Replies

Sorry...we disagree. I said that their (NAzi) agression against innocent countries and issues like Ausshwitz led to the total war that produced Dresden. I stand by that.

Before we argue semantics for hours: I have no problem whatsoever when you say that the bombing of Dresden was a result of the need to crush a "bitter and ruthless enemy, because from a historical standpoint that's the truth (i.e. the logic behind the decision).

What I stand by is that Auschwitz either played no role at all or a very minor role in the decision making process, otherwise the Allies wouldn't have neglected destroying the infrastructure that made the holocaust possible right till the end of the war (be it out of other priorities or simple disbelief that the Nazis could indeed go through with such atrocities).

The only thing I find f*cked up is trying to describe the bombing of Dresden as almost a humanitarian mission, because that's not what happened. So let's just say Goebbels / Germany declared "den totalen Krieg" (total war) and he got his reply.

Agreed. It was not my point to say or indicate that the allied commanders considered Ausschwitz specifically in their thinking or planning, only to say that the entire war machine and planning by the Nazis produced the total war they ended up getting...and richly deserving.