Was the firebombing of Dresden by the RAF a war crime?
There comes a point in any war, where victory is the only thing.
Fighting Nazis was like that.
RAF engaged in total warfare.
Result. Germans of today are more repulsed by Nazis than any other people could be. They literally have beaten their swords into plough shears and abandoned even the thought of war against GB or anybody for that matter.
Total warfare. Total victory.
When modern warfare produces results like that, rather than engaging in destruction that settles nothing, then that is the time that we would be in a position to criticize the greatest generation that engendered freedom across the whole of Europe.
And that, I'm afraid, would be heiferdust. Utility does not equal morality.
SolomonVII said:There comes a point in any war, where victory is the only thing.
Fighting Nazis was like that.
RAF engaged in total warfare.
Result. Germans of today are more repulsed by Nazis than any other people could be. They literally have beaten their swords into plough shears and abandoned even the thought of war against GB or anybody for that matter.
SolomonVII said:Total warfare. Total victory.
SolomonVII said:When modern warfare produces results like that, rather than engaging in destruction that settles nothing, then that is the time that we would be in a position to criticize the greatest generation that engendered freedom across the whole of Europe.
That had nothing to do with Dresden. It had with the USSR winning their war with Germany, with brutality and inhumanity worse than even Dresden.Result: Half of Europe and one third of the world condemned to Communism. That's it.
Britain did not fall. That was no failure, given the power of the Nazi state.Total victory for the Soviet Union. Certainly not for the British, who lost their Empire. Just days before Dresden was bombed, Poland, the very country that Britain supposedly went to war to protect, was sold out to Stalin at Yalta. Even by the standard of Britain's own stated goals, the war was a failure.
I imagine after the constant bombings of London, it settled things for more than a few Brits at that time.Destruction that settles nothing is exactly what the bombing of Dresden was. You haven't made any case as to how it contributed to the war effort. You also haven't made any case as to how Stalin "engendered freedom" across Europe.
They literally have beaten their swords into plough shears and abandoned even the thought of war against GB or anybody for that matter.
But I did mean literally. Maybe it is my overactive imagination though that sees them melting down their Pantzers and remolding them into the instruments and machinery of the new German economy of peace.Sorry, but using 'literally' as an intensifier is a pet peeve of mine. You should use the word 'figuratively'. You're in good company though, as lots of people make this same mistake all the time (figuratively speaking, of course).
Maybe the better criticism of my writing style is that it is hyperbole, because that is probably not how it went down.
I hat to break it to you, but you many not want to go too far with this:Usage note
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning in effect, virtually, a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning actually, without exaggeration: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized (here's where I come in); nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.
Literally?LITERALLY a million years? XD - YouTube
It is not that Sheldon isn't literally a genius, but being Sheldonesque does have its drawbacks.
And that, I'm afraid, would be heiferdust. Utility does not equal morality.
That had nothing to do with Dresden. It had with the USSR winning their war with Germany, with brutality and inhumanity worse than even Dresden.
If only the Allies could have been more successful faster, more countries would have been spared the continued inhumanity of communism.
As it was, they did more than most people would find acceptable now.
Britain did not fall. That was no failure, given the power of the Nazi state.
I imagine after the constant bombings of London, it settled things for more than a few Brits at that time.
It is an interesting question though, whether Eastern Europe would have been better under the Nazis than Stalin. I don't like Stalin either, but if it is your opinon that Hitler triumphing in that area would have been better, you are entitled to believe that for sure.
I am rather worried by people who appear be so down on what an allied victory led to - whats the alternative as you point out - that we should have left Europe under the Nazis? Whilst communist tyranny over Europe was a dark period, leaving the Nazis in control would have far worse as they would have undoubtedly started pushing other groups into Auschwitz (whilst the Russians didn't like the Poles and there was Katyn Forest, they did not at least wish for the total elimination of the population, which is the ultimate logic of the Nazi view of their bitterest enemy - they never got over the Poles kicking their ass at Tannenburg in 1410).
I personally find a pacifist position almost morally repugnant.I know there is a section of US society that takes a certain view on communism (and indeed probably regards us Brits as lefty socialists with the NHS etc) and probably believes they should have kept out of the war, except in regard to Japan and should once in it (a la Patton) have re-armed the Wehrmacht to find alongside us against the Reds. As you mentioned regardless of one's views on Dresden, his argument is more on the morality of the war in the first place and, in effect, seems to be saying that US and UK participation in WW2 was wrong and a crime because of the damage caused.
I am not sure of the exact meaning of the word 'ref' here, but I think I agree that the British Empire and colonialism in general was a spent force by the time that WWII came along. While the sun never setting on the British empire speaks of pride and glory, in practical terms that kind of global role is a thankless, grueling, and expensive task. Brits had enough of it already, just as many Yanks have had their fill of being in that kind of position of leadership.Whilst it wasn't the reason we went to war, for instance I imagine that the remaining Jewish folk of Europe were quite happy about a Nazi defeat. And notwithstanding Russian occupation, if the Nazis had still controlled Poland in 1989 how many Poles would there have been left alive to experience the end of the Cold War.
Personally ref the loss of British Empire - so what - it would have happened anyway.
From what I understand, Nazi philosophy hated Jews because they believed them to be smarter, superior in so many ways, and therefore dangerous and in need of being exterminated. The Slavs on the other hand were seen as an inferior race that would have to be cleansed from the land in order to make room for the superior blond lion race of the Germans.
I think that Churchill and Roosevelt made the correct decision in allying themselves with the monster Stalin.
That is not to say that Stalin and the Soviet communists were not ultimately responsible for several more times the deaths that the Nazis were responsible for.
I personally find a pacifist position almost morally repugnant.
I am pretty sure that the portion of the American society that would have preferred fighting with the Nazis against the Brits would not even register as a measurable percentage of the American population. It is the lack of recognition of the murderous tyranny of the left that is being addressed in that kind of post. Criticism of socialist tendencies ought not to be perceived as a will to war against the Brits, or a will to ally with the Nazis.
American conservatives are not in general brain dead. Churchill is something of a hero for many who still have some kind of memory of those times. It is conservatives in America in fact, who were the most taken aback by Obama insulting the memory of Churchill by sending back the bust of Churchill to whence it came.
I am not sure of the exact meaning of the word 'ref' here, but I think I agree that the British Empire and colonialism in general was a spent force by the time that WWII came along. While the sun never setting on the British empire speaks of pride and glory, in practical terms that kind of global role is a thankless, grueling, and expensive task. Brits had enough of it already, just as many Yanks have had their fill of being in that kind of position of leadership.
From what I understand, there was not much left of the German army in 1945. It was a thoroughly defeated army, and would not have been much help.When I was referring to sympathies, I didn't mean that many Americans would have wanted to go war against Britain - but rather that some then (and since) would have seemingly been happy for the German Divisions to be turned round in 1945 and with the Western Allies then fought against the Germans. You only have to read the Youtube comments of many (though not just from the US) eulogising the Wehrmacht and even saying that the Germans did the US a favour by killing so many 'Commies'.
It was a fairly useful pact of non-aggresssion between the two main totalitarians states of Europe, until Hitler decided that having the oilfields of Russia would be useful for him.Actually though whatever people like Patton may have thought, certainly the British Army would have refused to act in that way - as during the war I know there was a strong level of support for the USSR esp in working class areas (and of course in 1945 many soldiers as well as other voted Labour). Yes the USSR was horrendous murderous tyranny too, but aside from the utilitarian aspect my enemy's enemy is my friend (we could not have won without allying positively to the USSR and no-one made Hitler start a 2 front war)
There are many Americans and people on the left in general that make the argument for the moral equivalence of the USSR with America during the Cold War period. The ethnic people of the outlying soviets would probably disagree with the idea that the USSR did not have racist policies of their own.I think perhaps that it is the racial nature of Nazism that has led it to be regarded as more objectionable in retrospect (at the time of course people knew very little of the Gulags but we did know who had invaded Western Europe etc). In the words of Indiana "Nazis, I hate those guys"
In regard to the OP comments about how the war lost Britain the Empire, as said my reaction is "so what" - it was going to happen anyway.
With respect, as a Quaker I assume you do not assume the war was morally right anyway (even if it was a utilitarian way of stopping Hitler)
You are correct, as a pacifist I find WW2 morally reprehensible. As for Europe under the Nazis perhaps some research would help? A number of non-violent actions were taken by folk within Germany itself (and outside as well) which were entirely successful. The Nazis, as reprehensible as their ideology was, were humans and quite capable of moved by the actions of others.
From what I understand, there was not much left of the German army in 1945. It was a thoroughly defeated army, and would not have been much help.
As far as turning on the former Soviet ally and continued the war against them, that would never have been contemplated. There certainly would have been the wish to capture as much eastern territory as possible, before that 'iron curtain' fell over eastern Europe, but the world was pretty war weary by 1945.
Not to say of course that defeating communism would have been a good thing, but that is as far as that goes.
It was a fairly useful pact of non-aggresssion between the two main totalitarians states of Europe, until Hitler decided that having the oilfields of Russia would be useful for him.
There are many Americans and people on the left in general that make the argument for the moral equivalence of the USSR with America during the Cold War period. The ethnic people of the outlying soviets would probably disagree with the idea that the USSR did not have racist policies of their own.
There is very little redeeming about the soviet system actually. it is that romanticism for communism that existed in the working classes, and diverse anti-capitalists of various backgrounds that is behind many of those kind of comments.