Yeah...your point is??

  1. Hey OP can you give me a link to the original template vid clip? Can't seem to find it with my level of google fu

  2. Actually my grandma has seen Dresden burn from a few hundred kilometers away when she was little kid. It's pretty much my only close and personal connection to WWII for me and that is kind of wierd when I think about it...

  3. We are still digging up bombs every few months.... Some cities have to evacuate parts of the city center every other year. Fortunately they get disarmed quickly and I cant thinkn of any actually exploding.

  4. I should clarify- I'm not saying don't talk about the Dresden Bombing at all. But it strikes me as interesting when people bring it up in relation to the numerous atrocities committed by the Nazis- as if to excuse their actions because the Allies retaliated in this way. "Well the concentration camps and extermination of millions of people was bad, but what about the fact the Allies responded to their own cities being invaded and bombed by bombing the Nazis back?" It's essentially a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the reality of the Holocaust by charging hypocrisy...when in fact there is none.

  5. I agree. I find it fascinating debating wether it was a warcrime or not and if it had any military significance.

  6. Not to mention the bombing of Dresden wasn’t anymore terrible or more focused on civilians than any other bombing during the war. It’s weird that it’s always singled out

  7. Whataboutism should never be accepted in a rational conversation. There were atrocities on all sides, but none should be seen as justifying or canceling another.

  8. Same deal when you mention the HORRIFIC thing the Japanese got up to with POW’s and people bring up Japanese POW’s in US abs Aussie camps. Okay cool story bro but they weren’t dismembered alive for shits and giggles

  9. If we only lop off x number of heads rather than a much greater number, it is not a no-lopping-off-of-heads kind of arguement. No cause can justify the murder of innocents

  10. Yup. I feel the same way when people bring up Japanese war crimes when there’s a discussion on the holocaust. Or when talking about Native American genocide and people reply that other countries did it too. It’s all really bad. It’s silly to compare atrocities and it just feels like people are downplaying or rationalizing one by bringing up another. I think it’s important to remember it’s not a contest. If someone’s grandmother died a normal person would not respond with “oh yeah well my whole family is dead” or “people die all the time”.

  11. Oh wow, I completely misunderstood. Just from the meme I assumed you were upset that people didn't take the bait. Very different when I read your follow-up. Thanks for clarifying.

  12. Personally I don't try to use it as an excuse for the Holocaust, but as proof that everyone in this war got a lot of innocent blood on his hands. Same with Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the war crimes of Russia, Poland etc.

  13. I bring it up, alongside other many atrocities that dont get mentioned from both allies and axis. Noone is to be excused in a war. Nazis and Japanese did the worst most of the time, that is a no brainer, but its amazing the disturbing things you find out some allies did too, and in some cases, got away with it too.

  14. I find it the opposite, that people will use the atrocities of the Nazis as to excuse those of the Allies. And there is some machaevlian argument as Strategic and Nuclear Bombing likely did bring the war to an end years early, thus saving lifes.

  15. No. The Dresden bombing, by Churchill's own words, was an act of terrorism against German civilians. Say it for what it was, an attrocity. Does it excuse Nazi attrocities? Ofcourse not. But dont downplay one attrocity to make a point about another attrocity. It makes you guilty of what you were intending to highlight was wrong.

  16. My wife’s grandfather was a Lancaster Bomber pilot who was on the Dresden raid. His story is that the pathfinders were late, there were so many bombers in the air there were collisions. They decided to drop their payload wherever and head for home. Civilians had fled the city into the woods and were hit.

  17. Yes, but they deserved it. When people supported nazi, they shall saw their death coming at any moment.

  18. Miss all of the targets of importance despite them being lit up by pathfinder markers while the USAF is significantly more effective with less bombers and using H2X?

  19. But Dresden was an important economic hub. Military transportation went through the city everyday

  20. It's horrible that it happened at all. But acknowledging that the Dresden firebombings were awful doesn't magically de-Holocaust the Jews.

  21. Nuking Japan was something the US wanted to do to flex with their bombs. Doesn't make the Japanese War crimes less horrible, but as someone above mentionened, evil isn't a zero sum game. Poland also killed innocent German civilians escaping from previously German cities. Doesn't get justified by the Holocaust either.

  22. That's called a firestorm, it's real and did happen to several cities during world war II in both Germany and Japan.

  23. Mad bomber Harris killed a huge number of kids, but it’s ok because they were a different race. That’s what I am reading between the lines here.

  24. Same deal when you mention the HORRIFIC thing the Japanese got up to with POW’s and people bring up Japanese POW’s in US abs Aussie camps. Okay cool story bro but they weren’t dismembered alive for shits and giggles

  25. Exactly. Everyone always feels the need to defend Japan because atomic bombs were dropped on it and because it’s anime land, but the Japanese forces raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of people in China and southeast asia. We can’t just forgive them for this shit so easily

  26. It’s just deflection. It’s hiding behind other parts of war to not talk about genocide. If you want to talk about strategic bombing, then do it. Bringing it up when talking about the Holocaust doesn’t make sense.

  27. It's not about downplaying the holocaust. It's not zero-sum, the fact that the allies did some bad shit doesn't magically un-gas the jews.

  28. They did, several times. They hit Berlin a couple weeks before Dresden in an attempt to disrupt Sepp Dietrich’s army from redeploying east. It didn’t work, and Dietrich’s tanks went from Berlin to Dresden, then straight down the Dresden-Prague-Vienna line.

  29. ( prob gonna get downvoted for hell ) but main point in my point of view is that in war it isn't black and white , there aren't any good nations , only those who have done less crimes or were able to sweep it under the rug better , the Dresden bombing , though theoratically nessecary and a military based operation was still a war crime and that is not the only " war crime " different nations have done , the Dresden bombing being a war crime doesn't nessecarily exclude any axis war crimes or crimes against humanities , such as the holocaust , abuse of POWs and others , but it mainly is used to show that not all powers are clear of evil or there was a actual " good guys " in the war , but only bad and worse guys ( feel free to comment your opinions )

  30. Atrocities are atrocities regardless of who committed them, what the germans did is unthinkable, but it should never be forgotten that the germans where like everyone else except more so. You look at the history of any country founded on imperialism and you will find it rich in genocide and ethnic cleansing, and in the context of ww2, it should not be forgotten that the allies did much like the germans the japanese, the russians and the italians have the blood of many innocent lives on their hands. Scale becomes a factor but they are all guilty.

  31. That’s because it wasn’t one. Nowadays we think in terms of the Geneva Conventions, but in WWII, war times were primarily defined by The Hague Conventions, which gave zero fucks when it came to the well-being of civilians outside occupation zones.

  32. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We can’t use atrocities to rationalize other atrocities, that’s just not fair. That’s not how it works unless you subscribe to Hammurabis law. Fire bombing civilian areas with no military value at the end of a war seeking to inflict maximum casualties is unequivocally evil. Lets be fair and judge civilian mass murder for what it is.

  33. The bombing of Dresden-which was a completely legitimate military target and thus a justified bombing (not to mention one of the most Nazified cities in the Reich)-has been used by Holocaust deniers and pro-Nazi polemicists-in an attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the war crimes committed by the Nazi government and the killing of Nazi civilians by Allied bombing raids.

  34. I usually only bring it up to show that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t special or uniquely terrible

  35. Kurt Vonnegut wrote a book about it its really interesting to see a grotesk perspective through a German American eyes

  36. That number is pretty highly inflated. Most sources estimate about 35 000 at most, which is still a horrific number, but the fact that this author gets it so wrong makes me question his motives. And while I won't say that Dresden was the most strategic target for the allies to target, it was still a railway hub and destroying it further helped cause chaos and break down Germanys infrastructure.

  37. Unfortunately, Vonnegut didn’t know the casualty count offhand and turned to what was considered the definitive book on the subject: The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving. It would be another twenty years before Irving was outed as a Holocaust denier who’d used false documents to support Nazi apologia, including the highly inflated figures Vonnegut cited.

  38. Moral of the story genocide is ok when you win the war, otherwise we would be speaking German talking about the American holocaust against Japanese people lol

  39. I mean besides the civilian fatalities, the Allies wiped out one of the oldest, most preserved, and largest medieval cities... A lot of history was lost for a city that had no strategic interest whatsoever. Ruined it for everyone. I find it kind of sad that some people wouldn't care about this as your post suggests.

  40. The difference is why people in dresdan died to end a war sooner the victims of the holocaust died because they were hated by the ruling party

  41. Why bring this up when you can talk about nuking Japan instead. If you’re going for the worst thing the allies did, then surely you skip Dresden and talk about nukes. Or if you’re looking for German victims specifically, then shotguns and flamethrowers are surely more of a concern.

  42. I mean you can’t really equate the two events in terms of harm done but the Dresden bombings were still messed up. Not saying you don’t think they were and I know the “who gives a fuck” is just a joke but some people (not OP) are very callous about that event. That event was still a war crime and didn’t really contribute to any sort of damage to the German war effort in February 1945, three months before the wars end. It was really just part of the ongoing British revenge bombing campaign for the blitz of London in 1940.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may have missed