Putin criticizes Allies for Dresden bombing

MSNBC ^ | May 5, 2005

[TFine80]

BERLIN - Russian President Vladimir Putin told a German newspaper that Allied forces can’t be absolved of blame for horrors during World War II, and he noted in particular the massive bombing of Dresden in the final months.

Ahead of this weekend’s 60-year commemoration of Victory in Europe Day, Putin, in a joint interview with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, told Bild that the Western forces deserved to be criticized for attacking civilians.

“The Western allies didn’t abound with any special humanity,” the Russian leader said. “It’s incomprehensible to me to this day why Dresden was destroyed. There was no military reason for it.”

[Red6]

That's typical though.

"The best defense IS a good offense!"

Russia is being criticized for it's role in WWII rapes, in the post war mess and oppression, and more. The best way to defend yourself is to attack the allied powers. Tear them down with subjective, relativistic and emotional garbage like this. "It's all relative", "The winner writes the history books"...........

Other examples: "Oh Airbus subsidies are OK since Boeing gets them too.” Not really, but as long as the finger is pointed, a counter accusation is made and if some in the public bite off on it, it will give some credibility and will reduce some of the criticism many had. Most won’t dig deeper into the matter and the counter claim itself kills the issue even if completely absurd.

The US hardly sent enemy POW to Siberia and worked them to death. We didn’t beat them daily. We didn’t really ignore nor tolerate mass rapes, we did what we could (What was technically possible at the time) to reduce casualties. We did help local population in badly war inflicted areas when possible. We had the rule of law apply to the captured leaders. We fed, housed and medically took care of POW's (Often better than what they got while still a soldier fighting us).

Putin must focus on anomalies and the “exceptions” to make his point. His point is ultimately “Don’t single me out, we all did this”. Which really isn’t true, just as the Airbus subsidies really are not the same as the USAF buying a plane from Boeing and calling that a form subsidy.

Red6

[Grzegorz 246]

Thanks for posting this link.

[Grzegorz 246]

I agree. I also think that Putin is checking how far he may go.

[Borges]

How would France be different?

[blackie]

Tell Putin we were at war ~ war is killing and maiming people and blowing things up until you win!

[Petronski]

You're joking, right? I mean, there was no OTHER reason for Dresden [than killing civilians].

That's a shabby lie.

[JoeV1]

Is this guy for real? Wasn't it Russia who, under "Uncle Joe" Stalin was responsible for slaughtering some 17 MILLION of it's citizens?

[PzGr43]

>"The worst and most hypocritical is their gunpoint round->up of Don Cossacks and Volga-Germans and their hand-over >to certain death in Soviet captivity."
>So in other words, the allies were responsible for >atrocities committed by the Soviets? Against people who >were indigenous to the Soviet Union and were returned >there?

"So in other words, the allies were responsible for atrocities committed by the Soviets"

Your sentence is a non-sequitur. The Soviets shot the Don Cossacks and Volga Germans (apart from the ones shot in the round-up by the English).

The Soviets could not shoot any of them if they had not been handed over, thus Allied complicity. It takes two to Tango.

Besides, looking the other way while the Gestapo take away Jews in your street is a crime - hadn't you heard ?

"indigenous to the Soviet Union and were returned there"

The Soviet Union was not indigenous to Russia, the Ukraine or the Caucasus.

Let's see you hand over Jews to Nazi Germany because "they are indigenous" and explain that. Even banking with Nazi Germany is treated as a "war crime". We can't even hand back illegal immigrants because it would upset them. You think you would get away with herding them to their deaths ?

[familyop]

PzGr43 wrote:
"Criminality depends upon intention, not on action. Dresden was a war crime because civilians were targeted via the Allied fire-storm policy. This is documented . . . By your reasoning Ward-Churchill is correct."

...such lie documented only by neo-Nazis and the ignorant. Show us where it is alleged that the USA intended to inflict the Dresden bombing against civilians and not against military production and transportation. As for Ward Churchill, he projects his neo-Nazism upon those he hates, just as all Nazis do. He's a neo-Nazi who calls his opponents Nazis. It's common knowledge that Nazis share more with the contemporary left in their hysterical hatred against Israel than with any other group.

Why can't you get over the defeat of your Nazi despots of the past? Nazism is weak. Just let it go.

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Hysteria \Hys*te"ri*a\, n. [NL.: cf. F. hyst['e]rie. See Hysteric.] (Med.)
A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into paroxism or fits. [1913 Webster]

Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing, and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the throat. The affection presents the most varied symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment alone. Hysteric"

[familyop]

If you change your mind and want to see the truth about the Dresden military targets (instead of Nazi propaganda), go to the following site.

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/

And BTW, the Nazi decision to build so many weapons production and other military production facilities within a city like Dresden was telling--reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's and Iran's human shields programs.

[Alia]

Thanks for the ping.

[asgromo]

No, Cad, there isn't a lot of special humanity in liberating half the world when your intent is based on military alliances and prejudice. I wonder where you think "special humanity" is ever supposed to come in during a war. I'd like you to also understand that at no point did I defend Russia's behavior during World War II. I'll reiterate an earlier point by questioning your naming it "Putin's Russia".

And yes, I understand what "total war" is. Your calling it "fighting to win" is plainly asinine. I suppose had we really been "fighting to win" in Iraq it would have neccessitated large scale firebombing in Baghdad. That city's only millenia old.

familyop; A couple of things: What do you mean the "Nazi decision"? Those are commercial enterprises, not government installations. What does this have to do with "human shield programs"? Do you honestly believe large American cities during WWII weren't voluntary hosts to myriad arms factories? World Wars need bullets! Your Air Force History website lists brand names. Also- that airforcehistory.hq.af.mil website is pissing me off- why does a military history website have an unconventional security certificate?

[A Jovial Cad]

Let's take this in order of descending coherence:

No, Cad, there isn't a lot of special humanity in liberating half the world when your intent is based on military alliances and prejudice

That statement is as silly as it's author. Yes, asgromo, there was a good deal of "special humanity" displayed by the Western Allies in ending a conflict initiated against them by the tyrannical regimes that composed the governments of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.

Pearl Harbor--which left more than 1100 American servicemen dead in a sneak attack--occured on December 7, '41. Hitler declared war on this country on December 11, and his scummy ally Mussolini quickly followed suit.

The only "prejudice" involved was the resolute determination of an outraged nation against the smarmy, murderous actions of those filthy regimes who'd attacked them.

I wonder where you think "special humanity" is ever supposed to come in during a war

Had the Western Allies reduced every population center in Nazi Germany to cinders in the event that the genocidal leadership controlling that nation at the time had refused/not-been-compelled-to surrender, it would've been completely justified. Period, plain, simple.

I'll reiterate an earlier point by questioning your naming it "Putin's Russia"

Don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

And yes, I understand what "total war" is. Your calling it "fighting to win" is plainly asinine

No, you don't. Your first statement directly refutes your idiotic second one, making muddles of both in the logical department.

Try again.

I suppose had we really been "fighting to win" in Iraq it would have neccessitated (Sic) large scale firebombing in Baghdad

Ahhh...the age-old debating tactic of the Straw man is constructed, tweaked, and then demolished. Ever the refuge of the sputtering mentally-dim, that one is.

Village Idiot much? ...*snicker*...

[familyop]

I doubt that anyone who has studied much of the history of the Nazis would be ignorant of the fact that Nazi officials (being fascists) controlled planning and production along with the press, films and textbook editing. National socialism was different but no better than communism--two varieties of evil, vain stupidity.

[familyop]

And yes, most, if not all of our arms plants were built far enough from residential areas to keep civilians safe. ...unlike totalitarian regimes of the kind that you're defending with loose rhetoric.

[familyop]

"Also- that airforcehistory.hq.af.mil website is [expletive] me off- why does a military history website have an unconventional security certificate?"

The Air Force Historical Studies Office probably uses that certificate (same kind that many military sites use--activates a transmitter) in order to send one of the following to detect pro-Nazi thoughts in the brainwaves of certain readers.

[DugMac]

Let’s not forget how the red army waited patiently on the outskirts of Warsaw so the Nazis could raze the Jewish ghetto and liquidate every Jew they found before finally attacking and taking Warsaw.

[Clemenza]

The only bad thing that came out of Dresden is that it wasn't REPEATED in Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, Hamburg, etc.

Its amazing how much we have wussed out over the years in the name of "human rights." Its not our fault that the German people chose the wrong side.

[asgromo]

Let's take this in order of ascending hilarity.

No, you don't [understand what "total war" is]. Your first statement directly refutes your idiotic second one, making muddles of both in the logical department.

Cute. This is "total war". So is this. "Fighting to win" isn't total war. I deeply apologize for muddling your logical department. ^__^

Ahhh...the age-old debating tactic of the Straw man is constructed, tweaked, and then demolished. Ever the refuge of the sputtering mentally-dim, that one is.

Are you saying the attack on Dresden wasn't large-scale firebombing? Or are you saying we weren't fighting to win in Iraq? I wasn't mutilating what you'd said, I was making an analogy to today's world. In fact, I'll happily continue, regardless of how it offends you. If, today, we didn't have the technology to precisely attack Baghdad, would you expect us to bomb the city area? I don't understand you.

Don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

And Putin's Russia, which started the war as Hitler's ally, was such a shining exemplar of "special humanity" from 1917 to 1989...

Buh. Anyway, my point is that it wasn't "Putin's Russia". Just like this isn't "A Jovial Cad's America" (admittedly, there are some in this country who may even argue that).

Had the Western Allies reduced every population center in Nazi Germany to cinders in the event that the genocidal leadership controlling that nation at the time had refused/not-been-compelled-to surrender, it would've been completely justified. Period, plain, simple.

What I garnered from this is that you're saying our special humanity was in not destroying every population center in Germany, in the case that they did not surrender. But they did surrender, and so we didn't destroy every one of their population centers. I don't know if we would have if they hadn't surrendered, either. I don't see what it matters whether we'd have been justified in this purely hypothetical situation. I don't know what you're talking about again. I'll be honest, I had to look up the straw man fallacy. I know, I know, I'm pretty ignorant to not have that down pat. Whatever- I see your statement here probably constitutes such a fallacy, if, perhaps, gracelessly.

That statement is as silly as it's(SIC) author. Yes, asgromo, there was a good deal of "special humanity" displayed by the Western Allies in ending a conflict initiated against them by the tyrannical regimes that composed the governments of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Pearl Harbor--which left more than 1100 American servicemen dead in a sneak attack--occured on December 7, '41. Hitler declared war on this country on December 11, and his scummy ally Mussolini quickly followed suit. The only "prejudice" involved was the resolute determination of an outraged nation against the smarmy, murderous actions of those filthy regimes who'd attacked them.

Firstly, thanks for the friendly insult. I do indeed think you're silly too, ya' crazy-head. Also, as you can see, I'm just as able as you to correct one's grammar and spelling. Wouldn't want you to read Free Republic without learning something, eh? ^__^

Anywho, my point you just gingerly stepped over probably should've been more carefully written- the fault clearly being mine. I'll take this opportunity to correct myself; there is still no special humanity in liberating half the world, especially when the liberation is (rightfully so) second priority to that of self-defense during wartime. There is never special humanity during war. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Go read a book or watch a movie or fight a war or something and tell me otherwise- I'm pretty intent on this, regardless that I haven't fought a war.

Note: I get the idea about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy being tyrannical, smarmy, murderous, (in the case of Fascist Italy, scummy), and filthy. And the idea that the U.S. was outraged and resolute in its determination. Your flowerly language captivates and fascinates me. It's almost poetic. You should write a novel. I only wonder if you believe you could ever to be taken seriously or objectively like that.

I'd snicker as well, but I think snickering is moronic.

[asgromo]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize "pissing" was an expletive. I decided to check up on this through the use of Dictionary.com, which you may or may not consider a biased language reference. It turns out that "pissing" is actually a derivative of the French "pissier". Now now, before you make a French joke, that word is actually imitative of the Latin "pissiare".

Anyway, I think you're trying subtly to say that myself and A Jovial Cad are pro-Nazi. Or have pro-Nazi thoughts. I congratulate you for that- I myself thought it impossible to be subtle about accusing neo-Nazism, but you may have proven me wrong.

But allow me, if you will, to look deeper into your statement. Do you actually consider the government having the ability to read its population's thoughts a worthwhile usage of, at this point, sci-fi technology? Do you understand that you could be promoting the institution of a society more horrific than anything that could have been cooked up in the mind of George Orwell? Far and away beyond what Nazism did? Think before you speak, man! o_O

And anyway, I'm not pro-Nazi. I'm not a Nazi. I hope that's what it takes to convince the Air Force Historical Studies Office not to send what I assume to be an ROV capable of mind-reading in the humorous styling of a 50's flying saucer to my house, in the case that I'm one of the certain readers you mention. Sheesh, we have a lot of crazy heads in this thread! ^__^

And yes, most, if not all of our arms plants were built far enough from residential areas to keep civilians safe. ...unlike totalitarian regimes of the kind that you're defending with loose rhetoric.

Hey, hey, I may be wordy, but if you want a true "exemplar" of loose rhetoric, please, talk to A Jovial Cad! xD Whatever- did you live back then? Give me a zoning plan from such an area or something if you're going to argue that.

I doubt that anyone who has studied much of the history of the Nazis would be ignorant of the fact that Nazi officials (being fascists) controlled planning and production along with the press, films and textbook editing. National socialism was different but no better than communism--two varieties of evil, vain stupidity.

What a coincidence- I think I've been responding to two examples of vain stupidity! Anyway, Here on I'll ignore how you place judgement of evolved, even deeply flawed, systems of goverment solely with mean words, and confuse them in order to emphasize how mean and bad they are. Taking out all of that, I believe I'm left with "I doubt that anyone who has studied much of the history of the Nazis would be ignorant of the fact that Nazi officials controlled planning and production along with the press, films and textbook editing." Great. Duh. So what does this have to do with anything?