Posted on 05/05/2005 8:19:32 PM PDT by TFine80
You're saying crazy things, Clemenza. You actually have no respect at all for the lives, innocent or hostile, or the deep human history that inhabited each of the cities you mention? If you really consider regulating war "wussing out", you probably shouldn't be trusted on the streets. Wow, maybe I should agree on some terms with A Jovial Cad- clearly there is a place for "special humanity" in war, especially if it's measured by whatever your standards must be, Clemenza.
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).
This is called "Moving the Goalposts," which is part & parcel of another logical fallacy you might Google in your spare time.
The Russia of 2005 is indeed "Putin's Russia"; just as, if A Jovial Cad was president of these United States, today's America would, for better or worse, be referred to as A Jovial Cad's America within the context of executive decisions made by moi (in this theoretical universe gone somewhat mad, mind you) that impacted the world in general and the United States in particular. And if I trotted off to a world conference in this mythical universe and, oh, I don't know, declared that the founding of the United Nations was an excrescence on the old historical blotter, many would be justified in saying "but A Jovial Cad's America enthusiastically endorsed the founding of this body in 1945!..." And they'd be right to do so: A Jovial Cad might not have been around in 1945, but his country, i.e., America, was. See how that works?
When I stated "I don't know what you're talking about" it was in the specific context of refuting the implication you were laboring mightily to make: i.e., that I had somehow implied that Putin was the responsible officer of the Russian government in 1945.
Slick trick, and nice try, but no cigar...
in the case of Fascist Italy, scummy
I called Mussolini "scummy"; and he certainly was. Fascist Italy was simply a second-rate tyranny, in the larger scale of things, and a somewhat clownish sideshow to the much more efficient evil on display up North; but it was il Deuce that I was specifically referring to as "scummy."
But this is all, as they say, academic in any event; verbal pirouette with a cipher. When the renowned curmudgeon H.L. Mencken used to get angry, squealing letters in the mail railing against some column he had written, he nearly always sent back a one-sentence reply: "Dear so-and-so: You're probably right."
It is in that spirit that I say: Dear asgromo: You're probably right.
--AJC
P.S. - Love that tag-line, BTW...*snicker*...
Well...if we had stayed out of WW 1...the war would have come to a closure by 1918 with revolts from the soldiers from Germany, France, and England. The entire French government would have dissolved by the end of 1918 because of the impending revolt. Russia was already dissolving into communism because of Germany's release of Lenin. A peace agreement of some type would have been forged and quickly signed, and everyone would have gone back home. Hitler wouldn't have had the breeding ground to expand his party, and the Kaiser would have kept rule intact within Germany.
This is not to say that the affair is ended...I think another war of some type...either Germany verus the new Soviet Union under Stalin in the late 1920s would have easily occurred. Or we might have seen a war between Italy and Germany at some point. The interesting thing here is that the mighty test for the US would not have occurred, and we would have been still viewed as a second player in world politics. Japan would have still be a waiting episode in the 1930s for the US to prepare for...and would have likely been the "big" war to demonstrate US might.
Right you are.
This thread is infected with moral equivalizing worthy of the worst leftists. The German victimology is more of the same.
Bombing of Dresden a war crime? Drivel.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"On January 26, Portal had sent a lengthy and tersely worded minute to DCAS ruling out thunderclap, as four consecutive days were unlikely to come at this time of the year. 'Subject to the overriding claims of oil and such other agreed targets as the rocket and jet engine factories, submarine building yards for marginal effort etc, we should use available effort in one big attack on Berlin and attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, Chemnitz or any other cities where a severe blitz will not only cause confusion in the evacuation from the East but will also hamper the movement of troops' [from the western to the eastern front. Page is torn]"
'snip'
"On February 5, 1945 Sir Charles Portal, British Chief of Air Staff, signalled from Yalta to London that the Russians had again proposed a strategic "bomb-line" running through Stettin to Berlin to Dresden to Zagreb.
"To enable me to argue against this please send Most Immediate a few good objectives against which we desire to maintain our attacks until they become involved in tactical situation on land. Reply must reach me by 1000C tomorrow 6th February." [8]
In his reply on February 5, the Deputy Chief of Air Staff sent to Portal a list of good objectives for attack until the tactical situation on land -- i.e. the proximity of friendly armies -- prevented them.
First priority, 'A', were Oil targets like Pölitz, Ruhland, and seven oil refineries in the Vienna area;
Second priority, 'B', were the only two transportation and industrial areas listed, which were Berlin and Dresden.
'C' and 'D' were factories making tanks and self-propelled guns, and jet engines."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/bombing/Thunderclap/harrying_refugees_0145.html
2005 standards cannot be applied to a war 60 years earlier. There were no precision bombs then. I'm not even convinced there should be only precision bombing now. There is much to be said for utter defeat of the enemy. It stops "insurgencies" and saves our soldier's lives.
At your suggestion I Googled "Moving the Goalposts". I don't think I was "moving the goalposts" at all. Maybe I still don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means. Sorry. =/
Yes, the Russia of 2005 is indeed "Putin's Russia". The Russia of the 1940's was not "Putin's Russia", in that he did not make executive decisions that impacted the world in general and Russia in particular. Yes, this is the context for which I placed your statement, and I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, acknowledging that your meaning was "the country of which Putin makes executive decisions" and not "the country of which Putin makes executive decisions"... Oh, never mind, you worded this better than I'd ever bother. Let's just assume that we comprehend each other. =/
By the way, the parenthetical "admittedly..." was a joke referring to our nation's president, and that there are those who might consider him a "jovial cad". I couldn't tell whether you understood that, and as you seemed to relate to it in particular, I thought I'd just explain it in full.
So you're right, no cigar- but I suppose my attempts at it were based on a misunderstanding of what you said. I was aiming at a hallucination. =/
I never debated the scumminess of Mussolini- you needn't have brought up that point... But I do understand that you directed the characteristic at Mussolini and the country he led. Thanks for the clarification.
I suppose this wraps up our conversation, then. I've faith that we both enjoyed ourselves. I like the quotation. Honestly though, if in the spirit of Mencken you quote him, why include the quibbling? It kind of dimishes the spirit of Mencken, if you ask me. If you could ask Mencken, I wonder if he'd agree. And don't tell me you thought I was angry and squealing. Honestly, in my book that's where you enter the territory of "if you don't have something nice to say etc etc".
I like my taglines too. With the one in response to you, I was pretty obviously quoting your flowery language. With the one in response to familyop, you see I was making fun of his three successive posts. Obviously, this could be extended to include me, as I also posted three times successively. Truthfully, I doubted whether making my third post to Clemenza was really a good idea; to bring upon such ridicule might sound like easy suicide. In retrospect, I'm actually somewhat happy with it now. Besides, I don't think I was "communicating nothing" in three posts, and you didn't exactly refute that yourself. Also, the third tagline is obviously a quote from "Planet of the Apes." In clarification, it is Charlton Heston's famous concluding line, upon finding proof of exactly where he is in the form of the ruined Statue of Liberty, and the fate of his original home. In elucidation, I was merely making fun of Clemenza's rantings about destroying cities.
Your tagline I fear I don't understand in this context. I have a feeling I like where you're going with that, though.
We did. We firebombed Dresden with the collective force of a nuclear bomb. We planned on killing lots o' civilians at Dresden, as revenge for Coventry.
Thanks, I work hard at disversifying my bandwagon to ridiculous diversity. Please, don't mind me. Enjoy your most excellent laughter. I hope any "limousine o' pro-Nazi fallacies" you happen to see in me is one for which you can find amusement in. Obviously, English isn't your first langauge. =/
The fire bombing of dresden was the most heinious act ever commited by the US.
In contrast to Japan? What is the basis for drawing that line other than racial?
death by nuclear fire is pretty quick; the people of dresden burned for days.
That is not true of dresden.
Cancer decades later is quick and painless?
Good point - do you have a link to data from these areas?
There were more pure military reasons for bombing Dresden than Japan which was purely a civilian play and a military tour de force. But given the comparative numbers of dead and injured, the Dresden targets would have had to be 800% more militarily "solid."
Death Estimates
Dresden 25,000
Hiroshima 125,000
Nagasaki 75,000
Of course the radiation was a gift that kept on giving.
Dresden was sacrificed as an object example to the Russians of what could happen to Moscow. War is Hell and there is no nation even remotely as culpable for the European wars of the 20th century than the Russian. For the people of middle Europe there is certainly nothing to celebrate this weekend except the eventual fall of the Soviet Union.
FDR and Churchill allowed Russia to annex eastern Europe. Another forty odd years of enslavement for Poland, Romania, etc. That's a mark of shame.
Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg.
>>it's entirely unfair and irrational to ask Putin to explain massacres caused by a legendary tyrant, let alone one from an earlier political system.
Let's not overlook the fact that Putin once held a high position within that political system.
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.