 05:41
Where's blood rayne when you need her http://www.mouse.cl/archivo/2005/guiaweb/09/08/bloodrayne_04.jpg

TheBloodRed
15-02-10, 06:15
Or good ol' Indy!! :ton:

Uzi master
15-02-10, 06:36
They voted Hitler in...

okay, that wouldn't be a good statement to end with. Considering they bombed other places multiple times I hardly see why people complain, the Axis of Power wanted to rule the world (or Europe at least) you think they should not have done anything? though in japan it may have been a little harsh, but still they were in the big three, anyway they have no right to complain about that "massacre"..

Death Mask
15-02-10, 06:51
I'll pay my tribute to Dresden, this is what it was like before it was completely destroyed by the British and the Americans:

http://www.sott.net/image/image/16804/full/800px_Dresden_Augustusbr_cke_Al.jpg

http://i50.************/2luyla0.jpg

For centuries Dresden had been a center of art and culture, and refined leisure and recreation. It was a city of art museums and theaters, circuses and sports stadias, a town of ancient half-timbered buildings looking for all the world like those of medieval England, with venerable churches and centuries-old cathedrals gracing her skyline. She was a city of artists and craftsmen, of actors and dancers, of tourists and the merchants and hotels that served them. Above all, what Dresden was, was defined during the war by what it was not, it had no significant military or industrial installations.

Cochrane
15-02-10, 07:15
As for the article, I don't see anything wrong with the Germans paying tribute to their fallen ones during the war, everyone else does, why can't the German people do the same?

This isn't about honoring the ones who died in Dresden, that is perfectly accepted. The problem is that Nazi groups are trying to use this tragedy to gather support for their ideas and to downplay the Holocaust. That is what we all are so angry about here.

tombraiderluka
15-02-10, 13:16
And they didn't. :)

I'm not so sure about it. Just because they weren't as bad as the Axis doesn't mean they were God's army of angels, and the scars of their atrocities are found all over Europe. I can already sense a response of yours stating that what is necessary to be done, must be done and that everything is excusable during wartime. I disagree, and i'm pretty sure you disagree as well ONLY if it's a role played by the opposite (enemy) team. Luftwaffe went rampant on the blitzkrieg, and ever since they started Barbarossa the war turned more into a "payback" performed by the Allies than a fight for freedom. How can you explain all the mistaken cities bombed during WWII by the allies? Belgrade was already bombed in 1941, so why did the Allies bombed it in 1944? Resulting German casualties in that bombing were RIDICULOUS compared to Serbian civil casualties. What was the excuse back then, Kosovo too? I don't think so.

Allies also bombed The Netherlands, Switzerland, and many other places they labelled "strategical" back in the days, but that were a huge mistake, but bacause it was "war" and they always are so pragmatic about "winning at all cost", they didn't even think about it twice, and i'm not gonna swallow the argument that "it was necessary to win", because no one here can prove it otherwise. Perhaps i'm playing big drama here, but reading throught many cold replies here is upsetting, and something must be said.

And what about the aftermath? I don't understand what kind of mind can possibly concieve ripping off a country and force millions of people to abandon their homes, their ancestors homes, and take them away or kill them in the meantime. Hitler harmed and took millions of Jews, poles, and other groups from their homes and exterminated them, some of them died during their way to the concentration camps and others died slaughtered. But did the allies do better? They forced the migration of thousands, or probably millions of Germans to the area that now is the official German border. What happened to Pomerania, what happened to Silesia? Is this what you think of justice? Was this necessary too? Was the deliberate destruction of german cultural heritage also necessary, or was it a campaign to punish the minds and souls of those who not just had to suffer a totalitarian regime, but also the abuse, rape, and murder of the victorious troops?

During 1936-1945 Germany was atrocious, but from 1945 to even past the Cold War, the Germans are not to blame.

TRfan23
15-02-10, 13:56
I'm curious to know what would have happened if we lost the war.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 14:02
That is a blatant lie, the Dresden bombing was a complete massacre, far more civilians were killed at Dresden during one night than Londoners during the entire war, and the way they murdered them was also far worse, the allies used bombs that caused massive firestorm which cooked thousands of civilians to death. The the London Blitz was not justifiable in my opinion, but it was light compared to Dresden, in just one night, 16,000 acres of land were destroyed in the Dresden massacre, whereas London suffered only about 600 acres of damage during the entire war.

As for the article, I don't see anything wrong with the Germans paying tribute to their fallen ones during the war, everyone else does, why can't the German people do the same?During the entire war, more people died during the German blitz on Britain than during the Dresden bombing. This is without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people made homeless by the ruthless and brutal Luftwaffe How you can call the London Blitz "light" compared to Dresden is absolutely disgusting. Dresden was a two night raid. The Blitz was a 9 month bombing campaign on dozens of cities across the UK.

Then again, you question the holocaust and vehemently defend the Nazis, so I'm not surprised with your response at all.

BawwI never said the Allies were perfect, but they were certainly better than the Axis. A lot of the atrocities committed by the Allies were at the hands of the Russians though. The Russians did do some horrible things during the later parts of the war, and who can blame them really after what the Germans did to them? I'm not saying what they did is justifiable, but I can definitely understand why they did such things.

Of course I'm not saying the Russians are to blame for all Allied atrocities.

tombraiderluka
15-02-10, 14:23
I'm curious to know what would have happened if we lost the war.

That would have never happened, because the Axis had a huge disadvantage.

I never said the Allies were perfect, but they were certainly better than the Axis. A lot of the atrocities committed by the Allies were at the hands of the Russians though. The Russians did do some horrible things during the later parts of the war, and who can blame them really after what the Germans did to them? I'm not saying what they did is justifiable, but I can definitely understand why they did such things.

Of course I'm not saying the Russians are to blame for all Allied atrocities.

You can be sure I know more than enough what the Russians did, since they did their will with the Balkans and we became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia thanks to them ;). However, your attempt to excuse the allied terror by quoting the one committed by the red army fails to the fact that this thread is about Dresden bombing (and that was an allied carried operation). For the record, it's reconstruction was due to the initiative of Soviet and East German authorities. Anyways, just because the Russians did it doesn't mean Allies should be excused for the same, and did Allies try to hold on the Red Army savage in Berlin? Certainly not, they didn't care that much. :wve:

Ah, well... A little off topic, but people always say you seem to be older, well, for me your age is obvious when I read how immature and condescendant you are to those who think different than you.

interstellardave
15-02-10, 14:30
In general terms the Allied bombing of Axis cities (German and Japanese) was far more intense and "effective" than anything the Axis accomplished. The Germans, for their part, were never able to raze allied cities to the ground in the same fashion... and, by the way, for much of "The Battle of Britain", the Germans targeted the RAF... not civilians.

It has been said, by those in the know, that Hitlers' meddling in that operation--changing it to a terror operation against the British people, instead of trying to destroy the RAF--actually saved Britain. The RAF was, at that point, in very dire straights. The change in German operations gave them much needed breathing room to recover.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 14:32
That would have never happened, because the Axis had a huge disadvantage.Yeah but he's asking what would'vehappened.

It certainly might have happened though if it were not for Britain's resistance during the Battle of Britain, resistance in the occupied nations and America's entry into the war.

You can be sure I know more than enough what the Russians did, since they did their will with the Balkans and we became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia thanks to them ;). However, your attempt to excuse the allied terror by quoting the one committed by the red army fails to the fact that this thread is about Dresden bombing (and that was an allied carried operation). For the record, it's reconstruction was due to the initiative of Soviet and East German authorities. Anyways, just because the Russians did it doesn't mean Allies should be excused for the same, and did Allies try to hold on the Red Army savage in Berlin? Certainly not, they didn't care that much. :wve: I'm not saying what they did is justifiable, but I can definitely understand why they did such things.

Of course I'm not saying the Russians are to blame for all Allied atrocities.Way to go by not reading my posts. :wve:

Ah, well... A little off topic, but people always say you seem to be older, well, for me your age is obvious when I read how immature and condescendant you are to those who think different than you.Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. :rolleyes:

In general terms the Allied bombing of Axis cities (German and Japanese) was far more intense and "effective" than anything the Axis accomplished. The Germans, for their part, were never able to raze allied cities to the ground in the same fashion... and, by the way, for much of "The Battle of Britain", the Germans targeted the RAF... not civilians.

It has been said, by those in the know, that Hitlers' meddling in that operation--changing it to a terror operation against the British people, instead of trying to destroy the RAF--actually saved Britain. The RAF was, at that point, in very dire straights. The change in German operations gave them much needed breathing room to recover.The Germans targeted the RAF for all but a couple of months.

You're definitely right about how focusing attacks on London instead of the airfields saved us, but Herman Goering only did what he thought would harm the country most.

Mr.Burns
15-02-10, 14:36
MT, Luka. Chill amigos. It's the internet. No need to throw unkind comments towards a person's persona. This is about history, debate the facts, not taking shots at each other. :)

Cochrane
15-02-10, 14:37
During the entire war, more people died during the German blitz on Britain than during the Dresden bombing. This is without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people made homeless by the ruthless and brutal Luftwaffe How you can call the London Blitz "light" compared to Dresden is absolutely disgusting. Dresden was a two night raid. The Blitz was a 9 month bombing campaign on dozens of cities across the UK.
If you really think that comparing death tolls is the way to go, then you have to look at all cities in Germany as well. Almost all of them were heavily bombed during later parts of the war. I'm fairly certain that when it came to bombing cities, the Allieds killed more people than the Axis, simply because they had far more resources. Of course, the Nazis would certainly have bombed London as badly as or worse the Allied Forces did Dresden if they had the chance, so I don't think this comparison has any value at all.

What matters is understanding that the german civilian population was a victim as well in this war. Not the only, definitely not the worst, and they were clearly victim of a war their own government started and that they might have supported at some points, but nevertheless, there were lots of innocent victims on the german side as well.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 14:37
MT, Luka. Chill amigos. It's the internet. No need to throw unkind comments towards a person's persona. This is about history, debate the facts, not taking shots at each other. :)I never took any shots at Luka.

If you really think that comparing death tolls is the way to go, then you have to look at all cities in Germany as well. Almost all of them were heavily bombed during later parts of the war. I'm fairly certain that when it came to bombing cities, the Allieds killed more people than the Axis, simply because they had far more resources. Of course, the Nazis would certainly have bombed London as badly as or worse the Allied Forces did Dresden if they had the chance, so I don't think this comparison has any value at all.

What matters is understanding that the german civilian population was a victim as well in this war. Not the only, definitely not the worst, and they were clearly victim of a war their own government started and that they might have supported at some points, but nevertheless, there were lots of innocent victims on the german side as well.I was just telling Death Mask that in actual fact more people died in the Blitz than at Dresden.

Do you not think I know that already? Of course German civilians were a victim of the war. However, in my view they partly bought it upon themselves by voting and supporting Hitler in earlier years.

Ward Dragon
15-02-10, 14:47
If you really think that comparing death tolls is the way to go, then you have to look at all cities in Germany as well. Almost all of them were heavily bombed during later parts of the war. I'm fairly certain that when it came to bombing cities, the Allieds killed more people than the Axis, simply because they had far more resources. Of course, the Nazis would certainly have bombed London as badly as or worse the Allied Forces did Dresden if they had the chance, so I don't think this comparison has any value at all.

What matters is understanding that the german civilian population was a victim as well in this war. Not the only, definitely not the worst, and they were clearly victim of a war their own government started and that they might have supported at some points, but nevertheless, there were lots of innocent victims on the german side as well.

Indeed. The way I see it, the war was ugly no matter how you look at it, and both sides were desperate for survival so I can't say that the bombings shouldn't have happened, only that they did happen and the result was the war ended when it did.

TRfan23
15-02-10, 15:04
Yeah but he's asking what would've happened.

Yes I was.

Also about Hitler, some people say he killed himself as he was losing power, other people say this guy (can't remember his name) killed him. It also seemed the war carried on even after Hitler died.

My God I really don't know my History lol :o

interstellardave
15-02-10, 15:11
Yes I was.

Also about Hitler, some people say he killed himself as he was losing power, other people say this guy (can't remember his name) killed him. It also seemed the war carried on even after Hitler died.

My God I really don't know my History lol :o

It is generally accepted as fact that Hitler killed himself. A week later Germany surrendered unconditionally. WW2, however, did continue after that, since the Japanese were still fighting on.

tombraiderluka
15-02-10, 15:15
Way to go by not reading my posts. :wve:

I did it read your post. It was your post what moved me to remark that Allies are not to be blamed by Soviet atrocities or vice versa. But people oftenly generalizes Soviet atrocities and ignores Allied ones, and also no one ever questions the fact that Allies didn't mind to stop soviet atrocities or vice versa, which is not the same at blaming each others. Common sense says that not doing anything is sometimes as bad as doing so :).

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. :rolleyes:

And I wasn't aware that disagree with you equaled to a "baaaw" quote.

During the entire war, more people died during the German blitz on Britain than during the Dresden bombing. This is without even mentioning the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people made homeless by the ruthless and brutal Luftwaffe How you can call the London Blitz "light" compared to Dresden is absolutely disgusting. Dresden was a two night raid. The Blitz was a 9 month bombing campaign on dozens of cities across the UK.

Notice that you're comparing a country with a city :confused:. Conventry was undoubtedly the best example of German destruction in Britain, and i agree that the Luftwaffe was as ruthless and brutal in Conventry as they were in the Aprilski rat (the invasion of Yugoslavia as we know it) and the Unternehmen Strafgericht (the German name for the bombing operation carried in Belgrade, due to the reluctance of the population to join the axis), but Germany had it worse during the "payback" carried by both crushing forces in the Eastern and Western front. Compared to Britain, Germany faced more destruction and humiliation, because their cultural heritage was consciously targeted in order to wipe out the pride of the population, and historic places were destroyed seeking to erase any roots between Germans and their past, that didn't happen in Britain, and if it did, was in a comparably minor extent. For the allies, demoralization of Germany seemed to be crucial to win the war the way they wanted (and for the Russians too). And this is why I find legitimate that Germans nowadays have the right to make the claims they were persuaded to not to do before because of the "guilt" seeded in the population after the war. I don't support neonazism, but is unfair that everytime a German has the guts to question what happened, they nickname him neonazi or revisionist.


What matters is understanding that the german civilian population was a victim as well in this war. Not the only, definitely not the worst, and they were clearly victim of a war their own government started and that they might have supported at some points, but nevertheless, there were lots of innocent victims on the german side as well.

I fully agree :tmb:

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 15:30
I did it read your post. It was your post what moved me to remark that Allies are not to be blamed by Soviet atrocities or vice versa. But people oftenly generalizes Soviet atrocities and ignores Allied ones, and also no one ever questions the fact that Allies didn't mind to stop soviet atrocities or vice versa, which is not the same at blaming each others. Common sense says that not doing anything is sometimes as bad as doing so :).I said in my post that none of the atrocities are justifiable and I know it wasn't just the Soviets who did bad things during the war.

And I wasn't aware that disagree with you equaled to a "baaaw" quote.Well, your post would've been quite long to quote, plus I think you were being a bit overly dramatic.

Notice that you're comparing a country with a city :confused:. Conventry was undoubtedly the best example of German destruction in Britain, and i agree that the Luftwaffe was as ruthless and brutal in Conventry as they were in the Aprilski rat (the invasion of Yugoslavia as we know it) and the Unternehmen Strafgericht (the German name for the bombing operation carried in Belgrade, due to the reluctance of the population to join the axis), but Germany had it worse during the "payback" carried by both crushing forces in the Eastern and Western front. Compared to Britain, Germany faced more destruction and humiliation, because their cultural heritage was consciously targeted in order to wipe out the pride of the population, and historic places were destroyed seeking to erase any roots between Germans and their past, that didn't happen in Britain, and if it did, was in a comparably minor extent. For the allies, demoralization of Germany seemed to be crucial to win the war the way they wanted (and for the Russians too). And this is why I find legitimate that Germans nowadays have the right to make the claims they were persuaded to not to do before because of the "guilt" seeded in the population after the war. I don't support neonazism, but is unfair that everytime a German has the guts to question what happened, they nickname him neonazi or revisionist.Overall, you're right, the Germans did get it worse at the end of the war (they were getting hammered on two fronts) but they had it coming. Sorry but Germany started the war and I don't think they have any right to complain about the bombings (the pillaging that occurred on the Eastern Front is a different story). This doesn't make the civilian deaths justifiable though.

Question what exactly? The Holocaust?

tombraiderluka
15-02-10, 17:07
I said in my post that none of the atrocities are justifiable and I know it wasn't just the Soviets who did bad things during the war.

But it looks quite like a justification when you say that "they had it coming", because it's not true to claim that all the Germans supported the Nazis, and even those who voted in the beginning while "dazzled" because of Hitler promises (regarding the Treaty of Versailles, the 30's economic crisis, the unemployment in Germany, etc), started to repent soon after seeing how the state started to violate the duties with the German people, and started to terrorize German citizens (Jewish-Germans included) with the development of the Final Solution and the arms race.

Also, Germans cities are one case, but the "dramatic" post I wrote before mentioned Switzerland (Schaffhausen, Zurich and Basel) and The Netherlands (Eindhoven, Nijmegen) as well. In both cases, they didn't have it coming.

Question what exactly? The Holocaust?

Oh, my God no. I never said anything regarding the Holocaust, and I find hard to believe that you can even think I could question the veracity of such display of horror in human history, and I'm glad that it's denial is punished by German law. All I said is that it seems that Germans nowadays are still afraid to raise their protest against the bombing of their grandparents homes and families, whether strategical or not, it was and it still is horrific.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 17:10
But it looks quite like a justification when you say that "they had it coming", because it's not true to claim that all the Germans supported the Nazis, and even those who voted in the beginning while "dazzled" because of Hitler promises (regarding the Treaty of Versailles, the 30's economic crisis, the unemployment in Germany, etc), started to repent soon after seeing how the state started to violate the duties with the German people, and started to terrorize German citizens (Jewish-Germans included) with the development of the Final Solution and the arms race.Of course not everyone supported the Nazis, but the country as a whole had it coming after starting the war in the first place.

Punaxe
15-02-10, 17:21
Of course not everyone supported the Nazis, but the country as a whole had it coming after starting the war in the first place.

So if a government, even a dictator starts a war, "the country as a whole" is to suffer at the hands of the chosen enemies? I would certainly disagree. At all times any violence should serve a definite legitimate purpose; "they had it coming" does not count as such.

interstellardave
15-02-10, 17:22
To say "they had it coming" is a bit short-sighted. You could go further back and say the Allies "had it coming" because of their treatment of Germany after WW1. They basically ground the Germans' nose in their defeat (in a war that all parties were basically guilty of starting--and all parties wanted). Millions of civilians died as a result of the Allied blockade during the war and the Versailles treaty gave them no respite from deprivation as it kept Germany in a downward spiral of economic collapse. That was the Allies doing... and that environment bred extremists like Hitler.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 17:28
So if a government, even a dictator starts a war, "the country as a whole" is to suffer at the hands of the chosen enemies? I would certainly disagree. At all times any violence should serve a definite legitimate purpose; "they had it coming" does not count as such.It depends how said dictator came to power. Fact is Hitler and the Nazis came to power with large support from the German population.

To say "they had it coming" is a bit short-sighted. You could go further back and say the Allies "had it coming" because of their treatment of Germany after WW1. They basically ground the Germans' nose in their defeat (in a war that all parties were basically guilty of starting--and all parties wanted). Millions of civilians died as a result of the Allied blockade during the war and the Versailles treaty gave them no respite from deprivation as it kept Germany in a downward spiral of economic collapse. That was the Allies doing... and that environment bred extremists like Hitler.I'm not disputing the Allies' poor treatment of Germany, and I'm not justifying the German civilian deaths at the hands of the Allies in WWII either, but Germany certainly brought the destruction of 1945 on itself.

interstellardave
15-02-10, 17:36
I view it as a "what goes around comes around" situation. Karma. The Allied treatment of Germany at the conclusion of WW1 was a huge mistake (Wilson thought so at the time, in fact) that came back to bite them 20 years later. That's a major reason why the Allies didn't make the same mistake after WW2. They saw the value in investing in rebuilding the Axis powers... although a big part of it was also to keep the frontier of Western Europe strong in the face of the Soviet threat.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 17:42
I view it as a "what goes around comes around" situation. Karma. The Allied treatment of Germany at the conclusion of WW1 was a huge mistake (Wilson thought so at the time, in fact) that came back to bite them 20 years later. That's a major reason why the Allies didn't make the same mistake after WW2. They saw the value in investing in rebuilding the Axis powers... although a big part of it was also to keep the frontier of Western Europe strong in the face of the Soviet threat.Remember, the Allied powers were certainly not the only victims of Germany's deadly European adventures.

interstellardave
15-02-10, 17:51
Remember, the Allied powers were certainly not the only victims of Germany's deadly European adventures.

If it's WW1 you're referring to, most nations in Europe gladly took up arms and fought with whomever they were allied with during years prior. Some had old grudges and others just wanted to gain territory. Everyone thought the war would be quick and glorious--with their side being victorious, of course.

The main thing Germany was "guilty" of in WW1 was being quick off the mark... because the French fully intended to invade Germany first, as well as advance into the Netherlands and Belgium for their own strategic benefit... although they would have been welcome to do so, unlike the Germans.

The bottom line was that Germany was forced to assume all blame for the conflict--when that was clearly not the case at all. They took all the blame and all were dragged through the mud over it. Make no mistake; this made plenty of Germans angry.

Anger + runaway economic depression + charismatic leader who promises a way out (and delivers, at first) = recipe for disaster.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 18:02
If it's WW1 you're referring to, most nations in Europe gladly took up arms and fought with whomever they were allied with during years prior. Some had old grudges and others just wanted to gain territory. Everyone thought the war would be quick and glorious--with their side being victorious, of course.

The main thing Germany was "guilty" of in WW1 was being quick off the mark... because the French fully intended to invade Germany first, as well as advance into the Netherlands and Belgium for their own strategic benefit... although they would have been welcome to do so, unlike the Germans.

The bottom line was that Germany was forced to assume all blame for the conflict--when that was clearly not the case at all. They took all the blame and all were dragged through the mud over it. Make no mistake; this made plenty of Germans angry.

Anger + runaway economic depression + charismatic leader who promises a way out (and delivers, at first) = recipe for disaster.I was talking about WWII.

My knowledge of WWI may not be as good as WWI, but even I know both sides were pretty much as bad as each other.

Ward Dragon
15-02-10, 18:18
I was talking about WWII.

My knowledge of WWI may not be as good as WWI, but even I know both sides were pretty much as bad as each other.

His point was that the way the situation was handled after WWI, it was nearly inevitable that WWII would happen. In retrospect of course the Germans should never have elected Hitler to power. At the time, though, they didn't realize what he was. Their economy was crippled due to the restrictions placed upon them after WWI and they were desperate for someone to change things, so they were vulnerable to a sneaky and charismatic leader like Hitler who took advantage of the situation to gain power. They didn't know the Holocaust would happen when they voted for him, they just wanted to be able to buy food and other necessities without the currency constantly becoming even more ridiculously inflated. Hitler wouldn't have been able to take power if the allies hadn't been so vindictive after winning WWI. Having said that, at the particular point in time when Dresden was bombed, it did seem necessary to end the war as quickly as possible (same goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter). Of course it was horrible to kill so many people in the bombings, but it would have been even more horrible to let the war drag on further and kill even more people in the long run.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 18:50
His point was that the way the situation was handled after WWI, it was nearly inevitable that WWII would happen. In retrospect of course the Germans should never have elected Hitler to power. At the time, though, they didn't realize what he was. Their economy was crippled due to the restrictions placed upon them after WWI and they were desperate for someone to change things, so they were vulnerable to a sneaky and charismatic leader like Hitler who took advantage of the situation to gain power. They didn't know the Holocaust would happen when they voted for him, they just wanted to be able to buy food and other necessities without the currency constantly becoming even more ridiculously inflated. Hitler wouldn't have been able to take power if the allies hadn't been so vindictive after winning WWI. Having said that, at the particular point in time when Dresden was bombed, it did seem necessary to end the war as quickly as possible (same goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter). Of course it was horrible to kill so many people in the bombings, but it would have been even more horrible to let the war drag on further and kill even more people in the long run.I know all of this. However, the Allies are not to blame for WWII. The Treaty of Versailles is certainly one of the things which helped Hitler to get into power but it's not the only thing. Germany had a choice whether to support Hitler and it chose to support him (mostly). Hitler's true intentions are evident in Mein Kampf anyway.

Catapharact
15-02-10, 18:58
Notice that you're comparing a country with a city :confused:. Conventry was undoubtedly the best example of German destruction in Britain, and i agree that the Luftwaffe was as ruthless and brutal in Conventry as they were in the Aprilski rat (the invasion of Yugoslavia as we know it) and the Unternehmen Strafgericht (the German name for the bombing operation carried in Belgrade, due to the reluctance of the population to join the axis), but Germany had it worse during the "payback" carried by both crushing forces in the Eastern and Western front. Compared to Britain, Germany faced more destruction and humiliation, because their cultural heritage was consciously targeted in order to wipe out the pride of the population, and historic places were destroyed seeking to erase any roots between Germans and their past, that didn't happen in Britain, and if it did, was in a comparably minor extent.

While anti-German propaganda was rampant during WW2, there never was an outright attempt by the allies to totally demolish Germany's culture or their heritage... Not during WW2 anyway. If anything, It was RM Georing who declared "Open War" on the allies and directed the Luftwaffe to deliberately target "civilian" infrastructure. The allies wanted to send Germany a swift and direct message; "We are at your doorsteps... We now have the ability to bring the airwar on your home turf. Surrender." It was quite evident that Riechmarshel Hermann Georing had no intention of stopping his continious bombing raids over allied territories. It was ONLY after Germany's crippling defeat at Stalingrad (and concequently, the Luftwaffe's inability to stop Russian hit and run tactics) that Georing started pulling his pilots back.

The Bombing of Dresden had two major important effects; One being negitive and the other being positive.

Positive:

The German civilians were questioning the legitimacy of going to war with the allies and after the Dresden bombing run, it was quite clear that the allies had the ability to launch long range attacks into axis terriroty. Hence quite a few Germans chose to abandon the Nai party's grotesque ideology.

Negitive:

The Nazi party saw the Dresden bombing as another event they could use to further their propaganda. RM Georing now knew that the war was comming to an end. The allies had long range Bomber Escort Fighters (the P-51 Mustangs) the allies could launch more co-ordinated and accurate bombing runs. What effect did this new revelation had? Well as the good ol VG character Grey Fox put it perfectly, "A cornered fox is more dangerous than a jackal." The luftwaffe might have been knocked down a few rounds but it definately wasn't out. They instead started to resort to the "German kamikaze" tactic known as "Selbstopfer." Still... It was way too late for that.

Ward Dragon
15-02-10, 19:02
I know all of this. However, the Allies are not to blame for WWII. The Treaty of Versailles is certainly one of the things which helped Hitler to get into power but it's not the only thing.

The Allies certainly weren't blameless either. The Treaty of Versailles created the situation in which Hitler could take power, and then the appeasement policy allowed him to get into position for starting the war. Not to mention the US could have ended the war much sooner but chose to remain uninvolved until Pearl Harbor gave FDR no choice but to fight.

Germany had a choice whether to support Hitler and it chose to support him (mostly). Hitler's true intentions are evident in Mein Kampf anyway.

US citizens supported FDR due to the Great Depression and then not wanting to switch leaders during a war. Does that mean that US citizens are responsible for the unlawful internment of Japanese Americans during the war?

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 19:15
The Allies certainly weren't blameless either. The Treaty of Versailles created the situation in which Hitler could take power, and then the appeasement policy allowed him to get into position for starting the war. Not to mention the US could have ended the war much sooner but chose to remain uninvolved until Pearl Harbor gave FDR no choice but to fight.The fact remains though that the people had the ultimate say on Hitler's position in the government.

US citizens supported FDR due to the Great Depression and then not wanting to switch leaders during a war. Does that mean that US citizens are responsible for the unlawful internment of Japanese Americans during the war?Indirectly, yes.

Cochrane
15-02-10, 19:20
Do you not think I know that already? Of course German civilians were a victim of the war. However, in my view they partly bought it upon themselves by voting and supporting Hitler in earlier years.
Well, yes, I don't think you know that already. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you are considering them to be second-class victims. That is something that I cannot agree with. The bombing of Dresden may have been justified, but that does not make it any less tragic.

While anti-German propaganda was rampant during WW2, there never was an outright attempt by the allies to totally demolish Germany's culture or their heritage... Not during WW2 anyway. If anything, It was RM Georing who declared "Open War" on the allies and directed the Luftwaffe to deliberately target "civilian" infrastructure. The allies wanted to send Germany a swift and direct message; "We are at your doorsteps... We now have the ability to bring the airwar on your home turf. Surrender." It was quite evident that Riechmarshel Hermann Georing had no intention of stopping his continious bombing raids over allied territories. It was ONLY after Germany's crippling defeat at Stalingrad (and concequently, the Luftwaffe's inability to stop Russian hit and run tactics) that Georing started pulling his pilots back.
By the time of the Dresden bombings (in early 1945), however, Stalingrad was long past and Göring was not able to protect the core german area anymore, let alone deliver any effective attacks on allied territories, something the allieds were very well aware of. The city was overrun with fugitives from further east. Also, the allieds were already delivering regular and very destructive attacks at most other german cities, so the information content of the Bombing of Dresden for the german population was extremely low.

What it did was deliver the message again and directly to people who weren't affected before. While it did that very well, one can certainly debate whether it was actually necessary in any but a psychological sense, especially considering that the industrial areas of Dresden received comparatively little damage.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 19:22
Well, yes, I don't think you know that already. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you are considering them to be second-class victims. That is something that I cannot agree with. The bombing of Dresden may have been justified, but that does not make it any less tragic.But I never said that though! Stop putting words into my mouth.

Cochrane
15-02-10, 19:31
But I never said that though! Stop putting words into my mouth.
I never said you said that, I said I get the impression that this is what you mean with what you did say. Am I wrong? I hope so, I just did not get that impression from what you wrote so far. Every time you talk about german victims, you agree that it's horrible, but then directly qualify it by saying they brought it on themselves. To me, that sounds like you think their death is worth less. If you don't mean that, then clarify.

The fact remains though that the people had the ultimate say on Hitler's position in the government.
Yes, except no. Hitler never had a majority of his own. He was working together with other right-wing parties who tried to "frame" the extremist, but ended up giving him the post of chancellor. After the fire in the Reichstag (seat and name of the parliament), then blamed on communists but now thought by most to have been set by the Nazis, a special degree of the president granted extraordinary powers to the central government, which were only confirmed by the parliament after these powers had been used to clean the parliament of most people who would have voted against it. Hitler reached positions like president mainly by relying on his party apparatus and special powers to intimidate and/or arrest anyone who did not agree with him reaching them, never through any public vote or constitutional process.

Of course, that is not really the issue here. Hitler did have lots of public support, and claiming anything else would be a lie. What matters is whether the victims of this attack, which would be illegal by modern international law (though treaties forbidding such attacks were not signed before the war by either party), are less important because of the support they once had for Hitler, or whether this support was enough to justify an attack of dubious effect on the overall outcome of the war.

Necromanser
15-02-10, 19:34
The fact remains though that the people had the ultimate say on Hitler's position in the government.

Indirectly, yes.
Who else would they have chose then? The Weimar government turned out to be incompetent and the Nazis seemed to be the best choice at the time. Would you have chose anyone else apart from the Nazis had you been given the choice? They delievered what they promised too.They provided jobs, increased the moral of the people, modernized Germany.I'm not supporting the Nazis in any way but they provided what they promised.

interstellardave
15-02-10, 19:38
The Nazis certainly DID make Germany more prosperous... and the Jews were scapegoated openly by the Nazis... but a lot of Europeans were distrustful of the Jews then. That doesn't mean, however, that people had any idea that they would be systematically rounded up and killed... let alone approve of it. I'm sure the average German couldn't conceive of that happening! Later on, when it was too late, I'm sure many Germans started to realize what was going on... but too late to change it then.

ALSO: I know any historian would agree that you cannot fully understand WW2, and it's causes, without understanding WW1. The two go hand-in-hand. That's why I keep bringing it up.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 20:04
I never said you said that, I said I get the impression that this is what you mean with what you did say. Am I wrong? I hope so, I just did not get that impression from what you wrote so far. Every time you talk about german victims, you agree that it's horrible, but then directly qualify it by saying they brought it on themselves. To me, that sounds like you think their death is worth less. If you don't mean that, then clarify.Well no, that was not what I meant.

Yes, except no. Hitler never had a majority of his own. He was working together with other right-wing parties who tried to "frame" the extremist, but ended up giving him the post of chancellor. After the fire in the Reichstag (seat and name of the parliament), then blamed on communists but now thought by most to have been set by the Nazis, a special degree of the president granted extraordinary powers to the central government, which were only confirmed by the parliament after these powers had been used to clean the parliament of most people who would have voted against it. Hitler reached positions like president mainly by relying on his party apparatus and special powers to intimidate and/or arrest anyone who did not agree with him reaching them, never through any public vote or constitutional process.This I also know, but it was his strong support among the population which got so many Nazis into the Reichstag.

Of course, that is not really the issue here. Hitler did have lots of public support, and claiming anything else would be a lie. What matters is whether the victims of this attack, which would be illegal by modern international law (though treaties forbidding such attacks were not signed before the war by either party), are less important because of the support they once had for Hitler, or whether this support was enough to justify an attack of dubious effect on the overall outcome of the war.Again, I never said they were less important, nor do I think they deserve what they got. However, I still don't think they have a right to complain.

Who else would they have chose then? The Weimar government turned out to be incompetent and the Nazis seemed to be the best choice at the time. Would you have chose anyone else apart from the Nazis had you been given the choice? They delievered what they promised too.They provided jobs, increased the moral of the people, modernized Germany.I'm not supporting the Nazis in any way but they provided what they promised.Me personally? I'd have probably ended up supporting one of the right-wing parties, certainly not the Nazis. And no, I'm not saying this because we all now know how brutal the Nazis were.

What am I getting flamed for here anyway? All I said was that I don't think the Germans had a right to complain about the bombings and that I think the country had it coming because it started the war in the first place. I never said the German civilian casualties were any less important than the British civilian casualties nor do I think they deserved to die.

Nenya awakens
15-02-10, 20:22
You're not getting flamed, other people just have different opinions.. :rolleyes:

Punaxe
15-02-10, 21:51
(...) Again, I never said they were less important, nor do I think they deserve what they got. However, I still don't think they have a right to complain. (...)

I can't seem to get my head around this "no right to complain" statement. They cannot be of equal "importance" if one does, but the other does not have the right to complain.
Their homes were destroyed, along with pretty much the rest of the city they lived in. Sure, twelve years earlier, the last time there was a vote, the Nazi party had quite the following.
If any random party in the UK with at any time a maximum of 40% of the votes manages to assume power and establish a totalitarian regime and goes to war, nobody in the UK has a right to complain when after years of suffering to begin with, defending beligerents decide to terror bomb civilian targets?
When do people have a right to complain?

And no, this is not flaming, I'm merely wondering what in your view does and does not give people "the right to complain" during and after war.

Tombraiderx08
15-02-10, 22:07
....a reminder that past history is recent history and if you think that the unthinkable could never happen in our time....think again.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Feb/Week2/15548407.jpg




FULL STORY (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Germany-Scuffles-Break-Out-Between-Neo-Nazis-And-Opponents-During-Protest-Over-Dresden-Bombing/Article/201002215548372?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article _Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15548372_Germany%3A_Scuffles_Break_Out _Between_Neo-Nazis_And_Opponents_During_Protest_Over_Dresden_Bo mbing) Nazi's suck, period. ... but, thats my opinion, I dont believe in any of the radical nonsense violence they believe in.

Cochrane
15-02-10, 22:11
Mad Tony, it is necessary to point out that none of us here are talking about the war in general. Everybody (sane) agrees that the Allieds had the right and the duty to do whatever it took to stop Hitler. The question, in particular in Dresden, is whether it really took this much destruction and killing of innocent civilians near the very end of the war to get the job done. I see no reason why discussions about that should be avoided.

Mad Tony
15-02-10, 22:17
I can't seem to get my head around this "no right to complain" statement. They cannot be of equal "importance" if one does, but the other does not have the right to complain.
Their homes were destroyed, along with pretty much the rest of the city they lived in. Sure, twelve years earlier, the last time there was a vote, the Nazi party had quite the following.
If any random party in the UK with at any time a maximum of 40% of the votes manages to assume power and establish a totalitarian regime and goes to war, nobody in the UK has a right to complain when after years of suffering to begin with, defending beligerents decide to terror bomb civilian targets?
When do people have a right to complain?

And no, this is not flaming, I'm merely wondering what in your view does and does not give people "the right to complain" during and after war.They're of equal importance to me as human lives, I just don't think they have the right to compain.

If a totalitarian party in the UK were to rise to power legally through support from the people and then wage an aggressive and destructive war on the European continent and terror bomb European cities, then when the tides of the war turn and the war is drawing to a close, a British city gets firebombed by the defenders turn aggressors, I'd say we would have no right to complain about that because we as a country would've brought that upon ourselves.

Real Life Raider
16-02-10, 00:19
What am I getting flamed for here anyway? All I said was that I don't think the Germans had a right to complain about the bombings and that I think the country had it coming because it started the war in the first place..

Ha ha! Recollections of John Cleese!! :D

You'll never make a successful politician tony!! :vlol:

Mad Tony
16-02-10, 01:01
Ha ha! Recollections of John Cleese!! :DHuh?

Uzi master
16-02-10, 02:15
overall, I agree with MadTony.

a slight change though, some people mentioned that German casulties WHERE higher, and I agree they may very well have been but let me ask you this.
First: do you have a source?
Second: if so, then do they take into account the JEWISH deaths?

knightgames
16-02-10, 05:08
I think what your trying to say is violence the German's suffered during the war was CONSEQUENCE to starting the war.

There's no justifying, excusing, pardoning, or honor in the deaths at Dresden, but it was what it was - an act of aggression to stop a war - one that was almost 6 years long and already had millions of deaths.

I'd like to quote from another forum I frequent.

POSTER A: "I find it tragic to see how some people conveniently forget most Nazi atrocities when Dresden comes up. It's not like bombing Dresden was any more evil than invading most of Europe, carting a whole people off to gas chambers in cattle cars, reducing London, Coventry, Sheffield, Guernica, Antwerp and a host of other cities to rubble, almost choking Britain's supply lines by sinking merchant ships, massacring people all over Ukraine and other eastern European countries, and so on. If you START A WAR you have to be prepared for the consequences."

POSTER B: "People do not "conveniently forget" such things. We have no motivation to do so, and if you are to make the accusation you ought to provide a motive, don't you think?

The point of the thread, I suspect, was to note the awful consequences of war as regards civilians. These civilians did not start the war or attack other nations. They were railroaded as much as the Jews were, only in a different direction. You think it easy to stand up to such as Hitler? Then it is you who are the revisionists, the dreamers, the ones who conveniently forget.

You there... stand up today in your local Town Hall. Or tell your Building Inspector to bugger off. Refuse to pay the portion of your taxes you feel is unfair.

... heheh... see? No guts. Like all the rest of us. So stand there and watch, whine a little, whatever. Maybe even do a little moral equivalence work on why it is okay for the "good" guys to indulge their murderous rage on civilian populations while it is hateful for the enemy to do it.

Then look at yourself in the mirror, and know that you have now met the true enemy of all that is good in this life. It's not Osama Bin Laden, Papa Joe Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler. It's the coward in common folk such as ourselves that let things get past the point of no return hoping that this one time moral gravity will not have the usual effect on the flow of excrement, or thinking that you need not fear, for yours is a home slightly higher on the hill than those at it's base.

Dresden. Easy to say they deserved it. Easy to forget that at such times, deserve has got nothing to do with it..."

Death Mask
16-02-10, 06:16
Then again, you question the holocaust and vehemently defend the Nazis, so I'm not surprised with your response at all.

I question many things, so what?
What is wrong with doing research on the Holocaust? Why do I have to forcefully believe the "official version"?
Maybe you could answer me this:
If everything they tell us is absolutely true and there is nothing to hide why is it that in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia or Switzerland people can get fined or even go to prison just for questioning anything about the Holocaust?

Why isn't it illegal to question the death of Jesus, being that for billions of people he's the most important person that ever lived on Earth?

I can name some victims of this, Ernst Zundel was taken away from his American wife in the hills of Tennessee, Germar Rudolf, a Ph.D.-level chemist, was also taken away from his wife and their child in Illinois and deported to Germany to stand trial, David Irving, a world renowned historian, was sentenced to three years in jail for merely one single sentence, about 15 years ago in Austria, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Why have some people (described by some as the "thought police") incessantly attacked revisionists of all different backgrounds in some of the most horrible ways imaginable just for merely questioning any aspect of WW2 history dealing with the Holocaust?

Care to explain?

Death Mask
16-02-10, 06:47
The Dresden bombing was an act of pure evilness by the Allies, WW2 was nearly over when Dresden was destroyed, and Germany was pretty much defeated, because of the war on the Eastern front Dresden's population had almost doubled, it had become a city of children, of women, of refugees, and of the injured and maimed who were recovering from their wounds in its many hospitals, it had no significant military or industrial installations. British bombing squadrons were lied to in their briefings, in one, the soldiers were told that their target was the railway center of Dresden, in another, they were told that the target was a poison-gas factory, in another they were told that the target was a Marshalling-ground for troops in the city, another was told that the target was a major arsenal, these were all lies.

The point of the attack was to inflict the maximum loss of life on the civilian population and particularly to kill as many refugees as possible who were fleeing from the Red Army. The first wave of the attack consisted of about 2,000 bombers with additional support craft, which dropped over 3,000 high explosive and 650,000 incendiary bombs, incendiary bombs are extremely effective in producing maximum loss of human life, hundreds of thousands of innocents were literally consumed by fire, a second massive armada of British bombers arrived, again loaded with high explosive and massive quantities of incendiary bombs. After the attack finally subsided, rescue workers found nothing but liquefied remains of the inhabitants of some shelters, where even the metal kitchen utensils had melted from the intense heat.

The next day medical and other emergency personnel from all over central Germany had converged on Dresden, not knowing that a third wave was on its way, this time American, 450 Flying Fortresses and a support contingent of fighters arrived to finish the job at noon. The Mustang fighters, which suddenly appeared low over the city, fired on everything that moved .... one section of the Mustangs concentrated on the river banks, where masses of bombed-out people had gathered. ... British prisoners who had been released from their burning camps were among the first to suffer these machine-gunning attacks .... wherever columns of tramping people were marching in or out of the city they were pounced on by the fighters, and machine-gunned or raked with cannon fire.

So, were the Allies really any better than the Nazis? I don't think so.

spikejones
16-02-10, 07:07
ignorance is bliss. and by that I mean that mayhaps if we let the past lie and forget about it, future generations would not have reason to hate other nations. perhaps then there would no war. in war, there is no winner. Only loosers. think about it, if no one knew what the past held - we would have only the present to judge upon. If things were to run relatively smooth.. what reason would we have to hate one another? just a thought...

realistically speaking, were bound to quarrel amongst ourselves anyhow. its a part of human nature. but I can't help but to think that teaching the history of war and past rivalries only helps to cement those feelings throughout all time. history never was my favorite subject to tell the truth, and I guess thats why I can get along better with folks of other nationalities than some others I've met. I guess at this point I'm just rambling, so I'll just shut up now.

Cochrane
16-02-10, 08:27
I question many things, so what?
What is wrong with doing research on the Holocaust? Why do I have to forcefully believe the "official version"?
Maybe you could answer me this:
If everything they tell us is absolutely true and there is nothing to hide why is it that in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia or Switzerland people can get fined or even go to prison just for questioning anything about the Holocaust?

Why isn't it illegal to question the death of Jesus, being that for billions of people he's the most important person that ever lived on Earth?

I can name some victims of this, Ernst Zundel was taken away from his American wife in the hills of Tennessee, Germar Rudolf, a Ph.D.-level chemist, was also taken away from his wife and their child in Illinois and deported to Germany to stand trial, David Irving, a world renowned historian, was sentenced to three years in jail for merely one single sentence, about 15 years ago in Austria, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Why have some people (described by some as the "thought police") incessantly attacked revisionists of all different backgrounds in some of the most horrible ways imaginable just for merely questioning any aspect of WW2 history dealing with the Holocaust?

Care to explain?

There is no law, nor was there ever one, that forbade research on the Holocaust in Germany or publishing findings. The one thing that is illegal is denying that it happened altogether. Certainly, this is an impediment on free speech that other countries would probably not have, but it has its roots in the idea that the modern Federal Republic of Germany is a direct counterpoint to the Nazi regime, and has the right and duty to defend itself against people wanting to bring the Nazis back.

The Holocaust undeniably happened. Those who deny that are either idiots, or trying to make the Nazis look less bad in order to establish their ideology again (or both). The german law is explicitly meant to prevent that, and I fully support it (I have never bothered to look up the laws in the other countries, but I guess they and their reasonings are similar). All the three people you mentioned have publicly stated that the Holocaust did not happen, which is of course bull****, and more importantly, dangerous, as it opens the door to have justification for new Nazis. Their punishments were well justified.

So the important question really is: Why do you dislike these laws so much? Is there anything you want to say that these laws won't let you? If so, then please continue not to say it.

Mad Tony
16-02-10, 13:00
I question many things, so what?
What is wrong with doing research on the Holocaust? Why do I have to forcefully believe the "official version"?
Maybe you could answer me this:
If everything they tell us is absolutely true and there is nothing to hide why is it that in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia or Switzerland people can get fined or even go to prison just for questioning anything about the Holocaust?

Why isn't it illegal to question the death of Jesus, being that for billions of people he's the most important person that ever lived on Earth?

I can name some victims of this, Ernst Zundel was taken away from his American wife in the hills of Tennessee, Germar Rudolf, a Ph.D.-level chemist, was also taken away from his wife and their child in Illinois and deported to Germany to stand trial, David Irving, a world renowned historian, was sentenced to three years in jail for merely one single sentence, about 15 years ago in Austria, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Why have some people (described by some as the "thought police") incessantly attacked revisionists of all different backgrounds in some of the most horrible ways imaginable just for merely questioning any aspect of WW2 history dealing with the Holocaust?

Care to explain?
Cochrane pretty much hit the nail on the head there but I would like to add something. What is it about the "official story" (or rather, reality) you don't believe? The Third Reich rounded up all sorts of people they didn't like from Germany and later occupied countries (not just Jews, but communists, the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, political dissidents and many more. Many of these people were your beloved Germans), put them into camps and forced them into hard labour for several years until after a while they started murdering them. I know that's a bit brief but it's what happened and only a fool would question any of it. It's all backed up by mountains of proof. Pictures, videos and testimonies from people who were actually there!

I dread the day when there are no Holocaust survivors left, because Holocaust deniers such as yourselves and your sick theories will gain more credibility.

So, were the Allies really any better than the Nazis? I don't think so.To be honest the Dresden bombing is nothing in comparison to the Nazi atrocities. Let's go through all of the things they did:

* Mass murder of millions of civilians (you don't believe this, but it's fact, so get over it)
* Prolonged bombings of many British citizens, with tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the process
* The bombing of many European cities, resulting in many civilian casualties
* Starting the world's most destructive war in the history of mankind
* Unlawful occupation of most of the European continent obtained through the use of brutal force

You like moaning about the injustice of the Dresden bombing but why are you not doing the same for the bombings of British cities?

So, were the Allies really any better than the Nazis? Most definitely. You'd have to be plain stupid or a Nazi sympathizer to think any different. The Allies weren't perfect, but they sure as hell have less blood on their hands than the Nazis.

Punaxe
16-02-10, 14:43
There is no law, nor was there ever one, that forbade research on the Holocaust in Germany or publishing findings. The one thing that is illegal is denying that it happened altogether. Certainly, this is an impediment on free speech that other countries would probably not have, but it has its roots in the idea that the modern Federal Republic of Germany is a direct counterpoint to the Nazi regime, and has the right and duty to defend itself against people wanting to bring the Nazis back.

The Holocaust undeniably happened. Those who deny that are either idiots, or trying to make the Nazis look less bad in order to establish their ideology again (or both). The german law is explicitly meant to prevent that, and I fully support it (I have never bothered to look up the laws in the other countries, but I guess they and their reasonings are similar). All the three people you mentioned have publicly stated that the Holocaust did not happen, which is of course bull****, and more importantly, dangerous, as it opens the door to have justification for new Nazis. Their punishments were well justified.

So the important question really is: Why do you dislike these laws so much? Is there anything you want to say that these laws won't let you? If so, then please continue not to say it.

I am personally against laws prohibiting Holocaust denial and would like to further hear your thoughts on it. For one I think it should never be possible to outlaw (the spread of) any idea, however false it may be. Further, it seems to me that it is one preventive step too far. The Nazi philosophy should definitely be prevented from resurfacing in practice, but an impediment on free speech is not necessary for that. The outlawing of certain actual acts, including overthrowing/adopting certain laws ought to suffice. Most things that one would want to prevent are already illegal anyway.

I realize that the actual law (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__130.html) (3 and 4) is not quite as bad as people may believe, as it is only punishable when done "(...) in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören (...)", but if it is only illegal when it's public incitement, why does it need a special mention?

Mad Tony
16-02-10, 14:58
In principle I don't think it's a good law, but then again, the only people who should be bothered by it are Holocaust deniers.

Cochrane
16-02-10, 17:52
I am personally against laws prohibiting Holocaust denial and would like to further hear your thoughts on it. For one I think it should never be possible to outlaw (the spread of) any idea, however false it may be. Further, it seems to me that it is one preventive step too far. The Nazi philosophy should definitely be prevented from resurfacing in practice, but an impediment on free speech is not necessary for that. The outlawing of certain actual acts, including overthrowing/adopting certain laws ought to suffice. Most things that one would want to prevent are already illegal anyway.

I realize that the actual law (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__130.html) (3 and 4) is not quite as bad as people may believe, as it is only punishable when done "(...) in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören (...)", but if it is only illegal when it's public incitement, why does it need a special mention?

In theory, I agree that restrictions on free speech are problematic, but in practice, here, I think it is justified. Harmful free speech is always restricted, as in that famous "Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" example. Hate speech, calls to murder and/or genocide and so on are all outlawed almost everywhere. This law is based on that and can, together e.g. with laws that forbid the display of Nazi symbols such as the swastika for purposes other than art and research (and I guess some others as well), be seen as a very cautious, some may say over-cautious, approach to the problem of national socialism.

So I think the important question is whether Naziism is enough of a problem to warrant such impediments on free speech (which are undeniably significant), or whether Germany is over-cautious here. Considering that we already know that Germany is a country where such atrocities can happen, and the results of the actions that our ancestors* were responsible for these crimes, I think yes, this measure can be justified. The same might not necessarily be true for other countries, of course.

*) Not mine specifically, both my grandfathers were too young and their parents too old and/or already dead at the time, but in general.

Draco
16-02-10, 19:09
We are always more worried about assigning blame than we are about stopping it from happening again. Humanity deserves all its civil wars.

Cochrane
16-02-10, 21:36
We are always more worried about assigning blame than we are about stopping it from happening again. Humanity deserves all its civil wars.

Too true, sadly. We deserve our wars until and unless we find out how to avoid them.

Uzi master
16-02-10, 23:29
Cochrane pretty much hit the nail on the head there but I would like to add something. What is it about the "official story" (or rather, reality) you don't believe? The Third Reich rounded up all sorts of people they didn't like from Germany and later occupied countries (not just Jews, but communists, the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, political dissidents and many more. Many of these people were your beloved Germans), put them into camps and forced them into hard labour for several years until after a while they started murdering them. I know that's a bit brief but it's what happened and only a fool would question any of it. It's all backed up by mountains of proof. Pictures, videos and testimonies from people who were actually there!

I dread the day when there are no Holocaust survivors left, because Holocaust deniers such as yourselves and your sick theories will gain more credibility.

To be honest the Dresden bombing is nothing in comparison to the Nazi atrocities. Let's go through all of the things they did:

* Mass murder of millions of civilians (you don't believe this, but it's fact, so get over it)
* Prolonged bombings of many British citizens, with tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the process
* The bombing of many European cities, resulting in many civilian casualties
* Starting the world's most destructive war in the history of mankind
* Unlawful occupation of most of the European continent obtained through the use of brutal force

You like moaning about the injustice of the Dresden bombing but why are you not doing the same for the bombings of British cities?

So, were the Allies really any better than the Nazis? Most definitely. You'd have to be plain stupid or a Nazi sympathizer to think any different. The Allies weren't perfect, but they sure as hell have less blood on their hands than the Nazis.

well put, and in the contraversy I forgot about the other groups, though it is sad german civilians died, it's better than haveing many more die.


A little off topic but has anyone ever read flames of the tiger?

Punaxe
17-02-10, 12:21
(...) So I think the important question is whether Naziism is enough of a problem to warrant such impediments on free speech (which are undeniably significant), or whether Germany is over-cautious here. Considering that we already know that Germany is a country where such atrocities can happen, and the results of the actions that our ancestors* were responsible for these crimes, I think yes, this measure can be justified. The same might not necessarily be true for other countries, of course.

*) Not mine specifically, both my grandfathers were too young and their parents too old and/or already dead at the time, but in general.

I think the question of whether or not it warrants these laws should not be seen separate from whether or not they are necessary, because if they are not, they add nothing positive to their cause while their negative effects, which we agree they have, remain. As I said, since it's only punishable when it's harmful, and everything that's harmful is punishable to begin with, I don't see the necessity.
Instead, I would have drafted a law that would outlaw anything that is really going towards putting anything similar in practice, including the spread of hurtful Nazi ideas, which in turn would also include certain, more direct uses of Nazi symbolism.

tombraiderluka
19-02-10, 18:49
Cochrane pretty much hit the nail on the head there but I would like to add something. What is it about the "official story" (or rather, reality) you don't believe? The Third Reich rounded up all sorts of people they didn't like from Germany and later occupied countries (not just Jews, but communists, the disabled, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, political dissidents and many more. Many of these people were your beloved Germans), put them into camps and forced them into hard labour for several years until after a while they started murdering them. I know that's a bit brief but it's what happened and only a fool would question any of it. It's all backed up by mountains of proof. Pictures, videos and testimonies from people who were actually there!

I agree with what you wrote here, but was there really a need to say "beloved Germans"? By nicknaming like that you give us the impression that those who had taken a stand to defend German civilian victims here had been arguing from a pro nazi stand. Maybe you didn't mean to make this seem like a German lovers against German haters fight, but that's how it looks now, and it's unfair for those of us who had made arguments regarding the horror German civilians had to suffer.

I dread the day when there are no Holocaust survivors left, because Holocaust deniers such as yourselves and your sick theories will gain more credibility.

But is there really a need to have living witnesses? There's plenty documentation of the event, and there are still remnants of concentration camps in Germany and former occupied countries. Having a living victim won't change that, unless people really need to hear "It was real, I was there" to believe it, and if that's the case, then learning history is going to be a constant problem.

To be honest the Dresden bombing is nothing in comparison to the Nazi atrocities. Let's go through all of the things they did:

* Mass murder of millions of civilians (you don't believe this, but it's fact, so get over it)
* Prolonged bombings of many British citizens, with tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the process
* The bombing of many European cities, resulting in many civilian casualties
* Starting the world's most destructive war in the history of mankind
* Unlawful occupation of most of the European continent obtained through the use of brutal force

You like moaning about the injustice of the Dresden bombing but why are you not doing the same for the bombings of British cities?

So was this the purpose of your post? Reposting the same atrocities committed by all the three protagonists, but highlighting German ones? Does the evilization of Germany makes you feel better about the bombing of their citizens and the butchery of their borders?

* 67,100 British civilians were killed in comparison to the 514,000 Yugoslavian civilians (plus 67,000 Yugoslavian Jews killed by the Holocaust), remember that, from those 514 thousands, 1,160 were killed during the allied raid over Belgrade in 1944, in comparison with the 18 German military losses (Serbian source (http://www.svetskirat.net/istorija/borbe_nad_beogradom.htm)). The Allies also bombed Italy, where 145,100 civilians died. Am I writing this to minimize British losses? No, I'm just trying to point out that comparing casualties is not the way to go to prove legitimacy over the suffering German civilians had during and after the war.
*Again, prolonged bombing over The Netherlands and Switzerland doesn't ring anything to you? Switzerland was a neutral country by the way.
*Undeniable, specially the savage bombing of Poland and the Soviet Union and the Balkans offensive. However Dresden is an example of brutal revenge, it was bombed in the name of all these losses across Europe, which is not the way to honor the civilian victims that died in the hands of the nazi regime. Anyways, if Dresden means nothing to you, then maybe you should try to take a look at the fate of Königsberg. We're talking about a territory where Germans were erased from the face of the earth by the Red Army, with cities and towns flattened and thousands of Germans expelled, raped or murdered.
*Have you read Dave's posts? WWII is linked with WWI. I'm not excusing Germany, but you're constantly bringing up the start of the war as an excuse for the atrocities.
*Unlawful occupation... Iraq doesn't ring your bell either :mis:?


So, were the Allies really any better than the Nazis? Most definitely. You'd have to be plain stupid or a Nazi sympathizer to think any different. The Allies weren't perfect, but they sure as hell have less blood on their hands than the Nazis.

The aggressor is always worse than it's victim, but when the victim decides to turn into the main aggressor, then it becomes as worse, and nothing erases that. And what about what happened after the war? I'm probably exceeding the thread boundaries, but the scars of the cold war are there for everyone to judge :wve:.

interstellardave
19-02-10, 19:18
I fear this topic has jumped the shark a while ago.

Everyone should step back and realize that we're actually ranking atrocities, here! Ranked by the victims' nationality and the numbers of the dead--and also upon perceived guilt. At a certain point--a point I think which has long since passed--it becomes a macbre numbers game--a numbers game that no-one won back then, and no-one will win now.

Mad Tony
19-02-10, 19:26
I agree with what you wrote here, but was there really a need to say "beloved Germans"? By nicknaming like that you give us the impression that those who had taken a stand to defend German civilian victims here had been arguing from a pro nazi stand. Maybe you didn't mean to make this seem like a German lovers against German haters fight, but that's how it looks now, and it's unfair for those of us who had made arguments regarding the horror German civilians had to suffer.It was just a little quip regarding Death Mask's German bias. The impression I got from his posts is that he feels the victims of Dresden are somehow more worthy of recognition than those of the Blitz for example.

But is there really a need to have living witnesses? There's plenty documentation of the event, and there are still remnants of concentration camps in Germany and former occupied countries. Having a living victim won't change that, unless people really need to hear "It was real, I was there" to believe it, and if that's the case, then learning history is going to be a constant problem.Yeah, there is. There are a lot of idiotic individuals out there who deny the Holocaust. Now I know showing them people who were there will probably not sway their opinion, but as the last of the Holocaust survivors start to die there will be a resurgence in the Holocaust denial movement unfortunately.

So was this the purpose of your post? Reposting the same atrocities committed by all the three protagonists, but highlighting German ones? Does the evilization of Germany makes you feel better about the bombing of their citizens and the butchery of their borders?

* 67,100 British civilians were killed in comparison to the 514,000 Yugoslavian civilians (plus 67,000 Yugoslavian Jews killed by the Holocaust), remember that, from those 514 thousands, 1,160 were killed during the allied raid over Belgrade in 1944, in comparison with the 18 German military losses (Serbian source (http://www.svetskirat.net/istorija/borbe_nad_beogradom.htm)). The Allies also bombed Italy, where 145,100 civilians died. Am I writing this to minimize British losses? No, I'm just trying to point out that comparing casualties is not the way to go to prove legitimacy over the suffering German civilians had during and after the war.
*Again, prolonged bombing over The Netherlands and Switzerland doesn't ring anything to you? Switzerland was a neutral country by the way.
*Undeniable, specially the savage bombing of Poland and the Soviet Union and the Balkans offensive. However Dresden is an example of brutal revenge, it was bombed in the name of all these losses across Europe, which is not the way to honor the civilian victims that died in the hands of the nazi regime. Anyways, if Dresden means nothing to you, then maybe you should try to take a look at the fate of Königsberg. We're talking about a territory where Germans were erased from the face of the earth by the Red Army, with cities and towns flattened and thousands of Germans expelled, raped or murdered.
*Have you read Dave's posts? WWII is linked with WWI. I'm not excusing Germany, but you're constantly bringing up the start of the war as an excuse for the atrocities.
*Unlawful occupation... Iraq doesn't ring your bell either :mis:?What are you talking about? I highlighted the German atrocities because I was making a point about how the bombing of Dresden is nothing in comparison to all of the German atrocities (Dresden being in Germany and all).

What's your point? I never said Dresden means nothing to me, all I'm saying is that German (or Axis) atrocities are far worse than anything committed by the Allies.

Don't know what Iraq has got to do with anything. We're talking about World War II here.

The aggressor is always worse than it's victim, but when the victim decides to turn into the main aggressor, then it becomes as worse, and nothing erases that. And what about what happened after the war? I'm probably exceeding the thread boundaries, but the scars of the cold war are there for everyone to judge :wve:.Oh wow, I can't believe you're actually saying the Allies are as bad the Axis powers. The difference between Germany as an aggressor and the Allies as an aggressor is that the German state conquered much of Europe with intent to assimilate them into a greater German empire (and to rid the world of Jews). When the Allies became "the aggressors" however they were simply liberating countries from Nazi occupation and handing them back over to their rightful owners. Your logic is rather faulty in this department. You're arguing that because the Allies drove the Germans back to Germany (and thus liberated dozens of countries from oppressive occupation) that makes them just as bad.

Why is it then that when the Wehrmacht stormed into Paris in June 1940 they were met by crying and fleeing French civilians and yet when the Allies liberated Paris in August 1944 they were met with cheering crowds?

That's just one example of the difference. I get the impression that you see the German invasions of 1939-40 and the Allied liberations of 1944-45 as the same thing.

Scars of the Cold War? The Allies treated Germany much better than they did 25 years previously by helping them to rebuild instead of punishing them (perhaps not so much with regards to East Germany though). Learn your history. :wve:

jackles
19-02-10, 19:31
I fear this topic has jumped the shark a while ago.

Everyone should step back and realize that we're actually ranking atrocities, here! Ranked by the victims' nationality and the numbers of the dead--and also upon perceived guilt. At a certain point--a point I think which has long since passed--it becomes a macbre numbers game--a numbers game that no-one won back then, and no-one will win now.


Exactly Dave.

I have stayed out of this thread. I cannot give a nice glib answer. My grandfather fought in WW2...My nans brother was a Japanese POW and helped build the bridge over the river Kwai...her other brothers were fire wardens..my mums street was bombed, She can remember seeing the plaster falling down on her pram. It is all a bit too real to me. Peoples lives all over the world were affected by the war and still are affected by wars.

interstellardave
19-02-10, 19:34
^^^ I can't imagine experiencing a war first-hand. I hope I never do.

Ward Dragon
19-02-10, 19:36
I fear this topic has jumped the shark a while ago.

Everyone should step back and realize that we're actually ranking atrocities, here! Ranked by the victims' nationality and the numbers of the dead--and also upon perceived guilt. At a certain point--a point I think which has long since passed--it becomes a macbre numbers game--a numbers game that no-one won back then, and no-one will win now.

The way you phrased it reminded me of a book I read many years ago called The Devil's Arithmetic. It was a novel about a girl in a concentration camp and the meaning of the title was that every time someone was killed, that meant another day of life for everyone else, so it was a sick numbers game trying to stay alive and not be the one to get killed today.

Mad Tony
19-02-10, 19:37
Exactly Dave.

I have stayed out of this thread. I cannot give a nice glib answer. My grandfather fought in WW2...My nans brother was a Japanese POW and helped build the bridge over the river Kwai...her other brothers were fire wardens..my mums street was bombed, She can remember seeing the plaster falling down on her pram. It is all a bit too real to me. Peoples lives all over the world were affected by the war and still are affected by wars.Wow, you must've had some amazing conversations with them. I love hearing stories from people who were around at this time (WWII greatly fascinates me).

My grandfather lived in London for much of the Blitz and had extraordinary many experiences. Unfortunately he passed away last year. I just wish I'd talked to him more about the war (I know that's something he loved doing).

Catapharact
19-02-10, 19:39
^^^ I can't imagine experiencing a war first-hand. I hope I never do.

Constant fear of Scuds dropping in your back yard? Constant fear that bombers might break through the AAA and SAM line and drop their payloads on you? Constant fear that pilots and soldiers alike who fight on your behalf might get killed everytime they go on their sorties? Yeah... I don't wish that upon anyone.

Unfortunately people only begin to understand the oh so real concequences of armed struggle and respect for those who serve after they have had a chance to experience real effects of war.

tombraiderluka
19-02-10, 19:48
I’m really sorry for this mess I’ve caused. Dave, I didn’t mean to make a rank to rate the victims, all I wanted was to make clear that all the civilian casualties are sad regardless the nation they originally belonged to. I strongly disagree with Mad Tony and how he keeps saying that German civilians had it coming it’s not correct (it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t say it explicitly, still sounded like German civilians were second class victims as Cochrane stated). Probably I should’ve keep it to myself and avoid posting long and confusing replies and stick to celebrity threads.

jackles
19-02-10, 19:48
Generally stories of the amusing kind MT....like my nan telling my mum to wave at the nice plane...my mum waves and then my nan realises it is a bomber and it begins to bomb the area!



The Generals dictate and the people suffer as they always have done, always will. Really any death of a civillian is sad.....no matter where or when it occurs.

Mad Tony
19-02-10, 19:56
I’m really sorry for this mess I’ve caused. Dave, I didn’t mean to make a rank to rate the victims, all I wanted was to make clear that all the civilian casualties are sad regardless the nation they originally belonged to. I strongly disagree with Mad Tony and how he keeps saying that German civilians had it coming it’s not correct (it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t say it explicitly, still sounded like German civilians were second class victims as Cochrane stated). Probably I should’ve keep it to myself and avoid posting long and confusing replies and stick to celebrity threads.Will you stop putting words into my mouth that aren't there? Yes I did say I think the German civilians had it coming but I've also said their deaths are just as tragic as any other.

Generally stories of the amusing kind MT....like my nan telling my mum to wave at the nice plane...my mum waves and then my nan realises it is a bomber and it begins to bomb the area! My grandfather told me a story of how he was out in London during the Blitz once with his two brothers and one of them had a new suit on and when they told him to get down when the city was getting bombed he wouldn't because it'd "wreck his suit". So what did they do? Drag him down! :vlol:

interstellardave
19-02-10, 22:04
I’m really sorry for this mess I’ve caused. Dave, I didn’t mean to make a rank to rate the victims, all I wanted was to make clear that all the civilian casualties are sad regardless the nation they originally belonged to. I strongly disagree with Mad Tony and how he keeps saying that German civilians had it coming it’s not correct (it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t say it explicitly, still sounded like German civilians were second class victims as Cochrane stated). Probably I should’ve keep it to myself and avoid posting long and confusing replies and stick to celebrity threads.

I wasn't targeting any one person, I just thought the general tone of the thread had started to boil down to a simple equation of "how many were killed" and "who were they" and "did they bring it on themselves", etc. That seemed a bit crass to me, but I honestly don't think anyone did it on purpose. My post was just a way to say "let's ALL stop and rethink this". ;)

tombraiderluka
20-02-10, 01:15
What are you talking about? I highlighted the German atrocities because I was making a point about how the bombing of Dresden is nothing in comparison to all of the German atrocities (Dresden being in Germany and all).
That’s what I disagree. It is something, saying it’s nothing in comparison is like saying Coventry is nothing in comparison to Belgrade. I will repeat that I have nothing against Britain, and British losses saddens me as much as Serbian, French, Chinese, any human being of any nationality. Whatever, you saying it’s nothing, everything is something I don’t have the right to change if you fully believe so.
What's your point? I never said Dresden means nothing to me, all I'm saying is that German (or Axis) atrocities are far worse than anything committed by the Allies.
Don't know what Iraq has got to do with anything. We're talking about World War II here.
My point is brighter than a Lady Gaga stage, and I mentioned Iraq as an example. Even though it doesn’t belong to WWII, it was supposed to recall something, I failed.
Oh wow, I can't believe you're actually saying the Allies are as bad the Axis powers. The difference between Germany as an aggressor and the Allies as an aggressor is that the German state conquered much of Europe with intent to assimilate them into a greater German empire (and to rid the world of Jews). When the Allies became "the aggressors" however they were simply liberating countries from Nazi occupation and handing them back over to their rightful owners. Your logic is rather faulty in this department. You're arguing that because the Allies drove the Germans back to Germany (and thus liberated dozens of countries from oppressive occupation) that makes them just as bad.
And this is the part where you show yourself outraged of how much of a monster I am for saying what you say I said. Anyways, just to let you know, I’m not sad because Hitler didn’t win the war. How many times I must mention Yugoslavia until you notice that Germany harmed us as well? My point was always the tragic fate of German civilians (related to Dresden, the topic). I expressed myself wrong, they weren’t as bad, they were less bad.
Why is it then that when the Wehrmacht stormed into Paris in June 1940 they were met by crying and fleeing French civilians and yet when the Allies liberated Paris in August 1944 they were met with cheering crowds? That's just one example of the difference. I get the impression that you see the German invasions of 1939-40 and the Allied liberation of 1944-45 as the same thing.
Paris was declared open city by the French, and then again by the Germans (with no dramatic combat on it). Liberation, invasion, isn’t it the same? In order to reconquer the continent the Allies had to invade axis occupied countries and the Third Reich itself. War ended for Germany in 1945, after that it was an occupied country until German reunification when Germans liberated themselves.
Scars of the Cold War? The Allies treated Germany much better than they did 25 years previously by helping them to rebuild instead of punishing them (perhaps not so much with regards to East Germany though). Learn your history. :wve:
I wish I had a teacher as wise and neutral as you are :rolleyes:. IMO having your country territory reduced to the 50% it was plus your population murdered or raped and having to deal with an occupation for years to come is far worse than what happened after WWI.
Will you stop putting words into my mouth that aren't there? Yes I did say I think the German civilians had it coming but I've also said their deaths are just as tragic as any other.
I never stuffed your mouth with anything :o, but you affirming that all deaths are tragic calms me down, because that was my point. Job done, so Auf Wiedersehen :wve:.

Mad Tony
20-02-10, 01:55
That’s what I disagree. It is something, saying it’s nothing in comparison is like saying Coventry is nothing in comparison to Belgrade. I will repeat that I have nothing against Britain, and British losses saddens me as much as Serbian, French, Chinese, any human being of any nationality. Whatever, you saying it’s nothing, everything is something I don’t have the right to change if you fully believe so.But the two bombings are very similar though. Also, I never said it's nothing. I only said it's nothing in comparison because it is (I hate to play the numbers game here, but it's tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Dresden vs 6 to 9 million civilian deaths in the Holocaust). Of course, every civilian death is just as tragic as any other but I have to admit that those who were forced into concentration camps for years probably got it the worst.

And this is the part where you show yourself outraged of how much of a monster I am for saying what you say I said. Anyways, just to let you know, I’m not sad because Hitler didn’t win the war. How many times I must mention Yugoslavia until you notice that Germany harmed us as well? My point was always the tragic fate of German civilians (related to Dresden, the topic). I expressed myself wrong, they weren’t as bad, they were less bad.Now this just doesn't make any sense to me. I never said you were sad that Hitler didn't win the war and I never disputed the fact that Yugoslavia suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans.

Paris was declared open city by the French, and then again by the Germans (with no dramatic combat on it). Liberation, invasion, isn’t it the same? In order to reconquer the continent the Allies had to invade axis occupied countries and the Third Reich itself. War ended for Germany in 1945, after that it was an occupied country until German reunification when Germans liberated themselves.Yeah, it was declared an open city because they didn't want such a beautiful city and it's inhabitants to get bombed to dust. You do realize that the French (along with British expeditionary forces and various other nations) tried to defend France from the invading Germans?

No, liberation and invasion are two completely different things. When the Nazis invaded France (and Paris) they imposed a harsh dictatorship on the occupied part of the country. When the Allies liberated the city they merely handed it back so to speak to the French government in exile. Big difference there.

And yes, the Allies did have to invade countries under German occupation. What, would rather those countries be left under Nazi rule and not handed back to their rightful owners?

Germany was only occupied by the Allies until 1949. From then on West Germany was set up and the Germans could govern themselves. It wasn't really an occupation. There were Allied troops there, but America, Britain and France (although don't quote me on the latter) still have troops based in the country today.

East Germany is a slightly different story. While they too got their own government in 1949 it was pretty much a satellite state of the USSR.

I wish I had a teacher as wise and neutral as you are :rolleyes:. IMO having your country territory reduced to the 50% it was plus your population murdered or raped and having to deal with an occupation for years to come is far worse than what happened after WWI.What are you on about? I'm glad I didn't have a history teacher as biased as you are. No seriously, where did you get that from? The only thing I can think of that you're referring to is the Soviet push on Germany during the later stages of the war. To be fair though, the Eastern Front was probably one of the nastiest theaters of war in the history mankind. Both sides did some unspeakable things.

Upon a quick Google I can see you are referring to the Soviet occupation.