Page 3 of 3
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:14 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
uwot wrote:Indeed. It is possible to remove the bombing of Dresden from any context and see it as an isolated act of utter lunacy, but that isn't what happened. I wouldn't argue that it was justified, but there are circumstances that might be considered in mitigation. Germany was developing all sorts of new and interesting ways of killing people on industrial scales. It was only just prevented from developing an atomic bomb by six very brave Norwegians. They had developed cruise and ballistic missiles and were working on enhancing their range. The allies knew what this meant, most were Imperial powers that had gained the empire by exploiting technological advantages; in the case of Australia for instance, the artillery at the disposal of the invaders met almost no resistance from blokes armed with loin clothes and sticks. The Germans had missed the empire building boat and were keen to catch up. Hitler apparently didn't think of Britain as a natural enemy and according to some sources, thought we could carve up the planet between us. Edward VIII apparently agreed, as did Oswald Moseley. It's probably a good thing they weren't listened to, certainly if you are Jewish, Gypsy, homosexual, handicapped; in fact anything but blue eyed, blond and in perfect physical and mental health.
Dresden was horrific, but they were horrific times.
I certainly seems like you are justifying it.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:42 am
by mickthinks
uwot: I wouldn't argue that it was justified, but there are circumstances that might be considered in mitigation.
veggie: I certainly seems like you are justifying it.
It certainly seems like you don't understand the difference between justification and mitigation, veggie!
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:51 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
mickthinks wrote:uwot: I wouldn't argue that it was justified, but there are circumstances that might be considered in mitigation.
veggie: I certainly seems like you are justifying it.
It certainly seems like you don't understand the difference between justification and mitigation, veggie!
They are both equally offensive here, just as it's offensive when people 'mitigate' the concentration camps and gassings etc.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:11 am
by mickthinks
They are both equally offensive here, ...
I disagree, and I think if you thought more about it, you would too.
... just as it's offensive when people 'mitigate' the concentration camps and gassings etc.
You talk about people mitigating the death camps as if you personally had heard them. Can you cite some examples to show how a plea of mitigation is as offensive as a claim of justification?
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:15 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
mickthinks wrote:They are both equally offensive here, ...
I disagree, and I think if you thought more about it, you would too.
... just as it's offensive when people 'mitigate' the concentration camps and gassings etc.
You talk about people mitigating the death camps as if you personally had heard them. Can you cite some examples to show how a plea of mitigation is as offensive as a claim of justification?
I'm not interesting in you or your trollish nit-picking mickstinks. I've never seen you do anything else.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:37 am
by mickthinks
So if someone asks you a question which you don't want to answer, that's
trolling?
Then prepare to be trolled night and day, dude!
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:39 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
mickthinks wrote: So if someone asks you a question which you don't want to answer, that's
trolling?
Then prepare to be trolled night and day, dude!
Then prepare to be ignored, troll.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:52 am
by mickthinks
If a question is obviously a reasonable and significant one, then ignoring it just makes you look weak, I reckon. Your choice, though ...
... just as it's offensive when people 'mitigate' the concentration camps and gassings etc.
You talk about people mitigating the death camps as if you personally had heard them. Can you cite some examples to show how a plea of mitigation is as offensive as a claim of justification?
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:35 pm
by uwot
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:mickthinks wrote:uwot: I wouldn't argue that it was justified, but there are circumstances that might be considered in mitigation.
veggie: I certainly seems like you are justifying it.
It certainly seems like you don't understand the difference between justification and mitigation, veggie!
They are both equally offensive here, just as it's offensive when people 'mitigate' the concentration camps and gassings etc.
I've not heard anyone suggest there were mitigating circumstances regarding those things (incidentally, I understand that concentration camps are a British invention dating from the Boer War). I have heard of Holocaust deniers, of course and assorted Nazi apologists, but it would be disproportionate to equate anything I have said with nutters like that. I'm sure you agree, vegetariantaxidermy.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:39 pm
by Blaggard
Indeed death camps were pure Nazi though. :S
I don't think anyone on this thread is acting as an apologist for the appalling actions of governments and allied CinC in war though it has to be said.
It's a good point for years Germany had been bombing civillian centers and killing thousands of innocent men women and children. It does not excuse tit for tat, but it does make it at least a little more understandable. Still a **** thing to do though let's face it. Overnight it brought us down to the level of savages, and it made our air force on a par with the Rocketry attacks Germany had perpetrated. It was a sorry way to end a war, and let's not forget Hamburg and Bremen were carpet bombed too. Bomber Harris should of been before the Hague with Nazi war criminals, there is no justification that can be made for such wanton destruction of civillian lives, on any side. And indeed Britain has since apologised for the war crime, so it's hardly contentious it was one.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:49 pm
by Arising_uk
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm not interesting in you or your trollish nit-picking mickstinks. I've never seen you do anything else.
If this is the description of a troll then you can't really have them in philosophy as its nit-picking par excellence.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:15 pm
by uwot
Arising_uk wrote:If this is the description of a troll then you can't really have them in philosophy as its nit-picking par excellence.
Ahem! It's
it's nit-picking, Arising. Apostrophes, sir.
Re: Dresden
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:18 pm
by Arising_uk
See!
Re: Dresden
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:42 pm
by Hjarloprillar
Thus my initial hesitation at making OP.
Dresden always ends up with not 2 sides but a Myriad of views .
All posters have very valid points. And those points crossover to others. Till we come to place called.
["It and ww2 should not have happened.
100 million dead all told.]
This is philosophy forum. We ask why.. not how or what.
Some excellent posts
I, if no one else learned something.
Prill