Posted on 02/15/2015 4:34:47 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
The BBC’s coverage of the bombing of Dresden in which Britain was described as ‘worse than the Nazis’ was condemned as disgraceful by RAF veterans and MPs last night.
Despite dedicating more than 32 minutes of airtime to the 70th anniversary of the fire-bombing that killed tens of thousands at the end of the Second World War, there was barely a mention of British airmen who lost their lives.
The BBC’s four major news shows and Radio 4 interviewed multiple German survivors of the bombings.
They also showed a British prisoner of war who berated those who ordered the raids, adding it was ‘demonic’ and ‘evil’.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Revisionist History.
70th anniversary of VJ day.
Thanks!
In August, we have the 70th anniversary celebrations of Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day.
The Nazis, much like the Soviets, were cunning and evil; however, the bombing missions that morphed into the fire-bombing of Dresden weren’t originated by the Luftwaffe. The destruction of a city and most of its civilian population was an inhumane act.
At the onset Germany bombed military targets exclusively as Hitler specifically prohibited the Luftwaffe from bombing any civilian targets.
In August of 1940, two aircraft were seperated from their formation and wound up lost while evading fighters over England. They jettisoned a negligible amount of bombs over London resulting in little damage.
Churchill directed the RAF to begin bombing raids over Berlin four times in a row. After the fourth raid, Germany warned the UK not to bomb Berlin for the fifth time or they would be forced to retaliate.
So Churchill ordered the fifth bombing and the Luftwaffe began the blitz.
What do you mean "in lieu of"? One of the greatest failures of Congress and President Bush was not officially declaring war against Islamoterrorists and the countries that supported them. A declaration of war would have required the use of nuclear weapons against the enemy, or the political and military leaders would rightfully have been charged with treason.
What about the Luftwaffe bombing of London and Coventry during the Blitz, they started it...
Not true. There were people in Germany during WWII whom tried to defeat Hitler and were placed in concentration camps because of their activities against the Third Reich. Many were killed in the Concentration Camps just before the end of the War on Hitler’s orders, because he did want them to have their stories to be told because than the misguided people would see that Hitlers Mein Kampf, The Third Reich and the 1000 Year reign were just delusions of sick individual who suffered from syphillis. Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonehoffer? There were other Protestant Ministers whom died too. What about the assassination attempts 2 on Hitler whereby many german generals were blamed for the underlings who carried out the attempts. Rommel was just one General sacrificed because he did not believe Germany would win the war. There were others too, whom went against Hitler. There were others whom fled the countries like Austria when Hitler took over power. There were even many partisans whom hated Hitler. Yes Dresden lost many lives. But it was hoped the germans would surrender. The Allies believed to use an atomic bomb on Germany would have devastating effects on all of Europe. The Kennedy Family lost a son during WWII on a secret mission (plane exploded in flight) to bring some type of Bomb that would cause significant harm to Hitler - bunker buster? nuclear? what type of bomb is unsure!
Bkmrk.
Desden in 2005.
It can be argued that anything done to shorten an evil war is justified. But I'm torn by that.
Here's a hypothetical: Suppose in 1863 Lee had chosen to go for Pittsburgh instead of Gettysburg. And let's suppose he was able to capture Pittsburgh.
Now, Lee certainly would have been morally justified in burning Pittsburgh's foundries. those foundries made cannon for the Union army. But would he have been justified in killing all the skilled civilian foundry workers?
Certainly that's a very poor parallel with WW II. But I wonder...your thoughts?
Was that Hitler's sense of altruism and fair play, or a strategic unwillingness to waste assets?
I remember that day—I was so surprised, I dropped my rattle!
Our air forces were actually running out of targets by then. Also, our dear ‘allies’ the russkis were BEGGING US to hit Dresden’s RAIL JUNCTIONS—you know, the ones in THE CENTER OF THE TOWN.
We obliged.
End of story.
After all, it wasn’t like the NAZIs were strangers to the bombing of population centers or anything. They just weren’t quite as good at it—is all.
And I still don’t care.
Who knows? Let's ask him.
Both Hitler and Churchill were, by and large, enigmas. Churchill wrote volume upon volume about the history of WWII personal accounts of the Boer War, most of which I've read.
Incidentally, the Boer War, in which Churchill played a part, was an example of insane cruelty to a 'race' of people who were, by and large, innocents.
Anyone who says Hitler wouldn’t bomb civilian targets is an idiot or a liar.
At best Hitler was known for using a strangely muslim tactic of going easy on nations that allowed him in with little resistance. Once the nazis were in they could “peacefully” raid the riches of those nations, put jews on trains and eliminate distinct national cultures. Hitler knew that Britain was not going to go easily so Britain got the stick rather than the carrot.
That is Obama’s destruction of the US.
Done with a clown’s happy face.
God help US.
How about both?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.