Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

September 11 just like Dresden, says Le Pen
Telegraph UK ^ | 2/22/07 | Peter Allen

Posted on 02/21/2007 8:59:05 PM PST by dervish

The French presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen provoked outrage among British veterans yesterday when he compared the September 11 attacks on the United States to RAF-led bombing raids during the Second World War.

The National Front leader said both were "terrorist acts as they expressly targeted civilians to force military leaders to capitulate". Mr Le Pen, 79, also dismissed the al-Qa'eda atrocities in 2001 as a mere "incident".

He told the Roman Catholic newspaper La Croix: "Three thousand dead — that is how many die in Iraq in a month and it's far less than the deaths in the Marseille or Dresden bombings at the end of the Second World War."

Praising those Muslims who condemned the attacks on New York and Washington, Mr Le Pen said: "The September 11 event, or one could say incident, prompted a certain number of people to distance themselves [from Islamic extremism] to avoid falling under the barrage of accusations that was unleashed."

'snip'

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dresden; france; moralequivalency; moralrelativism; muslim; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
Le Pen who once railed against Muslim immigration now courts their vote.
1 posted on 02/21/2007 8:59:07 PM PST by dervish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dervish

Why is he still alive? Surely there is one Jew with a 9mm over there.


2 posted on 02/21/2007 9:01:47 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

He got a fair amount of the Jewish vote for speaking out against Muslim Immigrants to France.


3 posted on 02/21/2007 9:02:43 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dervish

...so much propaganda from so many neo-neo-Nazis these days. The bombing in Dresden was for the purpose of destroying quite a few military production and transportation facilities. The place was also a tinderbox.


4 posted on 02/21/2007 9:02:52 PM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Guess he misses the days when he used to speak German.


5 posted on 02/21/2007 9:08:53 PM PST by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Le Pen who once railed against Muslim immigration now courts their vote.

He's been doing that for some time now. For example, he once called the holocaust a footnote in the history of the human race. He is very anti-Semetic.
6 posted on 02/21/2007 9:09:22 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
...so much propaganda from so many neo-neo-Nazis these days. The bombing in Dresden was for the purpose of destroying quite a few military production and transportation facilities. The place was also a tinderbox.

It was done, what, one month before the end of the war? More than one hundred thousand people died. I don't think you can justify that.
7 posted on 02/21/2007 9:10:28 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Sounds like a French Murtha. Senile dementia.


8 posted on 02/21/2007 9:11:10 PM PST by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr
Guess he misses the days when he used to speak German.

Yup. LePen is just pisszed that the Nazis lost the big one. Nice middle name, too -- real macho, "Marie"...

9 posted on 02/21/2007 9:14:32 PM PST by Migraine (...diversity is great (until it happens to you)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: montag813
You wrote, concerning Le Pen, "Why is he still alive?"

Sometimes the wicked prosper.

Oddly, whenever I think of Le Pen, I think of Pym Fortunyn, the brave, flamboyantly gay, outspoken anti-Islamist Dutch politician, and Oriana Fallaci, the brave, brilliant Italian journalist, and Theo Van Gogh, the brave, foolhardy and reckless Dutch filmmaker, and Hirsa Ali, the brave, articulate Dutch intellectual and parlimentarian--assassinated, exiled, assassinated, exiled. These are who I think of when I think of Europe.

The lights are going out over there. It's one thing to think about it in the abstract, without emotion, at a distance; quite another to grasp what it really means. Men like Le Pen and 'Red' Ken Livingstone and George Galloway are the new, true faces of Europe. Even Shakespeare wouldn't write a tragedy so dark and hopeless.
10 posted on 02/21/2007 9:23:42 PM PST by Rembrandt_fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

As time goes by, I`ve come to realize we really did the Germans a big favor when we kicked them out of France


11 posted on 02/21/2007 9:31:46 PM PST by neverhillorat (IF THE RATS WIN, WE ALL LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dervish
"Three thousand dead — that is how many die in Iraq in a month"

This is called the fallacy of comparing incomparable units.
12 posted on 02/21/2007 9:58:16 PM PST by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt_fan
The lights are going out over there. It's one thing to think about it in the abstract, without emotion, at a distance; quite another to grasp what it really means. Men like Le Pen and 'Red' Ken Livingstone and George Galloway are the new, true faces of Europe. Even Shakespeare wouldn't write a tragedy so dark and hopeless.

Very well said, and very tragic.

13 posted on 02/21/2007 10:03:42 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: familyop; LtdGovt

. . . so much propaganda from so many neo-neo-Nazis these days - like Winston Churchill?

"Churchill, who approved of the targeting of Dresden and supported the bombing prior to the event, distanced himself from it. On March 28, in a memo sent by telegram to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff he wrote:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

If people claim that the terror bombings of German civilians was a legitimate tactic in Dresden, then Al Queda's justification of 9/11 would be that terror bombing civilians in the World Trade Center is also a legitimate tactic. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so to speak.

This is why sensible people do not attempt to justify terror bombings (like Dresden) aimed at civilians - the next bombing may be in a city near you.


14 posted on 02/21/2007 10:07:18 PM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverhillorat

They still have to live next door to them. I guess we did what we could do.


15 posted on 02/21/2007 10:07:45 PM PST by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
If people claim that the terror bombings of German civilians was a legitimate tactic in Dresden, then Al Queda's justification of 9/11 would be that terror bombing civilians in the World Trade Center is also a legitimate tactic. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so to speak.

You're saying there is a moral equivalence between Britain, which had been relentlessly attacked with bombing raids on civilian London, bombing Dresden and Al Queada, a terrorist group that had previously attacked numerous civilian targets and suffered almost no retaliation to date, flying planes into the WTC towers and the Pentagon, again killing mostly civilians?

16 posted on 02/21/2007 10:17:08 PM PST by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Dresden was simply one in a long series of Allied and German bombings of cities. The destruction of Hamburg a couple of years earlier was at least as bad, and Germany was still attacking London with V2's at that time. The only reason Dresden gets all the publicity is that the end of the war was near. But to compare Dresden to September 11, well, that's simply foolish. A better comparison is to compare September 11 to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on the WTC wasn't part of a long series of similar "events." It stands alone, a single, solitary surprise attack on perfect innocents. There was no surprise at all about the Dresden bombing, and no innocence in a campaign that was over five years old at that point.


17 posted on 02/21/2007 10:29:30 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; LtdGovt

If you start terror bombing civilians, then you shouldn't be surprised if your opponent retaliates. Some may be surprised to learn that the British, not the Germans, started terror bombing civilians deliberately. The RAF Air Secretary admitted it in his book.

From: Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare from Sarajevo to Hiroshima (Paperback)
by Frederick J. Veale (Author) on Amazon.com

". . . The accusation leveled against the Germans that they deliberately caused harm to civilians is refuted by the fact that the British started this breach of international law. Veale cites J.M. Spaight's book BOMBING VINDICATED to prove that the British started the deliberate bombing of German civilians on May 11, 1940 which Spaight called the "Splendid Decision." While the battle for France was being waged hundreds of miles from German civilians, the British, who should have focused their bombing to military targets such as bridge networks in France, instead bombed innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the Battle of France. In fact, Veale makes a good point that had the British concentrated their bombing on these bridge networks, destruction of these networks would have stopped Hitler's mechanized forces due to the lack of getting gasoline supplies. The German offensive would have stalled and would have been defeated."


18 posted on 02/21/2007 10:35:23 PM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
If you start terror bombing civilians, then you shouldn't be surprised if your opponent retaliates.

Right there your premise falls apart. We did not start bombing innocent civilians leading to the attacks on 9/11. Your moral equivalence is empty.

19 posted on 02/21/2007 10:39:29 PM PST by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dervish

This is another reason we hate frogs: Even the conservatives are total a**holes.


20 posted on 02/21/2007 10:42:49 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Al Quada copied British and U.S. tactics from WWII with the twist of using the plane as the bomb. I do not approve of targeting terror attacks on civilians, but clearly the Allies destroyed Dresden as a terror attack, just as Al Quada destroyed the WTC as a terror attack. I disapprove of terror attacks on civilians, whether on Dresden or the World Trade Center.


21 posted on 02/21/2007 10:48:10 PM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Some may be surprised to learn that the British, not the Germans, started terror bombing civilians deliberately.

Veale cites J.M. Spaight's book BOMBING VINDICATED to prove that the British started the deliberate bombing of German civilians on May 11, 1940 which Spaight called the "Splendid Decision."

Interesting. But another quote from Spaight's book goes like this...

JM Spaight's Bombing Vindicated.

"It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an admission that we were the first to bomb towns. It was nothing of the sort. The German airmen were the first to do that in the present war. (They had done it long before, too—at Durango and Guernica in 1937, nay, at London in 1915-18.) It was they, not the British airmen, who created a precedent for 'war against the civilian population'."

"As it was he [Hitler] chose to set a precedent for the bombing of centres of population in this war at its very outset and thereby prejudiced his position as the advocate of the mutual abandonment by the belligerents of the practice of strategic bombing. In short, it was he who really began the battles of the towns. He is probably very sorry now that he ever did so."


22 posted on 02/21/2007 10:52:22 PM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Al Quada copied British and U.S. tactics from WWII with the twist of using the plane as the bomb. ... but clearly the Allies destroyed Dresden as a terror attack, just as Al Quada destroyed the WTC as a terror attack.

Britain was attacked and already well into a war with Germany. Where is the equivalent situation for Al Quada to attack us on 9/11 as you claim?

23 posted on 02/21/2007 10:55:32 PM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dervish

btt


24 posted on 02/21/2007 10:59:20 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Be fair. It was ALSO payback for Coventry, and well deserved.


25 posted on 02/21/2007 11:17:21 PM PST by SAJ (debunking myths about markets and prices on FR since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Prime Minister Chamberlain had given an assurance that "the British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism."

However, Churchill's policy was different, as Spaight put it, "Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets... It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done... Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.'

The difference between the German Air Force and the RAF was that the Germans designed their air force bombers to aid the ground forces in attacks, while the RAF designed heavy bombers for area attacks. Veale discusses the difference between tactical bombing in support of the army vs. terror attacks. Ground attacks on cities supported by bombers (tactical bombing) as the Germans did is very different than targeting civilians for terror as happened in Dresden.

In a nutshell, Spaight admitted that thousands of British died because Churchill wanted Coventry . . . to look Kiev . . . in the face. As to Guernica, the Germans never admitted a policy of targeting civilians, unlike the British, and Guernica had armaments factories - check Wikipedia for info on Guernica, such as the shooting of a captured German pilot by the Communists prior to the bombing.

As Voltaire said, Beware of people who can make you believe absurdities, because they can make you commit atrocities. Even Churchill came to the realization that the RAF had committed an atrocity at Dresden.


26 posted on 02/21/2007 11:19:45 PM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Sensible, is it? In a declared, all-out war, wherein the nation that bombed Coventry into effective nothingness complains about a subsequent enforcement of ''same rules for both sides''?

The motto here, m'friend, is: ''Don't start no shjt, won't be no shjt.''

And the death cultists had better figure this out right quickly. Sadly, they don't seem to be a favourite to do so. Awwwww.

27 posted on 02/21/2007 11:21:50 PM PST by SAJ (debunking myths about markets and prices on FR since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
You are not even close to making me believe the absurdities of your terrorist apologetics.

In a nutshell, Spaight admitted that thousands of British died because Churchill wanted Coventry . . . to look Kiev . . . in the face.

Again your Spaight quotes are quite selective.

JM Spaight's Bombing Vindicated.

"Today we can hold our heads high. Could we have done so if we had continued the policy which we adopted in September, 1939, and maintained until May, 1940? It was a selfish policy after all, an ungenerous one, an unworthy one. We were prepared to see our weaker neighbours' cities devastated by air attack—of the tactical order—to bear their misfortunes with equanimity, to do nothing to help them in the only way in which we could help at all. (We had no great army then to oppose to the German hosts, and the mills of sea power grind very slowly.) We were prepared, in fact, to leave them to their fate provided we could save our own skin. Our Great Decision As it was, we chose the better, because the harder, way. We refused to purchase immunity—immunity for a time at least—for our cities while those of our friends went up in flames. We offered London as a sacrifice in the cause of freedom and civilisation."

Britain began bombing Germany only after Germany had bombed Poland, and Norway, and Belgium, France and Holland. Even then Britain tried to bomb only precise military targets with small numbers of aircraft.

Spaight isn't saying what you want him to at all.

Britain was attacked and already well into a war with Germany. Where is the equivalent situation for Al Quada to attack us on 9/11 as you claim?

28 posted on 02/21/2007 11:29:37 PM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
LePen is and always has been a state socialist. He has tended to get the ''conservative'' label for two reasons: 1) he's an ardent nationalist, which notion is abhorrent to the Left who believe that nationhood is the major impediment to their one-world dream, and 2) in French politics, anyone to the right of Lenin is invariably labelled ''conservative''. Chirac, f'Heaven's sake, is routinely identified as ''conservative'', if you can believe that w/a straight face!

LePen has always been a self-serving totalitarian wannabee kookburger, rather like Lyndon LaRouche, but w/o the $2000 suits and the smooth demeanour.

29 posted on 02/21/2007 11:30:23 PM PST by SAJ (debunking myths about markets and prices on FR since 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer

#17---Don't confuse Monsieur Le Pen with the facts. European politicians have a very long tradition of pointed existential overstatement coupled with severe character flaws buttressed by a sense of History permanently in denial, when they make their "statements" to the world at large.


30 posted on 02/21/2007 11:36:52 PM PST by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
It was done, what, one month before the end of the war? More than one hundred thousand people died. I don't think you can justify that.

And, just how would the Allied Commanders know with any certainty that the war would end one month from the time they ordered the air raid? Was this action one of the reasons that the war ended as soon as it did? How many Allied soldier lives were saved by this action if the raid did shorten the war?

I am interested in the lives of U.S. service men and women and those of our allies. Not, in what happens to our enemies and those that support them or condone their actions. If the terrorist of today had the capabilities, and they may soon have, to inflict a hundred thousand deaths of American citizens do you think they would have any remorse after doing so? I don't believe they would and neither does another clear thinking person. We owe no apologies to our enemies for destroying them.

31 posted on 02/21/2007 11:38:28 PM PST by jerry639
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
However, Churchill's policy was different, as Spaight put it, "Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets... It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done... Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.'

The fact is that Spaight never wrote the above. It was quoted as coming from Spaight's book by Kenneth McKilliam in an article called How World War II Came About.

McKilliam claims the quote comes from a book by Spaight called "The Splendid Decision", but Spaight never wrote a book called that. He does use the phrase "The Splendid Decision" in Bombing Vindicated.

The article was written for Spearhead magazine, published by John Tyndall. Spearhead was the official magazine of the National Front, then the British National Party, of which Tyndall was the leader.

The national front, and now the British National Party, are both far right fringe parties in the UK, and regarded by most people as fascists. Kenneth McKilliam was an election candidate for the national front.

32 posted on 02/21/2007 11:58:25 PM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Actually, Britain was not attacked. Poland was attacked by Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain then declared war on Germany (but not the Soviets). IMO, Britain would have been well served to have allowed the Germans and Soviets to fight it out and then finish off the loser. Unfortunately for the British, Churchill was not the sharpest knife in the kitchen - though I believe he was honest and had more moral principles than Stalin or FDR. (Read ICEBREAKER by Suvorov for details on Stalin's planned attack on Europe and England.)

Second, the most authoritative source is Churchill himself from his memo of March 28:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."

Churchill admitted that Dresden was essentially, a "mere act(s) of terror and wanton destruction." Spaight's book is a rationalization for terror attacks - "other pretexts", as Churchill puts it. I'm sure you and I can both agree that the WTC attack was also an act of terror and wanton destruction. Our difference is that I don't believe targeting civilians for terror attacks is OK. Is there a moral equivalence? The British started targeting civilians first for non-sensical reasons (Coventry to look Kiev in the face - WTF?) and Al Queda targeted U.S. civilians for ???. Absurd atrocities were committed at Dresden and the WTC, by people who believed in absurdities - as Voltaire said they would.


33 posted on 02/21/2007 11:59:56 PM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I think you are right that Spaight never wrote a book called the "Splendid Decision" - that was a phrase from his book, "Bombing Vindicated".


34 posted on 02/22/2007 12:05:39 AM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
No, he never wrote the words you attributed to him above. As I said McKilliam wrote them and claimed to be quoting Spaight. Here is McKilliam's article where you can find him "quoting" Speight (sic). You will notice this is an apologetic of Hitler and an indictment of those awful Joooos.

Here is Spaight's book online. You will notice the same paragraph you posted attributed to Spaight via McKilliam's article here on the index page. But if you go to Chapter III pg 74, as it says on the index page, you will not find that paragraph in Spaight's book.

Now, if we can dispense with your tendencies to quote neo-Nazi propaganda in defense of your terrorist apologetics perhaps you can answer a straight question about your own words.

Britain was attacked and already well into a war with Germany. Where is the equivalent situation for Al Quada to attack us on 9/11 as you claim?

35 posted on 02/22/2007 12:23:51 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

Oh yeah sure, these women, kids and old people definitely deserved a firestorm to burn their sorry bodies! "Well deserved"? Well deserved my a$$!


36 posted on 02/22/2007 12:29:34 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
The British started targeting civilians first for non-sensical reasons ...

Really? Nonsensical reasons? Spaight didn't think so and neither do I.

Spaight...

"Even if Warsaw is left out of account on the ground - vide German propaganda - that the city was invested and had refused to surrender, it is still undeniable that the Germans bombed undefended towns in Norway before we ever dropped a bomb in Germany. 'Kristiansund, an open and absolutely defenceless town where there have never been any military establishments whatever, was bombed for three days; only one house remained. . 15,000 inhabitants were left without shelter. In the same way Molde was bombed, and Reknes, the great sanatorium for tuberculosis, was bombed and set on fire.' 'Where Elverum had been but a few hours before, only the church and the Red Cross hospital were left standing. . . . Hardly a house but had been razed to within four feet of the ground.'

That the Germans, having so set the pace in Norway, should protest in the name of humanity when we, having caught them up, stiffened the going for them in the Ruhr, is an indication of the amazing obtuseness of the Teutonic mentality. Have they then forgotten what happened in April, 1940? Those raids in Norway could not be explained away as reprisals. And why, given those raids, was it such a shock to the righteous Germans when we bombed the Ruhr? Why was it a 'Churchill crime'? Why should Essen or Duisburg or Dortmund be inviolate when Elverum and Kristiansund and Reknes were not?"

" The most densely built-up square mile of the city was devastated, 20,000 buildings destroyed, 78,000 people rendered homeless and nearly 1,000 inhabitants killed. The following morning, except in the Zeeland province, the Dutch forces were ordered to lay down their arms." The most densely built-up square mile of the city was devastated, 20,000 buildings destroyed, 78,000 people rendered homeless and nearly 1,000 inhabitants killed. The following morning, except in the Zeeland province, the Dutch forces were ordered to lay down their arms." The most densely built-up square mile of the city was devastated, 20,000 buildings destroyed, 78,000 people rendered homeless and nearly 1,000 inhabitants killed. The following morning, except in the Zeeland province, the Dutch forces were ordered to lay down their arms." The most densely built-up square mile of the city was devastated, 20,000 buildings destroyed, 78,000 people rendered homeless and nearly 1,000 inhabitants killed. The following morning, except in the Zeeland province, the Dutch forces were ordered to lay down their arms.

The destruction of Rotterdam settled not only the question of further resistance in Holland, but also the question of how far the German Air Force was respecting civilian life and property. When on 15th May the War Cabinet once more considered the propriety of attacking the Ruhr, its remaining doubts had vanished, and the Air Staff was at last given the signal to go ahead. Of the many benefits that this decision was expected to bring, the greatest would be the anticipated effect on the German Air Force; for German air superiority had so paralysed the French ground forces that some diversion of the enemy bombers from their present objectives was imperative. If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its more accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably head the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London."


37 posted on 02/22/2007 12:33:39 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Le Pen is a traitor.
It is sad. I wonder how many French will be fooled into voting for him when they could vote for de Villers?
38 posted on 02/22/2007 12:38:17 AM PST by rmlew (It's WW4 and the Left wants to negotiate with Islamists who want to kill us , for their mutual ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Hitler chose war with Britain and France, not the other way around.
Perhaps you forget that the alliance was in place and Britain and France were publicly promising to protect Poland. Their only mistake was not doing so by bombing Germany in 1939!

Shall you apologize for the invasion of Norway and, the Netherlands and Belgium?

As for Hitler and Stalin fighting it out, World War II started as a Nazi Communist conspiracy to divide Europe.

39 posted on 02/22/2007 12:43:58 AM PST by rmlew (It's WW4 and the Left wants to negotiate with Islamists who want to kill us , for their mutual ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Veale cites J.M. Spaight's book BOMBING VINDICATED to prove that the British started the deliberate bombing of German civilians on May 11, 1940 which Spaight called the "Splendid Decision."

Not only is the above "Spaight" quote a complete fabrication by Kenneth McKilliam it is incorrect in its stated facts.

Area bombing of Germany didn't start until the 15th December 1940, with a raid by 135 bombers on Mannheim. By then, the Luftwaffe had killed about 20,000 civilians in Britain, thousands in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, thousands in Norway and tens of thousands in Poland.

Indeed, tens of thousands of civilians had been killed by the Luftwaffe before the RAF dropped it's first bomb on Germany.

Some may be surprised to learn that the British, not the Germans, started terror bombing civilians deliberately. The RAF Air Secretary admitted it in his book.

Also not true. The first German bombs on London (in WW2) were dropped on Croydon on the 15th August, killing over 60 civilians. From mid August onwards the Luftwaffe began greatly increasing their night bombing of Britain, dropping bombs on all provincial cities and the outskirts of London.

The British were doing the same, bombing military targets in Germany. Like the Germans they rarely hit what they were aiming at. However, the low number of attacks, and orders to bring bombs back if the target couldn't be identified, meant the German civilian casualties were very low.

That pattern of low casualties changed for the British when the Germans greatly expanded their bombing from mid August, and leapt up when the Germans switched to area bombing from mid September. It changed for the Germans when the RAF began area bombing from mid December.

Your neo-Nazi propagada is old and tired. It has been researched and refuted into the ground on the web. You should be embarrassed to cut-n-paste it once again.

40 posted on 02/22/2007 12:47:53 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer; LtdGovt

Excerpt from the Air Force Historical Studies Office


HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945
BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN

Prepared by:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University





II. ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target

5. At the outbreak of World War II, Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany proper.2 With a population of 642,143 in 1939, Dresden was exceeded in size only by Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Essen, in that order.3 The serial bombardments sustained during World War II by the seven largest cities of Germany are shown in Chart A.

6. Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin, by rail, Dresden was one of the greatest commercial and transportation centers of Germany and the historic capital of the important and populous state of Saxony.4 It was, however, because of its geographical location and topography and as a primary communications center that Dresden assumed major significance as a military target in February 1945, as the Allied ground forces moved eastward and the Russian armies moved westward in the great combined operations designed to entrap and crush the Germans into final defeat.

7. Geographically and topographically, Dresden commanded two great and historic traffic routes of primary military significance: north-south between Germany and Czechoslovakia through the valley and gorge of the Elbe river, and east-west along the foot of the central European uplands.5 The geographical and topographical importance of Dresden as the lower bastion in the vast Allied-Russian war of movement against the Germans in the closing months of the war in Europe.

8. As a primary communications center, Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines.6 The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and e economy is seen in the facts that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in area among the major German states, ranked seventh in its railway mileage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.7

9. In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).9

10. Specific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot.10

11. Dresden was protected by antiaircraft defenses , antiaircraft guns and searchlights, in anticipation of Allied air raids against the city.11 The Dresden air defenses were under the Combined Dresden (Corps Area IV) and Berlin (Corps Area III) Luftwaffe Administration Commands.12

Strategic Objectives, of Mutual Importance to the Allies and the Russians:

12. As early as 1943, the Allies and Russians had begun high-level consultations for the conduct of the war against Germany; in essence, for combined operations designed to defeat Germany by Allied bombardment from the air, by Allied ground operations against Germany from the west, and by Russian operations against the Germans from the west, and by Russian operations against the Germans from the East. At the Tehran Conference (28 November-11 December 1943) between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, the grand strategy for these combined operations was outlined and agreed upon by the three powers.13 Details for executing the grand strategy were not considered at the conference, but were to be worked out by the individual forces in keeping with the fortunes and progress of the war.14

13. In the closing months of 1944, Allied land advances in the west and Russian advances from the east, coupled with the ever-growing devastation from aerial attacks by the Allied heavy bomber forces, made it apparent that early in 1945 Germany proper could be invaded from both fronts and that the Allied strategic air forces would be more and more called upon to give direct support to these vast land operations. In September and October 1944 the Allies and the Russians began the exchange of information on their specific plans for operations designed to bring the war to a close in 1945.15 Simultaneously, the Allies and the Russians laid the general groundwork for closer cooperation and assistance in their forthcoming operations.16

14. On 14 December 1944, the American Ambassador to Russia, Mr. Averill Harriman, personally stated to Marshal Stalin that General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), “was very anxious to operate in concert with the Russians and to help the Russian armies whenever such support might be needed.”17 Ambassador Harriman specifically discussed with Stalin the use of Allied air forces in the Mediterranean in support of Russian land operations in the Balkans.18 While there was no direct mention, in the 14 December conversations between Stalin and Harriman, of the employment of the massive Allied strategic air forces operating from the west, it was to be assumed that these forces would be used to support Russians operations on the Eastern front.

15. On 23 December 1944, President Roosevelt informed Stalin that--given the Marshal’s permission General Eisenhower would be instructed to send a representative to Moscow to “discuss with you the situation in the west and its relation to the Russian front in order that information essential to our efforts may be available to all of us.”19 On 26 December Stalin stated his acceptance of President Roosevelt’s proposal.20 The officer designated to confer with Stalin was Marshal of the RAF, Sir Arthur Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander, SHAEF, and immediately responsible to the Supreme Commander for all Allied air operations. Among the topics discussed by Stalin and Tedder at their meeting on 15 January 1945 was the employment of the Allied strategic air forces in the forthcoming combined operations. Tedder outlined to Stalin the “application of the Allied air effort with particular reference to strategic bombing of communications as represented by oil targets, railroads and waterways.”21 There was also specific discussion of the problem that would face the Russians if the Germans attempted to shift forces from the west to the east and of the necessity of preventing this possibility.22

16. Therefore, on 25 January 1945, the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee of the British War Cabinet, which was responsible for preparing such analyses for the Allied air forces, presented to Marshal Tedder, through appropriate channels, a working paper entitled “Strategic Bombing in Relation to the Present Russian Offensive.23 The findings of this authoritative body were as follows:

The degree of success achieved by the present Russian offensive is likely to have a decisive effect on the length of the war. We consider, therefore, that the assistance which might be given to the Russians during the next few weeks by the British and American strategic bomber forces justifies an urgent review of their employment to this end.24
It is probable that the Germans will be compelled to withdraw forces, particularly panzer divisions, from the Western Front to reinforce the East . . . . To what extent air bombardment can delay the move eastwards of these or other divisions destined for the Eastern Front is . . . an operational matter. It is understood that far-reaching results have already been achieved in the West by disruptive effect of Allied air attacks on marshalling yards and communications generally. These have hitherto been aimed at assistance to the Western Front and should now be considered in relation to delaying the transfer of forces eastwards.25

For the next several days these recommendations were carefully studied and evaluated by the appropriate authorities in the Supreme Commander’s staff, particularly among those immediately responsible to him for planning and authorizing air operations. On 31 January, the decision was made by the Deputy Supreme Commander Tedder and his air staff that the second priority for the Allied strategic air forces should be the “attack of BERLIN, LEIPZIG, DRESDEN and associated cities where heavy attack will . . . hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts.”26 As of 31 January 1945, the Allied decision to establish Dresden as a second priority target, because it was a primary communications center and in support of the Russian armies, was by no means unilateral. The decision was founded on basic and explicit exchanges of information between the Allies and Russia and was clearly a strategic decision of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians.27

The Russian Request for Allied Bombing of Communications in the Dresden Area:

17. The Allied-Russian interchanges that had begun in the closing months of 1944 and had become, with the passing of time, more frequent and more specific, culminated in the ARGONAUT Conferences of January-February 1945. On 4 February, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, together with their foreign secretaries and military advisors, assembled at Yalta to present definitive and specific plans, and requests, for bringing the war against Germany to a victorious conclusion, by the summer of 1945, if possible (Other considerations involved in the ARGONAUT deliberations are not pertinent or relevant here). At this meeting, Marshal Stalin asked Army General Antonov, Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, to outline to the Conference the situation existing on the Eastern Front and to describe Russia’s plans for subsequent operations. At the conclusion of his extended presentation, General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians: 27

Our wishes are:
a. To speed up the advance of the Allied troops on the Western Front, for which the present situation is very favorable: (1) To defeat the Germans on the Eastern Front. (2) To defeat the German groupings which have advanced into the Ardennes. (3) The weakening of the German forces in the West in connection with the shifting of their reserves to the East (It is desirable to begin the advance during the first half of February).
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig).
c. Not permit the enemy to remove his forces from Italy.

18. It was the specific Russian request for bombing communications, coupled with the emphasis on forcing troops to shift from west to east through communications centers, that led to the Allied bombings of Dresden. The structure of the Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex, as outlined in paragraph 8 above, required that Dresden, as well as Berlin and Leipzig, be bombed. Therefore Allied air authorities concluded that the bombing of Dresden would have to be undertaken (1) in order to implement strategic objectives, of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians, and now agreed upon at the highest levels of governmental authority, and (2) to respond to the specific Russian request presented to the Allies by General Antonov to “paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig.”

The Recommendation and Authority for the Allied Air Forces’ Bombing of Dresden:

19. On 8 February 1945 SHAEF (Air) informed the RAF Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Forces that Dresden was among a number of targets that had been selected for bombing because of their importance in relation to the movements of military forces to the Eastern Front.28 This action, based upon the authoritative recommendation of the Combined Strategic Targets Committee, SHAEF (Air), and in turn based upon the recommendations of the Joint Intelligence Committee (see paragraph 16 above), was in keeping with the procedural structure and authority set up in SHAEF for the conduct of aerial operations by Allied forces.29

20. Allied aerial operations were ultimately the responsibility of the Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, though normally he delegated the immediate authority for employment of Allied air forces to his Deputy Supreme Commander, Marshal Tedder. The latter, in turn, relied upon the commanders of the RAF Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Forces (General Carl Spaatz, Commanding) for the actual conduct of specific strategic aerial operations. The top commanders of the Allied strategic bomber forces were required to conduct all of their operations within the framework of bombing directives laid down to them by the Combined Chiefs of Staff (the British Chiefs of Staff and the American Joint Chiefs of Staff). In February 1945, when SHAEF (Air) directed the bombing of Dresden in immediate support of the Russians and in keeping with strategic objectives of mutual interest to the Allies and the Russians, the strategic objectives of mutual interest o the Allies and the Russians, the strategic bomber forces were operating under the authority of the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) “Directive No. 3 for the Strategic Air Forces in Europe,” dated 12 January 1945.30 The second priority, after bombing of the German petroleum industry for the Allied strategic air forces was, in that directive, listed as the bombing of “German lines of communications.”31 The authority for and the ordering of the bombing of Dresden by Allied strategic air forces and the steps taken to carry out these orders were therefore within the framework of the existing basic CCS Directive No. 3 governing the operations of the Allied strategic air forces in Europe.

Information Officially Given to the Russians by the Allies Concerning the Intended Date of and the Forces to be Committed to the Bombing of Dresden:

21. Although the exact procedures for maintaining day to day liaison between the Russians and the Allies on Allied bombing operations was for a long time the subject of negotiation between the Allies and the Russians, certain procedures for such liaison were nevertheless in effect prior to the Allied bombings of Dresden.32 Therefore, the following actions were taken by Allied authorities to notify the Russians that in accordance with their expressed wishes as to actions and timing, stated at the ARGONAUT Conference on 4 February 1945, Allied strategic air forces would bomb Dresden during the first half of February.33

22. On 7 February 1945, General Spaatz, Commanding General, United States Strategic Air Forces, informed Major General J. R. Deane, Chief of the United States Military Mission, Moscow, that the communications targets for strategic bombing by the Eighth Air Force were, in the order of their priority, Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, Cheanitz (and others of lesser importance).34 On the same date, General Spaatz also notified General Deane that a 24-hour advance notice of the intention to conduct actual bombing operations against Dresden (and the other targets of mutual concern to the Russians and the Allies) would be forwarded in order that General Deane might so notify the Russians.35 Moscow notified the proper Russian authority that Dresden was among the targets selected for strategic bombing by the American Eighth Air Force.36 On February, General Spaatz informed the United States Military Mission that, weather permitting, the Eighth Air Force intended to attack the Dresden Marshalling Yards with a force of 1200 to 1400 bomber planes on 13 February.37 On 12 February, therefore, the Russians were informed of the Americans’ intention to bomb Dresden.38 Weather conditions did not permit the Eighth Air Force to carry out its attack against Dresden on 13 February.39 Accordingly, on 13 February by similar procedures the Americans informed the Russians, that the Eighth Air Force would attack the Dresden Marshalling Yards on the 14th.40 Subsequently, the Russians were informed by the Americans that Dresden, together with the other high priority communications centers targets, would be subject to attack whenever weather conditions permitted.41

The Forces and Means Employed by the Allies in the Bombing of Dresden:

23. In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Of this tonnage, 1247.6 tons were expanded by the Eighth Air Force, 2659.3 tons by the RAF Bomber Command. The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed against the Dresden city area.42 The American aircraft used H2X (radar) bombing method, with visual assists, and the British used the marker and visual method.43

Specific Target Objectives in the Dresden Area:

24. As related in paragraphs 5-11 above, Dresden became a military target as (1), and of overriding importance, a primary communications center in the Berlin-Leipzig-Dresden railway complex; (2) as an important industrial and manufacturing center directly associated with the production of aircraft components and other military items, including poison gas, anti-aircraft and field guns, and small guns; and (3) as an area containing specific military installations. The night raid by the RAF Bomber Command was intended to devastate the city area itself and thereby choke communications within the city and disrupt the normal civilian life upon which the larger communications activities and the manufacturing enterprises of the city depended. Further, the widespread area raid conducted by the British entailed bombing strikes against the many industrial plants throughout the city which were thus to be construed as specific targets within the larger pattern of the area raid.44 The Eighth Air Force raids, which were by daylight and followed, on the 14th and 15th February, the night raid of the British (13/14 February), were directed against rail activities in the city.45



41 posted on 02/22/2007 12:50:40 AM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer; LtdGovt
"Dresden strafing myth is shot down"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/251208/posts

"The dilemma of Dresden" [Military historian debunks the neo-Nazi canard about Dresden with sources.]
42 posted on 02/22/2007 12:55:58 AM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

No need for me to quote any propaganda - I've quoted Winston Churchill himself for the proposition that Dresden was a "mere act(s) of terror and wanton destruction." Further, I do not apologize for any terrorist attack - I condemn terrorist attacks made on civilians by anyone.

You "Britain was attacked and already well into a war with Germany. Where is the equivalent situation for Al Quada to attack us on 9/11 as you claim?"

Response - Britain was not attacked - Poland was attacked by Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain declared war on Germany then Germany declared war on Britain.

"Again, your Spaight quotes are quite selective. JM Spaight's Bombing Vindicated:

'Today we can hold our heads high. Could we have done so if we had continued the policy which we adopted in September, 1939, and maintained until May, 1940? It was a selfish policy after all, an ungenerous one, an unworthy one. We were prepared to see our weaker neighbours' cities devastated by air attack—OF THE TACTICAL ORDER—to bear their misfortunes with equanimity, to do nothing to help them in the only way in which we could help at all. (We had no great army then to oppose to the German hosts, and the mills of sea power grind very slowly.) We were prepared, in fact, to leave them to their fate provided we could save our own skin. Our Great Decision As it was, we chose the better, because the harder, way. We refused to purchase immunity—immunity for a time at least—for our cities while those of our friends went up in flames. We offered London as a sacrifice in the cause of freedom and civilisation."

Britain began bombing Germany only after Germany had bombed Poland, and Norway, and Belgium, France and Holland. Even then Britain tried to bomb only precise military targets with small numbers of aircraft.

Spaight isn't saying what you want him to at all."

Actually, Spaight admits in the above quote that the Germans were using tactical bombing "OF THE TACTICAL ORDER" when they took cities in support of their army. The British did not use tactical bombing as the Germans did - as Veale discusses in his book. Dresden was not a tactical bombing in support of a siege or of armaments factories in a city - it was a targeted terror bombing of civilians - as Churchill admitted.

Germany did not attack Britain and did not start the terror bombing of civilians (per Veale's book and your quote) and to my knowledge the U.S. did not attack Al Queda or Arabs and did not do anything that justified the WTC attacks on civilians by Al Quada - nonetheless, absurd atrocities were committed at Dresden and the WTC.


43 posted on 02/22/2007 12:56:33 AM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dervish
Every time I gaze into my Crystal Ball I can see an Islamic Superstate forming in Western Europe like a dirty stormcloud.Perhaps one day soon we will have to do some landscaping and turn the place into a lake.

44 posted on 02/22/2007 1:01:03 AM PST by cavador
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

ummmm - no. It was terror.


45 posted on 02/22/2007 1:03:25 AM PST by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cavador

By that time your dollar has broken down and you cannot afford to pay the maintencance of nuclear facilities anymore.


46 posted on 02/22/2007 1:04:28 AM PST by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: familyop; Howard Jarvis Admirer; LtdGovt
Excellent work, familyop. But let's not forget that one of HJAs main points is that Al Quada's 9/11 attack is morally no different than the Allied attack on Dresden.

In other words; America deserved it. Al Quada was just paying us back for all the Nazi-like atrocities we have committed on them.

Howard Jarvis Admirer: Al Quada copied British and U.S. tactics from WWII with the twist of using the plane as the bomb. ..., but clearly the Allies destroyed Dresden as a terror attack, just as Al Quada destroyed the WTC as a terror attack.

The fact that it is not at all clear that the Allies destroyed Dresden as a terror attack is beside the point that HJA is clearly justifying Al Quada's attacks on the U.S.

47 posted on 02/22/2007 1:08:28 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Germans were using tactical bombing "OF THE TACTICAL ORDER"

It doesn't matter what Churchill said. In post #40 I thoroughly proved that Hitler/Germany deliberately targeted civilians on a massive scale. The only thing you have been correct about is that Germany did not attack Britain first. An irrelevant fact since Britain had a treaty with Poland to defend it and Germany massively attacked Poland including bombardment of civilians.

Keep on with your neo-Nazi garbage it's instructive.

48 posted on 02/22/2007 1:16:36 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; familyop; LtdGovt

If you believe Winston Churchill, it is very clear that Dresden was a "mere act(s) of terror and wanton destruction". I have said that the WTC attack was a mere act of terror and wanton destruction - with which I am sure TigersEye will agree.

I do not believe civilian terror attacks are justified - whether they were on Dresden or the WTC. But someone opened Pandora's Box and started targeting civilians for terror attacks with bombs - which Al Queda then copied. If you believe the quote TigersEye gave, Spaight admitted the Germans were doing tactical attacks - which complied with the laws of war. IMO the British attacks did not, since they deliberately targeted civilians.

And I stated that I know of no rational reason for Al Queda to attack the U.S. - therefore we did not deserve the WTC attacks.

I'll try to find my "Advance to Barbarism" book by Veale tomorrow since Tigerseye is doing his homework and making good arguments on this post. I'll have to do more homework on this topic to keep up with him.


49 posted on 02/22/2007 1:24:41 AM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Did the Nazis end the murders in the concentration camps "one month" before the end of the war and start to make ammends with the few survivors?

No?

I didn't think so.

Who started the war?

Not Britain.

Germany was the aggressor; hence, nations it attacked do not have a moral obligation to respond in a restrained way. If they wanted to put every German that wasn't stuck in a concentration camp to the sword they had the moral authority to do so because the Germans started the war.... but only until the Germans surrendered. Such an action becomes an outrage if it is done AFTER a surrender, not before, or if it is done by the aggressor, not the one who was initially attacked. Dresden took place before the surrender.

If Germany knew to expect a massive, determined resonse it wouldn't have pulled the trigger in the first place. But Germany expected a soft response and so, they were tempted to pull the trigger.

Ugly as it is, that is war. For one side, war is a desperate fight for survival and no chances can be taken on leaving your attacker with the will or means to fight again any time soon. That's why in the Gulf War it was so important to go after the Republican Guard and obliterate it. We were slammed by countless outraged useless ninnies over that because it was ugly, and earned an ugly name: The Highway of Death. But we let the screaming ninnies have the last say and we stopped too soon.

As a result the regime was able to continue its war on its own people, and the regime itself lasted another decade. A whole lot more Iraqis ended up in mass graves or in Hussein's son's little torture chambers, and Iraq funneled cash into every marxist and islamic terror group it could in its lust for revenge, and Iraq bought the UN and apparently a fair number of our politicians.

Saddam won't get to see his victory, but his Syrian counterparts might if the screaming surrender ninnies this time around have their way.

Ironic how decades after WW2 the very people we're fighting are ideological descendents of the Nazi party, blended with some communism and of course Pan Arabism. WW2 Ended in the Pacific theater where we used the atomic bomb but didn't end in the Middle East.

A defender wins war however he can so he can live in peace and the only way to be sure you've done it is to get the aggressor to surrender unconditionally, to completely roll over emotionally as well as in capability. If they're led by a nutcase you're going to have to scare them more than he does to force a surrender. If you don't get them to roll completely you're going to have to fight them again some day when they rearm. And thye most certainly will rearm.

Once you've forced a surrender and have utterly knocked the fight out of them until they accept the fact that they are at your mercy, then it is time to be generous and gracious. Be gracious and you won't have to fight them again. Be vengeful and you're probably going to have to put up with a nest full of vipers in the future.

There was no set timetable for the end of WW2; reasonable people might have guessed it would and a month later, but unreasonable people could make it go on. Things that seem so sure can change unpredictably, one ill-fated decision, one unseen natural or human made disaster, a cut supply line, the sudden death of a critical individual in the 'cast of characters,' a turn of weather, even unexplained miracles can turn a winner into a loser, or make a crushed man a victor. A brilliant mind can devise solutions to escape a trap. A civilian population can pull its support out from under even the most victorious of armies and engineer political defeat- we're seeing people try to do that to us now, and we've seen that before. A population can rally. You always have to assume the unexpected, for no one knows what the next hour may bring.

If the Allies had fought a PC war the ashes in Europe would have been piled a good deal higher and the war would have gone on much longer; we did not have the time or luxury to be PC. Every day the war went on more people were selected for extermination and sent to their deaths. Any hesitation on our part had consequences even with Germans falling apart, hundreds of thousands of human beings would, and did, end up under Soviet boots with nothing but misery and fear in their future.

And for those morons who try to compare Dresden with Al Qaeda's activities... Al Qaeda was not and never has been a government - much less a representative one; its leaders are not accountable to their followers; its fighters are not subject to regulation or enforcement; its organization is without a recognizable & responsible chain of command. It has no authority to wage war on behalf of anyone.

It doesn't matter a hill of beans that the people who died in the WTC or on the airliners were civilians... even had the targets all been military ones and only American military personnel killed, al Qaeda still had no authority to wage war. If 9/11 had been an act of war by Iraq it would be slightly more comparable, though of little difference as Iraq was a dictatorship, not a representative government and so, had little authority to wage war on us and technically none at all since it signed a cease fire. Unlike the Allies in WW2, Iraq was not the victim of attack but was the initiator of aggression in the Gulf War... in short, Kuwait had the moral authority to wage war on Iraq and enlist allies in its defense to defeat Iraq, even to go to Baghdad itself and topple Hussein if it could, while Iraq did not have such rights since it was the aggressor. But for its invasion and pillaging of Kuwait there would have been no war at all. So even if 9/11 was recognized as the act of a stae like Iraq, it still doesn't compare in any way to Dresden.

50 posted on 02/22/2007 1:32:09 AM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson