Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
never forget. Sad that many innocent died but I wonder how many in Dresden were shedding tears when the uk cities were being bombed? Different times different ideals.
So it goes . . .
- Thread starter LockyOK
- Start date
- Status
never forget. Sad that many innocent died but I wonder how many in Dresden were shedding tears when the uk cities were being bombed? Different times different ideals.
Mankind really hasn't learned enough from the various wars of the past and so, no, we shouldn't forget the horrors of war or other dark chapters in our history (e.g. the endless barbarous conflicts between Catholics and various flavours of Protestant). I'm not talking about blame, I'm talking about trying to avoid "dark chapters" of the future.
As to not having been conceived in the 1940s, none of us had been conceived at the birth of Judaism / Christianity / Islam and I would agree that it would probably be a damned good thing if we were to forget those thoroughly distorted / fabricated / biased views on how we should lead our lives for the greater glory of some imaginary celestial fairy.
Yes really. The common consensus between the actual experts, who really know about this, is that without the actions of Serbia and their Russian sponsors then the two Empires would never have even had the difficult choice they chose to make.
You are simplifying a very complex scenario to apportion blame to one side.
My point was all sides were doing bad things, its war, the US didn't need to sit back and let Pearl harbor happen or nuke Japan.
Dresden is often used by Nazi apologists as a way of minimizing the crimes of the Nazis and Hitler.
Is it
That's a new one for me - got many examples?
not to hand, why? does that invalidate my comment?
Yet our society, laws and morals are built on the fundamentals of Christianity, for better or for worse. If Christianity hadn't been around we may have had a very different history, and subsequently present.
Hitler didn't start indiscriminate bombings, the fat zionist puppet Churchill did.
Hitler and the Germans respected the Geneva conventions! the allies didn't.
I totally agree, on the other hand we cannot just look back at the past and say "it was justified, it was total war after all". Analysis of what we did wrong helps us move forward, as long as we put it into historical context, as TheMightyTen nicely puts.
And just because some use it as a justification for other crimes doesn't mean most do, or that we should not study it. It's all to easy to call someone an apologist rather than debate an issue properly. Just as "We were as bad as the Germans, look at Dresden" is wrong, so is "Dresden was justified, just look at what they did to the Jews".
lol yeh he we go, dont forget Hitler loved animals and children
Of course he loved children, he targeted them at a young age to be taught, he thought they were the future of Germany so did his best to make sure they believed in and understood the Nazi message.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I thought Geneva conventions was created after ww2. Germans wanted to conquer europe by force and led a land campaign that killed many people and took over countries. It then bombed england first. Dresdan was in response. Plus they did try target specific things but back then they had poor targeting compared to today. So it ended killing a lot of non military people. By 1945 germany had already killed a lot of people.
lol yeh he we go, dont forget Hitler loved animals and children
He is probably right on the first part, the first bombing of British civilians was an accident, with German planes dropping bombs in the wrong place. In retaliation Britain did the same and things escalated from there.
It's probably the accident that won the allies the war. The move from military tagrets to civilian by Germany meant we could rebuild our aerial defences, which subsequently caused the abandonment of the invasion of the UK.
Coincidentally I was listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore Histories today about how the world got itself into a position where bombing entire cities became acceptable in those days. Some of the witness testimony of the fire bombing of Hamburg was truly horrific - people had the choice of suffocating in underground bomb shelters or taking their chances on the surface where roads had melted with the heat so you ended up with people stuck to the roads on their hands and knees slowly cooking to death. Truly horrific and yes, a war crime.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,611
- Location
- La France
What colour is the sky on your planet?
Not at all. If you look at the "common consensus" it goes much further than that, citing the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzogovina. Subsequently the Serbian intention to recreate its 13th Century empire and shifting away from Austro-Hungary as a result and forming closer ties with The Russian Empire.
I am simplifying a complex geopolitical and historical situation, but essentially while we can point to the assassination as a trigger, it was underpinned by far more than that and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were intent on taking full advantage in an attempt to stop Serbian expansion and Russian influence in the region, and I am not apportioning blame there is enough to go around if we really want to dissect the minutiae of political and diplomatic tensions in Europe at the time, however the war was effectively started by the two invasions by the aforementioned Empires, resulting in a wave of tit for tat declarations...most for geopolitical and historical reasons of their own rather than any real value they placed on the treaties they held.
The 4th treaty was added to the Geneva Conventions after WW2, but there was already 3 treaties in place way before WW2.
Quite, but Hamburg wasn't as pretty as Dresden.
You sir are tolling, ignorant, or both.
- Status