Allied Morality Questioned in Bombing of German Cities

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

[Ozz]

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.

[DanS]

"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.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[Gatekeeper]

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

[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.

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/ww_one/timeline/timesrch.htm#1914

[Ozz]

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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?

[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.

[Ozz]

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.

[Boris Godunov]

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.