Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Reez on June 03, 2004, 12:19:26 am
-
This is for a debate i have this Saturday. Kinda antsy about it, cuz it's provincial level, and I want the trophy and the money, so I can buy an acoustic guitar and get some lessons during the summer. The topic is Be It Resolved That the Allied bombing of Dresden during the Second World War was necessary and justified.
I'm the Opposition, saying it was unjustified. Some fast facts about Dresden is that it was Germany's 7th largest city. It was fire-bombed, which was the allied equivalent of the German Luftwaffe. It was a major centre of arts in Germany, had alot of history and culture. It also had very little military placements, which is strange, cuz it's the capital of Saxony. It's estimated that up to 150 000 people died, which would put it above Hiroshima on the War Crimes. Churchill said in his memoirs that it had "strategic communications centres", but in a RAF statement, it clearly says "Show the Russians what Bomber Command can do". The Russians were coming through the East, and since was near the end of the war, tensions between the USSR and the rest of the Allies were friggin high. Also, the Germans were already retreating at this time, and the war was pretty much over. I know the negative better than the affirmative, because it's what I'm involved on. But from what I understand, there were troops moving through that General area to get to the Eastern front to reinforce the German troops against the Soviets.
That's about all I know. Any web pages you can add for me are great, and both sides of the case are awesome. I have four sites so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm)
http://learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/heroesvillains/churchill/default.htm (http://learningcurve.pro.gov.uk/heroesvillains/churchill/default.htm)
http://www.informationheadquarters.com/War/World_War_2/Bombing_of_Dresden.shtml (http://www.informationheadquarters.com/War/World_War_2/Bombing_of_Dresden.shtml)
Any help is appreciated!
-
you actually get money and prizes for debating poltics and/or history? my god, where do you live, and how can I get in on the deal?
if you want to get an emotional response, just mention how the bombing killed more people than the A-Bombs. That'll get them...
-
it will get them somewhat. but not enough. I have to bash Churchill here, in front of the Churchill society. And they're judging. So this is gonna be difficult. I'd like to completely avoid it if it can be helped. I won the city debate for this, so I got invited to the banquet of the churchill society. These guys are all fanatics, Churchill is their god. Me and the other debate teams that were invited came up with the theory that they meet once a week, drink alot of Scotch, dress up as Brits and Nazis, and re-enact their favorite world war scenes. They're freaky people.
-
You have to win to get the trophy and money, I assume? THat sucks, because a topic could be one that obviously has a right side and a wrong side. They should judge you on presentation and effectiveness, not win or lose.
That said, I don't know much about WWII history, so I'll quietly back out now... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Reez
it will get them somewhat. but not enough. I have to bash Churchill here, in front of the Churchill society. And they're judging. So this is gonna be difficult. I'd like to completely avoid it if it can be helped. I won the city debate for this, so I got invited to the banquet of the churchill society. These guys are all fanatics, Churchill is their god. Me and the other debate teams that were invited came up with the theory that they meet once a week, drink alot of Scotch, dress up as Brits and Nazis, and re-enact their favorite world war scenes. They're freaky people.
then you've come to the right man. Miserable gits and their Anglosphere BS.
Churchill for Dummies (http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec280.html)
some choice quotes from the man
I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.
This [revolutionary] movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky [Russia], Bela Kun [Hungary], Rosa Luxemburg [Germany], and Emma Goldman [the United States] ... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate ... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
-
Fire bombing was largely ineffective on german cities...
-
Originally posted by Viper1000
Fire bombing was largely ineffective on german cities...
Aside from flattening them, you mean?
-
It was unnecessary from the viewpoint that killing hundreds of thousands of civillians wouldn't stop the German army.
If it were me, I'd play the angle that slaughtering civillians as a method of phsychological warfare can be neither 'necessary' no 'justified' no matter the circumstances.
And that the entire point of the war was to stop genocide and that wiping out entire populations simply because they're German is blatant genocide.
Then there's the whole thing about it being nothing more than an opportunity for Bomber Command to show off (they even said so, many times) so they could get the go-ahead for attacking Berlin, but that they completely ignored the fact that if Dresden were a 17 century wooden fort, Berlin would be Cheyenne Mountain.
-
Y'know, a better way to have done this woulda been to have just started a thread about "Man, they kicked Dresden's ****en ass" and let nature take its course.
-
Personally I reckon Dresden was an attempt to pay Germany back for Coventry.
-
Definitely.
The RAF was itchin' to **** them up for that.
-
The object of the exercise was to horrify the Germans, making the consequence of continued resistance against the Allied invasion so horrific (i.e. another city loses a couple of hundred feet in height) that it'd be impossible to contemplate.
-
And Rictor, I still like Churchill.
-
You just lost. :D
Shortly:
1) Show of power
2) Vengeance
3) Attempt to demoralize population
4) Attempt to crush what little military stuff the city could have had (this is highly controversial, I wouldn't use it).
5) LET'S ROLL
Firebombing of Dresden was maybe the biggest mistake the Western Allies did in the entire ETO (after the war Soviets used it in their own propaganda) and has been subject to ~thousands of debates. Try the fallacious "appeal to emotion", and say that because WAs fought for freedom blah blah blah and were enraged cause of Hitler's decision to bomb civilian targets (Luftwaffe had continued to attack on military targets instead), following Hammurab's law could only result in more resistance. Expect to get flamed for this. ;) The bombing had little to do with war effort, since Germany was already moving troops to Eastern Front and basically trying to make the WAs get to Berlin before the Soviets.
Also, be aware that no really accurate details of civilian casualties of Dresden exist. All numbers are propably exaggerated in one way or another. Estimations vary from 20 000 to 220 000. Go figure.
-
Quotes from Sir Arthur [“Bomber”] Harris (1892-1984) - British Air Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command
“In Bomber Command we have always worke on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing.”
“I would not regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British grenadier.”
“The aim of the combined Bomber Offensive . . . should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.”
-
Damn right, too.
WW1 ****ed up war as a thing of heroes and WW2 ****ed up the concept of genocide being a good idea.
In the space of 20-30 years, thousands of years of military, social and cultural doctrine went out the window because some moron said "Hey, why not build big ditches to hide in?".
Up until WW1 the unrelenting slaughter of enemy civillians was common practice. Maybe not as a battle tactic, but if they started ****ing with the occupying troops, armies used to just fire into the crowd.
-
and how wonderful it was! the blood, the power, the sheer sense of being God almight over these helpless peasants!
don't worry, you'll grow up one day. And if not, you can always get a cushy job at some American think-tank, they're filled to the brim with people just like you.
-
It's times like these that I wonder why they bother wasting money teaching kids history.
I'll put this as simply as I can without using an excessive amount of custom smilies and 15-pt Comic Sans:
Every civilization in history has, at some point, engaged in offensive practices such as razing populated towns to the ground as a matter of course.
The colonials that founded America butchered hundreds of thousands of natives and use biological warfare against them.
The Aztecs and Incas made slaughter a part of their everyday lives.
The Romans...well, they used them as slaves, but they were like thousands of years ahead of everyone else.
Beginning to see a pattern?
-
Oh no, I'm not denying it hasn't been a pattern throughout history, what I am asking is, is that the best way? Its stupid to base your idealogy on historical observations alone. If everyone did that, women would have no right, neither would anyone of colour, the working class would be virtual-slaves (you among them), politics would be controled by a narrow elite (oh wait) and 85% of the population would be perpetually on the verge of starvation.
There is no reason at all why it is impossible to break the chain, if you will. I refuse to be governed by what happened before I was even born. I choose to live my life a certain way, and I'll be damned if the ghosts of history are going to tell me otherwise. You can cite examples till you're blue in the face, but you don't come a single step closer to proving that the idealogy is worth pursuing.
-
Hows about this: It is logistical and morale suicide to support defeated opponents.
It's a drain on resources, presents a potential for latter uprisings, rebellion and sabotage at critical moments during the war and essentially dumps an extra million people into your "Have to guard" column while you're struggling not to have your tanks blown to **** by the enemy, whom the captured citizens are probably feeding information to.
Dead people need no guards.
Infact, you don't even need to kill them. You just need to destroy the city. The goal should be to cause as much damage as possible regardless of casualties. Doing so absolutely destroys enemy morale and dumps a million people into their 'have to guard' column while wiping out ****loads of their resources and making sure they can never retake the city and its supplies.
If you say that bombing civillians is a no-no, you prolong the war and force yourself into a war of attrition, which will probably cause more suffering across a wider area than killing a few hundred thousands civillians and a few million homes to force an early conclusion.
-
Well, you can't see the bombing of Dresden as a seperate thing.
It was part of a bombing campaign that in all killed around 600.000 civilians apparently.
Completely senseless since the bombing aided the Nazis. Because of it they could come 'to the rescue' of the people making them more loyal to the regime. Just like the bombing of Coventry only strenghtened the resolve the British.
What's done is done. We can only hope enough people will talk about it so that it may never be forgotten (along with all the other horrors of war), and never be repeated*
*but that point is moot I fear.
-
Total war is a very simple concept - you don't just destroy the enemy's armies, you destroy his ability to supply, train and rebuild those armies. Kill the workers, as well as the fighters.
Morally repugnant as it may be, it will be the prevalent tactic in warfare for many, many years to come. We've just not really had a war since WW2 where it's been militarily or politically possible - that's the only reason why we live under the false supposition that modern warfare has somehow changed.
-
Beats me, that's a toughie.
1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.
2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Beats me, that's a toughie.
1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.
2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".
Who held the gun to Bomber Command's head, then?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Beats me, that's a toughie.
1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.
2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".
re 1 - not all Germans were Nazis - remember Hitler was a totalitarian dictator, not an elected leader.
-
ionia: that would imply collective responsibility, and you damn well know thats not true.
the civilian population can't be harmed for the actions of the military. at least not if you want to call yourself civilized...
aldo: I predict that large-scale civilian killings will become less and less aceptable in the future, not more. but then there's the question of whether they can succesfully be covered up, to which I hope the answer is no.
-
Re 2 : I agree, that was the tactics at the time, no amount of debate can change that, but was Dresden neccessary?. That's what the debate is about, and the question is quite a simple one when put like that....
This was an exercise designed to destroy the morale of an enemy that was already retreating in dis-array. Dresden played no further significant role in the War, it was not an obstacle to the Allied Troops, it was simply a case of 'Let's see how you like living in terror every night?'. However, it was a morale boosting exercise for troops and Allied civilians.
Was it nice? No. Was it any better than what happened to London, Coventry and many other places? No. We all played dirty then, we still play dirty now.
But was Dresden neccessary? The simple answer imho is 'no, it wasn't, but it sure made the Allied forces feel better at the time.'
-
Originally posted by Janos
Who held the gun to Bomber Command's head, then?
The Germans. Try to pay attention.
the civilian population can't be harmed for the actions of the military. at least not if you want to call yourself civilized...
Now that's a curious statement, coming from an American.
-
excuse me? American?
That made my day man, thanks.
-
It was fire-bombed, which was the allied equivalent of the German Luftwaffe.
Just so you have a better lay of the land...fire bombing has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe which is the German Air Force. The Luftwaffe is a similar organization to the Royal Air Force (RAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF - which later became the USAF), or the Russian VVS (which I forget what it translates to).
Fire bombing is a particular type of bombing obviously...it uses incendiary bombs which do less direct impact damage but ignite flammables and cause firestorms. Tokyo was also bombed in a similar way.
The pro points, although a precarious situation to be in, has several merits:
- Stalin had repeatedly pressed Churchill and the Allies for support of the Russian offensive (by opening a true second front in France and through bombing)
- Stalin was a loose canon and the Allies knew it and so they had to try and mitigate any further conflict after the war (Stalin believed that the next great conflict would pit the USSR vs the USA)...it could be argued that Dresden and other actions during the war may potentially have saved lives by reducing tensions and preventing nuclear holocaust when it was most possible)
- Dresden was apparently, although not heavily industrial and therefore not a strategic target in those terms, a center of communications for the German army as well as a main location of Panzer deployments against the Russian army
- Also keep in mind that (rightly or wrongly) the rules of engagement in a total war such as WWII, where the stakes by all the nations involved are huge, are quite different than launching a precision war against an enemy meerly to cripple war ability and press for peace
- Had the bombing of Dresden not taken place, for instance, crucial differences in the way the war went may well have altered history considerably prolonging the war on either front (or may have seen Hilter assassinated and someone better able to fight with the limited resources on hand...potentially even pushing back or halting the Russian advance - in war nothing is certain)
- The Allies had agreed that the war would only end with the total surrender of the Axis powers (another policy that is questionable but likely with good cause in the situation that created it)
These aren't necessarily points that mean the the bombing was morally justified but it could have been militarily or diplomatically justified. Something you may want to play on is to agree with the opposition on the point that from a removed historical perspective 60 years later...the bombing was a terribly wrong and horrific thing but within the context of the war where people were being randomly killed every day in London by V-1 buzz bombs, armies were advancing from east and west, and any diplomatic advantage to appease the USSR during the war and post war (the Allies NEEDED the USSR I believe to help win the war, otherwise it would have been much longer) and the overall notion of being engaged in a war where you could easily win or loose at a wrong turn, every advantage or possibility needed to be exploited no matter the cost.
Even when it looked like the Allies were winning...I believe that given the right circumstances the war coud easily have dragged on significantly longer had certain factors been in play (some calcuable and some left to random chance).
I've never debated at the provincial level but I've done local tournaments back in my high school days so I'm a bit familiar with how they work.
Whats the specific format (times for speaking, number of speakers, debat style)?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
excuse me? American?
That made my day man, thanks.
Yeah, I rarely care enough to remember the things you say.
I just assumed from your stupidity that you were American.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The Germans. Try to pay attention.
I pay attention, but I do not follow the logic of "they did it once, so we must do it now!".
-
On further consideration, I believe the bombing of Dresden was to prevent WW3.
After WW1, Germany was ****ed and annoyed and that's what led to WW2. They took all Germany's stuff then hung around to rape them some more till everyone was starving. They had to show that screwing with the Allies wasn't an option and by bombing Dresden and other cities they crippled Germany, made their point and made sure Germany wouldn't be a threat for decades to come without having to hang around and police them.
And then there's Stalin. They had to show him they weren't playing around to make the point that if he decided to get smart, Moscow would be turned into a flaming wasteland.
-
Originally posted by Janos
I pay attention, but I do not follow the logic of "they did it once, so we must do it now!".
"If you punch us, we'll shoot you."
It was a case of Germany having violated an unspoken agreement and the Allies having to show them that it was only similar such agreements that had kept the German public from being wiped from the face of the Earth.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, I rarely care enough to remember the things you say.
I just assumed from your stupidity that you were American.
*clap* *clap*
well played.
slip up for a single moment, and look what happens. try not to let it happen again.
-
Oh, but for the most part, my quip stands if you're from an American-esque country where the elected leader is also in command of the armed forces.
As was the case in Germany.
If the people elect the leader and the leader attacks someone, the people are responsible.
-
Was Dresden necessary? No.
Was it effective? Yes.
Dresden didn't have to be razed, but doing so gave the Allies (both military and civilian) a morale boost (by giving them a feeling that the Germans were now paying the price for their actions), and terrified the German population. The death toll was, of course, shocking, but the Second World War was the last "real" war involving competing world powers (i.e. Soviet Empire/Russia, USA, Britain/France/Germany/other European countries), where the outcome would determine the nature (or indeed very existance) of both sides. The winners have total control, and the losers lose everything. With such huge potential losses and gains, each side uses every tactic and strategy they can to gain the upper hand, be it military, material, physical or psychological.
If such a war broke out today, I can guarantee that similar tactics would be used again, ruthlessly and without hesitation. They would perhaps not be accepted to begin with (media coverage would show it at an altogether more personal level), the public would soon have a "Johnny foreigner had it coming" attitude, because they'd be suffering similar attacks themselves.
This is going off-topic a bit, but I sometimes feel we need another proper war to shake things into order. Nothing unites a people like a common enemy they can hate - they soon forget about all the pathetic little things they whine about the rest of the time. I know that's a terrible thing to say, but it's true...
-
World War 2 was probably the last war worth fighting. Everything else was just politics and nationalism.
Like the Falklands. Who gives a **** about the Falklands? They're worthless lumps of rain-soaked, fog-covered rock. They coulda just bombed the entire region into the sea.
And would I be wrong to say the Germans still thought they were winning the war?
-
that is, if the goal is to unify a country or region. if the goal is to spread basic tolerance, if not necessarily unity, to the whole of the world, then a war would only detract from that. you're thinking small. if a people need a common enemy to be united, **** em, they don't deserve unity.
and the attitude that Johnny foreigner had it coming exists to this day, even when the aggressor is suffering no loses. They're foreign, so they're worth less. They're foreign, so they're evil. They're foreign, so they are trying to destroy our wondeful freedom and unity and peace and looooove.
-
Uh, if you believe your form of government to be the best, then bombing everyone with even a slightly different government should be seen as a good idea.
If not, then you're basically saying you're happy to let them live under a ****ty government, which is the same as saying "They're foriegn, screw 'em".
-
its always always better to let people deal with their own problems than to impose your "solutions" on them. every tyranny in the history of mankind has been based on the principle that the tyrant knows whats best for everyone else.
if the choice is between excessive apathy or excessive intevention, the former is by far better.
the soviets invaded all of eastern europe in order to liberate them from the capitalists. but without missing a beat it turned into a dictatorship with almost no personal freedoms. every oppressor claims they are freeing the opporessed, that they know whats best for the whole world.
personal freedom = personal responsibility
You can't presume to take away the responsibility part without taking away the freeedom.
-
Sure you can.
You just tell them that they can do what the like as long as they do as they're told when you tell them to do something.
You tell them to build weapons, they build weapons. You don't tell them to build weapons and they can go paint a painting or smoke some crack or some ****.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Was Dresden necessary? No.
Was it effective? Yes.
Dresden didn't have to be razed, but doing so gave the Allies (both military and civilian) a morale boost (by giving them a feeling that the Germans were now paying the price for their actions), and terrified the German population. The death toll was, of course, shocking, but the Second World War was the last "real" war involving competing world powers (i.e. Soviet Empire/Russia, USA, Britain/France/Germany/other European countries), where the outcome would determine the nature (or indeed very existance) of both sides. The winners have total control, and the losers lose everything. With such huge potential losses and gains, each side uses every tactic and strategy they can to gain the upper hand, be it military, material, physical or psychological.
[stuff]
You are aware that Dresden happened in spring 1945, it had nothing to do with winning the war effort, so most of your reasons for it are do not apply? It was also among the last major cities in Germany which was bombed (most of other major cities were already reduced in ashes at this point, but Dresden was quite intact and thus filled with refugees), so the point was already moot. Neither did the terror bombings demoralize your average worker (mostly women, invalids, children and POWs at the point, plus Dresden was sparse of industry of importance).
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, if you believe your form of government to be the best, then bombing everyone with even a slightly different government should be seen as a good idea.
If not, then you're basically saying you're happy to let them live under a ****ty government, which is the same as saying "They're foriegn, screw 'em".
:wtf: So you happily support bombing everyone else, or are you edgy and angsty? Feeling a little genocidial there, are we? :p (Try to be relativist and use your wits in some issues, FFS.)
-
He's angsty, and trying very desperatly to be radical for its own sake. Some people put 18" chrome wheels on their car and an underglow, some people argue for tyranny and war. Different sides of the same coin.
Originally posted by Rictor
personal freedom = personal responsibility
You can't presume to take away the responsibility part without taking away the freeedom.
Originally posted by an0n
as long as they do as they're told
-
After the war Robert Saunby, Deputy Air Marshal at Bomber Command, commented on the bombing of Dresden.
That the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
aldo: I predict that large-scale civilian killings will become less and less aceptable in the future, not more. but then there's the question of whether they can succesfully be covered up, to which I hope the answer is no.
I think... that human nature is to hate an agressor, i.e. a 'mortal' enemy. In this context, it becomes good vs evil, and - to a population fighting for its very survivial - revenge is as much important as military gains. I don't think we've had this sort of war - at least in terms of scale* - since WW2. I think that, in another world war or similar, civillian casualties on the other side would be considered of low importance - hate is, after all, a very useful defensive tool.
Obviously, the more notable wars of recent times - Vietnam as a prime example^ - have been more or less mismatches, where one country is safe regardless of the outcome. In these cases, the civillian casualties caused by the larger power have had a massive effect.
I think that people will permit civillian casualties if their won lives are in danger from the war. But I think the increased media involvement in conflicts has led to this being the only case where they will be - it's an issue of 'self-defense' versus 'not in my name'.
*not sure on other conflicts (esp. the former Yugoslavia)....although the most similar wars taking place today are, I believe, between countries without the military ability to wage a 'total' war on the other side.
^i.e. of a war where civillian casualties and political impact overweighed the military aspect
-
Of course, there's a key point being overlooked here.
The German Army could have tried something brilliant like, well, ya know, surrendering. Go figure that.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Just so you have a better lay of the land...fire bombing has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe which is the German Air Force. The Luftwaffe is a similar organization to the Royal Air Force (RAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF - which later became the USAF), or the Russian VVS (which I forget what it translates to).
Fire bombing is a particular type of bombing obviously...it uses incendiary bombs which do less direct impact damage but ignite flammables and cause firestorms. Tokyo was also bombed in a similar way.
The pro points, although a precarious situation to be in, has several merits:
- Stalin had repeatedly pressed Churchill and the Allies for support of the Russian offensive (by opening a true second front in France and through bombing)
- Stalin was a loose canon and the Allies knew it and so they had to try and mitigate any further conflict after the war (Stalin believed that the next great conflict would pit the USSR vs the USA)...it could be argued that Dresden and other actions during the war may potentially have saved lives by reducing tensions and preventing nuclear holocaust when it was most possible)
- Dresden was apparently, although not heavily industrial and therefore not a strategic target in those terms, a center of communications for the German army as well as a main location of Panzer deployments against the Russian army
- Also keep in mind that (rightly or wrongly) the rules of engagement in a total war such as WWII, where the stakes by all the nations involved are huge, are quite different than launching a precision war against an enemy meerly to cripple war ability and press for peace
- Had the bombing of Dresden not taken place, for instance, crucial differences in the way the war went may well have altered history considerably prolonging the war on either front (or may have seen Hilter assassinated and someone better able to fight with the limited resources on hand...potentially even pushing back or halting the Russian advance - in war nothing is certain)
- The Allies had agreed that the war would only end with the total surrender of the Axis powers (another policy that is questionable but likely with good cause in the situation that created it)
These aren't necessarily points that mean the the bombing was morally justified but it could have been militarily or diplomatically justified. Something you may want to play on is to agree with the opposition on the point that from a removed historical perspective 60 years later...the bombing was a terribly wrong and horrific thing but within the context of the war where people were being randomly killed every day in London by V-1 buzz bombs, armies were advancing from east and west, and any diplomatic advantage to appease the USSR during the war and post war (the Allies NEEDED the USSR I believe to help win the war, otherwise it would have been much longer) and the overall notion of being engaged in a war where you could easily win or loose at a wrong turn, every advantage or possibility needed to be exploited no matter the cost.
Even when it looked like the Allies were winning...I believe that given the right circumstances the war coud easily have dragged on significantly longer had certain factors been in play (some calcuable and some left to random chance).
I've never debated at the provincial level but I've done local tournaments back in my high school days so I'm a bit familiar with how they work.
Whats the specific format (times for speaking, number of speakers, debat style)?
I thought Luftwaffe was the German carpet bombing method. I'll just call it German carpet bombing now to minimize confusion, which is probably my own. Anyways.
As we saw in the Cold War, trying to intimidate a powerful country doesn't work. The Cold War was basically a war of intimidation between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Also, remember that the U.S.S.R had no nuclear weapons until 1949, so the threat didn't need to be stated. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USSR rebelled against alot of things, and they were put down every time by the American threat of nuking em.
The evidence for the Panzer divisions and the communications is also under fire (no pun intended). The fact is that there has been no evidence found to prove either case. What has been found are refugees and civilians and alot of destroyed and/or damaged artwork.
Another thing we have to look at is the fact that the British and Americans were using the carpet bombing method of civilians as one of their MAJOR REASONS to attack Germany. It's quite hypocritical to do that, then carpet bomb German civilians. And army brass should know that not everyone is a Nazi. There was really no point to destroying the city, however you look at it
The fact was at the time, the war was won, there was just all the paperwork left to fill out. The Germans had been pushed out of Africa, Italy was gone (even if they did get their asses kicked by Ethiopians with spears... that's pretty bad), most of their generals had committed suicide, defected, or fled, and there was no way that their industrial base could keep up with Britain AND the US AND the USSR. The only chance Hitler had was if they started fighting against each other, and they very nearly did.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Of course, there's a key point being overlooked here.
The German Army could have tried something brilliant like, well, ya know, surrendering. Go figure that.
Please. You're really not that ignorant.
Germany had no idea to surrender to anyone, especially not after Jaltan conference. Plus they had already de facto surrendered to Western Allies, it was Soviets they were fighting to keep away from Berlin.
**** it, I'm having a bad day. Going to sleep now, or at least I'll try - otherwise I just end up flaming everyone.
-
The Luftwaffe was the name of the German airforce. The carpet bombing of London was called the Blitz. The carpet bombing of Britain is called, at it's most intense, the Battle of Britain.
Hope that helps :)
-
Originally posted by Janos
Please. You're really not that ignorant.
Germany had no idea to surrender to anyone, especially not after Jaltan conference. Plus they had already de facto surrendered to Western Allies, it was Soviets they were fighting to keep away from Berlin.
**** it, I'm having a bad day. Going to sleep now, or at least I'll try - otherwise I just end up flaming everyone.
I don't think it's a statement of ignorance at all.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I don't think it's a statement of ignorance at all.
It's a statement of hindsight, which is irrelevant to topic at hand and outright ignores a great deal of historic events and contexts.
-
Originally posted by Janos
It's a statement of hindsight, which is irrelevant to topic at hand and outright ignores a great deal of historic events and contexts.
*shrug* Ya, that's true. But that's what all these ****ing arguments are...endless chains of 'tit-for-tats' that resolve nothing. There is no purpose to debating history. It already happened, it cannot be changed. All you can do is learn from it.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
*shrug* Ya, that's true. But that's what all these ****ing arguments are...endless chains of 'tit-for-tats' that resolve nothing. There is no purpose to debating history. It already happened, it cannot be changed. All you can do is learn from it.
Historism is dead.
Study of history is study of philosophy, sociology, theology, military and so on. Studying history for history's sake is no longer valid, but studying history is very effective means to understand some basic principes of society and humanity - "learning from history", as you said. The purpose of debating history can appear a circle-jerk, but seeing how many sciences (minus "hard sciences", like mathematics) are strictly dependandt on their historical context, debating on what originated those trends and how history has affected them is not irrelevant.
I, personally, have much more respect for history than maths. Maths is crushing numbers - history is understanding the world. [Paging way for mathematicians to arrive in 5... 4... 3...]
-
Prepared Statement: I am no longer participating in this thread due to Rictor's inability to grasp the simplest concepts.
-
hehe, you said "grasp"
-
Originally posted by Janos
You are aware that Dresden happened in spring 1945, it had nothing to do with winning the war effort, so most of your reasons for it are do not apply? It was also among the last major cities in Germany which was bombed (most of other major cities were already reduced in ashes at this point, but Dresden was quite intact and thus filled with refugees), so the point was already moot. Neither did the terror bombings demoralize your average worker (mostly women, invalids, children and POWs at the point, plus Dresden was sparse of industry of importance).
Er, I'm not sure you understood what I said. It had no military or strategic significance, but it was devastatingly effective in a psychological way. It scared the **** out of the German civilian population (if ther weren't already), and gave the Allies satisfaction of feeling that the Germans were paying the price for all the stuff they did to them earlier in the war (razing Coventry and Exeter, trying to raze London, torpedoing ships full of children, etc).
Originally posted by ionia23Of course, there's a key point being overlooked here.
The German Army could have tried something brilliant like, well, ya know, surrendering. Go figure that.
No. As people have said, it was total war. You can't just say "Well done, chaps, you beat us good! Now let's go back to our own lives" and carry on as if nothing happened like happens today. The vast majority of people in, say, America don't give a toss what happens in the Middle East because it doesn't affect their lives directly (or at least they can't see the effects). They'd be perfectly happy to ingore it and get on with their lives.
But if a load of countries suddenly thought "hey, we're fed up with all the **** that the US has been giving us for years, let's get rid of them" and invaded the Eastern seaboard, they'd soon change their minds because they'd be fighting an enemy that was trying to destroy their country.
That's the situation that faced Germany in 1945. They had been beaten back to inside their own borders, penned in between the most powerful military forces ever seen. They were facing the destruction of their nation (which is, indeed, what happened). Surrender was simply not an option - it was fight or die. If the Germans had managed to invade Britain, the same thing would have happened - everyone would fight to the death rather than become part of a German empire. If the Japanese or Germans had reached the US, they would have been fought tooth and nail until either one side was destroyed.