WalterS wrote:More silliness from TheKurgann
First of all, my handle has one "n," not two. Secondly, I grow tired of your insults. If you notice, I don't resort to insulting you.
Oh, and a question. Why is the United States Air Force study God Almighty on the subject?????? Why is it so liberally quoted????? Why is IT true, and not the text from the British National Archives that I posted??? The British actually carried out the first portions of the raid. Why are they now lying about their own raid???
The US study is not "God alimghty." No one says it is. It is, however, an authoritative source that is well sourced and documented. I suggest you read it sometime if you can stop ranting long enough.
Uh, I have read it. For me, the jury is still out about whether or not it's fully genuine or the result of "victors write the history," conveniently leaving out the part about the purposeful bombing of civilian targets. As of yet, I'm not convinced either way; however, I think it is at least possible that there is truth to BOTH sides of the argument (that it's possible Dresden could have been considered a military target and not a military target).
For example, if they went in to bomb the factories, OK, I can accept that. Then why, according to the actual reviews of the bomber crews (who missed the target for the most part), were they simply told to target the big fire on the ground? (see the pictures of the actual bombing logs for corroboration).
No one said that the British are lying about their own raid. You posted some quotes from a site that is linked to the British archives and claimed it was somehow the authoritative word on the subject. You are wrong.
Wrong, eh? Why are YOU always right? That smacks of Kruschev whacking a shoe on the table and claiming he was right no matter what. You accuse me of being silly and lame. I have merely offered contradictory evidence to what the USAAF report says. Why does that make me silly or lame and "hurling invective?" (which I have not done, by the way...invective = swearing, and I have not used foul language.
If I recall, accounts said the city was VIRTUALLY undefended.
So what? Are you saying that in warfare one should not attack an enemy where his defenses are weakest? Are you saying that because the Nazi government was incapable of defending its citizenry that the Allies should not have attacked a military target?
Again, for me the jury is still out about Dresden's "militariness." (is that a word? If not, I just coined it).
Additionally, let's assume for a second that a foreign power invaded the US. Let us further assume that the US is suffering strategic bombing from another country, and the the US is on the brink of losing the war. Sitting there are the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (which, together, are roughly the same population and size of Dresden). F-15's sit on the tarmac nearby, out of fuel, and there are pitifully few ak-ak guns around. Now, imagine that the city is leveled in a firestorm of incendiary bombs, and heck, let's throw napalm in there as well. The Mall of America flattened, the Metrodome crushed, the University destroyed. 40000 people died.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be harping on the "military" aspect of the Twin Cities making it a legitimate target (The Mississippi river bisects the two cities, and the Mississippi is the main method of moving large quantities of goods north to south in the midwestern US) You know darned well that as an American, you'd be flipping out about it.
Charles