<edit: Sorry, still getting used to the new board...all quotes from Moldran.>
13th February 1945, the massive general support for the Nazis was gone. At that time they were as trapped as any other victims. The population was kept in line by fear and terror, for example any talk that could be interpreted as defeatism could well get you shot, or worse.
It wasn't just carpetbombed. The operation was done to maximize civilian casualties and disrupt rescue and relief workers. To illustrate here are some main events of the bombing:
13th feb
1. Mosquitos fly over Dresden, dropping marker flares.
2. 22:13 - 22:21 first wave of Bombing, 244 Lancasters.
3. 23:00 -> firestorm in Dresden
4. Emergency relief services from surrounding cities arrive.
14th feb
5. 01:30 second wave of bombing begins, timed to disrupt emergency relief, 529 Lancasters
6. 12:12 third wave of bombing, 316 B17s
75 % of all bombs used were incendiary. Total tons dropped 3479.
If viewed from the perspective of killing as many people as possible, the raid was perfect. It creatively used several kinds of munitions to do as much damage as possible, including heavy ordnance to destroy building and roads, cluster bombs (and timed bombs) to disrupt relief, and ofcource the incendiary for maximum destructiveness.
I don't subscribe to this. Totalitarian rulers are not called that for just the kicks of it. Hitler, Stalin, or if you wish, Hussein. Either we hold the general population accountable and free game, in each of these scenarios, or none. And I doubt many sane people advocate massacring entire cities of Iraqi civilians presently? The fallacy of your argument I believe is, that you think in terms of democracies, and try to apply it into totalitarianism.
No, it is not safe to say that. As I mentioned previously, in the last elections the Nazis got less than 40% of the vote. That alone invalidates majority of the population. For the second part, I think you have an idealized view of primarily what living under totalitarianism is like, and secondarily about the ease of withholding information from people in the 1940s.
The above paragraph is unnecessary. Not only does it patronize with the assumption that someone thinks Germany should not have been opposed, but it also actually opens you up to the "hypocrisy game" of: "Why not USSR?"
Hence I want to reaffirm my position, that the acts of Germany during and before WW2 in no way give a carte blanche for any country fighting it to commit attrocities. And the Dresden raid was an attrocity. It came too late to affect much anything (except inter-allied politics), and it was planned in a way to kill civilians as efficiently as possible. As a humanist I find statements, that "they deserved it" disturbing.
Quote:breaking the morale of the German population was a legitimate goal in WW2, seeing how stubborn they kept supporting NS
13th February 1945, the massive general support for the Nazis was gone. At that time they were as trapped as any other victims. The population was kept in line by fear and terror, for example any talk that could be interpreted as defeatism could well get you shot, or worse.
Quote:Maybe the act of the carpet bombing of Dresden was not militarily justified (although I think it had alot more justification than is commonly believed - ).
It wasn't just carpetbombed. The operation was done to maximize civilian casualties and disrupt rescue and relief workers. To illustrate here are some main events of the bombing:
13th feb
1. Mosquitos fly over Dresden, dropping marker flares.
2. 22:13 - 22:21 first wave of Bombing, 244 Lancasters.
3. 23:00 -> firestorm in Dresden
4. Emergency relief services from surrounding cities arrive.
14th feb
5. 01:30 second wave of bombing begins, timed to disrupt emergency relief, 529 Lancasters
6. 12:12 third wave of bombing, 316 B17s
75 % of all bombs used were incendiary. Total tons dropped 3479.
If viewed from the perspective of killing as many people as possible, the raid was perfect. It creatively used several kinds of munitions to do as much damage as possible, including heavy ordnance to destroy building and roads, cluster bombs (and timed bombs) to disrupt relief, and ofcource the incendiary for maximum destructiveness.
Quote:First of all, going with the flow of such a society is a crime. Wether you agree with their ideology or not, if you don´t do anything against them, you make yourself guilty.
I don't subscribe to this. Totalitarian rulers are not called that for just the kicks of it. Hitler, Stalin, or if you wish, Hussein. Either we hold the general population accountable and free game, in each of these scenarios, or none. And I doubt many sane people advocate massacring entire cities of Iraqi civilians presently? The fallacy of your argument I believe is, that you think in terms of democracies, and try to apply it into totalitarianism.
Quote:Second, it is safe to say that the vast majority of Germans agreed with the goals of NS in principle. The fact that they kept supporting NS even after it was clear to the biggest idiot that the war was lost speaks for itself.
No, it is not safe to say that. As I mentioned previously, in the last elections the Nazis got less than 40% of the vote. That alone invalidates majority of the population. For the second part, I think you have an idealized view of primarily what living under totalitarianism is like, and secondarily about the ease of withholding information from people in the 1940s.
Quote:In war, all sides usually do bad things. The Germans knew that when they started it. There is no "good war". But there is necessary war. The alternative to the military defeat of Germany was a Europe, and possibly even a world, under Nazi leadership. Luckily, the allied forces prevented that.
The above paragraph is unnecessary. Not only does it patronize with the assumption that someone thinks Germany should not have been opposed, but it also actually opens you up to the "hypocrisy game" of: "Why not USSR?"
Hence I want to reaffirm my position, that the acts of Germany during and before WW2 in no way give a carte blanche for any country fighting it to commit attrocities. And the Dresden raid was an attrocity. It came too late to affect much anything (except inter-allied politics), and it was planned in a way to kill civilians as efficiently as possible. As a humanist I find statements, that "they deserved it" disturbing.