President Trump returns bust of Churchill to Oval Office

a reply to: zosimov

with so many rules of war i think modern war is worse, the intentions of those rules might be good but all they do is drag the fight on and increase the death toll more than is needed, it creates more long term suffering and chaos, it gives the people of attacking nations a sense of security in their actions, makes war feel disconnected and unrelated to them, it gives more reason to engage in war since they don't feel fear because they think the rules protect them.

look how much more common war, proxy-war and various military actions are in modern times than any time in history, tell me how modern nations can call themselves more civilized and humane? modern humans are just more corrupt, greedy and cowardly, justifying themselves as superior to past generations because their "rules", hypocrisy is the name of modern people.
barbarians calling themselves civilized is all we are.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong

ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.

Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?

Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.

The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.

Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?

Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.

Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.

You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.

London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester

The list goes on.

No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:

How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?

Or was is done solely as revenge?

You have had your answer from me.

Britain was not prepared to sit back and let Hitler overrun Britain. Britain decided to hit back. War is tough don't you know.

If you don't like the answer then that's your problem.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: alldaylong

ONE death by government sanctioned firebombing is reprehensible, let alone thousands.

Who is a more admirable human being: Stalin, Hitler or John Wayne Gacy?

Evil is evil whether it be in response of horrific actions or not. Moral relativity is a dangerous game to play.

The actions sanctioned by Churchill where a response to a war instigated by Hitler.

Did you expect Churchill to standby and not respond ?

Maybe Britain should have been like The French, and just let The Nazi's walk in. You would have been happy with that i do believe.

Please inform us how bombing a civilian city gave Britains a tactical advantage over their enemy.

You could ask the same question of Nazi Germany.

London
Birmingham
Coventry
Sheffield
Liverpool
Cardiff
Manchester

The list goes on.

No, I'm asking you! No one is here defending the actions of the Nazis, but there are people on here defending the actions of Churchill. So I'll ask again:

How did bombing the civilians of Germany give Britian a tactical advantage?

Or was is done solely as revenge?

Britain was not prepared to sit back and let Hitler overrun Britain. Britain decided to hit back. War is tough don't you know.

Are you deliberately ignoring the bit where GERMANY WAS IN RETREAT WHEN DRESDEN WAS BOMBED.....?

I refuse to believe you are THAT thick, but I could be wrong.

a reply to: zosimov

Yeah, lets not forget that the Axis forces never bombed the UK and Russia civilian centres (among many other countries)

I mean, Coventry and Stalingrad never happened, so the following pictures must be fake (first 3 are Coventry, last one is Stalingrad)






War is War, at the time there was little to no accuracy when dumping a payload out of an aircraft so ....

Sounds like the people are content sitting back and allowing the world players to wage incessant war, and then to write the history about it as they see fit. There is no amount of noble rhetoric that can justify the actions of the psychopaths who deal death for a living.

But I can see this is the way of the world, and will never change. We will continue to kill and be killed at the behest of our masters, and when the smoke clears we will find ways to convince ourselves we have done the right thing.

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Were Britain and Russia in retreat when those places were bombed?

No.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
how great, they have actual proof of at least this 'holocost' lmfao

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Were Britain and Russia in retreat when those places were bombed?

No.

OK, lets have some justification for Hitler's bombing of Coventry (1940), the UK were hardly out of the starting blocks at this point of the war. Was it OK to level the city? because they were at the time, on the front foot.

a reply to: zosimov

There is a historic record of the memorializing known unsavory characterless of the past . One such is

The name of a British military officer once lauded as Halifax’s founder is splashed on across the capital city, serving as a constant reminder to the Mi’kmaq community of their ancestors who died under his scalping proclamation more than 260 years ago, says Mi’kmaq elder Daniel Paul.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

Its the history taught to kids and embedded in the minds of the parents .We could go on and on with samples of this but it will only have a effect when we stop doing it and making it a constant reminder of who we are or rather who we should be .If not then something other then the status quo will come about and tptb will loose their power over us .

A symbolic gesture I would say, not a major move.

Churchill was probably the right person at the right time during WWII, but he was also a murdering bastard and had the deaths of many many people on his hands before, during and after WWII.

He wasn't as popular at home as has been made out, again it has been portrayed a certain way and we were never taught the bad facts about him in school.

But knowing what I know about him now, I do not hold him in any great esteem.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko

There was simply NO reason to bomb Dresden. The war was nearly over, the Germans were already in retreat.

Actually, there was and it has to do with the length of the war and the things that happen to people when they are required to fight that kind of campaign for that long.

Bombers were not able to target precisely back them like they are now. The early efforts to precisely target strategic areas showed that only 1 in 5 runs was actually successful which is why British tactics switched to incendiary devices and started more area bombing. Then civilians were deemed legitimate targets and part of the war effort because they contributed directly or indirectly.

As the war went on and efforts to end it and bring it to a close failed, things got more and more desperate. Casualties mounted and restrictions what was and was not permissible also rose in an attempt to break the Germans.

Keep in mind that the US forced in the fight are also undergoing the same slips. This fight is wearing on them too.

They are unable to hit the targets they would prefer to hit, so they hit everything.

They want to aid the Soviet advances from the East so they hamper and confuse evacuation efforts of refugees coming from that direction. Dresden was part of that effort. Throw the enemy into disarray and confuse his ability to organize and resist by taking out the infrastructure and havens he is relying on.

No one is exactly proud of it, not even Churchill, and it is less clear if it ended up saving lives than the atomic bombs -- something else no one is proud of.

originally posted by: zosimov
Here is a picture of Dresden, which was called the Florence of the North until it was devastated by a bombing campaign initiated and ordered by the "hero" Winston Churchill.

In February 1945, the last year of World War 2, Britain sent 300 Lancaster bombers to attack the crowded German city of Dresden. This attack was not the precision bombing of specific military targets. It was deliberate bombing of a whole area. The bombs destroyed city buildings and started tremendous fires. Before long, eleven square miles of Dresden were consumed by a firestorm. The vacuum caused by the rapid rise of hot air created tornadoes that tossed furniture, trees and debris into the air. People were caught in fires as hot as 1000 °C. The city was devastated. No one knows how many thousands died. The German armies were in retreat at this time and the war was nearly over. Some historians have argued that this attack was not justifiable on military grounds, that it was nothing more than a slaughter of civilians. But others say it helped to shorten the war in Europe. Ultimate responsibility for this attack lay with the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. Was the bombing of Dresden a justifiable act during wartime? How closely was Winston Churchill involved in the decision to attack the city? Does this cast a shadow upon Churchill's reputation as the heroic icon of twentieth century British history?

Source: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

Did Aleister Crowley give Churchill the "V" for victory sign? Did he serve as a body double?

Methinks Churchill was NOT a very good man.

Yep, thats nazi germany they bombed.

originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Were Britain and Russia in retreat when those places were bombed?

No.

OK, lets have some justification for Hitler's bombing of Coventry (1940), the UK were hardly out of the starting blocks at this point of the war. Was it OK to level the city? because they were at the time, on the front foot.

Oh. My. God. I cannot believe I have to say this AGAIN.

GERMANY WERE IN RETREAT. THEY POSED NO MORE THREAT. How much more clearer does that need to be made?

Hitlers bombing Coventry sucked, and was equally wrong but BOTH sides were on the offensive at the time. There was simply NO tactical or military advantage to bombing Dresden when the Germans posed no more threat. It was nothing more than revenge, and civilians suffered the consequences.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Its the history taught to kids and embedded in the minds of the parents .We could go on and on with samples of this but it will only have a effect when we stop doing it and making it a constant reminder of who we are or rather who we should be .If not then something other then the status quo will come about and tptb will loose their power over us .

Great comment. I am still hopeful for the day!

But my allegiance is to a higher power than can be found on this earth. I do believe this evil will be given full reign until the day it is eradicated and destroyed for good.

Are we really going Full Tilt about WW2 leaders?

Every single leader of a major power was a monster, FDR included.
There were also american craft in that bombing of Dresden.

Despite some things they have said and a couple things they did wrong, they also lead the world through the most turbulent time in world history.
It's important to criticize them but cmon, almost all war time leaders are going to have to be removed from history to satisfy these conditions.

We about to erase FDR from D.C. as well? One can dream.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: zosimov

And here is a vid of the event that could be considered a real holacost

wow , i consider my self pretty cold hearted when it comes to war and casualties but that was pretty rough .

a reply to: xuenchen

Lol major move.

Lol

Lol

It's pathetic how much people suck up to Trump.

a reply to: zosimov

why do the idiots who bleat about dresden-ignore Guernica,coventry etc etc ?

To those crying about Dresden and wanting to Blame Churchill for WW2

Would YOU like us to dig out photogaphs of the many town's, villages and community's utterly raised to the ground by the NAZI war machine, would you like me to show you the story's of Concentration camp survivor's or those of Russian's who stumbled upon mass graves of civilian's or the french town left as a monument after the NAZI's rounded up the woman and children, drove them into the church then killed there men outside after separating them and finally machine gunned than grenaded the woman and children to make certain there were no survivor's.

How about the fire storms and near total destruction of some of our city's here in the UK Coventry, Bath, Much of Liverpool, City SIZED areas of London etc, etc, etc,. You don't like him sure but would you rather the US then have a bust of Adolph Hitler in there whitehouse is that what you are suggesting.

You know the Outcry about that which has gained more and more voice in recent years is totally hypocritical, I agree it was un necessary but Harris NOT Churchill has to bare the responsibility for that and by the way Haris was brilliant leader for the RAF so in the grand scheme as we were not the aggressor in that fight it WAS forgivable, just maybe not to you.
www.historiccoventry.co.uk...

All that our intelligence knew was that Dresden had main rail line's, military freight passing through it and very large concentration's of both military and civilian (Worker) population in the area, after the battle of the bulge there was a possibilty of the German's making another counter attack though in truth the main strength of German in the West had been squandered by Hitler in that battle and Germany never recovered from it's losses in men and equipment in the west while it's fight against the unstoppable and vengeful red army was also draining it's strength.

BUT oh no you say Dresden was the Victim, well yes it was actually it was a Victim of HITLER not Churchill so go and get your fact's straight, if I had been in Harris position I would have done no different.

originally posted by: ketsuko

They want to aid the Soviet advances from the East so they hamper and confuse evacuation efforts of refugees coming from that direction. Dresden was part of that effort. Throw the enemy into disarray and confuse his ability to organize and resist by taking out the infrastructure and havens he is relying on.

So no real tactical advantage was gained other than letting Russia advance toward Berlin faster?

That worked out well.

No one is exactly proud of it, not even Churchill, and it is less clear if it ended up saving lives than the atomic bombs -- something else no one is proud of.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread. Churchill did stuff that was well into murky territory, and it kind of casts an ominous shadow over why Trump would replace him back into the White House and remove MLK Jr.