Screw history. Let you be the judge. Japan's imperial spirit

[FBM]

Clinton, I killed a guy with a screwdriver once, stuck it in his eye to the handle. No half-stepping.

Did you kill him just because he had a screwdriver? Because that's just not nice.

I hope he at least let the man finish his drink.

I just hope he doesn't develop a thing about people who drink soju or G&T's...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I just go after people who drink daiquiris or margaritas.

[Coito ergo sum]

I trust 12 year old Scotch is not on your hit list.

[Clinton Huxley]

Dresden was "terror bombing". It may not have been illegal but nor was the deliberate targeting of civilians necessary. The "well they started it" argument doesnt really cut any ice with me.

They have a term for the side that doesn't use everything it can to win a war. (With the caveat that both side may refrain from using certain weapons, presenting a null situation.)

I think that is a bit glib. Ethically, sounds like a race to the bottom to me.

Clinton, I killed a guy with a screwdriver once, stuck it in his eye to the handle. No half-stepping.

Not strictly relevant, old chap.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's easy to talk of such things when we're not in the existential crisis.

The UK could have lost in the Blitz. The Allies overall were uncertain of victory even in early 1945. Had the Soviets been held in eastern Europe, which was possible, the war might drag out longer than if the Soviets could break through. Dresden, a large manufacturing and transportation hub, would put a large dent in the Germans' remaining defenses and would help assist the Soviet breakthrough in the east, ultimately shortening the remaining war.

To empathize with the British position, I would think that anyone who helped dig folks out of the rubble of London during the Blitz would have a fairly strong memory of same. The British leaders would have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether their people would become subjects of the Reich shortly. Every town, and almost every family, lost someone in the war to German aggression.

Faced with the choice -- (a) let Dresden be, because German industrial might was hiding behind civilian shields, or (b) do what needed to be done to finish it. I have no problem with the Brits choosing b.

That's nice but I disagree.

[Atheist-Lite]

Crumple declares what is done is done whether it be right or wrong. Autopsy is not going to bring the dead back.

[Jason]

Coito has a point. Also the British could have easily lost the Battle of Waterloo and Huxley would ecrivent en Francais maintenant.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's easy to talk of such things when we're not in the existential crisis.

The UK could have lost in the Blitz. The Allies overall were uncertain of victory even in early 1945. Had the Soviets been held in eastern Europe, which was possible, the war might drag out longer than if the Soviets could break through. Dresden, a large manufacturing and transportation hub, would put a large dent in the Germans' remaining defenses and would help assist the Soviet breakthrough in the east, ultimately shortening the remaining war.

To empathize with the British position, I would think that anyone who helped dig folks out of the rubble of London during the Blitz would have a fairly strong memory of same. The British leaders would have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether their people would become subjects of the Reich shortly. Every town, and almost every family, lost someone in the war to German aggression.

Faced with the choice -- (a) let Dresden be, because German industrial might was hiding behind civilian shields, or (b) do what needed to be done to finish it. I have no problem with the Brits choosing b.

That's nice but I disagree.

Sir! Hand in your sword and funny hat! Prepare yourself for the court martial, you traitorous cur!

[JimC]

It's easy to talk of such things when we're not in the existential crisis.

The UK could have lost in the Blitz. The Allies overall were uncertain of victory even in early 1945. Had the Soviets been held in eastern Europe, which was possible, the war might drag out longer than if the Soviets could break through. Dresden, a large manufacturing and transportation hub, would put a large dent in the Germans' remaining defenses and would help assist the Soviet breakthrough in the east, ultimately shortening the remaining war.

To empathize with the British position, I would think that anyone who helped dig folks out of the rubble of London during the Blitz would have a fairly strong memory of same. The British leaders would have spent many sleepless nights wondering whether their people would become subjects of the Reich shortly. Every town, and almost every family, lost someone in the war to German aggression.

Faced with the choice -- (a) let Dresden be, because German industrial might was hiding behind civilian shields, or (b) do what needed to be done to finish it. I have no problem with the Brits choosing b.

That's nice but I disagree.

In this particular case, I'm with crumple. Desperate times, desperate remedies...

[klr]

It's easy to talk of such things when we're not in the existential crisis.

The UK could have lost in the Blitz. The Allies overall were uncertain of victory even in early 1945. Had the Soviets been held in eastern Europe, which was possible, the war might drag out longer than if the Soviets could break through. Dresden, a large manufacturing and transportation hub, would put a large dent in the Germans' remaining defenses and would help assist the Soviet breakthrough in the east, ultimately shortening the remaining war.

...

Over the Germans? Certainly not uncertain. It was merely a question of how long and how many lives. The only thing that could have conceivably saved the Germans would have been if the Western/Soviet coalition fell apart.

[Jason]

I thought most military historians agree that Germany effectively lost the war circa 1942. It just had a long wind-down.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I thought most military historians agree that Germany effectively lost the war circa 1942. It just had a long wind-down.

20/20 hindsight.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dresden was "terror bombing". It may not have been illegal but nor was the deliberate targeting of civilians necessary. The "well they started it" argument doesnt really cut any ice with me.

They have a term for the side that doesn't use everything it can to win a war. (With the caveat that both side may refrain from using certain weapons, presenting a null situation.)

I think that is a bit glib. Ethically, sounds like a race to the bottom to me.

Clinton, I killed a guy with a screwdriver once, stuck it in his eye to the handle. No half-stepping.

Not strictly relevant, old chap.

Merely micro vs macro.

[JimC]

I thought most military historians agree that Germany effectively lost the war circa 1942. It just had a long wind-down.

20/20 hindsight.

Exactly. It may in fact be a correct assessment, but not one that could have been made at the time.

[Clinton Huxley]

Area bombing = terror bombing