A Real Holocaust: Dresden -- 13 February 1945

Winston Churchill later regretted the bombing of Dresden.

 

This is incredible nonsense. Nearly half of Germans voted for Hitler when he became president. Nearly another 20 % voted for Extreme Rght policies.
Did the rest leave Germany or stand up against what it did? Nope, not many. Not many at all.

"Regular" Germans were guilty of the MASS extermination of tens of millions of Slavs, Jews and others. And its been shown that far from being forced into "obeying orders" far too many Germans revelled in the slaughter- whether that be Jewish elderly in Hamburg or Russian schoolkids in the East

To pretend there was a genocide against the perpetrators of evil in Germany is sick and depraved in the extreme.
You might want to pick up a few text books before you try and give us the David Irving/ Joseph Goebbels revisionist tripe.

Your suggestions are amongst the most obscene I've ever read in this forum

 

I visit Germany a lot. The often explain to me what was bombed by the Allies in the war. They have all been quick to point out "and with good cause, and complete justification". Before they know my views on this.

Shame someone has to post some drivel from the internet and insult the tens of millions that were guilty of genocide.

 

The OP is the sort of filth you'd find on Nazi sites. Maybe thats his true identity? Perhaps he'd like to travel to Leningrad and say it to the million plus residents who died of starvation thro a German siege. What will he say- " they were all anorexics"?

 

The Nazi's were never elected to anything. They over threw the government. They were able to because the allies banned the German army after WW1. Germans had to swear an oath of loyalty to Hitler.
They were required by law to give the Nazi salute. The penalty was death. They had no choice.

The Nazi's killed 100,000 Germans for not supporting them.

The SS forced them to kill. The SS did the reveling. Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, while Americans called him
'uncle Joe'.

the Germans were victimized 1st and in many ways by the Nazi's.
people don't like the Nazi's because they killed civilians. so the allies killed German civilians.

 

The Nazis were very much elected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

Using provisions in the Weimar constitution to pass the Reichstag fire decree, support from the Centre party and the blockading of the communist party from parliament(which was in fact at the opera house since the Reichstag has burned down), the government legally passed the Enabling act, all but turning Germany into an autocratic state with only the SDP delegation voting against. Even before the March 1933 election though the Nazis had by far been the largest winners in both 1932 elections.

And it is safe to say the Nazis and Hitler had widespread support up until the war started to turn. Why wouldn't they? The unstable Weimar republic had left a terrible taste in everyone's mouth both economically and their views on democracy, the Nazis had brought a rather resounding level of success both domestically and internationally to a depression stricken Germany, and it's safe to say Germans generally did not realize extent to which Nazis were going to take things, not to mention that when things really started to go genocidal, it was in fact around 1942, at w hich point given the state of the war, the fact almost everyone had someone serving in the military and constant bombing raids on Germany, most people didn't give a shit about anything other than personally making it through the war.

 

according to your links, the government was dissolved because of dis-like for it because of the depression.

the Nazis "unleashed a campaign of violence and terror" that got them in power.

the nazi's still didn't get enough votes to get in power.

 

Dude111

Thank the maker that someone else is revealing this horror.. for years i have thrown it in face of the 'good war' people [ww2]

Dresden is the great show of what is morality iin war.
people still defend the raid.. the arseholes
those that cannot admit the ALLIES butchered women and children.
incinerated actually

Fact
Dresden had at the time NO strategic value. It contributed nothing to german defence of the Reich.
Some real cynics have suggested it was bombed for
A: last unbombed city
B: a display for USSR in view of their front lines.. power projection.

That allies ALSO strafed roads after bombing.. killing woman and children in wonton mass slaughter.
nagasaki and hiroshima had at least some military value. dresden none
An orgy of 'we are the winners' That it was a city of churches/cathedrals.. well think about it.

All now forgotten in age of the Alliance for freedom and good. led by US and UK.

The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

Occam

 

Well they are rebuilding it sort of. The Neumarkt and the Frauenkirche for starters.

 

why did you feel the need to give this thread the most contentious and offensive title possible?

anyway, yeh, dresden bombing was fucked up, a display of power to warn the russians to halt their advance (although there WERE some valid military targets within the city like factories and train lines which supplied the eastern front)


“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”
-RAF January 1945

it wasn't as bad as the actual holocaust.

also, even if ALL of Germany had unanimously voted the NAZI's into power in '32 instead of hindenberg, that wouldn't make the entire nation collectively responsible for the atrocities committed under Hitler and therefore deserving to be burned to death to a man.

 

I love that Film. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

 

Because. "A real holocaust' Is true.. Why would it be offensive?
Why "contentious"

Do you know of a false holocaust?

Like terrorism?

Prill

 

Comparing this to other bombed cities isn't like comparing apples with apples.

The incendiary devices that were dropped are what makes (made?) this controversial. It was an unnecessarily cruel weapon to unleash on hundreds of thousands of people. I'm not saying it's not bad to be "just bombed" - that's awful as well. But it has a strategic purpose (apparently). These weapons were used to just cause agony in the last moments of the people who were living in the city. Think of Napalm. Life did go on in towns and cities. Sure, they were well aware of the war and it was the big thing going on but society still had to function. Not all of the German population wanted the Nazis but they killed anyone who dared to show opposition. It's documented.

The ordinary German people who were in those cities deserved to die as much as people in the UK deserve to die because of what our government is doing. Killing thousands of innocent people and, well, I'm not doing much about it. I don't support it and but I am aware that it goes on and I have no control over it whatsoever. If you think the German people deserved it then there is no such thing as terrorism because there are no innocent people. I don't believe that - I think most people are innocent but completely helpless to stop these things being done in our names.

Also, yeah. The title is totally not cool. It suggests that if this is a 'real' Holocaust then the other is an 'unreal' one. It isn't. It happened.

 

i apologise, as i'm sure this wasn't the intention, but the wording of the title of the thread smacks of holocaust revisionism, and dresden has often been used by holocaust revisionists to shore up their arguments. given that i always read the word "holocaust" as a noun, referring to a singular, specific event, i read that as implying that the holocaust was not "real". i'm sure that you meant it to be read as a verb, simply meaning "an event in which a lot of people were killed" in which case, yes, it was an event in which a lot of people were killed. its just that your wording conveyed a meaning which i'm sure was unintentional.

holocaust is a noun, i would have thought. therefore there is only one. so no.

eh?