So you like to provoke.

Since Nazis changed the laws changed the national laws to aid their goals it's unethical.

If you apply international war laws (unsure if something like that existed that time already) it's illegal.

In my eyes (ger: In meinen Augen ), you provoke, because I don't your aim.

Were the bombs over Dresden and the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki good or bad?

Laws have only a minor underpart as to this act of unethical.

(I hope, you understand, what I write. )

I have a neutral position if it comes to WWII, so I don't judge it personal.

I think the bombing of Dresden was understandable. But I have really difficulties to understand the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seems to me like testing a new weapon and punishing for pearl harbour. I am sure the americans never considered of throwing an atomic bomb on german ground.

That´s why I think this bombing more a crime.

Alex

I agree, the attack on the town was terrible, but compared to a "nazi world" it was worth it.

Do you mean, it was worth it, in order to prevent a "Nazi world"? Then I'd agree. But in fact it was not neccessary to decide the war.

This post was last modified: 20.01.2008 21:57 by Malone.

"I have always considered the bombing of Dresden on 13th February 1945, a war crime. For example, here is an internal RAF memo circulated in January, 1945."

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

The main reason for the destruction of this medieval city was as a warning to the advancing Red Army (also one of the main motivations behind the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan). To their credit, some RAF aircrews did not follow instructions during the raid.

Churchill, being an historian, became concerned about how these firestorms would be seen during the post-war period. On 28th March, 1945, Churchill wrote to Bomber Harris: “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, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. 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.”

After the war some British historians were highly critical of the attack on Dresden.

As it was clearly a terror attack on a civilian population some have described it as a war crime.

Although terror bombing was Churchill’s policy, Harris took the blame and was not given the honours that men of equivalent rank were given. Harris was so bitter about this he emigrated to South Africa.
aus...http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=357

This is neutral?

You can compare all events in the WWII, but you are to describe the differences and the similarities between events.


Information: The german judiciary say: "Don't compare the Holocaust with a another event, because this crimes are belittled."

I agree this.

Man kann ein Land nicht wegen einem Bombardement gleich mit Nazis vergleichen. Andere Argumente wären vieleicht aktzeptabel,aber dieses nun wirklich nicht.
Der Nationalsozialismus war das grausamste Regime das je existiert hat und der Holocaust ist auch das grausamste Verbrechen das es je gegeben hat. Wenn man aber die Geschichten einiger Nationen mal etwas zurückverfolgt, muss man feststellen das diese leider selbst nicht die Scheinheiligen sind. Jede Nation hat Dreck am Stecken. Nehmen wir mal die Amerikaner mit den Indianern, oder die Türken mit den Sheiten(oder wer auch immer nochmal von denen verfolgt wurde). Chinesen mit den Tibetern. Wieviele da umgebracht wurden wird nicht gesagt, thematesiert leider erst recht nicht. Ein grosses Problem ist, das Deutschland meist recht gründlich war in dem was es tat. Da war es der Falsche ansatz. Was ich jedoch auch nicht in Ordnung finde ist, das die Nationen Deutschland immer noch als den Bösen Belzebube hinstellt, der er einst war. Ich selbst komme aus Dachau(Wird einigen ein Begriff sein) und verabscheue diese Tat von damals, aber wenn ich in Frankreich Urlaub mache oder sonstigen Urlaubsort besuche, muss ich damit rechnen, das ich als Scheiss "Nazi" beschimpft werde. Die Leute, die heute noch Rechtsextrem sind, haben nichts dazu gelernt. Shlimmer als das finde ich jedoch die Verleugnung mancher Tatsachen, die solchen Menschen Närboden für ihre Propaganda bieten.Sei es auf deutschem oder anderem Boden passiert. Wir leben auf einem sterbenden Planeten. Wenn uns der nicht tötet, dann werden die Menschen es selbst erledigen. Das war leider schon immer so

Ich wäre froh darüber,wenn diesen Text jemand ins Englische übersetzen könnte,ich bin nicht besonders bewandert darin

Various discussions have popped up, so I'll categorize my post.

Dresden: It's clear the raid was used to instill terror and demonstrate power. The Germans did the same thing during the Blitz, so you can't resent the British for a little bit of revenge. The fact that the German's didn't have enough air/civil defense to protect the people of Dresden is simply irrelevent to the argument. The Brits did, the German's didn't. If Manchester wasn't protected, the city would have met with a similar fate.

Nuclear attack was a test: No, it wasn't. The bomb in the Nevada desert was a test. The several bombs in the pacific ocean were tests. The bombing of Hiroshima was an attempt to convince the Japanese government to surrender, saving (estimations have being as high as 1.1 million, these are the generally accepted estimations) 330 000 American lives and 250 000-500 000 Japanese lives.

It is disputed whether the bombing of Nagasaki was necessary, the bomb used was controversial. Though the actual scientist behind the bomb (his name eludes me) was very confident that it would be effective in an urban environment, many other officials within the Manhattan Project were skeptical. The man behind the bomb somehow convinced the military to use his bomb on a second city (what, 11 days?) after Hiroshima was destroyed.

The nuclear attacks were unnecessary and didn't shorten the war: The other alternative was ground invasion. After taking outlying Japanese islands, the military was extremely hesitant to invade the main islands of Japan. As I said before, hundreds of thousands more lives would have being lost, and the war would have dragged on for at least a year. Within 3 days of the second bomb being dropped, the war was over. It shortened the war significantly.

Bombing Dresden didn't shorten the war: Well...it was an important city used by the German militarty, it's destruction did shorten the war, not nearly as significantly as the bombing campaign over Japan but bombing Dresden made things more difficult for the German military. Whether it was worth it or not is very complex. This generation's war experience has being portrayed on the TV. People dying in oil rich gulf nations. Sounds suspicious. I don't like it.

This can make people ignorant of what the atmosphere was like during WWII. WWII was real, it was there. Iraq's just on the TV. Destroying Baghdad back in 03 would have being wildly unpopular, even if it was necessary, or would have helped shorten the war. But the Brits, as they were couped up for the 3rd time that week in a cold, damp bomb shelter all nigh would have relished the chance to give Germans a taste of their own medicine.

It's unacceptable by our standards, but I'm not going to call anyone a war criminal.