Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake
Is the reductio ad Clinton considered a valid argument now?

I was referring to this golden oldie from 1997: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."

The pinpoint accuracy of aerial bombardment in 2007 did not exist in 1945.

This isn't about the inability of technology to keep up with good intentions. The Allies engaged in aerial bombardment whose avowed purpose was civilian terror. You know this.

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."

Winston Churchill, 28th March 1945 memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur "Bomber" Harris (n.b. post-Dresden raid)

G&S condemns indiscriminate acts of war. You are defending them. Renounce and repent.

117 posted on 12/12/2007 10:21:59 AM PST by Romulus ("Ira enim viri iustitiam Dei non operatur")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: Romulus

So you are unable to answer the real questions.
Guess you are one of those “keyboard cowards” sitting in the comfort of your room protected by brave souls that you choose to insult.
Your refusal to answer my simple questions is answer enough as to your so called “culture”.
You have no “culture”.


121 posted on 12/12/2007 10:32:07 AM PST by smoketree (the insanity, the lunacy these days.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: Romulus
This quote from Churchill has been repeated ad nauseam by David Irving and the usual suspects interested in denigrating the Allied war effort.

I will point out that Arthur Harris was not in command of US air assets, and that even if Churchill's analysis of Harris' intentions were accurate - which in point of fact it wasn't - Harris' intentions have nothing to do with US air assets or their deployment.

I will also note that Churchill's comments were made not only after Dresden but after the bombing of Dortmund, Essen, Chemnitz, Jena, Bielefeld, Hanover, Leipzig and Nuremberg. Several of these attacks utilized more aircraft and more ordinance than at Dresden against cities smaller than Dresden with lower-priority military targets than Dresden.

Is it possible that Churchill was referring to these instead of Dresden?

I will further point out that Churchill himself commissioned the Secretary of State for Air (the civilian oversight for the RAF and Harris' boss) to produce a report outlining priority military targets for aerial bombardment months before he wrote this letter to Harris.

Churchill received the Secretary's report on Jan 27, 1945. It mentioned Dresden as one of four key military targets that should be attacked as quickly as possible to assist Allied ground forces to sustain their post-Bulge positions.

By February 4th plans were drawn up to attack Dresden. During all this time there was no talk of inflicting terror or death on German civilians, but of the best way to prevent the successful redeployment of 42 divisions of German infantry and armor to the Eastern front, which was the purpose of the Dresden raid.

Nine days later, the Dresden raid took place.

Three weeks after Churchill's letter to Harris, Dresden was raided yet again, on April 17, to prevent the Nazis from rebuilding rail arteries across the Elbe to elude Allied forces.

That raid evoked no complaints from Churchill.

G&S condemns indiscriminate acts of war. You are defending them. Renounce and repent.

Nothing about Dresden was indiscriminate. Perhaps you should repent of twisting magisterial documents for rhetorical effect.

129 posted on 12/12/2007 10:46:42 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson