Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Dresden
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
babyblue View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174 		  Quote babyblue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Dresden
    Posted: 03-Sep-2005 at 13:19
what about China's wartime capital of Chungking?
Back to Top
Turkic10 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 01-Jul-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65 		  Quote Turkic10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2005 at 15:05

Originally posted by Decebal

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Tokyo and Hamburg and Berlin... Nuclear bombs, firebombing... The Allies are not exactly without a blemish in this war either. Yes, some military or industrial targets were hit, but it was mostly civilians who suffered out of this.

The main problem with the Allies strategic bombing was that they could not accurately hit anything! About the only bomber with any accuracy was the Mosquito which was as fast or faster than many German fighters and bombed at low level. I saw a suggestion somewhere that the British should have built a lot fewer Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers and many more Mosquitoes. The savings in lost air crew would have been substantial and more industrial targets would have been destroyed sooner.
Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly.
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003 		  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2005 at 16:30
Ironic, considering the Mosquitoes was originaly a cheap solution in the face of a shortage of resources AFAIK.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618 		  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2005 at 13:41
Originally posted by Oguzoglu


First of all Japan would have been defeated in 1946 if the bombes weren't used. This would have cost the lives ofanother 200-300000American teenagers. The Americans didn't know that the bombs were so powerful, but even if they did, the bombings still would have been justified. Just think about it. What yould you choose if you were the American president - the death of 300 000 American teenagers or the death of 300 000 enemies. If you don't kill them they will kill you.


That's a sick mentality. You are comparing 300000 civilians with that number of soldiers. And I dont believe 300.000 American teenagers would die, and even if it would reach such numbers, they would die for their country. At least it would be more honorable than nuking two Japanese cities of civilians.


And Japannese wouldnt kill American civilians. They would logically attack the military targets as they did in Pearl Harbor.



Oh, no? Butchering civilians just for the fun of it was a top priority, even to winning battles. You wouldn't beleive the attrocities they commited. Every child was brought up with the ideal that Japan was to rule Asia and all other nations were to be wiped out from the face of the Earth in the cruelest way possible. In Japan there were no civilians....

Edited and warning been issued by Komnenos

Edited by Komnenos

Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618 		  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2005 at 14:05

And as for Dresden - if the Germans win the war all Jews and Slavs are to be exterminated, if the Germans lose - nothing, just like that. It just isn't fair. The Russias should have played by the Nazis' own rules. Hitler said that this was a "war of total innihilation", Goebels - "total war". So if they want total war why not let them have it? You would say that there were a lot of good and innocent Germans, Germans who weren't like that. Ok, the Germans murdered 25 000 000 good and innocent Russians, 300 000 good and innocent Americans, 300 000 good and innocent Brits, etc. So in total around 26 000 000 good and innocent Germans should have been killed. I strongly doubt there were that many good and innocent Germans.

Usualy I'm not like that. I'm much more calm, piece-loving and forgiving, but you wouldn't beleive how it pisses me, when I stumble upon those lovable little neo-nazis, constantly complaining about how "barbaric" the Soviets were and calling for revenge. Why those . Instead of being ever greatful to Ivan for forgiving them everything they've done to him and sparing their worthless lives, they say they're the victims and call for revenge. Looks like Fritz still hasn't learned his lesson and needs another good spanking.



Edited by the Bulgarian
Back to Top
yan. View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 15-Apr-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 352 		  Quote yan. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Nov-2005 at 11:43
LOL. Guess the nazi: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/96001208/index.jpg
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656 		  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2005 at 21:50
Joachim von Ribbentrop?
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
ill_teknique View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 636 		  Quote ill_teknique Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2005 at 23:16
Originally posted by Rava

People, who started this horrible war?  I'm very sorry about any sensless killed civilian in any war but please let us have historical perspective. I think Germans should do appreciate and say "thank you"  that desperated and humilitated people from all over Europe didn't kill them all for what they did during I and II WW.


wow that was a post full of garbage and kinda offensive vs germans. 
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 09:29

Dresden was only one of the useless crimes that occured during WWII. It is not OK with me to kill people just to get rid of their leaders or to make a nation responsible for the guilt of some individuals, in the present or in the past. This kind of behaviour would lead me to try and kill every Russian, Ucrainian, German, Hungarian, Turk, Italian (yeah! the Romans invaded Dacia), Bulgarian, Iranian (aren't they Persian heirs?), Mongol, Polish, Austrian, Serbian I run into. And don't forget the whole Commonwealth countries (we were at war but Romanian civilians were killed by British bombs, while I do not recall of a single British civilian killed by the Romanian military during WWII). Where would we end up following this ideas!

And BTW, WWII is not to be blamed only onHitler and Germany. Every responsible leader of the great powers of that age should have not allowed it to happen. If a general boycott would have been declared against the Third Reich ...
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 13:24

yeah but that boycott would not have lead to the fall of the Nazi government, nor would a boycott could have prevented the partition of Poland or the conquest of france and other countries.

Romanians history during WW2 is really an interesting one, i started to like it.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 13:36
Originally posted by Temujin

yeah but that boycott would not have lead to the fall of the Nazi government, nor would a boycott could have prevented the partition of Poland or the conquest of france and other countries.

Romanians history during WW2 is really an interesting one, i started to like it.

The boycott should have been just the beginning.

And Romania's history during WWII was indeed interesting. Especially for what happenede to my country afterwards!

And Dresden sholud not have been bombed!!! Anyone read "Slaughterhouse 5"?



Edited by Cezar
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361 		  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 13:45
Originally posted by Cezar

And BTW, WWII is not to be blamed only on Hitler and Germany. Every responsible leader of the great powers of that age should have not allowed it to happen. If a general boycott would have been declared against the Third Reich ...



That's indeed a interesting question: "Could WW2 have been prevented by the World Community or the more powerful and influential states at the time? And how?"

The Nazis surely never made any secrets about their expansionist ambitions, the idea that the Germans were "ein Volk ohne Raum" (a people without space to live) is older than the Nazi movement, but was adopted by Hitler in the twenties.
The invasion of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, the annexion of Austria in 1938 and the occupation of the Sudetenland and the rest Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939, clearly demonstrated that The Nazi's postering were not only empty words.
But what, realistically, could have done about it?
Chamberlain's famous appeasement policies were probably the best proof that the few democratic sates left in Europe were both incapable and completely unwilling to intervene in any way. By 1938/39 it was already to late, the West had inactively watched as Germany re-armed and in 1939 already feared, somewhat unjustified, Hitler's military potential. In 1936, Hitler had the world fooled with his Olympic spectacle that portrayed Germany as a well organised and recovered country, if slightly authoritarian. And in 1933, when Hitler came to power, there was certainly a sigh of relief in the capitalist West, as the immanent danger of a Communist revolution and thus the potential spread of Communism throughout Europe was avoided.

So when would the Democratic West have intervened?

Or should the Soviet Union have done something about it?
In the early and mid thirties it certainly was in no position to exert any pressure, be it diplomatic and militarily, on Germany. In any case, it would not have been tolerated by the West.

I can't see occasion where an effective policy of hindering Hitler's agressive plans could have been implemented. An economic blockade in the mid thirties certainly could have postponed Germany's war preparations, but it would have been impossible to organise. Too many foreign companies, protected by their governments, had a vested interest in supplying Germany with raw materials and goods.
In the end, we can only state the West's impotency, but still blame Nazi Germany for the outbreak and horrors of WW2. There was and still is no excuse.



[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 13:56
Originally posted by Komnenos

Originally posted by Cezar

And BTW, WWII is not to be blamed only on Hitler and Germany. Every responsible leader of the great powers of that age should have not allowed it to happen. If a general boycott would have been declared against the Third Reich ...



That's indeed a interesting question: "Could WW2 have been prevented by the World Community or the more powerful and influential states at the time? And how?"

The Nazis surely never made any secrets about their expansionist ambitions, the idea that the Germans were "ein Volk ohne Raum" (a people without space to live) is older than the Nazi movement, but was adopted by Hitler in the twenties.
The invasion of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, the annexion of Austria in 1938 and the occupation of the Sudetenland and the rest Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939, clearly demonstrated that The Nazi's postering were not only empty words.
But what, realistically, could have done about it?
Chamberlain's famous appeasement policies were probably the best proof that the few democratic sates left in Europe were both incapable and completely unwilling to intervene in any way. By 1938/39 it was already to late, the West had inactively watched as Germany re-armed and in 1939 already feared, somewhat unjustified, Hitler's military potential. In 1936, Hitler had the world fooled with his Olympic spectacle that portrayed Germany as a well organised and recovered country, if slightly authoritarian. And in 1933, when Hitler came to power, there was certainly a sigh of relief in the capitalist West, as the immanent danger of a Communist revolution and thus the potential spread of Communism throughout Europe was avoided.

So when would the Democratic West have intervened?

Or should the Soviet Union have done something about it?
In the early and mid thirties it certainly was in no position to exert any pressure, be it diplomatic and militarily, on Germany. In any case, it would not have been tolerated by the West.

I can't see occasion where an effective policy of hindering Hitler's agressive plans could have been implemented. An economic blockade in the mid thirties certainly could have postponed Germany's war preparations, but it would have been impossible to organise. Too many foreign companies, protected by their governments, had a vested interest in supplying Germany with raw materials and goods.
In the end, we can only state the West's impotency, but still blame Nazi Germany for the outbreak and horrors of WW2. There was and still is no excuse.



No excuse indeed. But the fact that the west was unable to handle the Nazi's ... Weren't the western European democracies those that should have guarantied (g!) the peace. Or where they so afraid of the Communism that they considerered Nazi's and Fascism to be the "lesser evil". What did the USA did about it?

" The next time a world war begins we should do what the Americans did. Wait for about two years, give advice to everyone, then join one side and say that without us they would have never won the war!"
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361 		  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 14:14
Originally posted by Cezar

No excuse indeed. ... Or where they so afraid of the Communism that they considerered Nazi's and Fascism to be the "lesser evil". What did the USA did about it?



I can speculate about other countries, but it is well documented that large parts of the British ruling classes, both the old aristocracy and the new corporate magnates, showed great sympathies for Hitler and Nazism, as they saw him and the German state as a bullwark against the encrooaching Communism, and as they regarded the authoritarian Germany as some sort of role model for their own country that was beset with similar economic and social problems which could have sparked off.


" The next time a world war begins we should do what the Americans did. Wait for about two years, give advice to everyone, then join one side and say that without us they would have never won the war!"



That's another good question.
What if the USA in the 30s had been on a crusade to bring "freedom and democracy" to the rest of the world as they claim to be now? Would they have launched "Operation Rhinefire" to liberate the tyrannised German and Jewish people?

[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 14:24

So what about what happened in Dresden? Is that the way a war should be eneded? Whipping out everybody on your enemy side?

And by the way, I'm not against USA, I'm againgst Hypocrisy (is this he right way to spell it?)

The last quote of my last message was a retranslation from a book I've read. Alistair MacLean's "HMS Ulysses" if I remember it right. It sounded and sounds pretty correct to me, don't you think?



Edited by Cezar
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 14:31

Cezar, if you like PC games and Romania in ww2, check these two threads in the gaming forum:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6483& ;PN=1

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3116& ;PN=4
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 14:31

If you read the posts on this topic so far, you'll see that most of us are against the unnecessary and indiscriminate bombing of civilians, like what happened in Dresden. Well, there are some who disagreed, but one of them got himself banned...

Oh, and by the way, you spelled hypocrisy right, and "Slaughterhouse 5" was indeed a pretty good book.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 14:50

MNY TKS Temujin but I don't like playing that game. It's not that I blame you for playing it but I just don't like it.

Decebal, we might be wrong, you know. From what I've read, there are some who think "Dresden" is justified .
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 17:47
I think it is a matter of moral principles. Is one entitled to use the same tactics as his opponent, even if they are wrong on moral grounds? Does the end justify the means?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2005 at 08:01

 

.......Looking back in hindsight (always an unstable and cotentious matter)...the mass bombing of heavily populated areas tends to be viewed as 'unjustified'....especially where stories and 'body counts' have surfaced some time  after the event itself.....

.....but we have to realise that both the Allies AND the Nazi authorities knew that this conflict would be one of 'total war'...where civilian casualties would be inevitable in a bid to reach an end....the British realised this some years before the onset of WWII...they knew then that air weapons would play a crucial role in future warfare..........thats why the government at the time allocated a larger percentage of its budget to air defence...Britain knew that its cities, and therefore its civilian poulation would be at risk.......

........also 'total war' was a philosophy, which to some point allowed the Nazi's to justify their policies of extermination/genocide etc....such a concept is by no means 'new'....its just by 1939, military technology allowed the idea of massed, mechanised, technologically advanced warfare to take place..the weapons were there, and they were going to be used.....human emotional instincts will always be able to criticise such events as Dresden etc.....but really, HOW difficult is it to criticise such things from our perspective in the modern world?....

.....war?...victims and victors....by whatever means....harsh, but it has practically been so since an ancestor picked up a rock/stick whatever and 'used' it to achieve some form of authority.....
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.