4 ms·

If the Nazis did not want to be bombed, they should not have picked a fight with the 2 superpowers (UK, US) who had heavy bombers when they had none. I know so

If the Nazis did not want to be bombed, they should not have picked a fight with the 2 superpowers (UK, US) who had heavy bombers when they had none. I know someone who survived Dresden, and what those people went through was terrible. However, it was an inevitable consequence of stopping an ideological movement that did not value humanity in the least. When you hear people touting their ideology and how they can't respect people's rights because they're trying to achieve a greater good - watch out.

mcbuilder 7y ago
I think it is generally agreed that the Dresden bombing had little strategic impact, so I would do a little more reading on the subject before you go claim that it was a necessity to stop the Nazis. Unless you think vindictively bombing a civilian population as revenge is justifiable.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was arguably an opportunity to test methods. And to create terror, of course. Maybe also payback for the Blitz.
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    I understand that it was always going to be immoral to fire bomb Dresden but the wind on that day whipped up the fires considerably and the extremity of the outcome was due to chance rather than vindictiveness. Of course I think if they’d have known the outcome of course they would have done it anyway.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Or maybe some of them considered the wind fortuitous. I wouldn't be surprised. But then, I'm not a huge fan of war. In fiction, sure. The bloodier, the better. But not in reality, where so many die to make points.
- WiseWeasel 7y ago
  Given the brutal efficiency of the Nazis in their conquest, occupation and genocide, I have little problem justifying means of inflicting damage on any significant source of support until the threat is completely neutralized. They were desperate times, and destroying the enemy's will to continue fighting is an integral part of warfare.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    The Battle for Britain had just shown that "destroying the enemy's will" was not an effective strategy, something that has been verified several more times since. The acts were absolutely abhorrent, and the nicest way to describe them is "not quite as bad as the Nazis."
    - WiseWeasel 7y ago
      Or the Germans' failure showed they were incapable of carrying out the strategy. I find it easy to criticize the acts as abhorrent without the threat of Nazi rule over your head.
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        There was quite a bit if data showing that the strategy was not effective, the decision to attack the "will of the people" over military targets was made for callous reasons like revenge. There are no circumstances that make the act less abhorrent, we should have realized it then and not committed similar acts.
- emmelaich 7y ago
  The Russians would disagree.
neves 7y ago
Please now explain why exploding nuclear bombs to mass murder civilians were really necessary and also why it was necessary as a demonstration of power instead of doing something like exploding Mount Fuji.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  A fanciful idea indeed. It's exactly this kind of thinking that got us into war by convincing Yamamoto that we'd be a push over because we did not have the stomach for war. War is terrible. We didn't want it. We were staying out of it despite the mass atrocities of Japan and Germany. But when it was forced on us we fought it and used the weapons at our disposal. No regrets here.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Sure - it was necessary to insure the unconditional surrender of Japan, as opposed to the conditional surrender they were trying to negotiate. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-atomic-bomb/2015/07/31/32dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-... https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

mcbuilder 7y ago

I think it is generally agreed that the Dresden bombing had little strategic impact, so I would do a little more reading on the subject before you go claim that it was a necessity to stop the Nazis. Unless you think vindictively bombing a civilian population as revenge is justifiable.

mirimir 7y ago
Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was arguably an opportunity to test methods. And to create terror, of course. Maybe also payback for the Blitz.
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  I understand that it was always going to be immoral to fire bomb Dresden but the wind on that day whipped up the fires considerably and the extremity of the outcome was due to chance rather than vindictiveness. Of course I think if they’d have known the outcome of course they would have done it anyway.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Or maybe some of them considered the wind fortuitous. I wouldn't be surprised. But then, I'm not a huge fan of war. In fiction, sure. The bloodier, the better. But not in reality, where so many die to make points.
WiseWeasel 7y ago
Given the brutal efficiency of the Nazis in their conquest, occupation and genocide, I have little problem justifying means of inflicting damage on any significant source of support until the threat is completely neutralized. They were desperate times, and destroying the enemy's will to continue fighting is an integral part of warfare.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  The Battle for Britain had just shown that "destroying the enemy's will" was not an effective strategy, something that has been verified several more times since. The acts were absolutely abhorrent, and the nicest way to describe them is "not quite as bad as the Nazis."
  - WiseWeasel 7y ago
    Or the Germans' failure showed they were incapable of carrying out the strategy. I find it easy to criticize the acts as abhorrent without the threat of Nazi rule over your head.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      There was quite a bit if data showing that the strategy was not effective, the decision to attack the "will of the people" over military targets was made for callous reasons like revenge. There are no circumstances that make the act less abhorrent, we should have realized it then and not committed similar acts.
emmelaich 7y ago
The Russians would disagree.

neves 7y ago

Please now explain why exploding nuclear bombs to mass murder civilians were really necessary and also why it was necessary as a demonstration of power instead of doing something like exploding Mount Fuji.

tomohawk 7y ago
A fanciful idea indeed. It's exactly this kind of thinking that got us into war by convincing Yamamoto that we'd be a push over because we did not have the stomach for war. War is terrible. We didn't want it. We were staying out of it despite the mass atrocities of Japan and Germany. But when it was forced on us we fought it and used the weapons at our disposal. No regrets here.
deogeo 7y ago
Sure - it was necessary to insure the unconditional surrender of Japan, as opposed to the conditional surrender they were trying to negotiate. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-atomic-bomb/2015/07/31/32dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-... https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth