Dresden Bombing. Holocaust?

You showed nothing, Sid. I didn’t equate those things and you know it perfectly well. You just establish a strawman and then attack it as being my position. There is the true fallacy.

I asked you why some murders are not OK if they save the lifes of US soldiers while some other murders are OK if they save the lives of US soldiers. To this day you didn’t answer.

Why didn’t the Spanish Republicans declare Guernica an open city ?

Why didn’t the Chinese Nationalists declare Nanking an open city ?

Why didn’t Giuliani declare New York an open city before 9/11 and let Al Queida operatives enter it to control compliance ?

How do you determine which city should be declared open when the enemy strikes without warning from the sky ?

Do you advocate countries surrendering under the mere threat of terror tactics ?

Sid, when you’re back from Wonderland, call me. Thank you for the good laugh

Yessssssssssss. And the Kingdom of the Leprechauns failed to ally with Stalin to partition Switzerland during Samain.

Yes

Yes the Nazi government was waging a total war.

Your point is incredibly silly. Of course during war, the enemy is often "the problem".

Hello ? Sid are you still with us ? Wer're two months before the agony of Berlin. The whole infrastructure of the country is in shamble. Refugees flees all over the place, communication and logistics breaks down on a dramatic scale, people die from cold and hunger. Kids and elders are forcibly enlisted in futile stop gap formations.

And your’re talking about the League of the Nations ?

ROTFL

No, obviously I don’t.

No, it doesn’t show that. It simply shows that they wanted to continue the fight in Hungary and that Budapest was a pretty good location for strategic and political reasons.

So , tell us Sid, what is that "morale case" you said could be made but refuse to make or listen to ?

Kiss, kiss

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 12, 2006 09:48 pm

Oh, what the hell. Let's give good old wikipedia's take on the open city subject. To clarify minds :

In war, in the event of the imminent capture of a city, the government/military structure of the country that owns the city will sometimes declare it an open city, thus announcing that they have abandoned all defensive efforts. The attacking armies of the opposing military will then be expected not to bomb or otherwise attack the city, but simply to march in. The concept aims at protecting the historic landmarks and civilians who dwell in the city from an unnecessary battle.
Attacking forces do not always respect the declaration of an "open city".


Now try to retrofit that to the situation of Dresden...


When you're in a hole Sid, the first wise thing to do is to stop digging.

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 13, 2006 08:00 am

Hi Imp,

Not only back then, but now! War is by definition the suspension of the peacetime norms of humanity, morality and non-violence.

All war is a moral compromise.

The only entirely consistent opinion on this matter is that of the absolute pacifist, who believes all killing is wrong under all circumstances. I respect that, but do not consider it a practical position.

For the rest of us who accept that war and its attendant killing is sometimes necessary, the only question is where to draw the line.

The only commonly agreed position on this is that of international law. This is necessarily drawn at the level of the lowest common denominator. Thus, for example, although in 1938 France and Britain wanted some sort of regulation of bombing, Germany, Italy and Japan did not. As a result there was no specific international regulation of it in WWII. The Western Allies only got specific international regulation of it after the war.

Yes, the sad fact is that if a particular regime does hide behind the human shield of its own people, then its opponents, if they do not surrender to its will, have to make some ruthless choices in pursuit of the greater good. The basic question then may become, how many extra enemy civilian deaths are the equivalent to the death of one of our own men?

Or, to put it more specifically in the context of this thread, how do you explain to any Allied soldier that his life is less valuable to his country than that of an indeterminate number of enemy civilans living amongst and working in factories, army depots and communications junctions that are turning out men and munitions that may kill him? Why should he be expected to die for an amoral enemy?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi cipiamon,

It doesn't matter whether it is normal or not to declare cities "Open" when fighting. The fact remains that it was an available option and one that the Germans violated at Belgrade in April 1941, prevented at Budapest in March 1944 and used at Rome in June 1944.

It wouldn't be necessary to stop a bombing raid if the city in question had already been declared "Open". Declaring a city "Open" is not a tactical device to prevent a raid already underway.

No Germans were prosecuted for bombing cities by the Allies. The Allies were entirely consistent in this. However, the commander of the German aerial attack on Belgrade, which had been declared an "Open" city did have this breach included in the charges against him.

Yup. To avoid killing of the innocent was an option. That option is more commonly called "surrender". Are you seriously proposing that if the enemy in effect uses his own innocent civilians as human shields one should give in to his demands?

The responsibility for the protection of a country's innocent civilians rests primarily with the government of that country, and only secondarily with the government of a state it is at war with. Nazi Germany failed spectacularly in its duty of care towards its own innocent civilians.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid!
They failed protecting their country, ironicly.
But i was wondering who's duty was to protect the jewish comunity, for ex.

This post has been edited by cipiamon on June 13, 2006 10:57 am

Hi Chutzpah,

If you wish to disown your past posts, that is fine by me. Provided they are not edited, they are there for all to see.

I don't know. Why are "some murders (....) not OK if they save the lives of US soldiers while some other murders are OK if they save the lives of US soldiers"?

I don't know. Why didn't the Spanish Republicans declare Guernica an "Open" city?

I don't know. Why didn't the Chinese Nationalists declare Nanking an "Open" city?

Presumably Giuliani didn't declare New York an "Open" city because the US wasn't at formal war with any other state - the circumstances under which "Open" cities apply.

Declaring a city "Open" is not a tactical device to evade a particular raid already in the air.

Nope. I do not advocate countries surrendering under the mere threat of terror tactics.

Back soon..........

...................to continue.........

I think we can skip lightly over your resort to Wonderland and Leprachauns in debate, don't you? Let's just try to remain polite and grounded.

Yup. Precisely. The Nazi German Government was waging Total War. Hence its willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of German civilian lives rather than surrendering or using options like "Open" cities to try to protect them. What is your point here?

Yup. Germany was in a bad way by February 1945. Rather than resort to piecemeal "Open" cities it should have surrendered.

You miss the legal point that Open cities must be declared "Open" before they are attacked. There was nothing to prevent Dresden being declared "Open" at any earlier time to protect its citizens. It didn't have to wait until Germany was already the basket case you describe, did it?

One reason why the Germans occupied Budapest in March 1944 was to prevent it being declared an "Open" city. Why do you "obviously" think that doesn't reinforce my point that this is evidence that the Germans knew that "Open" cities were viable possibilities?

Yup, Budapest was strategically and politically vital. That was why the Germans couldn't afford for it to be declared an "Open" city. This would have prevented the transit of troop trains to the Eastern Front at a vital moment. They would have had all sorts of problems if they "wanted to continue the fight" in the Balkans once Budapest had been declared an "Open" city.

What does "ROTFL" mean?

There is no "morale" case that I refuse to make or listen to.

As you are obviously having some problem making your own case, if you feel it necessary to ask me to make your case for you, I will give you a clue: To my mind the moral case as far as the Western Allies were concerned revolves around the question of "overkill".

Civilians were inevitably going to die if Dresden wasn't declared an "Open" city and its 127 military factories, 20-odd army barracks and depots and several railway junctions and yards were going to be attacked with the clumsy means then availalable. The question is what was the acceptable level of civilian casualties to achieve this end? None? One? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

And your answer is..................?

Love you too,

Sid.

Sid, please, indicate were I expressed such a wish.

Or are you putting words in my mouth again and again ?

Hi Chutzpah,

You will note (1) that my sentence was prefixed by "If" and (2) you haven't actually denied it.

Anyway, don't you think there are more substantive things to be addressed from earlier posts?

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge - deep in the hole - keeps digging.

I think we can skip the open city thread too, in a similar effort to remain grounded in reality.

Make up your mind Sid. Should they or should they not declare cities open ? What is this flip-flopping now ? Stay the course, please.

That declaring a city open just because the Allies could bomb it was not an option grounded in reality. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat to you that the conditions for declaring Dresden an open city did not exist. There was no "imminent capture" at hand, no "enemy army" to march in and no effective control possible in the existing conditions. To be put aside, in the same bag as Wonderland and the Leprechauns.

Another strawman. Budapest could have been declared open by the Hungarians because the conditions for declaring a city open were present (imminent capture, nearby Russian army to attack/occupy the city) while they were not at Dresden. That the Germans knew what "open city" means is not what we are discussing here, Sid. But keep spinning anyway.

My answer is that the number of civilians killed could have been lowered by as much as a factor 10 if killing civilians hadn't been a priority in the raid. And this could be done simply by avoiding the voluntary creation of a firestorm.

No what's your answer, Sid ? I'm still waiting for the morale case. C'mon , jump into the water, my dear. Wet your pants !

I love you so much, my God I really do, Sid.

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 14, 2006 10:34 am

Uh, so it's the equivalent of an intellectual fart, I presume ? And you seriously expect me to deny every silly thoughts that cross your mind ?

Well you can still wait

Kiss

Hi Chuzpah,

Blush! A little decorum, please, you amorous rogue................ everyone is watching...............

You may "think we can skip the open city thread too", but you don't actually do so, I notice. Your entire post was devoted to it. Good for you!

A flip-flop has to be contradictory (see above paragraph). My proposition was consistent. There was more than one way to prevent Dresden being bombed. National surrender was one, with the added advantage that it protected not just Dresden but every other German city from bombing. Alternatively, Dresden could have been declared an "Open" city, thus claiming protection only for itself.

I would only repeat that while you might think that declaring cities "Open" was not a option, the German government clearly knew it was, because one reason it occupied Budapest was to prevent it being declared "Open". At the time (March 1944) Budapest was not facing imminent capture. It was hundreds of miles from the front. Dresden was far closer in 1945. Please check your facts. Otherwise you might mislead third parties reading this.

Good work. You are begining to articulate the "overkill" thesis. Dresden was a legitimate target. Its bombing was entirely legal. Its own government could probably have protected it completely by declaring it "Open", but didn't. And the Anglo-Americans could probably have avoided many civilian deaths by using different techiques, but didn't.

Whilst "Wetting your Pants" may sound an inviting proposition where you are, over here it certainly isn't, so I'll pass up your suggestion, if it is all the same to you.

Cheers,

Sid.

Chutzpah, drop personal remarks. You have been warned already.

Indeed, you present such a fat target I can't help shooting. It's so easy

Of course the US could surrender right now to Al Quaida in order to avoid further terrorists attacks. One could even say that if the US don't declare all their cities open right now that *they* will bear the morale responsibilty for whatever atrocity might befall them (underground gas attack , nuclear dirty bomb... )

This view of things would also be consistent with your views on Dresden, but they would be as much lunatic as them.

Did I explain to you why it was not possible ? Oh yeah, several times. here I go again :

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat to you that the conditions for declaring Dresden an open city did not exist. There was no "imminent capture" at hand, no "enemy army" to march in and no effective control possible in the existing conditions.

Did I explain to you why it was not possible in the case of Dresden? Oh yeah, several times. here we go once again :

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat to you that the conditions for declaring Dresden an open city did not exist. There was no "imminent capture" at hand, no "enemy army" to march in and no effective control possible in the existing conditions.

You didn't precise what period you were talking about. Please check your posts.

In march 44, if Budapest wasn't facing risks of imminent capture or attack why would the Hungarians have declared it an open city ? It seems your are comparing apples and oranges with Budapest 44 and Dresden 45. One was a political issue, the other was a military issue. Your concept of declaring open citties is also seriously flawed.

Explain the conditions required to declare a city open according to common military knowledge and usage. Please check your facts.

Did I explain to you why it was not possible ? Oh yeah, several times. here I go again :

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat to you that the conditions for declaring Dresden an open city did not exist. There was no "imminent capture" at hand, no "enemy army" to march in and no effective control possible in the existing conditions.

Holy molly ! Praise the Lord ! See ? it wasn't that difficult to ackowledge !

Now let us know your answer to..

Kisses

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 14, 2006 05:06 pm

Several off-topic posts have been deleted.