Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Deeforce

Relaxation or just the normal war?

Was it good or bad to bomb Dresden (1945)?  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Was it good or bad to bomb Dresden (1945)?

    • good
      1
    • bad
      13
    • I don\'t know
      2


Recommended Posts

What do you think, was it good or bad to bomb Dresden with it's escapees (germany 1945). I think it was good. I wonder how such bombs can create a great new year's eve :-P!

EDIT: The video was taken down, what a pity :-( ... but here is another video about this topic: allied forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Cjwright79 said:

If this banner is flashing...

lol, there is no reason for it, those damn nazis got what they deserved.

Share this post


Link to post

Just go wank to your uber-american cryptofascist "military virility" shit elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Deeforce, are you familiar with StickDeath? There's enough stuff over ther to appease to all of your hidden, right wing, petit-burgeoise wet dreams of terror, bullying, fascist, police and military fetishes.

Share this post


Link to post

Dresden was bombed? According to my sources the civilian population was evacuated under cover of darkness (with tens of thousands of allied POW's trucked in to replace them) and the city centre rigged for controlled demolition, with plenty of nano thermite scattered about to produce a nice firestorm. Some minor Nazi Party functionary stayed behind to start the fireworks once some British bombers (obviously lost) passed overhead and the bomber crews - having already expended their ordinance on a herd of belligerent dairy cows - gleefully claimed the destruction as their own handiwork.

I liked Deeforce better when he had a flashing custom title.

Share this post


Link to post
Creaphis said:

Well, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. lived on to write Slaughterhouse-Five, so no complaints here.

Share this post


Link to post
destx said:

this thread sucks


just sayin'

Agreed, but isn't it interesting that so many people here are against the allied forces from the past? I think you all should inform yourself much more about Auschwitz ("Schindler's List" is also a good movie for it).

Share this post


Link to post

Comparing Auschwitz to Dresden in that context is actually pretty interesting because they were both acts of disgusting fucking cruelty.

Against the allies... what the fuck are you talking about? We aren't against allies, we're against a fucking fire-bombing of a (largely) civilian city (and yes, we're against concentration camps... unless, of course, someone here is holding a secret).

Fuck this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Deeforce said:

Agreed, but isn't it interesting that so many people here are against the allied forces from the past? I think you all should inform yourself much more about Auschwitz ("Schindler's List" is also a good movie for it).


Your logic is "all people happening to live in Germany 1933-45 = evil Nazis", which is similar to saying that every man, woman and child in North Korea is a raging militaristic Stalinist. Even funnier is that you go on to think that we approve of Nazism and not the Allied stand against Nazism because we condemn this highly indiscriminate act of destruction carried out by Allied bombers against civilian populations. And the reason we find the Dresden bombing to be so horrifying is because we're the same people who find Nazi oppression and genocide to be equally disgusting and inhuman. Anybody can do horrible things in times of war.

And remember: the inability to empathize with innocent people because they happen to be living under command of an enemy is an attitude that can only lead to evil.

Share this post


Link to post
StupidBunny said:

And remember: the inability to empathize with innocent people because they happen to be living under command of an enemy is an attitude that can only lead to evil.

To be fair, every soldier during wartime on enemy land has to have this mentality. It's too risky otherwise.

In saying that, the decision to bomb Dresden is just as wrong as dropping the H-bomb. They were a power that had already lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

In saying that, the decision to bomb Dresden is just as wrong as dropping the H-bomb. They were a power that had already lost.


What I found more disturbing is this pattern I saw in many historic books and articles: after lengthy moral and material/strategic analysis, more than one author agreed that both the bombing of Dresden as well as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually dictated by long-term geostrategical reasons, rather than tactical decisions to "end the war quickly" or "give those Krauts/Japs a lesson!".

"Shock and Awe" anyone? How about "Shake and bake"? Sounds familiar?

You could say that those WW II intensely focused offensive operations were an exercise, the prelude to the international bullying that would come not long after (Greece, Korea, Vietnam, and later Panama, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan).

The fact that they were directed at dying/defeated foes didn't matter, on the opposite, it was desirable: "We're badass, we'll be calling the shots, and we will kick you while you're down, and then some".

A way to show the World at large, not just Nazi Germany, who was going to "be boss" for the years to come, not just there and then. THe intended "target" for the message at the time was actually the USSR (you think they didn't know what was going to happen?) but bombing Soviet cities right away was not an option yet...

Share this post


Link to post

The idea of decimating an already loss enemy is to make them easier to manage and manipulate to your interest. America would have had a major role in rebuilding Europe if Stalin hadn't come in and started claiming land.

Share this post


Link to post

Who the fuck will say it was good to bomb Dresden? At least with the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was a clear threat that we had a weapon far more powerful than had ever been seen, and it will cause more suffering unless you surrender. It was also a message that the Japanese culture of death with honor, and fighting to the last person was futile.
With Dresden it was just firebombing a non-military target which was full of non-combatants. No military personnel was stationed there, the rail lines were dysfunctional at best, and not used for any important military purposes. Basically it was a bombing of a town full of civilian refugees, women, children, and the elderly. It wasn't even an industrial center at that point, because Germany really didn't have any industrial centers. After reading several books about the firebombing of Dresden it becomes clear that it wasn't an important target. The thought of a fire tornado caused by the incendiary bombs is one of the scariest fucking things I have ever heard of. It caused it's own wind system, sucking air out of any building nearby and burning the oxygen causing a tornado of fire.
Yeah, stopping the National Social Workers Party was a good thing. Bombing a city with no military importance full of refugees and causing firestorms which level a city is not important and which we knew would not win the war in any way.
They were human beings who had nothing to do with the war, and we caused tornadoes made of fucking fire to rain down on a city of civilians.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to ending the war without wasting hundred of thousands of American lives. Convincing the Japanese to surrender took the hammer of god. They were willing to lay down their lives to the emperor, fight to the last man, throw themselves off cliffs, fly planes into our battleships and probably our infantry. It had to be done.
At that point the country was in retreat, civilians were fleeing to safe areas, and they wanted the war to end. The firebombing was unnecessary, and had no effect on the end game.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

What I found more disturbing is this pattern I saw in many historic books and articles: after lengthy moral and material/strategic analysis, more than one author agreed that both the bombing of Dresden as well as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually dictated by long-term geostrategical reasons, rather than tactical decisions to "end the war quickly" or "give those Krauts/Japs a lesson!".

"Shock and Awe" anyone? How about "Shake and bake"? Sounds familiar?

You could say that those WW II intensely focused offensive operations were an exercise, the prelude to the international bullying that would come not long after (Greece, Korea, Vietnam, and later Panama, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan).

The fact that they were directed at dying/defeated foes didn't matter, on the opposite, it was desirable: "We're badass, we'll be calling the shots, and we will kick you while you're down, and then some".

A way to show the World at large, not just Nazi Germany, who was going to "be boss" for the years to come, not just there and then. THe intended "target" for the message at the time was actually the USSR (you think they didn't know what was going to happen?) but bombing Soviet cities right away was not an option yet...

while there might be some logic to it, i think it's looking for patterns where there are none. i've seen sources claiming the dresden bombing was actually supposed to help soviet troops advancing. dresden was a major logistic node on the border with czechoslovakia, an industrial city with war production, etc etc.

the most famous reason to bombing dresden though? revenge for the air raid on coventry. churchill was said to be against such tactics, but the raze of warsaw (omfg controlled demolition!) was probably the last drop to change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Jello said:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to ending the war without wasting hundred of thousands of American lives. Convincing the Japanese to surrender took the hammer of god. They were willing to lay down their lives to the emperor, fight to the last man, throw themselves off cliffs, fly planes into our battleships and probably our infantry. It had to be done.


Are you aware that by the time of the atomic bombing, Japan had lost all of its island bases, had no navy or air force to speak of, and so couldn't project its had-been military power anywhere, anymore?

That excuse that dropping the bombs saved "hundred of thousands of American lives" is idiotic, unless a mainland invasion a-la D-Day was needed for Japan too. Keep in mind that Japanese cities were already being bombed by the USA, and some were firebombed just as badly as Dresden (and with all those wooden houses...ouch).

Think about it for a moment. A fucking second D-Day, vs a crippled enemy that can't harm anyone anymore, and had been kicked out of all of its former occupied territories. Why do it in the first place? They could very well embargo them, leave them to live their "death by honor fantasies" and worship the emperor on their own little island in the mid of the ocean, while the rest of the world went on. Further military action was unnecessary, and they would have broken down and surrendered after a not so long embargo, by that point, with no allies. Hunger and sickness can be pretty nasty, you know.

Unless they wanted to make Japs their bitches and use their mainland as a base for their future operations (which they wanted), in which case yeah, they would be bound to encounter some resistance if they attempted a conventional invasion.

So the bombs were actually tools to achieve a geostrategic breakdown fot the years to come, once again, not to just "show 'em Japs!"

I've been told and reminded time and again that each and every USA military and political action is taken after analytical foresights spawning several decades into the future. And I fucking fully believe it.

Share this post


Link to post

So the Japanese all of a sudden had no satellite islands, but don't give up. I guess at that point they'd just go on their way and mind their business.

And anyway, if we were thinking that far ahead, it just shows how smart and awesome we are. Give us credit where it's due, we totally deserved it

Share this post


Link to post

They had no choice. The last nail in the coffin was firebombing Tokyo to a smoldering pile of ash before the bomb was dropped. They didn't have the means to continue. Their military was lost. They were literarily training civilians basic swordplay to fend off invaders.

I can accept the first bomb. The second was overkill.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×