...and far more aren't, just as far more financiers aren't weapons manufacturers. What financiers need is long periods of peace and prosperity so people borrow a lot and repay their loans.
I do not think that the survivors liberated from the death camps think the financiers were the only winners. I doubt that the girls forced to be "comfort women" by the Japanese think that the only winners were the financiers.
Instead of talking about history - all of you should study it. Some points - in no particular order. 1. Dresden didn't just "happen" - and it didn't happen to impress the Soviets. There were 4 long years of city bombing going on before that - starting w/ the Germans bombing Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry. What was unthinkable in 1940 was common place in 1945. 2. Hiroshima/Nagasaki - same thing, and as another poster pointed out, after the fire bombings of Tokyo, the destruction and death toll were actually less in these 2 cities. Oh, and the war was OVER - w/o the necessity of invading Japan. Foley - do you EVER tire of putting your foot in your mouth? Barkhorn.
Are any of those films online today ? - I mean its a free information society right, and theyre just peices of history now - I might find them funny. did they say that in the US we were all fat, or all starving, or all hooked on shite music or what?
Don't think that any are online, at least I haven't seen any. They basically were bashing rock'n roll, how degradating it was for human psyche, how white american policemen were beating up black workers, how unemployed workers were waiting in lines, etc, etc. Nobody took that propoganda seriously though, not any propoganda. By living in the USSR you become immune to propoganda. About free information society.. society maybe is , but the government isn't.. Try asking for nazi propoganda films in an archive.. But old nazi propoganda is on internet. I'll ask some people around if there is any soviet propoganda.
i can believe that alright! You supose anyone ever took the news seriouosly in a country like USSR, or NK today?
The less educated buy it of course. You can't distinguish truth from fiction if you have no overall picture or information from elswhere. Much of that was smuggled into USSR. I doubt that you can smuggle anything in NK.
I am sorry to inform you , but t“ It did just happen “ , ask any Dresdener old enough to remember ! I can not think of any plausible reason why on the 13th of February 1945 with the German military unable to resist and on the verge of collapse at any day and the allied armies well inside German territory encountering little or no resistance , that this beautiful Baroque city became the object of 3 massive 1000 bomber raids ? The only logical reason would be a display of strategic Airpower for a desired effect on advancing Russians . That’s was the early days of bombing and they were light by late 1942 and all through 1943 to mid 1944 the tactic of mass bombing was developed to smash the Ruhr which was Germanys industrial hub and various other cities with Military/Naval/Industrial significance such as Hamburg . Dresden had no war industry ! Dresden was not a communication centre ! Dresden had no military bases in its vicinity ! there was no reason to bomb Dresden . Dresden was not a military target it never suffered bombing during the war so why would they bomb this city into dust on the inevitable collapse of Germany ? OK the US drops one atom bomb why drop a second one ? And I think the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would know what the deathtoll of these attacks would be . How is it that I have put my foot in it ? Seeing wars are operated on finance , and America which during the war was the centre of finance , bankrolled the allied war effort ! And that money came from the Federal Reserve which is a private concern ie: Private Finance !
You can't think of any PLAUSIBLE reason -- but you can suggest a LOGICAL reason!!! Does it follow that YOUR logic isn't plausible? Would it not be more useful to try to study the available historical record than to engage in this sort of unsupported speculation? Do you have any special reason to doubt that this raid, together with that on Chemnitz, was carried out at the request of the Russians -- as most historians appear to believe? What has given you the idea that Dresden was NOT a communications centre? Do you not feel the least compulsion to study the subject you are pontificating about?
PLAUSIBLE ! Yes I put forward a series of facts namely the late stage of the war making such an action uncalled for , that Dresden was not a military target nor was it an industrial centre . How and what did I put forward is unsupported ? What the hell are talking about ? The Russians never called for these aitstrikes where the hell did you get that from ? The ONLY historian that has gone into any detail on this event is David Irving and his conclusions are the same it wasnt a target ! He even interveiwed Airmarshal Harris about it . I would like to see what historians have claimed the Russians called for this singualr act of babarity on German civilians . Look on a map and see how many train lines run into the city ? The fact that Dresden is situated at the far corner of Germany geographically ? Dresden was a cultural centre it was Germany's centre of the book trade . Jesus , Im at a loss ! I put forward a number of undeniable realities and all you do is deny it how about YOU put up some facts to displace my opinion ?
Ah! So you've been reading David Irving! How many people did he claim were killed in Dresden? Not a figure that any other historian regards as remotely likely. If you imagine HE is the ONLY historian to have written about Dresden you are sadly deluded. He does claim that there were huge numbers of refugees there - and that may be true. Why would they find themselves THERE, in particular? You don't suppose it may have had something to do with communications? With the routes from the east and south that converged there? Do you really believe that the US/UK decided to launch air raids on Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig - in the route of the Russian advance - out of a simple desire for barbarousness? And not in support of that Russian advance? Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the whole thing? In that case, you have not begun to comprehend the relations that existed between the Allied Powers.
Considering David Irving is the undisputed authority on Nazi history and in particular the event of Dresden which he uncovered and was the first to write into a book which today is the standard . What do you mean “and that may be true” who has disputed that fact ? Dresden housed something close to 600,000 refugees fleeing west . That was corroborated by the refugee committee after WWII . They got there by foot or horse and cart , for petes sake all train lines in Germany by 1945 were unworkable due to aerial destruction . No they did it to intimidate the advancing Russian juggernaut , it is obvious America was preparing itself for the Post WWII role as global ciop for the Capitalists . And what better way to intimidate a powerful entity like Russia by displaying your firepower . What relations ? Read Khruschevs book Khruschev remembers vol;1 that will leave you in no doubt .Explain this to me why with 2 years of the war ending did America declare Communist Russia the worlds worst threat ? They saw Communist Russia as a threat after world war 1 and all through the 1930s .
Declaring anyone as the undisputed authority on anything is a very risky debating tactic. Do you wish to reconsider the absolute character of this specific statement of yours?
I understand that you think Irving is the top of the tree in this field. But you are asserting that everyone agrees with this view. Such a contention invites disagreement. Am I indulging in word play? Perhaps. However I think there is an important point here. You are seeking to win this portion of the argument with a simple debating trick, thusly: Foley: I believe A. Irving believes A. Irving is an undisputed leader in his field. Irving also says A. Therefore A is right. Therefore I am right. Well, that is logical nonsense, and I'm just calling you out on it.
He is probably the most prolific author, and has made a contribution to history by his researches. An “undisputed authority” is the very last thing he is – as anyone more widely read than yourself will vouch for. He is regarded as a propagandist and of lacking a sense of balance in weighing his evidence. It is considered that the principle reason he lost his famous libel case was the 740-page document written by historian Richard Evans discrediting many aspects of his judgement. What may or may not be true is that the numbers of refugees approached the number given by Irving. I believe that his figure may be in some doubt. Which “refugee committee” are you referring to? I am sure many did arrive by foot, barge, etc. However, you give the impression that once interdicted a rail route remains unworkable. The Germans made considerable use of forced labour to restore their railway system. Are you asking this question in regard to the Dresden raid in particular? Do you think Stalin planned to visit Dresden, whereas he would not have the same opportunity to inspect Berlin? As for intimidating the enemy, Roosevelt and Churchill would have known that the first A-bomb was likely to be tested within six months – rendering any other sort of demonstration superfluous. The wartime relations between US, UK and the Russians is not a difficult area to research. There is plenty to read. (Note that the post-war “division of spoils” was carried out very successfully in regard to the lack of conflict between the victorious powers – a reflection of the detail in which all had been agreed.) You have not directly answered my question: Do you imagine the Russians were "out of the loop" on the Dresden raid? That sums up the situation perfectly!
Can you think of anyone else who has written on this? Quite a few other people have in fact It may be unfair, but Irving's findings ands methods have been analysed in a way that no other historian's have and found very inadequate. Other historians may be just as bad but no-one has demonstrated it yet. As far as I can recall, Irving- and anyone else- has never analysed the role of the US federal reserve in the destruction of Dresden. Perhaps you would care to? Wars are fought on the basis of what people know and believe at the time, not what is learned later. In February 1945 the allies believed that they had good military reasons to bomb Dresden [one reason was that they had bomber forces that could destroy towns- if you have a weapon the military mindset means that you find reasons to use it]. If you are going to say it was done for other reasons than the standard ones for destroying other German towns then you need some evidence to support your arguments
In Thersite's post immediately below he asked if any one had read someone other than D. Irving. about Dresden: In early 1960s I read book by title (I think): Fire and the air war. It was mainly the story of the preparation for the Dresden raid, but did include some of the "success facts" in final chapter(s?). About this "success", I can not remember any of the numbers, but do remember that most of the people in underground bomb shelters died from suffication. (The fire storm consummed most of the oxygen.) Hours later (how many depended upon the depth of the shelter etc.) the fat in their bodies was rendered out by the heat and days (or months) later the well congelled fat was found on the floor. At the time I read this book, Russia had recently tested their biggest bomb (50 MegaTons, I think it was) and the US was in a crazy shelter construction mood. I had a few articles published by the Baltimore Sun (letters to the editor). I had done some calculations based on the assumption of a optimium altitude (for fire generation) of a 50 MegaTon explosion centerted over the White House that showed all over Baltimore which is about an hours drive away, that dark dry leaves, paper etc would bust into flames (on a clear day). Under low wind conditions, a fire storm would develope over Baltimore. I was highly oppossed to the false sense of security the shelter movement was creating - Everyone was saying shelters would save lives except for the direct hits and blast effects. Many were saying: "Lets attack the Russians now, before they hit us with these big bombs." I wanted to show that even in deep shelters in Baltimore the population could die, as they had in Dresden, from lack of oxygen. (Baltimore would be on the target list. The smaller A-bombs they already had would do the job just fine. etc.) (The correct title of that book is in one of my letters to the editor. Perhaps the author was David Ivring, but I doubt it.) The only other thing I remember from the book was that the British mathematicians who were desiging the mix of bombs to be used (What % should knock down buildings to provide fuel. What % should have hooks to catch on gutters as the slide down roofs. How many minutes should they burn there before releasing to fall into the rubble of other bombs. etc.) were working in a very cold office with numb fingers doing probability calculations with pencile and paper. (The irony of them cold and what they were doing was not lost on me.) They were cold because coal was rationed and not available for their office. After weeks of calculating in the cold, their chief said "We can't work like this." and they stopped. Eventually the "coal work stopage" problem came to Churchill's attention. He took prompt action: "Give them their God Dam coal!" and they soon found the "optimium" mixture of incindary and explosive bombs. I would also like to tell a few little know facts about the nature of the relationship with the Russians in the last days of WWII and the nature of " the Russian advance." (in responce to River Ape's comments above.) The people of occupied Warsaw had a well organized but dormant undergound. In a few days the Rusian army would cross a river on the East and liberate the city. The Poles wanted to do it themselves first - They knew Stalin well. - So they launched a well coordinated attack on the German control points, which were usually located at major street intersection with a tank in the center of it. They had few guns, typically one for ever 10 men charging the fortified German contol points. That gun passed from one man to the next (They were attacking the German posts in line formation.) as the one recently carrying it was killed. Because the Germans were totally surprised and the Polish attack was well coordinated they actually captured several German tanks and many guns. They held at least a third of Warsaw for at least 10 days, hoping for the Russians to now cross the river. But the Russian did not. Stain wanted the Poles to fail, and they did when furrious Hitler threw every reservist he still had at the defiant Warsaw Poles. - He wanted to make a lesson of them so no other Polish city dared to try the same. The temporarly victorious liberators of Warsaw begged the western allies for air support and were quickly promissed it, but there was a problem. The distance from the nearest airfield the allies controlled to Warsaw, was more than half the max flight range. The planes would need to land in the Russian controlled fields east of Warsaw to refuel. Stalin refussed to let them land. It did not serve his post was plans (to own Poland) if the the poles, rather than the Russian army, liberated it. Many of these brave polish liberators were killed by posion gas the Germans pumped into the sewers they were wading thru in a desparate effort to live. They knew they would not if they surrendered to the Germans. (The German had a good supply of this type of gas still, but had to make gas for their tanks by the distructive distalation of coal. - Coal was important to both side.) I tell this history as it needs to be better known. (Think of it next time you hear a "Polish Joke." Would you charge a tank unarmed!) I tell it here in responce to River Ape's comments about the relations with Russians, who were allies, soon to take Dresden, so the raid was unjustified. The irony is that I strongly agree it was unjustied, but my reasons are different.
Im sorry you are losing me here , what relevance has this ? How about offering an alternative argument to mine ? I gave a good opinion as to why the bombing of Dresden happened and all you offer me is word play !
Why dont you enlighten me , after all you are the one to introduce this angle I would be extremely interested to read what you write .
