Victor's injustice

World War II General WWII Discussion
#61

That death toll may be wildly inflated at the behest of a known agenda’ist and Holocaust denier. And while I’m no more a fan of the Dresden bombing raids than you are–there was a significant rail junction in the heart of the city

policy to murder POWs, when Rommel took by surprise some british headquarters in Africa there were found orders, documented , of killing german and italian POW’s

I never heard anything of this. Please feel free to offer actual documentation from a legitimate source…

…Experiment on captives? , do you still believe in Santa?

Are you getting your history from the Easter Bunny?

by the way, alllies put the mafia back in Sicilia, as a payment for its colaboration with “the goods”
Then, don’t talk about moral superiority

The Allies looked the other way as a means to regain control of a desperate situation. The USN also collaborated with U.S. organized crime in order to secure the NYC waterfront. Does this really compare to some of Hitler’s Ustasha **** allies?

#62

Leaving aside the debate about whether the death toll was 25,000 or 250,000 or any number in between, there was a good military reason for bombing Dresden. It was a communications hub which, if destroyed, would assist the advancing Soviet forces by hampering German ability to move men and materiel to the front.

#63

Here is a RAF internal memo that will help to clarify this issue:
“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”
RAF January 1945

to show the russians what Bomber Command can do…no further comments.
it’s a huge difference between 25.000 and 250.000 , is more than 200.000 human beings killed,
by February 1945 Germany was in complete defeat, with boys defending it’s fatherland,
it was Churchill and Harris’s crime.

#64

significant rail junction…maybe for the huge amount of trains, soldiers, weapons and ammunition the germans had by February 1945, besides , is it necesary using napalm bombs to destroy a rail junction?

I will post you the exact source of the information about british orders of killing AK prisoners.

…In order to secure the NYC waterfront…, you are funny…

#65

Most of the topic is addressed in this thread: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?2006-Bomber-Harris-Criminal-or-Hero

Yes. Area bombing was used because of the complete lack of accuracy of free fall bombs and the limitations of technology of that era. This especially pertains to RAF Bomber Command carrying out night attacks. They didn’t use napalm, they used a concurrent mix of incendiaries and high explosive IIRC. You’ll notice that there was a controversy of French casualties during the “Transportation Plan” run up to D-Day with Churchill, most notably along with Arthur Harris, strongly arguing against the transfer of strategic bombing assets targeting Germany to French rail centers and other tactical targets in direct support of the Allied armies. Churchill was genuinely concerned over the enormous, and greatly exaggerated, French civilian casualty projections which turned out to be largely erroneous. Yet the Allies did conduct area bombing, and even allied French civilians and civil servants were killed. Certainly not on the level of the firebombings of various German cities–that I do believe was wholly excessive–but Germany opened the terrible bottle containing that genie over Warsaw, London, and Rotterdam first…

I will post you the exact source of the information about british orders of killing AK prisoners.

I look forward to this, since it makes absolutely no sense as the North African theatre was generally thought to have been waged largely by the rules of war on both sides. I hardly see the British instituting a policy of killing prisoners en mass since they had little to gain and much to lose by doing so. This would seem especially since there seemed to be tens of thousands of Afrikakorp POWs turning up in Canada, and later the U.S. That’s not to say some atrocities and excesses didn’t happen, but they were very rare to my knowledge…

…In order to secure the NYC waterfront…, you are funny…

I am funny. But perhaps you are unaware of several incidents which the U.S. Navy, specifically Naval Intelligence, took very seriously and culminated into a threat to the War effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Normandie

#66

I don’t recall certain Germans having much problem doing the same thing to other peoples after they were defending their father/motherlands in face of impending defeat

#67

maybe that’s the point, everyone did the same atrocities then there isn’t such a thing as “moral superiority”

#68

Callous though it may be, creating refugees and hampering their ability to find sanctuary is a militarily useful task as they clog the lines of military communication and impede the enemy’s fighting ability.

So? The front hadn’t collapsed and the Germans were still fighting. Nobody stops an attack on the enemy because he is collapsing. They stop it when he is defeated, whether in the field or by surrender. Neither of those conditions applied at the time Dresden was bombed.

That was incidental to the intentions of the attack. It was a byproduct of, not the purpose of, the attack.

I know, but I’m not the one who’s been claiming those figures and many in between.

Then Germany should have surrendered. Instead, it fought on for another few months, so it wasn’t in complete defeat in February 1945.

So you don’t think Hitler and his cronies bear any responsibility for fighting on when all was lost and ensuring further destruction of Germany? They were the ones who had the power to stop the destruction by surrendering. They were also the ones who had the power to avoid it by not starting a war of aggression and territorial conquest in the first place.

They were also the ones who started terror bombing cities.

They were also the ones who made the mistake of bombing cities without having a heavy bomber fleet of the size and capacity which the Americans and British later mustered against German cities.

Churchill and Harris were merely responding to German aggression in kind, but much more effectively.

The real criminals were Hitler and his cronies.

#69

It was supposed to be Churchill acomplishment to divert bombing from ports and other military facilities to citys by bombing Berlin and provoking Hitler reaction, it is a fact.
I’ve been reading about this for more than twenty years, so it is not easy to recall where I read some information, but eventually I will find the source.
I apologize for my poor english, anyway it is very interesting to share this space with all of you.

#70

[b][i]Hello Kurt,

I believe that you should consider who made it his policy to bomb civilians as part of his attempt to conquer peaceful nations in Europe, and eventually the world. That includes wherever you may reside. The megalomaniac Adolph Hitler is the one who started the war, and indiscriminate bombing of civilians was part of his strategy. This he did nightly on London, and obliterated Coventry, and included several other places in England. Also, remember the leveling of Lidice, and the murder of all the men and boys from that city, and sending the women and girls from there to concentration camps. This was the result of the assassination of Reinhardt Hydrich, a mass murderer of the SS, who richly deserved dying.

It is sad that any civilians die in wartime, but the fault of the destruction of Dresden does not lie with Churchill. It is all on Hitler who started the whole conflagration. In the end, he wanted all the German people to die because, according to him, Germany did not deserve to live because they let him down,

If you have the proof that you say you have, that the Allies planned to slaughter German civilians, please present and document it. I ask you this respectfully, because it is not the purpose of this site for us to insult one another.

Respectfully yours,
texag57 [/i][/b]

#71

And this is the root of the “250,000” claim. German records from the time are available, and demonstrate conclusively that the death toll was about 25,000. Goebbells got hold of this number, and decided that for propaganda purposes it would be useful to have a much higher death toll (to inspire the various German troops to fight to the last) - so he added a zero to the end of the figure and had it widely publicised. The kindest thing that can be said about those who continue to publicise it is that they can be regarded as Nazi dupes.

Additionally, this huge difference between the two figures should be setting alarm bells going off by it’s very nature. That would make it 6 times deadlier than the next worst air raid, that on Hamburg - which was a similar city and experienced a similar firestorm - and 3 times deadlier than that on Tokyo, carried out in ideal circumstances against a far more vulnerable target. The 250,000 figures simply makes no sense, while the 25,000 figure fits in well with other air raids.

#72

Those who order bombings upon civil population NO MATTER what the reason are war criminals .If anyone want to be clear and clean against any murderous enemy he have to use clean methods , otherwise you become like the soviets and their "great patriotic " war which turned in mass massacre , rapes and etc. very far from anything patriotic . Bombing the dresden - full of workers and civils , refugees didn’t improve at all the situation , just the germans become more angry at you … it’s a black spot on the shining white star of the allies that’s the truth and you must accept it cause the whole world know it . By this i don’t mean the germans were saints or their political leaders were better , just in case you start to misunderstand me again .

#73

So the people who carry out the orders must be war criminals.

Which justifies their summary execution by civilians when they land in enemy territory.

But the civilians who summarily execute the airmen are not guilty of any crime?

Or maybe it’s just a waste of time trying to find any legal or moral clarity in war, which is an exercise which offends every decent instinct in humans.

#74

Good point, Rising Sun. Those that start the war, only for the purpose of seizing the territory of nations who have made no aggressive moves or threats, have to bear the responsibility of all that happens. They are the true “war criminals”.:army:

#75

More than 1000 american and british bombers dropped thousands of tons of high explosive bombs and incendiary devices for 14 hours since 10 pm february 13th 1945, …it looks like if it fits in well with other air raids?
And you can not consider all the people who wants to know the true facts “nazi dupes”, that is a cheap blackmail

#76

What does the size of the attacking force matter?

It was rather smaller with the A bombs, but still devastating.

As far as Dresden is concerned, what does it really matter how many were killed?

Most people are unaware that Coventry and Rotterdam had, by later stages in the war, quite small casualties.

But the fact remains that Coventry, Rotterdam, etc were initiated by the Germans and that they were quite happy to bomb the **** out of civilians until the boot was on the other foot.

The nature of war is that all sorts of bastardry are visited on the innocent.

#77

Well, in case you didn’t notice, ports are actually located in “cities.” Right? So, it’s pretty inevitable that the Germans were going to hit civilians sooner or later. And is Churchill really to blame for “Hitler’s reaction(s)?” Yes, the British wanted the pressure off their aerodromes in 1940, but that even has been distilled down very narrowly. It was the British and the French who avoided bombing of any sort lest they might harm a civilian even when it would have benefited them to do so as the Luftwaffe was still largely tied down in mopping-up operations over Poland in 1939.

For all the Allies supposed crimes and hypocritical notions of justice, it was the Nazi regime that started the dirty air war. I think they might have started the war in general actually…

I’ve been reading about this for more than twenty years, so it is not easy to recall where I read some information, but eventually I will find the source.
I apologize for my poor english, anyway it is very interesting to share this space with all of you.

You’ve been reading what you WANT to read for twenty years, with preconceived notions and rationalizations that heavily shaped by Neo-fascist apologists…

#78

Oh sorry, I forgot about all the Allied death camps where they attempted to annihilate all non-Aryans…

#79

Nazi dupes, or some times just Nazis period…

#80

War have rules and let’s not change the subject - we are talking about who give orders from Allies side is that normal to use methods that the soviets and nazis did . We are not talking about who execute orders and their role as anyone who was or is in the army knows that you can’t question because if you do you are next to be put in penalty battalion or sent to jail at least ( depend of the army regulation ) . There are many conventions and army regulations and it’s the problem for the side that say " hey i fight for freedom and justice " to follow them no matter what the opposite do , otherwise you can’t stand and say " hello i am the better clear side , ohh i just bombed heavily civilians but it’s ok who cares " . You obey the rules and play all along fair no matter what the opposition do or you just don’t have the right to say the previous thing .