16-12-2002 22:48									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all.

Questioning Allied bombing is just, because, as DanS points out, it is leading us to take far greater care in targeting. Slaughtering civilians is not acceptable if one is going to claim a moral high ground in a war, which indeed we were in WW2. How could we say that we are fighting to protect the world from totalitarian regimes that commit murder and then go out and commit murder to stop them? What would the difference be, then?

No one is saying the actions of the Nazis or the IJA weren't horrible and worse by comparison. But that does not excuse murdering innocent civilians for the sake of terrorizing the populace.

quote: The Germans, Japanese got exactly what they deserved.

A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

	16-12-2002 22:49									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

AFAIK, the German bomb that hit the cathedral in London was released by accident due to a mechanical glitch in the bomber. It certainly was not an official target.

	16-12-2002 23:00									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Even Churchill expressed horror at the results of Dresden. Incinerating 200,000+ civilians was morally wrong. You can't defend Dresden as anything but terror--it was not a strategic city, military target or industrial center. It was an old world city packed with refuges, that's all.

With Dreden the Brits were telling Hitler "We can burn your cities too so leave ours alone". Of course by then the genie was out of the bottle and it was to late to stop the bombing of cities.

	16-12-2002 23:06									#64
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov A dispicable notion. Tell me what the thousands of women and children of Dresden did to deserve being incinerated by firebombs.

Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party
stood for.

Sang "Bombs on England", worked in factories making war materials. Called Hilter "Lord of Battle". Supplied Hilter with men, money and weapons. Danced in the streets when Paris fell. Joined and worked for the Hilter youth.

The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless
disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone
who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

	16-12-2002 23:07									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin With Dreden the Brits were telling Hitler "We can burn your cities too so leave ours alone". Of course by then the genie was out of the bottle and it was to late to stop the bombing of cities.

Bullshit. Dresden was bombed in February 1945, well after the Germans had been defeated in the Battle of Britain and were incapable of bombing British cities.

It was done at a time when Germany was already on its knees and everyone knew they were doomed. And it didn't further Allied objectives one damned bit.

	16-12-2002 23:12									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Mass killing of civilians was a result of decentralization of wartime industries by the Japanese.

This was just the rationalization. The real reason for bombing cities in WW2 was the fact that high altitude bombers couldn't hit anything smaller than a city. And the commanders of the Allied air forces wanted high altitude bombers because ground support missions made it seem like they were mere assistants to the ground generals.

Since they had a built in reason to believe in the effectiveness of strategic bombing anyway, the air force chiefs willingly believed their own unconfirmable claims of the effectiveness of their efforts. When they were, in fact, achieving very little of strategic importance.

	16-12-2002 23:14									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party stood for.

First, Hitler and the Nazis never received majority electoral support in Germany. There were millions of Germans who never supported Hitler or his regime.

Second, what Hitler "stood for" to those who did support him was a return of German pride after the humiliating and unfair Versailles treaty of WW1. Britain and France had crippled Germany's economy and were largely responsible for Hitler's rise in the first place.

They were bitter, and understandably so. This misperception that all Hitler stood for was hate is wrong. Germans supported Hitler because he gave them hope. They did not forsee what his demonic side would lead to.

quote: The children paid for their parents hatred and greed.

And you think it's okay to kill children because their government acts wrongly? That's immoral.

quote: It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

Nobody is sanitizing war. That's not what it is about. You also can't say the ends justifies the means (although Dresden had no ends anyway), as that makes you no better than the enemy in moral terms.

And the civilians do not deserve pain and suffering for a war their government began. Your lumping them all together with collective guilt is appalling.

	16-12-2002 23:24									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Voted for Hilter, They knew what He and his party stood for. Sang "Bombs on England", worked in factories making war materials. Called Hilter "Lord of Battle". Supplied Hilter with men, money and weapons. Danced in the streets when Paris fell. Joined and worked for the Hilter youth. The children paid for their parents hatred and greed. It's stupid to try and sanatizie war, it's a dirty ruthless disaster. Thats why you don't start a war, anyone who does deserves all the pain and suffering they get.

While I agree with the position that the bombing had reason, I kind of cringed when I read this post as it reminded me all too much of the BS espoused by UBL saying that the US or its allies (read non-Islamics) civilians are culpable and thereby are legit targets.

I still hold by the use of this type of attack is valid only when it draws a conclusion to hostilities and thereby saves (in the future) more innocents than it hurts. In UBL's case he has simply harmed/killed innocents for the sole purpose of harming folks and instead has unified resolve against him. If additional attacks are forthcoming they will be piecemeal (including the potential of WMD) and will only serve as murder rather than as a means to end murder. It all comes down to application of overwhelming force in this case the allies were in a position to deliver it and spare future casualties both military and civilian.

The last part of your quote I have no issue with. War is inherently amoral and to try to apply moral judgments against it will indict all parties involved.

	16-12-2002 23:37									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Please note that even though I think it's fair to question the morality of these bombings, I'm not shedding a tear for the Japanese in Tokyo or the Germans in Dresden. No self-flagellation here.

	16-12-2002 23:51									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Second, what Hitler "stood for" to those who did support him was a return of German pride after the humiliating and unfair Versailles treaty of WW1. Britain and France had crippled Germany's economy and were largely responsible for Hitler's rise in the first place. They were bitter, and understandably so. This misperception that all Hitler stood for was hate is wrong. Germans supported Hitler because he gave them hope. They did not forsee what his demonic side would lead to. And the civilians do not deserve pain and suffering for a war their government began. Your lumping them all together with collective guilt is appalling.

They LOST WW1, what are the allies who they assaulted
expected to do throw them a birthady party? Hilter stood for exactly the same greed and oppression that
caused WW1. The germans wanted round 2 and started
it up again, well knowning the Horror they were unleasing on the world.

Quit making excuses for Germany, the greedy,ruthless
society they had is inexcuseable especiall y after WW1.

Collective guilt, yes, cause the other way it all comes
down to Hilter's totally responsible, " I was ordered to" is not a valid excuse"


!

	16-12-2002 23:55									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Isn't this debate sort of misleading, in the sense that we're applying 2002 sensibilities — and are a two, sometimes three, generations removed from 1939-1945 — to a point in time when "being nice" was the last thing on anyone's mind?

Time allows one to look back critically, IMHO, but it can also cloud our ability to "understand" what was going through the minds of people back then. The "moral superiority" of succeeding generations, when they look back on their predecessors, can make for it's own sort of trouble, IMHO. (And this has ramifications far beyond the bloody arena of war.)

Gatekeeper

	17-12-2002 00:01									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov AFAIK, the German bomb that hit the cathedral in London was released by accident due to a mechanical glitch in the bomber. It certainly was not an official target.

So what excuse the other fifteen?

	17-12-2002 00:06									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ozz They LOST WW1, what are the allies who they assaulted expected to do throw them a birthady party? Hilter stood for exactly the same greed and oppression that caused WW1. The germans wanted round 2 and started it up again, well knowning the Horror they were unleasing on the world.

Ok, so you don't know history. Germany was no worse than the other European powers of WW1, and they were certainly no less culpable. WW1 was a war fought by all of Europe and all the powers involved had their selfish interests at heart.

To say that Germany lost therefore it is the villain of WW1 is laughably revisionist. And remember that the Allies declared war on Germany first in WW1. So there goes your "assault" nonsense.

And the peace was inexcusably harsh. You think that victory in a war gives the victors the right to impose a crippling punishment? Do you have any idea what Germany went through because of it? Does the death of a million people by starvation mean anything to you? Wilson had pleaded with them to make a lighter peace deal, but to no avail. Had Britain and France not been vindictive, the conditions allowing Hitler's rise would not have happened.

quote: Quit making excuses for Germany, the greedy,ruthless society they had is inexcuseable especiall y after WW1.

Wrong again. First, German society was no more greedy or ruthless than other European societies of the time. They existed under harsh conditions that allowed Hitler to seize power. It could have happened in any European society under the same strain.

Second, your racism against Germans is pretty apparent. No one needs to "make excuses" for Germans, because as a people they have nothing to be excused, not any more so than the British, French, Russians, Turks, Americans, etc. Nobody is making excuses for the Nazi Government and its horrendous policies. But saying German civilians deserved to die for the acts of their government is barbarous. That's like saying I deserve to die if the Bush administration invades Iraq, when there is no way of you knowing if I participate in or even support said invasion.

quote: Collective guilt, yes, cause the other way it all comes down to Hilter's totally responsible, " I was ordered to" is not a valid excuse"

No, it comes down to holding those who actually did something responsible and not blaming those who didn't do anything wrong. I doubt you'd like to be held collectively guilty for the unjust and immoral acts of your country's government.

We're talking women and children civilians here, not concentration camp guards.

Saying they deserved to die for things they didn't do is immoral, period. It was the same rationale the Nazis used for exterminating people. They believed the Jews had conspired against Germany in years past, so they all deserved what they got. And you know what, it's a dispicable attitude no matter who uses it.

	17-12-2002 00:11									#74
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Isn't this debate sort of misleading, in the sense that we're applying 2002 sensibilities — and are a two, sometimes three, generations removed from 1939-1945 — to a point in time when "being nice" was the last thing on anyone's mind? Time allows one to look back critically, IMHO, but it can also cloud our ability to "understand" what was going through the minds of people back then. The "moral superiority" of succeeding generations, when they look back on their predecessors, can make for it's own sort of trouble, IMHO. (And this has ramifications far beyond the bloody arena of war.) Gatekeeper

Very true. Nice post, Gatekeeper.

And the rest of ya'll need to calm down. Looking for moral behavior in a war is like looking for crack at Whitney Houston's house. You aren't going to find it.

	17-12-2002 00:12									#75
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"Ok, so you don't know history."

WWI was due to Germany's negligence. Their attack was contingent on a guarantee that they had no business making, with end points that were or should have been foreseeable.

	17-12-2002 00:17									#76
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Looking for moral behavior in a war is like looking for crack at Whitney Houston's house. You aren't going to find it.

Ahh the double entendre is just oozing in this one.

	17-12-2002 00:17									#77
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Very true. Nice post, Gatekeeper. And the rest of ya'll need to calm down. Looking for moral behavior in a war is like looking for crack at Whitney Houston's house. You aren't going to find it.

Well, I don't think moral sensibilities were that much different in 1939, in general. If they were, then it is harder to justify the war in terms of stopping Nazi atrocities. After all, if the ends justifies the means for us, it does for them, too. That would make Nuremburg an act of moral hypocrisy (shut up, Floyd! )

I think it's fair to say that even by the standards of war in the 1940s that Dresden was appalling. The revulsion on the part of the U.S. populace over it is well-documented, so certainly in a contemporary light is viewed as a bad thing.

	17-12-2002 00:19									#78
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Ok, so you don't know history." WWI was due to Germany's negligence. Their attack was contingent on a guarantee that they had no business making, with end points that were or should have been foreseeable.

France and Britain had no business making guarantees to Serbia in this light, then. France in particular was very eager for war with Germany and was not the least bit hesitant to jump into it, despite their distinct lack of strategic interest in the Balkans.

	17-12-2002 00:23									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think Gatekeeper meant that victory was more important to all involved in WWII than following the rules of war. While rules of war did exist and weren't too terribly different from today's (on the Allied side at least), no one at the time really cared about following the rules. When you're fighting for your survival, moral considerations go out the window real fast. You have to keep this in mind when examining any behavior in WWII and I think that was what Gatekeeper was getting at.

And as a big fan of Ranke, I have to agree with him.

	17-12-2002 00:24									#80
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oh, but i do, the germans gave austria the go ahead
to attack Serbia, knowing they were lighting the fuse.
Don't try and spread the blame, they fired the first shot.

Serbia was assualted.

Most peaces coming out of a bloodbath are, German
society didn't learn a thing.

"Second, your racism against Germans is pretty apparent."

Oh, can't make a valid point so going to the old racism smear. I'd say i was disappointed, but my opinion of
you is already too low.

"We're talking women and children civilians here, not concentration camp guards."

We're talking shell fillers, machinists, slave labour
overseers.

"Saying they deserved to die for things"

Never said that, i said they paid the price for their
greedy and cruel society.

	17-12-2002 00:24									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

"France in particular was very eager for war with Germany and was not the least bit hesitant to jump into it, despite their distinct lack of strategic interest in the Balkans."

While true (there was enough war fever to go around), Germany provided the trigger, and German troops were the first ones to cross borders. So it's their fault.

	17-12-2002 00:28									#82
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS While true (there was enough war fever to go around), Germany provided the trigger, and German troops were the first ones to cross borders. So it's their fault.

Germany didn't provide the trigger, Russia did. They were the ones who brought in parties who shouldn't have been there.

And France declared war on Germany first. To say then that Germany is to blame because they made a preemptive strike by attacking is silly. They simply acted smartly and took the initiative after war had been declared on them.

None of the powers involved foresaw the carnage that was to come. Everyone expected a quick war with quick victories and a quick return to basic status quo. Verdun and the Somme were the furthest thing from anyone's mind.

	17-12-2002 00:45									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well, society in the United States has moved forward since 1939-1945. Back then, we had no problem fighting the Nazi and imperial forces of Germany and Japan — but a lot of our ancestors also didn't have much of a problem with racial discrimination and segregation (or with Jim Crow laws).

Today, we'd have no problem finishing off regimes like those of the Axis powers in World War II, but we also wouldn't tolerate racism and its hangers-on, either, in our own nation. I mean, look at all the ballyhoo U.S. leaders (at all levels of government: federal, state and local) have gone through to make sure Americans of the Muslim faith don't feel ostracized ... admittedly, with varying levels of success.

Apply that social advance to the military arena and it's quite possible another Dresden would never happen. Take Baghdad, for example. If we have to in after Saddam Hussein, I'm willing to bet we'd do so with ground forces, and not by pounding the entire city into smoking rubble first via aerial bombardment, even if it means the streets run red with U.S. and allied blood. (Then again, MtG is the military strategist here, so I might be all washed-up in regards to my thoughts on that particular matter.)

Gatekeeper

	17-12-2002 01:01									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"Germany didn't provide the trigger, Russia did."

Oh bother. The trigger was the blank check, which should have been foreseen by Germany as a prelude to a general war.

This isn't something I want to go into detail on. Suffice it to say, that I don't at all agree with you. Here's a good timeline.

http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/...mesrch.htm#1914

Last edited by DanS on 17-12-2002 at 01:06

	17-12-2002 01:12									#85
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe While I agree with the position that the bombing had reason, I kind of cringed when I read this post as it reminded me all too much of the BS espoused by UBL saying that the US or its allies (read non-Islamics) civilians are culpable and thereby are legit targets.

I think a DECLARATION of war and an ULTIMATION
before delaring war makes a differience don't you.

I cringe when i seen this sort of BS doublespeak smear crap.

	17-12-2002 01:23									#86
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Germany didn't provide the trigger, Russia did." Oh bother. The trigger was the blank check, which should have been foreseen by Germany as a prelude to a general war.

Why? Germany even after that fact was trying to ascertain French neutrality, and there was real speculation Britain would stay out of it entirely. I don't see why there was any reason to think the conflict would extend as far as it did.

The "blank check" merely said that Germany would stand behind its ally with whatever course of action Austria decided. But Germany had encouraged Austria to practice restraint, as well.

	17-12-2002 01:24									#87
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ozz I think a DECLARATION of war and an ULTIMATION before delaring war makes a differience don't you. I cringe when i seen this sort of BS doublespeak smear crap.

So declaring war gives a natione carte blanche for murdering the civilians of the enemy?

	17-12-2002 01:30									#88
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And I'd add that stating a belief that Dresden was wrong isn't "doublespeak smear crap," it's expressing an opinion on something. The facts aren't in dispute, after all.

	17-12-2002 01:45									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov And I'd add that stating a belief that Dresden was wrong isn't "doublespeak smear crap," it's expressing an opinion on something. The facts aren't in dispute, after all.

Do you even read the posts before typing in nonsense?

That was a reply to the UBL reference by Ogie Oglethorpe.

Course you seem to try and push the PC alarm button
yourself.

	17-12-2002 01:51									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Do you even read the posts before typing in nonsense? That was a reply to the UBL reference by Ogie Oglethorpe. Course you seem to try and push the PC alarm button yourself.

Ogie's post was comparing the situation, and thereby it was relevant. Surely if you believe OBL has no justification for targeting civilians to achieve a political end, then neither does anyone else.

Targeting civilians is wrong, plain and simple. I fail to see how it is "PC" to say murdering civilians is a bad thing.

Of course, those who can't argue often fall back on the lame "PC" bogeyman.