Regardless I don't see why the method of killing matters, a civilian starved in Leningrad or a civilian turned into shadow by the atomic fireball, they are both dead civilians.
Then why didn't Britain also declare war on the Soviet Union. It's almost as if a certain ~~*group*~~ was pulling the strings
2 years ago
Anonymous
>let’s declare war two very powerful nations for no discernible strategic advantage
2 years ago
Anonymous
oops, you just admitted they didn't actually care about Poland and it was about bringing down Germany and only Germany.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>let’s get ourselves absolutely killed so that we stand no chance of helping whatsoever
2 years ago
Anonymous
>USSR in 1939 >very powerful nation
The USSR was a shithole back then. They couldn't even annex Finland in '40. The largest Empire on earth could've defeated 1939 USSR if they wanted to
>Britain actually instigated war with Germany because Germany was an imperial competitor that threatened to push them out of European markets and weaken the British empire.
This was only part of the reason. Implying ~~*Rothschild*~~ had nothing to do with it is just ignorant
2 years ago
Anonymous
The BEF didn’t even number a million, while the red army had several. Fighting that, on top of Nazi Germany is a completely losing proposition that nobody in their right mind would gamble on.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The BEF didn’t even number a million, while the red army had several
Superior numbers isn't a winning factor in modern war, and if it was the BEF wasn't the only forces the British Empire had. They had the Canadians, ANZACs, British Raj etc all at their disposal.
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that without lend lease the Soviets would've lost WW2. If Britain declared war on the USSR there would've been no way that America would've given lend lease to the Soviets
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even with the commonwealth, the empire would be outnumbered more than two to one. You’re not wrong that numbers aren’t everything, but that’s still an insane proposition to follow through on. You’d need to win air superiority, while the Luftwaffe is bombing you, and you’re fighting the Wehrmacht.
Only a moron would willingly get into a fight like that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You’d need to win air superiority
The RAF were able to win air superiority against the Luftwaffe
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Germans tried to pawn off a million Hungarian israelites to the British in 1943 in exchange for war materials to use against the USSR.
Both Heydrich and the Hungarian israelite who both came up with the plan were certain that the influential israelites in America would come to the aid of these israelites and save them.
In reality the British turned down the offer outright, because they didn't want to potentially upset the Soviets by supporting the Germans against them behind their back.
The British cared much more about winning the war and their place in the balance of power after the war, than they did about any israelites.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The Germans tried to pawn off a million Hungarian israelites to the British in 1943 in exchange for war materials to use against the USSR
Well of course Britain rejected that offer, they weren't going to give war material to the country they were at war with. That doesn't disprove Britain being run by israelites
2 years ago
Anonymous
Britain wasn't run by israelites it was run by the interests of British money, just as Germany was run by German money.
The ideology either side epoused was just a means to an end, both for domestic and foreign objectives.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Britain wasn't run by israelites
Sure...
2 years ago
Anonymous
German israelite hatred was literally just an excuse to expropriate israeli assets and wage a moral crusade in Eastern Europe.
It was completely cynical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sure, had nothing to do with israelites trying to launch a communist revolution in Germany. Or israelites signing the treaty of Versailles. Or israeli bankers destroying the economy of Weimar Germany. Or the israeli controlled Weimar Republic being filled with degeneracy
2 years ago
Anonymous
NPC take.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If they cared so much about israelites they would have surely been much better at accepting refugees from Germany.
Britain actually instigated war with Germany because Germany was an imperial competitor that threatened to push them out of European markets and weaken the British empire.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NTAYRT but it would makes no sense to start one big fight that you will lose over two you can manage. That’s quite literally why operation unthinkable was planned.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The British Empire was able to defeat the USSR back in 1939
2 years ago
Anonymous
Operation unthinkable was never going to happen lol, the Americans never took it seriously.
I mean why would they make so much effort helping the USSR conquer eastern Europe only to then fight them all of the way out again, likely at the cost of more men than the entire rest of the war.
Just one of Churchill's moralistic daydreams.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Plus FDR pushing so hard for the soviets to enter war against Japan despite knowing he had the bomb because he wanted to hand China over to his boyfriend Stalin. Probably would have tried to give him Hokkaido too at least if the crippled homosexual didn't die early.
I'm too moronic too even understand what you are implying. How can one be one the moral high ground when commiting war crimes? The idea of a war crime is based on ethics.
Also I have no idea why neo-nazis focus so much on dresden when campaigns like Hamburg or Berlin were way worse
>Bombing of Dresden >War crime
I suggest you actually look at the text of the Hague Conventions instead of going by the "It makes muh feefees hurt in muh anus" definition of warcrimes.
It's interesting how a scientist (Heisenberg) on Germany's side refused to work on developing the A-bomb for ethical reason, but israelites still brag to this day about how 'great' and 'brilliant' they were for their role in the Manhattan Project.
>It's interesting how a scientist (Heisenberg) on Germany's side refused to work on developing the A-bomb for ethical reason,
The frick? He never refused anything, and certainly not on ethical reasons. He was aiming at a reactor because he completely misunderstood the mechanism for fast neutron propagation and thought that the amount of fissile material you'd need for a working bomb would be in the order of a metric ton, which would be completely impractical for a bomb.
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13518370-300-heisenbergs-principles-kept-bomb-from-nazis/ >In reality, he says, the tapes seem to confirm Heisenberg’s later claims; that he tried to keep his research programme free of military control, and avoided working on an atomic bomb.
The article tries to spin it as him not wanting to give the bomb to 'muh evil Nazis' as was to be expected of the lying press but really he didn't want a weapon whose entire point is the mass slaughter of innocent civilians to be created. He did not expect the Allies would be unscrupulous enough to build a bomb so he was shocked when he heard that Japan had been nuked. He failed to account for the fact that israelites see goyim civilians as cattle fit to be killed if it serves their interest.
Go read the Farm Hall tapes https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English101.pdf. His "shock" over the atomic bombing, at least what he expressed to Otto Hahn and the others in what he thought was private was over the massive amounts of uranium he thought would be necessary to construct a bomb, and the R&D levels necessary to make it happen and turn it into a practical weapon, not that there was any moral dimension to it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Read the rest of the article I posted.
The fact remains that he had a lot of the insights necessary to build a bomb but that he mostly kept to himself and avoided divulging them to military people. Also he avoided working towards making a bomb. Your posts convey the usual narrative that that he failed because he simply lacked the farsightedness of the 'genius' allied scientists but that's nonsense. The point is that is you aren't actively working towards something you won't make as much progress, have as many ideas, etc. The israelites were relentless and systematic in wanting to build their goy-slaughtering bomb marshaling fellow-traveling scientists and golems on a massive scale. Heisenberg wasn't even trying.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Read the rest of the article I posted.
I did, it's nonsense.
>The fact remains that he had a lot of the insights necessary to build a bomb but that he mostly kept to himself and avoided divulging them to military people.
What, and he constructed a careful bullshit narrative that he told to his friends when he was no longer in a position to work on anything for the war? That he only got corrected when he actually got into contact with the MH people? That seems.... unlikely.
> Also he avoided working towards making a bomb
Because he thought, and I'll quote his own words in translation here (And some of Weiszacker for context)
>WEIZSÄCKER: Even if we had got everything that we wanted, it is by no means certain whether we could have got as far as the Americans and the English have now. It is not a question that we were very nearly as far as they were but it is a fact that we were all convinced that the thing could not be completed during this war.
>HEISENBERG: Well that's not quite right. I would say that I was absolutely convinced of the possibility of our making a uranium engine but I never thought that we could make a bomb and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine and not a bomb. I must admit that.
Or something like this
>HEISENBERG: Yes. (Pause) About a year ago, I
heard from SEGNER (?) from the Foreign Office that the Americans had threatened to drop a uranium bomb on Dresden if we didn't surrender soon. At that time I was asked whether I thought it possible, and, with complete conviction, I replied: 'No'
>Your posts convey the usual narrative that that he failed because he simply lacked the farsightedness of the 'genius' allied scientists but that's nonsense
No, actually I didn't say anything at all like that, and you would know that if you read the post or the link.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine and not a bomb
The fact remains that the German scientists didn't want to build a bomb. That was the starting point. Then yeah maybe they convicted themselves they couldn't do it to resolve their moral dilemma and settled on that. But so what? If they had tried in earnest and systematically they obviously would have had more insights that they ended up having and would have been able to clear their misunderstandings. israelites, the supposed highly moral geniuses, on the other hand had no such scruples about slaughtering mere goyim and so went about it relentlessly. That difference is still highly significant.
The allies did not fight the war for moral reasons.
They fought for the same reason as the Germans did, to improve their standing as nations in European and international markets.
The purpose of Dresden was preserving allied forces for the post war competition and securing a better trade relationship with other nations in the post war.
The only response to the butchery of Dresden or the allied bombing campaign generally, is the same as the response to all of the atrocities of the war, that the entire war was unjustified, and that the allies as players in the international competition of nations were absolutely complicit in starting it.
Yes. > Hey we're actively trying to annihilate your cities but you can't bomb us back because muh historical buildings and civilians, that would be a crime, ok?
> Hey we're actively trying to annihilate your cities
Axis bombing of civilians, though still wrong, was nowhere near the level of the Allies and these were mostly collateral damage. Also, it was greatly exaggerated by allied propaganda. >muh civilians
Funny how the so-called 'moral high-ground' side gloats over women and children being slowly deep-fried to death while screeching about 'muh holocaust'.
Of course the Allies did more damage than the Axis, they had air superiority over Germany basically since 1941. They had the stronger military, that's why they won the war. Still, being lenient on the Germans would just have enabled them to do more damage, they were developing a nuke after all.
> Women and children
Oh you mean the children that would have shot any Ally they saw on sight?
Completely obliterating the German state, its capacity to produce anything, and its ability to fight was the only option to win this war. We wanted total war and we got it.
Dresden had no strategic importance, by the time it was bombed the war was pretty much won for the Allies and recruiting the civilians there would have made essentially no difference for the survival rate of the average allied soldier.
Imagine being such a massive homosexual that as a grown fighting man you are willing to roast to death tens of thousands of civilians, including infants, small children, women, the elderly, etc. to increase your survival rate by 0.00001%.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht both lost tens of thousands of soldiers fighting over Dresden
It’s an operational chokepoint and a transit hub it’s strategically important as shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
> it’s strategically important as shit
Yes according to the exaggerated propaganda reports of the war criminal themselves.
And even if it were, it doesn't justify indiscriminate area firebombing whose entire point was to kill civilians.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How is a major transit hub not strategically important? I’m what world does it not make sense to deny movement to an enemy army at a bottleneck? >indiscriminate area firebombing whose entire point was to kill civilians
According to the exaggerated propaganda reports of the war criminals themselves.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Right because Nazi war criminals are writing the WW2 histories and not the Allies. Of course.
If you use firebombs on such a massive scale, you are doing area firebombing by definition.
And the firebombing of Hamburg, which was not any better, was called 'Operation Gomorrah'. What does that tell you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Right because Nazi war criminals are writing the WW2 histories
That you are arguing this shows that to some extent they are >If you use firebombs on such a massive scale, you are doing area firebombing by definition.
Is there a limit? Is there some threshold that the Nazis were too incompetent to reach when they tried it? It’s called doing a thorough job. >it was operation Gomorrah
Yes, one can draw biblical parallels in city reduction
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That you are arguing this shows that to some extent they are
So someone contradicting the allied WW2 propaganda makes him a 'Nazi war criminal' but boiling innocents civilians to death doesn't. Nice logic. Besides, A lot of non-German Western texts admit that the Allied firebombing campaigns were basically war crimes. Even some the notoriously biased media.
>Is there a limit? Is there some threshold that the Nazis were too incompetent to reach when they tried it? It’s called doing a thorough job.
Germans attacks had a clear strategic point and were performed at critical times for Germany. Allied bombings happened when the war was already won. And yeah the scale was completely different which matters. And so what if Germany had done just as bad as the Allies? How does that justify killing innocent civilians? It doesn't. >Yes, one can draw biblical parallels in city reduction >city reduction
Nice euphemism for 'extermination by fire'.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So someone contradicting the allied WW2 propaganda makes him a 'Nazi war criminal' but boiling innocents civilians to death doesn't.
I argued that people like Goebbels effect the narrative. You chose to take it personally. Good job. >Besides, A lot of non-German Western texts admit that the Allied firebombing campaigns were basically war crimes. Even some the notoriously biased media.
Opinions differ. Others argue that they are justified. Those present better arguments. The alternative to strategic bombing is a prolonging of the bloodiest conflict in history. >Allied bombings happened when the war was already won
You win a war through continuous application of violence. Why would you put the gloves on when an enemy is on the ropes? You finish the job. The Nazis failed to do so with Great Britain and the USSR and they lost for it. >And so what if Germany had done just as bad as the Allies? How does that justify killing innocent civilians? It doesn't.
It’s justified because it ends the conflict that nation started. >Nice euphemism for 'extermination by fire'.
The German nation called for complete and total war. They should have thought before they spoke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I argued that people like Goebbels effect the narrative.
And the mainstream narrative you rely on is overwhelmingly pro-Allies and, dare I say, israeli. It is incomparably stronger that the influence of Goebbels' speeches. The victors write history after all. >Opinions differ. Others argue that they are justified. Those present better arguments. The alternative to strategic bombing is a prolonging of the bloodiest conflict in history.
Those arguments are viewed and weighted through the distorted lens of again the mainstream narrative. You are just repeating that. >You win a war through continuous application of violence. Why would you put the gloves on when an enemy is on the ropes? You finish the job. The Nazis failed to do so with Great Britain and the USSR and they lost for it.
You're dodging the point. The war was clearly lost. The German and Japanese economies were a fraction of the Allies'. The Axis had 100% lost at this point. So there was no reason to firebomb civilians. >It’s justified because it ends the conflict that nation started.
That Germany is responsible for starting the war is highly dubious. The Allies were heavily warmongering at the time, Also, Poland might have been massacring ethnic Germans and attacking Germany at various points. This is what Hitler claimed. Now we are supposed to believe that it's all propaganda but how do we know that if not through self-referential 'history written by the victors'. Even after the conquest of Poland that Hitler proposed peace to France and Britain (who had declared war on Germany) who refused. And so on. Bottom line, it's not clear who is really responsible for starting the war because the winning side will always 'prove' the other side was. What remains certain is that the Allies unnecessarily massacred innocent civilians in an horrifying way in an scale unprecedented in history.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Allies give Hiter numerous chances to stop his warmongering and landgrabs >Hitler breaks his promises every single time >Allies finally draw a line in the sand over Poland, make it clear tha invading Poland means war with Britain and France >Hitler invades Poland >some fatass 80 years later cries about how it was the Allies who started the war and they should've just let Hitler conquer the entire contintent
2 years ago
Anonymous
Haven't you read my post?
You are just parroting Allied propaganda without thinking. There's so much bullshit and lies written about WW2 and almost systematically with the same pro-Allies bias that we really can't tell who is primarily responsible for the war.
Also, you ignore the USSR which had a much larger territory and population than Germany before the war started. And it explicitly called for world conquest unlike Germany. Any reasonable strategy would have focused on increasing collaboration between Western and Central Europe to counter the Soviets. That would have been a true 'Balance of Powers' policy. Instead the Western Allies and Poland decided to antagonize Germany, massacring ethnic Germans with Hitler's complains about it being ignored and so on. You don't think the last part is true? Fine but I don't have to accept your biased version either. So ultimately we don't know for sure and so this justification for slaughtering innocents civilians doesn't hold.
In fact even if Hitler had been 100% to blame it still wouldn't justify the allied atrocities committed once the war was clearly won.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In reality a strong Germany was actually much more threatening to the interests of Britain and the US than giving some land to backwards Russia.
You seem to be trying to argue that the Allies were irrational and 'evil' and that's why their involvement and actions in the war wasn't justified, however in the end all parties were rational and self interested and their actions came from that not any morality, evil or not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Both sides were owned by israelites. Without being israelite-wise you cannot understand 20th century history properly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The German nation called for complete and total war. They should have thought before they spoke.
Yeah. Because 12-years old girls can consent to 'Total War' and to being firebombed.
It wasn't the same tactics because Germany had clear strategic objectives, wasn't overwhelmingly winning and the scale wasn't at all comparable.
Also, 'Total War' for Germany only meant the Home Front not that it was ok to mass firebomb civilians. That's just the Allied Propaganda version of it.
And I'm not even German but the passive-aggression with which you and others like you defend the NPC version of history is pretty amazing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Blitz was Germany bombing civilian centers like London in order to try and demoralize them. Not the Allies' fault that the Luftwaffe were shitters
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The Blitz was Germany bombing civilian centers like London in order to try and demoralize them
Again that was exaggerated by allied propaganda. And even then they weren't wiping out whole city sections with firebombs and had the clear objective of making Britain surrender at a critical time in the war. Compared to that Dresden was happened when the war was already won.
Besides the idea than one atrocity justify another is moronic. The civilians of Dresden, Hamburg,etc. weren't personally responsible for what the German leadership had done earlier in the war. Saying otherwise is just idiotic black/white thinking.
80,000 civilians died in Dresden, commie troony >starving/working of millions of Soviet POWs to death, the Camps, the Einsatzgruppen, and General Plan Ost.
Nooooooooooooooooooo not the heckin judeo-bolsheviks! Also reminder that no documents of general plan ost were ever found
German government has been trying to downplay the number of casualties to placate the western powers. The "official" german numbers have decreased over the decades.
First, no one can tell how many people were in the city. It was filled to the brim with fugitives.
Second, in the center of the city corpses were literally burnt to ash. The number of casualties is most likely much much higher than 25k.
There are still survivors alive in the city today. They do tell interesting stories, like about allied fighers flying low to strafe civilians. People burning alive from phosphor bombs. People getting stuck in molten asphalt.
About unfitting comparisons - Coventry was nothing compared to Dresden, how about that? No, a warcrime is still a warcrime. The difference is that the allies won the war. They were not the white knights in shining armor. Not to speak of the russians...who still havent learned anything.
And the argument that what the germans did was far worse is not a justification for allied warcrimes.
The germans have accepted their responsibility for what they did. Pretty much no other nation has done so.
The last time they tried leaving granny at home, some moron with a Charlie Chaplin mustache thought he needed to invade the whole world to reunite all the German grannies under one flag
>Eastern front >Unprovoked
The USSR wanted to take Europe. Soviet expansionism took place throughout the 30's and early 40's yet it was ignored by most of the world. Hitler had to strike east when he did to prevent the Soviets from becoming strong enough to spread the cancer of communism throughout all of Europe
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Would you support Ukrainians razing Russian cities to the ground with all the civilians in it if they ever managed to push them back over the border?
If you do, maybe it's time for you to grow up.
>bomb other cities, raze warsaw after the uprising annihilate stalingrad in battle etc >noooo you can't bomb dresden, where's the ICC to start a trial for this war crime!!!
>some housefrau in Dresden is personally responsible for bombing London. I hope she dies in a firestorm brought on by a self-admitted terror bombing campaign against civilian populations that reddit historians will make cope and excuses for 80 years in the future
Idk how you missed the point this much, the point was that germany did the same and saw no issue with doing it, to have a double standard of doing it yourself = fine and having it done to you = evil and wrong is comical.
I hate the israeli allies so fricking much
get over it
Didn't the nazis themselves bomb cities, though?
Not to the same extent. Also they didn't use firebombs or nukes.
They did use firebombs.
Regardless I don't see why the method of killing matters, a civilian starved in Leningrad or a civilian turned into shadow by the atomic fireball, they are both dead civilians.
fricking have a nice day you lying pieces of shit
Seethe, israelite
Only industrial centers
The allies weren't on the moral high ground
Fpbp
Reap the whirlwind, homosexual
No but winning the war justifies war crimes.
start shit get hit
Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around
The mass killing of civilians and unnecessary destruction of civilian property are both considered war crimes
Man it’s almost like Britain declared war on Germany because they did something like invading an allied nation or whatever
Then why didn't Britain also declare war on the Soviet Union. It's almost as if a certain ~~*group*~~ was pulling the strings
>let’s declare war two very powerful nations for no discernible strategic advantage
oops, you just admitted they didn't actually care about Poland and it was about bringing down Germany and only Germany.
>let’s get ourselves absolutely killed so that we stand no chance of helping whatsoever
>USSR in 1939
>very powerful nation
The USSR was a shithole back then. They couldn't even annex Finland in '40. The largest Empire on earth could've defeated 1939 USSR if they wanted to
>Britain actually instigated war with Germany because Germany was an imperial competitor that threatened to push them out of European markets and weaken the British empire.
This was only part of the reason. Implying ~~*Rothschild*~~ had nothing to do with it is just ignorant
The BEF didn’t even number a million, while the red army had several. Fighting that, on top of Nazi Germany is a completely losing proposition that nobody in their right mind would gamble on.
>The BEF didn’t even number a million, while the red army had several
Superior numbers isn't a winning factor in modern war, and if it was the BEF wasn't the only forces the British Empire had. They had the Canadians, ANZACs, British Raj etc all at their disposal.
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that without lend lease the Soviets would've lost WW2. If Britain declared war on the USSR there would've been no way that America would've given lend lease to the Soviets
Even with the commonwealth, the empire would be outnumbered more than two to one. You’re not wrong that numbers aren’t everything, but that’s still an insane proposition to follow through on. You’d need to win air superiority, while the Luftwaffe is bombing you, and you’re fighting the Wehrmacht.
Only a moron would willingly get into a fight like that.
>You’d need to win air superiority
The RAF were able to win air superiority against the Luftwaffe
The Germans tried to pawn off a million Hungarian israelites to the British in 1943 in exchange for war materials to use against the USSR.
Both Heydrich and the Hungarian israelite who both came up with the plan were certain that the influential israelites in America would come to the aid of these israelites and save them.
In reality the British turned down the offer outright, because they didn't want to potentially upset the Soviets by supporting the Germans against them behind their back.
The British cared much more about winning the war and their place in the balance of power after the war, than they did about any israelites.
>The Germans tried to pawn off a million Hungarian israelites to the British in 1943 in exchange for war materials to use against the USSR
Well of course Britain rejected that offer, they weren't going to give war material to the country they were at war with. That doesn't disprove Britain being run by israelites
Britain wasn't run by israelites it was run by the interests of British money, just as Germany was run by German money.
The ideology either side epoused was just a means to an end, both for domestic and foreign objectives.
>Britain wasn't run by israelites
Sure...
German israelite hatred was literally just an excuse to expropriate israeli assets and wage a moral crusade in Eastern Europe.
It was completely cynical.
Sure, had nothing to do with israelites trying to launch a communist revolution in Germany. Or israelites signing the treaty of Versailles. Or israeli bankers destroying the economy of Weimar Germany. Or the israeli controlled Weimar Republic being filled with degeneracy
NPC take.
If they cared so much about israelites they would have surely been much better at accepting refugees from Germany.
Britain actually instigated war with Germany because Germany was an imperial competitor that threatened to push them out of European markets and weaken the British empire.
NTAYRT but it would makes no sense to start one big fight that you will lose over two you can manage. That’s quite literally why operation unthinkable was planned.
The British Empire was able to defeat the USSR back in 1939
Operation unthinkable was never going to happen lol, the Americans never took it seriously.
I mean why would they make so much effort helping the USSR conquer eastern Europe only to then fight them all of the way out again, likely at the cost of more men than the entire rest of the war.
Just one of Churchill's moralistic daydreams.
Plus FDR pushing so hard for the soviets to enter war against Japan despite knowing he had the bomb because he wanted to hand China over to his boyfriend Stalin. Probably would have tried to give him Hokkaido too at least if the crippled homosexual didn't die early.
>huge war crimes
name the law of war
I'm too moronic too even understand what you are implying. How can one be one the moral high ground when commiting war crimes? The idea of a war crime is based on ethics.
Also I have no idea why neo-nazis focus so much on dresden when campaigns like Hamburg or Berlin were way worse
I actually wanted to get a picture of the Tokyo fire bombing but went with the IQfy classic.
>Bombing of Dresden
>War crime
I suggest you actually look at the text of the Hague Conventions instead of going by the "It makes muh feefees hurt in muh anus" definition of warcrimes.
Slowly boiling women and children to death with napalm is a war crime regardless of what some random document says.
They were Nazis anon, and Germans at that. Let em burn
troony
>Calling people wehraboo as an insult
Go back to r*ddit
>sitting in your bait thread to reply to every post
Lmao Krispy Kraut
>Urrr akshually, firebombing women and children isn't a war crime. Read the Hague conventions, chud!
>its a war crime because uhhhh because I said so!!!!!!
Axis leaders after the war were executed on the charge of killing civilians. Therefore, according to the allies, killing civilians is a war crime
No one is morally right in war, only less morally wrong. Nothing justifies war crimes.
>implying dresden happened
This is a new take on info graphs, a much more healthier take on it.
>implying it didn't
back to >>>/x/ ZOG
Kraut propaganda
I hope this is satire of /misc/troon holocaust graphics, but in case it isn't - you do realize churches can be rebuilt, right?
it 100% is but it's probably also a Brit who sees nothing wrong with carpet-bombing cities.
>war crimes
>dresden
yeah, this is totally and absolutely not a bait.
Yes, Dresden was a war crime
>implying
It's interesting how a scientist (Heisenberg) on Germany's side refused to work on developing the A-bomb for ethical reason, but israelites still brag to this day about how 'great' and 'brilliant' they were for their role in the Manhattan Project.
>It's interesting how a scientist (Heisenberg) on Germany's side refused to work on developing the A-bomb for ethical reason,
The frick? He never refused anything, and certainly not on ethical reasons. He was aiming at a reactor because he completely misunderstood the mechanism for fast neutron propagation and thought that the amount of fissile material you'd need for a working bomb would be in the order of a metric ton, which would be completely impractical for a bomb.
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13518370-300-heisenbergs-principles-kept-bomb-from-nazis/
>In reality, he says, the tapes seem to confirm Heisenberg’s later claims; that he tried to keep his research programme free of military control, and avoided working on an atomic bomb.
The article tries to spin it as him not wanting to give the bomb to 'muh evil Nazis' as was to be expected of the lying press but really he didn't want a weapon whose entire point is the mass slaughter of innocent civilians to be created. He did not expect the Allies would be unscrupulous enough to build a bomb so he was shocked when he heard that Japan had been nuked. He failed to account for the fact that israelites see goyim civilians as cattle fit to be killed if it serves their interest.
Go read the Farm Hall tapes https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English101.pdf. His "shock" over the atomic bombing, at least what he expressed to Otto Hahn and the others in what he thought was private was over the massive amounts of uranium he thought would be necessary to construct a bomb, and the R&D levels necessary to make it happen and turn it into a practical weapon, not that there was any moral dimension to it.
Read the rest of the article I posted.
The fact remains that he had a lot of the insights necessary to build a bomb but that he mostly kept to himself and avoided divulging them to military people. Also he avoided working towards making a bomb. Your posts convey the usual narrative that that he failed because he simply lacked the farsightedness of the 'genius' allied scientists but that's nonsense. The point is that is you aren't actively working towards something you won't make as much progress, have as many ideas, etc. The israelites were relentless and systematic in wanting to build their goy-slaughtering bomb marshaling fellow-traveling scientists and golems on a massive scale. Heisenberg wasn't even trying.
>Read the rest of the article I posted.
I did, it's nonsense.
>The fact remains that he had a lot of the insights necessary to build a bomb but that he mostly kept to himself and avoided divulging them to military people.
What, and he constructed a careful bullshit narrative that he told to his friends when he was no longer in a position to work on anything for the war? That he only got corrected when he actually got into contact with the MH people? That seems.... unlikely.
> Also he avoided working towards making a bomb
Because he thought, and I'll quote his own words in translation here (And some of Weiszacker for context)
>WEIZSÄCKER: Even if we had got everything that we wanted, it is by no means certain whether we could have got as far as the Americans and the English have now. It is not a question that we were very nearly as far as they were but it is a fact that we were all convinced that the thing could not be completed during this war.
>HEISENBERG: Well that's not quite right. I would say that I was absolutely convinced of the possibility of our making a uranium engine but I never thought that we could make a bomb and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine and not a bomb. I must admit that.
Or something like this
>HEISENBERG: Yes. (Pause) About a year ago, I
heard from SEGNER (?) from the Foreign Office that the Americans had threatened to drop a uranium bomb on Dresden if we didn't surrender soon. At that time I was asked whether I thought it possible, and, with complete conviction, I replied: 'No'
>Your posts convey the usual narrative that that he failed because he simply lacked the farsightedness of the 'genius' allied scientists but that's nonsense
No, actually I didn't say anything at all like that, and you would know that if you read the post or the link.
> and at the bottom of my heart I was really glad that it was to be an engine and not a bomb
The fact remains that the German scientists didn't want to build a bomb. That was the starting point. Then yeah maybe they convicted themselves they couldn't do it to resolve their moral dilemma and settled on that. But so what? If they had tried in earnest and systematically they obviously would have had more insights that they ended up having and would have been able to clear their misunderstandings. israelites, the supposed highly moral geniuses, on the other hand had no such scruples about slaughtering mere goyim and so went about it relentlessly. That difference is still highly significant.
The allies did not fight the war for moral reasons.
They fought for the same reason as the Germans did, to improve their standing as nations in European and international markets.
The purpose of Dresden was preserving allied forces for the post war competition and securing a better trade relationship with other nations in the post war.
The only response to the butchery of Dresden or the allied bombing campaign generally, is the same as the response to all of the atrocities of the war, that the entire war was unjustified, and that the allies as players in the international competition of nations were absolutely complicit in starting it.
No. You can't really hold the moral high ground when you engage in evil behavior anyway.
Yes, so nuke Britain.
Yes.
> Hey we're actively trying to annihilate your cities but you can't bomb us back because muh historical buildings and civilians, that would be a crime, ok?
> Hey we're actively trying to annihilate your cities
Axis bombing of civilians, though still wrong, was nowhere near the level of the Allies and these were mostly collateral damage. Also, it was greatly exaggerated by allied propaganda.
>muh civilians
Funny how the so-called 'moral high-ground' side gloats over women and children being slowly deep-fried to death while screeching about 'muh holocaust'.
> being slowly, purposefully and for no good strategic reason deep-fried to death
Of course the Allies did more damage than the Axis, they had air superiority over Germany basically since 1941. They had the stronger military, that's why they won the war. Still, being lenient on the Germans would just have enabled them to do more damage, they were developing a nuke after all.
> Women and children
Oh you mean the children that would have shot any Ally they saw on sight?
Completely obliterating the German state, its capacity to produce anything, and its ability to fight was the only option to win this war. We wanted total war and we got it.
Dresden had no strategic importance, by the time it was bombed the war was pretty much won for the Allies and recruiting the civilians there would have made essentially no difference for the survival rate of the average allied soldier.
Imagine being such a massive homosexual that as a grown fighting man you are willing to roast to death tens of thousands of civilians, including infants, small children, women, the elderly, etc. to increase your survival rate by 0.00001%.
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht both lost tens of thousands of soldiers fighting over Dresden
It’s an operational chokepoint and a transit hub it’s strategically important as shit
> it’s strategically important as shit
Yes according to the exaggerated propaganda reports of the war criminal themselves.
And even if it were, it doesn't justify indiscriminate area firebombing whose entire point was to kill civilians.
How is a major transit hub not strategically important? I’m what world does it not make sense to deny movement to an enemy army at a bottleneck?
>indiscriminate area firebombing whose entire point was to kill civilians
According to the exaggerated propaganda reports of the war criminals themselves.
Right because Nazi war criminals are writing the WW2 histories and not the Allies. Of course.
If you use firebombs on such a massive scale, you are doing area firebombing by definition.
And the firebombing of Hamburg, which was not any better, was called 'Operation Gomorrah'. What does that tell you?
>Right because Nazi war criminals are writing the WW2 histories
That you are arguing this shows that to some extent they are
>If you use firebombs on such a massive scale, you are doing area firebombing by definition.
Is there a limit? Is there some threshold that the Nazis were too incompetent to reach when they tried it? It’s called doing a thorough job.
>it was operation Gomorrah
Yes, one can draw biblical parallels in city reduction
>That you are arguing this shows that to some extent they are
So someone contradicting the allied WW2 propaganda makes him a 'Nazi war criminal' but boiling innocents civilians to death doesn't. Nice logic. Besides, A lot of non-German Western texts admit that the Allied firebombing campaigns were basically war crimes. Even some the notoriously biased media.
>Is there a limit? Is there some threshold that the Nazis were too incompetent to reach when they tried it? It’s called doing a thorough job.
Germans attacks had a clear strategic point and were performed at critical times for Germany. Allied bombings happened when the war was already won. And yeah the scale was completely different which matters. And so what if Germany had done just as bad as the Allies? How does that justify killing innocent civilians? It doesn't.
>Yes, one can draw biblical parallels in city reduction
>city reduction
Nice euphemism for 'extermination by fire'.
>So someone contradicting the allied WW2 propaganda makes him a 'Nazi war criminal' but boiling innocents civilians to death doesn't.
I argued that people like Goebbels effect the narrative. You chose to take it personally. Good job.
>Besides, A lot of non-German Western texts admit that the Allied firebombing campaigns were basically war crimes. Even some the notoriously biased media.
Opinions differ. Others argue that they are justified. Those present better arguments. The alternative to strategic bombing is a prolonging of the bloodiest conflict in history.
>Allied bombings happened when the war was already won
You win a war through continuous application of violence. Why would you put the gloves on when an enemy is on the ropes? You finish the job. The Nazis failed to do so with Great Britain and the USSR and they lost for it.
>And so what if Germany had done just as bad as the Allies? How does that justify killing innocent civilians? It doesn't.
It’s justified because it ends the conflict that nation started.
>Nice euphemism for 'extermination by fire'.
The German nation called for complete and total war. They should have thought before they spoke.
>I argued that people like Goebbels effect the narrative.
And the mainstream narrative you rely on is overwhelmingly pro-Allies and, dare I say, israeli. It is incomparably stronger that the influence of Goebbels' speeches. The victors write history after all.
>Opinions differ. Others argue that they are justified. Those present better arguments. The alternative to strategic bombing is a prolonging of the bloodiest conflict in history.
Those arguments are viewed and weighted through the distorted lens of again the mainstream narrative. You are just repeating that.
>You win a war through continuous application of violence. Why would you put the gloves on when an enemy is on the ropes? You finish the job. The Nazis failed to do so with Great Britain and the USSR and they lost for it.
You're dodging the point. The war was clearly lost. The German and Japanese economies were a fraction of the Allies'. The Axis had 100% lost at this point. So there was no reason to firebomb civilians.
>It’s justified because it ends the conflict that nation started.
That Germany is responsible for starting the war is highly dubious. The Allies were heavily warmongering at the time, Also, Poland might have been massacring ethnic Germans and attacking Germany at various points. This is what Hitler claimed. Now we are supposed to believe that it's all propaganda but how do we know that if not through self-referential 'history written by the victors'. Even after the conquest of Poland that Hitler proposed peace to France and Britain (who had declared war on Germany) who refused. And so on. Bottom line, it's not clear who is really responsible for starting the war because the winning side will always 'prove' the other side was. What remains certain is that the Allies unnecessarily massacred innocent civilians in an horrifying way in an scale unprecedented in history.
>Allies give Hiter numerous chances to stop his warmongering and landgrabs
>Hitler breaks his promises every single time
>Allies finally draw a line in the sand over Poland, make it clear tha invading Poland means war with Britain and France
>Hitler invades Poland
>some fatass 80 years later cries about how it was the Allies who started the war and they should've just let Hitler conquer the entire contintent
Haven't you read my post?
You are just parroting Allied propaganda without thinking. There's so much bullshit and lies written about WW2 and almost systematically with the same pro-Allies bias that we really can't tell who is primarily responsible for the war.
Also, you ignore the USSR which had a much larger territory and population than Germany before the war started. And it explicitly called for world conquest unlike Germany. Any reasonable strategy would have focused on increasing collaboration between Western and Central Europe to counter the Soviets. That would have been a true 'Balance of Powers' policy. Instead the Western Allies and Poland decided to antagonize Germany, massacring ethnic Germans with Hitler's complains about it being ignored and so on. You don't think the last part is true? Fine but I don't have to accept your biased version either. So ultimately we don't know for sure and so this justification for slaughtering innocents civilians doesn't hold.
In fact even if Hitler had been 100% to blame it still wouldn't justify the allied atrocities committed once the war was clearly won.
In reality a strong Germany was actually much more threatening to the interests of Britain and the US than giving some land to backwards Russia.
You seem to be trying to argue that the Allies were irrational and 'evil' and that's why their involvement and actions in the war wasn't justified, however in the end all parties were rational and self interested and their actions came from that not any morality, evil or not.
Both sides were owned by israelites. Without being israelite-wise you cannot understand 20th century history properly.
>The German nation called for complete and total war. They should have thought before they spoke.
Yeah. Because 12-years old girls can consent to 'Total War' and to being firebombed.
Hey krautBlack person, don’t declare total war and then proceed to b***h when your own tactics are used against you.
It wasn't the same tactics because Germany had clear strategic objectives, wasn't overwhelmingly winning and the scale wasn't at all comparable.
Also, 'Total War' for Germany only meant the Home Front not that it was ok to mass firebomb civilians. That's just the Allied Propaganda version of it.
And I'm not even German but the passive-aggression with which you and others like you defend the NPC version of history is pretty amazing.
The Blitz was Germany bombing civilian centers like London in order to try and demoralize them. Not the Allies' fault that the Luftwaffe were shitters
>The Blitz was Germany bombing civilian centers like London in order to try and demoralize them
Again that was exaggerated by allied propaganda. And even then they weren't wiping out whole city sections with firebombs and had the clear objective of making Britain surrender at a critical time in the war. Compared to that Dresden was happened when the war was already won.
Besides the idea than one atrocity justify another is moronic. The civilians of Dresden, Hamburg,etc. weren't personally responsible for what the German leadership had done earlier in the war. Saying otherwise is just idiotic black/white thinking.
Which British cites did Germany try to "annihilate?" (And no, the Blitz wasn't an "annihilation")
>the Blitz wasn't trying for annihilation
Shoo shoo lying Wehraboo
No. But it makes it easier to find fighters for the cause.
The only reparations in order is payment for the plane fuel we used
German air raids were against industrial centers, the Dresden bombing was against civilian centers
And it wasn't enough
All sides committed war crimes. The thing about WWII is the shocking brutality by everyone.
The allies used their post facto 'moral high ground' as an excuse for previous and future atrocities and the new world order they created yes.
Lol master race would you like some melting sidewalks and fire tornados with that?
Lol Anglo israelites would you like some pakis raping little girls with that?
Only 25K died at tops
t. German Gov investigation from the early 2000s
Dresden was nothing compared to the starving/working of millions of Soviet POWs to death, the Camps, the Einsatzgruppen, and General Plan Ost.
80,000 civilians died in Dresden, commie troony
>starving/working of millions of Soviet POWs to death, the Camps, the Einsatzgruppen, and General Plan Ost.
Nooooooooooooooooooo not the heckin judeo-bolsheviks! Also reminder that no documents of general plan ost were ever found
German government has been trying to downplay the number of casualties to placate the western powers. The "official" german numbers have decreased over the decades.
First, no one can tell how many people were in the city. It was filled to the brim with fugitives.
Second, in the center of the city corpses were literally burnt to ash. The number of casualties is most likely much much higher than 25k.
There are still survivors alive in the city today. They do tell interesting stories, like about allied fighers flying low to strafe civilians. People burning alive from phosphor bombs. People getting stuck in molten asphalt.
About unfitting comparisons - Coventry was nothing compared to Dresden, how about that? No, a warcrime is still a warcrime. The difference is that the allies won the war. They were not the white knights in shining armor. Not to speak of the russians...who still havent learned anything.
And the argument that what the germans did was far worse is not a justification for allied warcrimes.
The germans have accepted their responsibility for what they did. Pretty much no other nation has done so.
Yes but only if you win
*ethnically cleanses granny whose family have lived in Prussia for thousands of years*
>"Ahhh, feels good to be doing this anti-fascist work :)"
It's ok to ethnic cleanse Germans because they were in the same country as other Germans, who were fascists who did ethnic cleansing.
The last time they tried leaving granny at home, some moron with a Charlie Chaplin mustache thought he needed to invade the whole world to reunite all the German grannies under one flag
>Start unprovoked wars using ethnic minorities to justify it
>Act shocked when other countries deport said minorities after the war
>Start unprovoked wars
>implying
>reprisals against civilian populations is ok when allies do it
>Eastern front
>Unprovoked
The USSR wanted to take Europe. Soviet expansionism took place throughout the 30's and early 40's yet it was ignored by most of the world. Hitler had to strike east when he did to prevent the Soviets from becoming strong enough to spread the cancer of communism throughout all of Europe
>he had to strike east
>fails and gives them half of Europe
Wow savior of EVROPA
>The USSR wanted to take Europe.
So Hitler decided to give him eastern europe on a silver platter, huh, makes sense
>eternal anglo
>morality
Literally even the Bolsheviks had higher morality than the eternal anglo.
WAAH WAAAAH YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE YOUR AIR SUPERIORITY AND VASTLY SUPERIOR MILITARY THAT'S WROOONG
are you a woman?
DO IT AGAIN, BOMBER HARRIS!
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
YES!
Look how Germans destroyed Warsaw. They deserved teh same thing on their cities. End of.
Would you support Ukrainians razing Russian cities to the ground with all the civilians in it if they ever managed to push them back over the border?
If you do, maybe it's time for you to grow up.
Yes
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS
can't wait for the race war to stomp your kind on the streets
based
the only good nazi is a dead nazi
Forced reddit meme
>can't wait for the race war to stomp your kind on the streets
If you do huge war crimes then you are definitely NOT on any kind of moral grounds whatsoever!
Dresden didn't happened, but it should have
There's no written order for the bombing of Dresden that means the nazis faked their own bombing.
bump
>bumping a shit thread
Dresden wasn't a war crime. It was pest control.
>bomb other cities, raze warsaw after the uprising annihilate stalingrad in battle etc
>noooo you can't bomb dresden, where's the ICC to start a trial for this war crime!!!
>some housefrau in Dresden is personally responsible for bombing London. I hope she dies in a firestorm brought on by a self-admitted terror bombing campaign against civilian populations that reddit historians will make cope and excuses for 80 years in the future
Idk how you missed the point this much, the point was that germany did the same and saw no issue with doing it, to have a double standard of doing it yourself = fine and having it done to you = evil and wrong is comical.
>bad man in power killed civilians on their side so it's ok when we kill civilians
Lmao again nice way to dodge the actual point, slimy moron