Originally posted by colinonu
dresden was a legitimate target.
- even if that were so at that point in the war it was so utterly unnecesssary to attack it in this manner - an attack, let us not forget, that
caused deep anxiety at the time amongst the Allied leadership of the time, who knew all about what war (particularly that
war) was all
......and cost allied crews' lives for no sane reason at all too.
ive never heard any reports of german bomber crews,turning round from attacking targets in britain,because they were concerned about civilian
casualties.or does britain not have any innocent civilians?
- I think the records show there was a clear distinction between the German policy of bombing targets. Yes after summer 1940 that included within
city boundaries but the intent was specifically to attack targets of military or industrial value not
knowingly slaughter as many civillians as
The allied/British policy of 'area bombing' was expressedly about deliberately killing as many civillians as possible. It was city bombing to wipe
out the people of that city. That was new and very different.
It was also something that was kept from our own public at the time because the then Allied leadership knew, or at least thought, the public would be
Originally posted by 87718
what a load of rubbish,
- Sorry you feel that way.
1.)She didn't decide to bomb Berlin or Dresden.
- Don't be ridiculous, who ever said she did?
She represents the country that did it though.
2.)Reaction in kind should be expected during a war.
- That is true....but only to a point.
Being at war does not mean each side can undertake any acts they like. Winners or no. The allies instituted the concept of 'crimes against humanity'
and we have to live by our own standard. You cannot have it both ways.
You bomb london, the allies bomb any population centre they want
- Oh I see, and even if we accept this when it's all over can we not reevaluate what we did and attempt to foster better relations by saying sorry
(many complete) innocents lost as they have done to us?
No one is saying this is to apologise for fighting Hitler and his criminal gang you know.
3.) There was still radical support for Hitler all over Germany at the time Berlin and Dresden were being leveled.
- Plainly Germany had lost the war by march 1945 for God's sake.
The German people had to be sent a clear message.
- Yeah well plenty of people do not agree with this idea at all because many see this 'message' as one that actually said 'we can be as gross a
bunch of barbarians as your monsters'.
4.) Appology is admission a.) that you have done something wrong which is not the case,
- Nonsense. That's what you
insist on it meaning, thankfully I think you'll find most people are a tad more reasonable about it.
and b.) of responsibility for that wrongdoing which is also not the case.
- No, it actually expresses regret at the events and sorrow for our part in those events happening.
Appologies can be abused by people who wish to launch lawsuits or seek reparations.
- Oh for Gods sake. How absurd is this? Is this you problem with this?
Are you seriously saying there could be anyone in Germany that would even attempt a law-suit over this never mind the complete lack of any prospect of
....and the idea of Germany demanding reparations is as laughable as it is unlikely, no, sorry, make that never going to happen