Skip to comments.Morality -- Trotskyite vs. Christian [It's Pat]
Posted on 06/24/2008 3:08:57 PM PDT by Alouette
Did Hitler's crimes justify the Allies' terror-bombing of Germany?
Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War": "The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities."
Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.
According to British historians, however, Churchill ordered the initial bombing of German cities on his first day in office, the very first day of the Battle of France, on May 10, 1940.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
How come Pat does not mention the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw?
PAt confuses debating with ingorant leftists and looking at history. Pat is revising history and assuming that we are all ignorant, again. And he is ascerbic to grow up and deal with an argument as anything but a personal attack.
I voted for this idiot in 92... Big mistake..
Pat's whole campaign for a revisionist rejection of our fighting WWII is just bizarre. Our bombing wasn't justified in light of Coventry, the East End, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc.? Nonsense.
That said, the bombing effort produced checkered results, at best. The Brits couldn't hit much of anything of strategic value, bombing at night. U.S. losses from daylight bombing outweighed what value we got, at least until losses declined after we got fighter cover all the way to and from the target.
Research after the war showed rather than demoralize civilians, bombing tended to reinforce their resolve.
Why did Pat call his article Trotskyite vs. Christian when he’s talking about Churchill’s England, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia? Is it because he’d rather have a Jewish name representing Communism?
Pat and his fellow paleos is stuck in a time warp.. Mainly in the 30’s and the 50’s.. They need to stop living in the past and live in the present..
Waiting for the sniveling PATrons to emerge from their sewers to defend him.....4....3....2....1....
Not defending Buchanan, but Hitchens did leave himself open to a hell of a lot of criticism. Defeating Nazism and ending the Holocaust justified the Allied tactics in toto, beyond what would be the norm in ‘mundane warfare.’ But Hitch makes it sound as IF the raids were justified as punishment—not as a strategic objective.
War is all about success and if a tactic succeeds then it is justified. It’s all about survival and defeating the enemy. When the existence of your country and your people are on the line you don’t play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
“The Legend of Dresden”
a scholarly and balanced account in Air Force Magazine;
a decent antidote to some of the revisionism
Surely Mr. Buchanan knows that painting was inspired by a simple
“warm-up” by The Luftwaffe before “the big game”.
“Our bombing wasn’t justified in light of Coventry, the East End, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc.? Nonsense.”
As I recall, in WWI the belligerents gassed each other without too much moral outrage, but zepplins bombing cities was a great atrocity. In WWII the morality pretty much flipped 180 degrees.
OUR trouble here is that we’re giving Pat Buchanan WAY too much credibility by even listening to what he has to say.
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.