Sunday, January 17, 2010



Google now suppressing info about Hitler

I guess that they are afraid you will find out that he was a socialist
"So for my junior high project I'm explaining how fascism and communism were actually both forms of socialism, in the sense that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia subordinated individual property rights to the demands of the supreme leader.

I just wanted to double check that people referred to Hitler as a fascist (as opposed to a Nazi), and so I went to google "Adolf Hitler fascist."

But I noticed something interesting. As I typed in A-d-o-l... Google started bringing up suggestions. By the time I typed in just "adolf," the first ten suggestions popped up, with the #1 being "adolf eichmann." Then when I pressed the spacebar and typed in "h" all the suggestions disappeared.

So apparently Google has no idea what I might be looking for when I type in "adolf hitle"...

Does anyone know what the deal is? Does he get so many google hits that he would be at the top of the list anytime somebody started by typing in "ad..." to look up "address for the elie wiesel fund" and Google doesn't want people getting mad?

I'm not kidding, I'm being serious. Google obviously disabled Hitler's name from popping up as a suggestion.

Source

There's also a quite disturbing report on today's GREENIE WATCH about Google censorship.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always found it interesting, albeit not surprising, how those on the Left have demonized Hitler for his atrocities, while at the same time totally ignoring people like Stalin and Mao, both of whom killed far more people than even Hitler did. Perhaps it's because they don't associate Hitler with socialism? If they did, i'm sure they would also ignor his deeds.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:01 Many on the left falsely claim that Hitler was a member of the right, convenienly forgetting what the term Nazi meant. But yhou are correct about Stalin and Mao, many in the current White House extol the virtues of Chairman Mao, some publicly. I am flabbergasted that 52% of our country elected this communist (Obama) into office although many are now expressing buyer's remorse.

Bobby said...

I tried the same search, when you write Adolf you get lots of options but the minute you put the H, nothing. So eventually I typed Adolph Hitler. Fortunately, I found his 25 points which proves the nazis were socialists, I quote from the 21 points of the NSDP:

11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation[37] of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.php

Obama is following point 14 to the letter by the way.

Anonymous said...

Boo hoo hoo. Get a life assholes.

Anonymous said...

Some people find problems where non exist. If you had just put Hitler into Google then it would have come up as the first choice. The reason for this is that this would have been the most common way for the search to be conducted. That is the way these things work . The suggested list is just a reflection of the popularity of search word. The problem with using Adolf is that this will not have been used in many searches for Hitler.

I think all the mass murders should be equally identified including Churchill and Roosevelt.

Bobby said...

"Some people find problems where non exist."

---Yet when I write "Barrack O" the first suggestion that comes is "Barrack Obama".

Why not give Hitler the same courtesy?

And since when are Churchill and Roosevelt mass murderers? Both the Germans and the Japanese had concentration camps, both performed medical experiments on the living, not to mention the millions of people they killed.

Besides, Roosevelt only got involved with the war because of Pearl Harbor, back then the last thing Americans wanted was to fight in another world war.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:54 - I see a leftist came and produced their usual highly intellectual and well thought out arguments supporting their position.

Anonymous said...

Did you really expect something different from the mindless puppets of the left?

Personally, i don't see why anyone would consider Churchill a murderer. As for the socialist Roosevelt, (and his communist, gay wife) there are many who would see him as a murderer of sorts. That's based on the popular notion that Pearl Harbor was not exactly a huge surprise to Roosevelt and his people. He saw it as the fastest way to get us involved in that war, which helped him keep a promise to Churchill and Stalin, got the economy rolling again, and made billionaires out of his industrial friends, even though it was a war the American people were dead-set against getting involved in.

Anonymous said...

Personally, i don't see why anyone would consider Churchill a murderer.

Dresden ring a bell?

That's based on the popular notion that Pearl Harbor was not exactly a huge surprise to Roosevelt and his people.

Hindsight is 20-20 and like 9/11, it is easy to see what was missed earlier when you are looking for it. However, one question that people who subscribe to the "popular notion that Pearl Harbor was not exactly a huge surprise" fail to answer is this:

Assuming that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known before hand, how does that take away that the attack still would have happened, thereby still dragging the US more directly into the war in which the US had already pledged support for the Allies?

(And the "popular notion" is not "popular" amongst people who were in the Roosevelt administration, the citizens of the country at the time, and most historians. It is only a "notion." It is not "popular.")

Anonymous said...

I assume 4:29 that you are referring to the targeting of non-military but significant population centres for bombing...???
Unfortunately, in a total war setting, the list of potential targets get expanded to include all sorts of support centres - whether they be materiel, industrial, transport etc... Its a shame but I'm not sure that it would qualify for mass-murderer status - especially as it was common to both sides in the war.
I would have thought that the reason Adolf Hitler doesn't pop up on Google - apart from the one mentioned of giving inadvertent offense - is that Google doesn't want to make it easier for neo-nazis to find information.

The Finn said...

I recommend the book 'Other Losses' by James Bacque to anyone interested in who was what in WWII setting. As is always the case in war, there aren't just blacks and whites - or good guys and bad guys - but surprisingly many shades of gray as well.

I tried the A.H. search in google.fi and while there wasn't a Hitler in the suggestions given, the third option that came up was Adolf Hitle. I don't know who this Mr. Hitle is but he must be someone famous with over 7 million hits. The first suggestion in the Finnish google version was Adolf Ehrnrooth and Eichmann was second.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, in a total war setting, the list of potential targets get expanded to include all sorts of support centres - whether they be materiel, industrial, transport etc...

I agree with you. The problem is that Dresden did not fit in any of those categories. It was not a manufacturing center and not a point of distribution of anything. Leigh Mallory and Churchill approved the target and both later regretted it. Both admitted that the firebombing of Dresden served no strategic or tactical value and may have prolonged the war by making the Germans feel that the Allies in the east were as brutal and deadly as the Russians on the west.

Its a shame but I'm not sure that it would qualify for mass-murderer status - especially as it was common to both sides in the war.

I am not sure that it qualifies for "mass murderer status" either. All I am saying is that the case for Churchill being a mass murderer can start with Dresden.

Frankly I find no solace in the idea that it is right or acceptable because both sides did it.

Dresden was a mistake - a horrible mistake which people paid for with their lives without bringing the war closer to an end.

Anonymous said...

Retribution is a good enough reason during time of war.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February 1945 Bombings of Dresden:

5. At the outbreak of World War II, Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany proper…

6. …Dresden was one of the greatest commercial and transportation centers of Germany…

7. Geographically and topographically, Dresden commanded two great and historic traffic routes of primary military significance…

8. …Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system… ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.

9. …Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone. Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).

10. Specific military installations in Dresden in February 1945 included barracks and hutted camps and at least one munitions storage depot.

11. Dresden was protected by antiaircraft defenses , antiaircraft guns and searchlights, in anticipation of Allied air raids against the city…


Anon 5:04,

"Leigh Mallory and Churchill approved the target and both later regretted it. Both admitted that the firebombing of Dresden served no strategic or tactical value and may have prolonged the war by making the Germans feel that the Allies in the east were as brutal and deadly as the Russians on the west."

Source please.

Anonymous said...

Source please.

Churchill to head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Harris March 28, 1945:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."

My apologies for saying Leigh Mallory later regretted the decision, when Mallory had died earlier. Harris in his own biography says that while he believed that the target at the time was necessary (it wasn't) but was "regrettable."

You, like so many others, fail to recognize that the bombing of the city of Dresden is not the same as bombing targets in and around Dresden. In fact, bomber crews were not given release points to hit any justifiable military targets, but were told to aim at a populated area.

The fire bombing of Dresden had no military strategic or tactical value.

Robert said...

To the first comment, I think that in the eyes of Leftists, Hitler's only real unforgivable sin was attacking the Soviet Union. The Progressives and other Leftists of the time didn't seem to mind his government takeovers of private property, the health care system, welfare programs, make-work programs (many of which were also being done in the U.S. and Britain), or even the Nazis persecution of the Jews, slave labor camps, and eventual attempted genocide of the Jews. But invade and attack the Soviet Union, and suddenly the Left joins everyone on the Right in viewing Hitler as evil incarnate.

Bobby said...

"Dresden ring a bell?"

---If London was a legitimate military target for Hitler I don't see why Dresden isn't legitimate for the allies.

Seriously, why feel compassion for the Germans? They started the war, they bombed the crap out of London, they invaded most of Europe, sent all kinds of people to concentration camps including Catholic priests that opposed Hitler, used their U-boats to sink civilian cruises, etc, etc, etc.

I would be insane if we where to feel guilty about Dresden, what's next? Apologize for the thousands of japs we killed by detonating two atomic bombs? And if anyone thinks the japs were better than the germans they should ask any Chinese person about the nanjing massacre.

Anonymous said...

---If London was a legitimate military target for Hitler I don't see why Dresden isn't legitimate for the allies.

The indiscriminate bombing of London was not a legitimate target. It had the exact opposite effect the Germans wanted. Instead of trying to further their strategic goals and concentrating on the bombing of airfields, factories and most importantly radar station, the Germans allowed those installations to stand while trying to bomb the British populace into submission. The mistake gave the British time to mount an every increasing defense as well as steel the resolve of the British people.

In other words, great comparison. You proved my point exactly.

Seriously, why feel compassion for the Germans?

I feel compassion for us. When we have to stoop to the level of a Hitler or Stalin or Hirohito, we lose our humanity. That is not to say that tragedies and atrocities do not happen in war. They do. However, when they are planned, "we have met the enemy, and they are us."

I would be insane if we where to feel guilty about Dresden, what's next?

For you this is a case of moral relativism. You believe that since the Germans or Japanese did something, that justifies our doing the same thing.

If Dresden's military installations and factories had been bombed and civilian casualties occurred, that is one thing. Targeting civilians, as we the case of the firebombing of Dresden, is a different story.

And if anyone thinks the japs were better than the germans they should ask any Chinese person about the nanjing massacre.

Once again, you are simply saying because they were evil, we have the right to be evil as well.

Bobby said...

"In other words, great comparison. You proved my point exactly."

---Well, I think the allies wanted to bomb Germany for the same reason, to bring the war to the German people. Bombing Dresden was horrible but the allies really wanted the German population to rise against Hitler, the fuhrer himself suffered several assasination attempts.


"I feel compassion for us. When we have to stoop to the level of a Hitler or Stalin or Hirohito, we lose our humanity."

---But we did not lose our humanity, our internment camps for German-Americans had excellent facilities and no gas chambers.


"That is not to say that tragedies and atrocities do not happen in war. They do. However, when they are planned, "we have met the enemy, and they are us."

---Our attrocities were nothing like their attrocities. Even if bombing Dresden killed civilians, the Germans killed far more civilians than we ever did.

"For you this is a case of moral relativism. You believe that since the Germans or Japanese did something, that justifies our doing the same thing."

---I believe in trusting our military and let them make decisions when it comes to fighting the war. It's just like Obama vs. Petraeus, the general wanted what? 50,000 more troops? And Obama gave him 35,000. If Obama had any smarts, he would understand that a general knows more about war than a lawyer who hasn't even served in the national guard.


"Targeting civilians, as we the case of the firebombing of Dresden, is a different story."

---What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A nuclear detonation is a lot worse than being firebombed. Yet we nuked those cities to avoid the possibility of a million Americans dying in the Japanese version of d-day.

"Once again, you are simply saying because they were evil, we have the right to be evil as well."

---It's not about being evil, it's about being ruthless. War isn't pretty and the sooner you win it the better everyone will be.

Besides, after WW2, who helped rebuild Germany? We did, and thanks to us they became a rich nation.

Anonymous said...

Bombing Dresden was horrible but the allies really wanted the German population to rise against Hitler, the fuhrer himself suffered several assasination attempts.

Yet all the fire bombing of Dresden did was to steel the resolve of the German people.

---But we did not lose our humanity,

Many of the bomber crews that flew the Dresden mission felt that the attack on civilians was wrong and in essence a loss of what they were trying to do. They were trying to prosecute a righteous war and yet they felt the resorted to the same tactics as those we were fighting and condemning.

---Our attrocities were nothing like their attrocities. Even if bombing Dresden killed civilians, the Germans killed far more civilians than we ever did.

More moral relativism from you. An atrocity is still an atrocity. Saying "the other guy did the same thing" is something that most 6 year old kids stop doing.

---What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get back to me when you actually look at the AP of the bombing of those two cities.

---It's not about being evil, it's about being ruthless.

Hitler ruthlessly killed 8 million people. Estimates of the war in the east are around 30 million ruthlessly killed.

Even with that, the definition of "ruthless" is "without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless."

Once again, you prove my point. Being "ruthless" and firebombing Dresden hardened the will of the German people. Intelligence reports had the German populace weakening in the support of Hitler and the war in the west. After Dresden, the Allies in the West were still seen as being better than the Soviets, but not by much.

Besides, after WW2, who helped rebuild Germany? We did, and thanks to us they became a rich nation.

Well there ya go. By that measure the devastation in Haiti is a good thing. After all, think of all the nice shiny new buildings that will be constructed. And the 100,000 - 200,000 dead? Well, they don't matter because we are going to rebuild Haiti.

Bobby said...

All I have to say is this, if you start a war you deal with the consequences.

If you go to a biker bar and refer to the biggest burly men you can find as a sissy and he punches you in the face, hits you in the groin, and throws you into a dumpster, are you gonna complain about him being cruel and going too far?


Millions of Americans and Russians and others died just because Hitler wanted a greater Germany. The germany people elected and supported Hitler. German children were even encouraged to report their parents, and they did.

I don't hate the Germans today, but back then they had a huge karma debt to pay and I'm glad they paid part of it. I say part because they never suffered as much as their victims did.

If fact, the only reason the allies rebuilt their evil country was to prevent having to fight WW3.

Anonymous said...

Millions of Americans and Russians and others died just because Hitler wanted a greater Germany. The germany people elected and supported Hitler. German children were even encouraged to report their parents, and they did.

I understand.

Because the Germans were evil, you feel that gives us the right to do the same evil things that Hitler did.

At that point, you are not fighting for a cause. You are not fighting for a moral right. You are not fighting to stop anything.

The moment you become your enemy, you have lost.

Obdew’l X said...

All I have to say is this, if you start a war you deal with the consequences.

Bush started the Afghan and Iraq wars. He does not have to deal with the consequences - Oduma does. Bush must be laughing his ass off.

Use the Name, Luke said...

He did?

And here I thought our invasion of Iraq was the result of Saddam invading Kuwait, then using the cease fire treaty as toilet paper for 12 friggin' years.

I also thought that we invaded Afghanastan as a direct response to their support for Al Qaeda and 9/11 after tolerating numerous previous attacks without doing anything.

I guess it's just a figment of our collective imaginations that Muslims have been trying to pick a fight with this country at least since its founding. (Look up Thomas Jefferson and Barbary Pirates. Those were Muslims.) THEY have been at war with us for more than 200 years. WE have been trying to avoid war with them for just as long, only engaging in the occasional smack down as necessary.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Anon 1:28,

"The fire bombing of Dresden had no military strategic or tactical value."

That's chutzpa right there. Did you even read the quotes I posted, nevermind the analysis I linked to?

Wow.

It was the biggest rail and communications center left in Germany, and one of the largest even before the war. Not to mention the hundreds of factories producing war material. But it had no military value? Yeah, right.

I agree that bombing the entire city because that's what the Germans did does not justify it. However, there are a couple of other factors you seem to either be unaware of or discounting:

A) The revenge factor. At the beginning of the war, neither side bombed civilian populations. As the war went on, civilians were bombed by accident at first, then deliberately. By this point in the war, it had become a simple matter of tit for tat. It's far easier to condemn such an attitude with this distance from the events than when you've seen your neighbors, friends and family killed by an unrelenting pattern of civilian bombings. I presume this is what Churchill regrets.

B) Technical limitations: This is the more important of the two factors. At this point in the war, night bombings were a must because the defenses had gotten so good that the bombers and their crews would get plastered by daylight raids.

You have to remember that navigating at night was a very error prone process at that time. They didn't have GPS, and radar was only in its infancy. All they had was radio direction beacons, and the Germans were trying like heck to jam or confuse them. This left only navigation by stars or landmarks, a dicey proposition if there were any clouds and without lights on the ground. It was very common for planes to get lost just trying to get to their target.

Furthermore, precision bombing just wasn't possible even in the daytime. The best they could do was carpet bombing around their target. When you add nighttime to the mix, all you're left with is "hit the city," because a precise targeting just wasn't possible.

Finally, I think it's interesting that your bringing up of Churchill's regrets actually undermines your initial position. If he really was the mass murderer you claim him to be, would he have regretted it? Hitler sure as heck didn't regret his actions!

Anonymous said...

That's chutzpa right there. Did you even read the quotes I posted, nevermind the analysis I linked to?

Yes I did.

Do you understand what is being said?

Did you read the citation you gave because in your post you make claims that are contrary to the very citation you gave.

Do you know the genesis of the report you cited? Do you know WHY it was written?

It was the biggest rail and communications center left in Germany, and one of the largest even before the war. Not to mention the hundreds of factories producing war material. But it had no military value? Yeah, right.

Clearly you don't understand what is being said. The INDISCRIMINATE FIRE BOMBING of Dresden served no tactical or strategic purpose. The BOMBING of military targets in and around Dresden using HE was of value.

A) The revenge factor.

"We have met the enemy and they are us."

B) Technical limitations: This is the more important of the two factors. At this point in the war, night bombings were a must because the defenses had gotten so good that the bombers and their crews would get plastered by daylight raids.

Sorry, but you are wrong. At this point in the war - less than 3 months from Germany's surrender - the loss of bombers due to enemy fighters and AA were minimal at worst. During the raids against Dresden, not a single bomber was lost due to enemy fire. In addition, Dresden was well inside the scope of fighter protection for daylight raids.

All they had was radio direction beacons, and the Germans were trying like heck to jam or confuse them

Once again, you are wrong. The American bombers used HX2 radar an the famous Norden bombsite while the the British used a path finder system.

What you are failing to address is that the AP for the incendiary bombs was the population center of the city. That is what was briefed to the British pilots and bombardiers.

The rail marshaling yards which you try to bring up were OUTSIDE of the city. Well outside. They were not touched. Many of the bridges that were of strategic and tactical value were not targeted either.

In fact, the after action report noted that the important Autobahn bridge to the west of the city was not targeted or attacked and that no railway stations were on the British target maps, nor were the bridges, such as the railway bridge spanning the Elbe River.

The nuance of attacking a valid military target where civilian causalities occur and deliberately targeting civilians and leaving the military targets alone seems to escape you.

The best they could do was carpet bombing around their target. When you add nighttime to the mix, all you're left with is "hit the city," because a precise targeting just wasn't possible.

I am not sure why you think that "carpet bombing" was what was done at Dresden. It wasn't. Secondly, crews that couldn't bomb within miles of a target were not acceptable as too many men were risking their lives to put bombs on target. Lastly, we are talking about valid military targets outside of the city that were not targeted or bombed.

It is not the bombing of military targets in and around Dresden that people have criticized. It is the deliberate bombing of a civilian population with that is what bothered the pilots, crews, Churchill and strengthened the will of the German people.

Finally, I think it's interesting that your bringing up of Churchill's regrets actually undermines your initial position. If he really was the mass murderer you claim him to be, would he have regretted it?

I didn't realize that for an action to be morally wrong, the person had to realize they had committed a wrong. Using that logic, if I murder someone, I wouldn't be a murderer unless I realized that was a murderer.

That can't be what you mean, yet that is what you are saying.

Bobby said...

"Because the Germans were evil, you feel that gives us the right to do the same evil things that Hitler did. "

---We did not do the same evil things, don't compare Desden to Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, and all the other death camps in Poland and Germany. The average german didn't get a crap when his neighbors were degrated publicly, forced to wear a yellow star, deported, etc.

Very few germans took a stand against the nazis. There was
The White Rose Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

And the July 20 plot against Hitler of which Lieutenant Colonel Count Claus von Stauffenberg was part of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot

Those were good germans and I'm glad Hollywood finally gave them the credit that was due to them. After all, those men were heroes, they had power, they where rich, yet they decided to risk it all for the sake of freedom.

Moving on.
What we did in Dresden is a joke compared to what the Germans did to everyone else. At least when you bomb a city the people can hide in the basement or subway, as many Germans did.

Tell me, do you think America is evil because we have killed far more Iraqis and Afgahnis than the people who died in 9/11? Is it our fault that when you bomb cities there's collateral damage?

We did not bomb an innocent nation, we did not kill innocent people. If you where a German who supported Hitler and the nazis, you deserved the war and the consequences of such war. Ever seen the video of Himmler asking them "do you want total war?" and the audience screaming they do?

Well, we gave the krauts what they wanted. Karma's a bitch, what can I say?

Anonymous said...

---We did not do the same evil things,...

Sorry, but this is a change of position for you. You originally wrote: If London was a legitimate military target for Hitler I don't see why Dresden isn't legitimate for the allies. And, "Even if bombing Dresden killed civilians, the Germans killed far more civilians than we ever did." And,Well, I think the allies wanted to bomb Germany for the same reason, to bring the war to the German people. (same motive that Hitler used) And, "Even if bombing Dresden killed civilians, the Germans killed far more civilians than we ever did."

Hitler indiscriminately bombed London. We indiscriminately bombed Dresden.

There is no difference.

Lieutenant Colonel Count Claus von Stauffenberg was part of it.
.....
Those were good germans and I'm glad Hollywood finally gave them the credit that was due to them. After all, those men were heroes, they had power, they where rich, yet they decided to risk it all for the sake of freedom.


So you believe that officers that took part in prosecuting the war (in von Stauffenberg's case the invasion of France, Tunisia and Russia) were heroes? They were the good guys because they supported Hitler's military campaigns and then decided that when all was lost, tried to kill him?

Do you have any idea of the atrocities attributed to von Stauffenberg's 6th Panzer during the invasion of France?

You want to call him a hero?

At least when you bomb a city the people can hide in the basement or subway, as many Germans did.

Dresden didn't HAVE a subway system or underground train system. Secondly, if you think that hiding in a basement give you any protection as bombs rain down upon you and fires rage through your house, you simply have no clue. You have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, and by the way, estimates of 100,000 people and up died in the Dresden fire bombing.

I guess they just didn't have you around to tell them how to protect themselves using methods that didn't exist.

Is it our fault that when you bomb cities there's collateral damage?

Apparently you are either too dumb or too prideful to understand that the fire bombing of Dresden did not produce "collateral damage." The target of the firebombing was the population center. It was not the military facilities, the bridges, or factories in the area.

Karma's a bitch, what can I say?

Nothing. Just say nothing. Because every time you open your mouth your ignorance and hatred spews forth like a pressurized hose with no valve.

Anonymous said...

London of course has been mentioned as being heavily bombed in WWII, but so were most of Britain's cities and ports.
The attack on Dresden was maybe a response to the V-rocket attacks on London that usually couldn't be intercepted or stopped.

Bobby said...

Question, how many times did the nazis bomb London and how many times did we bomb Dresden? I don't have the statistics but I'm pretty sure London was bombed repeatedly while Dresden was bomb what? Once? Twice?


"And,Well, I think the allies wanted to bomb Germany for the same reason, to bring the war to the German people. (same motive that Hitler used)"

---Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


"So you believe that officers that took part in prosecuting the war (in von Stauffenberg's case the invasion of France, Tunisia and Russia) were heroes? They were the good guys because they supported Hitler's military campaigns and then decided that when all was lost, tried to kill him?"

---Only one of the men in the plot against Hitler was involved in einzatzgruppen or "death squads." The rest were soldiers doing what soldiers do. They were the good guys because they realized Hitler was going too far and decided to do something about it. If they had succeeded, the war would have ended earlier, there might have not even be a need to bomb Dresden.


"Do you have any idea of the atrocities attributed to von Stauffenberg's 6th Panzer during the invasion of France?"

---I do not.


"Secondly, if you think that hiding in a basement give you any protection as bombs rain down upon you and fires rage through your house, you simply have no clue."

---In Berlin lots of Germans hid in the subway. As for basements, maybe they're not 100% safe but it's a hell a lot better than being on the first floor.


"Nothing. Just say nothing. Because every time you open your mouth your ignorance and hatred spews forth like a pressurized hose with no valve."

---You know something, maybe you should study about the holocaust more. Maybe you should learn about what those nice Germans did to the Jews and others. Maybe then you would have more compassion for the victims of the Germans than for the German civilians.

Everything Hitler did was done with the collaboration of the German people. The civilians who elected Hitler, who contributed to the war effort, who reported politically incorrect Germans to the gestapo and who enjoyed the benefits of plundering Europe deserved what they got if not more.

The idea that we have to feel guilty about Dresden is nothing more than pro-german political correctness. Fuck them, they killed MILLIONS of people so don't ask me to shed a tear for 100,000 dead nazis.

Anonymous said...

Question, how many times did the nazis bomb London and how many times did we bomb Dresden? ....

I see. So now your argument rests on the frequency of bombing civilians than just the actual bombing. This is simply moral relativism from you.

Using your logic, the bombing of Dresden was much worse as 100,000 civilians were killed as opposed to less than 50,000 in the bombings on London.

---Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I have no idea what this means. You basically just agreed that the motives of Hitler and Churchill were the same. That can't be what you want to say because that condemns your position.

---Only one of the men in the plot against Hitler was involved in einzatzgruppen or "death squads."

As many people that were accused of the attack were executed, it is impossible to say what they had done or not done.

The rest were soldiers doing what soldiers do.

Soldiers swear allegiance to a madman? That is a new one on me. You do realize that the officers in the military swore an oath of allegiance not to Germany, not to the government, but to Hitler himself. You point falls flat on its face.

If they had succeeded, the war would have ended earlier, there might have not even be a need to bomb Dresden.

That has been argued. The other side of that is that Goebels, Himmler, and Goering would have stepped into the void and made Hitler a martyr. Once a martyr, many believe that the Germans would have fought harder and longer.

All that really doesn't matter as the guys you say were "heroes" were a major part of bringing Hitler to power and keeping him there.

---I do not.

Then don't worship people you only learn about through a movie.

---In Berlin lots of Germans hid in the subway. As for basements, ...

Dresden is not Berlin. Let me repeat that for you since it seems that you cannot distinguish the two: DRESDEN IS NOT BERLIN.

---You know something, maybe you should study about the holocaust more.

Maybe you should. The first camps were not discovered until March, well after the bombing of Dresden. That means your justification is worthless.

Maybe then you would have more compassion for the victims of the Germans than for the German civilians.

I have compassion for both. That is what you can't wrap your thinking around. You keep throwing up all sorts of things that don't deal with the subject. All you do is throw out what you have learned from a movie and you think it is truth.

Your position is that since the Germans committed atrocities, the Allies could do the same. There is no moral justification for that. None.

Everything Hitler did was done with the collaboration of the German people.

Once again, you expose your own hypocrisy. You call the men that helped give Hitler his military might "heroes" and then in the next breath, condemn the people. You do realize that the people supported Hitler because of the propaganda and advertising that the Nazis created, don't you? In other words, the people that helped bring Hitler to power were no different than the advertisers you have worked for and worship.

The idea that we have to feel guilty about Dresden is nothing more than pro-german political correctness.

You were talking about compassion in this screed of yours? Too bad you want compassion in others while spewing hatred from your own mouth.

Fuck them, they killed MILLIONS of people so don't ask me to shed a tear for 100,000 dead nazis.

Once again having misunderstood what has been said, you have tried to justify your own hatred. You have tried to justify the deaths of people simply based on your hatred.

You haven't been able to address the issues, so you always fall back on the same tired excuses of your hatred and prejudice, all of which expose your ignorance and hypocrisy.

Bobby said...

"I see. So now your argument rests on the frequency of bombing civilians than just the actual bombing. This is simply moral relativism from you."

---You're an expert on the law, you know that a first time offender is seen different as a second or third time offender. Germany was like a millionth time offender.


Using your logic, the bombing of Dresden was much worse as 100,000 civilians were killed as opposed to less than 50,000 in the bombings on London.

---Except that Germany was an enemy nation, so their casualties don't really count.


I have no idea what this means. You basically just agreed that the motives of Hitler and Churchill were the same. That can't be what you want to say because that condemns your position.

---It means that sometimes an idea is great no matter who did it first. If Hitler can bomb cities, why can't the allies? It's the law of karma, what you do to others comes back to you eventually.


"As many people that were accused of the attack were executed, it is impossible to say what they had done or not done."

---The SS did use the plot as an excuse to round up their enemies. However, the multiple plots against Hitler are well documented, there's no only the paperwork but witnesses and relatives of the plotters.


"Soldiers swear allegiance to a madman? That is a new one on me. You do realize that the officers in the military swore an oath of allegiance not to Germany, not to the government, but to Hitler himself. You point falls flat on its face."

---In the movie Schindler's List, Oscar was able to convince the soldiers guarding his factory not to liquidate the workers, so they all had a choice no matter what oaths they took.



"That has been argued. The other side of that is that Goebels, Himmler, and Goering would have stepped into the void and made Hitler a martyr. Once a martyr, many believe that the Germans would have fought harder and longer."

---The difference between Hitler and his men is that his men didn't want to lose the war. Hitler wanted no compromise, if he couldn't have total victory he wanted all of Germany to die. People like Himmler were willing to negotiate and when Hitler found out he was furious.


"All that really doesn't matter as the guys you say were "heroes" were a major part of bringing Hitler to power and keeping him there."

---I was talking about the plotters, not Goebbels, Himmler or Goering. The plotters were heroes because they put themselves and their families at great risk for their country. They had guts in a time most Germans were simply "following orders."

Bobby said...

"Maybe you should. The first camps were not discovered until March, well after the bombing of Dresden. That means your justification is worthless."

---Fine, you win that one except for one thing. Just because evil isn't seen it doesn't mean it's not there. Frankly, I don't care what justification they used, Dresden was a German city and thus an enemy target.


"I have compassion for both. That is what you can't wrap your thinking around. You keep throwing up all sorts of things that don't deal with the subject. All you do is throw out what you have learned from a movie and you think it is truth."

---Thus you have compassion for the guilty and the innocent, interesting. Here's something funny, Germany has a lot of rich war widows, the former wifes of generals and other people in high command. According to the book "Fuhrer Ex" which was written by an ex-neonazi who was quite powerful in the movement, those war widows have been financing the neo-nazis for years. If those women had died in Dresden, would it have been a big loss? I don't think so.


"Your position is that since the Germans committed atrocities, the Allies could do the same. There is no moral justification for that. None."

---Bombing a city is not the same as putting people in gas chambers.


"Once again, you expose your own hypocrisy. You call the men that helped give Hitler his military might "heroes" and then in the next breath, condemn the people."

---It is heroic to admit you're doing something wrong and make a change. Oscar Schindler did, he went to war profiteer to savior of thousands, by the time the war was over he was bankrupt.


"You do realize that the people supported Hitler because of the propaganda and advertising that the Nazis created, don't you? In other words, the people that helped bring Hitler to power were no different than the advertisers you have worked for and worship."

---Propaganda isn't enough, ever seen junk mail? It has an effectiveness rate of 3%. Hitler did many things to control the people, and many German people were willing to be controlled. It was a marriage made in hell. Besides, the ad industry can be good, ever heard of the Ad Council? During WW2 they where known as the War Council and created the iconic slogans "Lose lips sink ships" among others.


"You were talking about compassion in this screed of yours? Too bad you want compassion in others while spewing hatred from your own mouth."

---So I'm supposed to have compassion for Germans? Why? Did they have compassion for anyone else?


"Once again having misunderstood what has been said, you have tried to justify your own hatred. You have tried to justify the deaths of people simply based on your hatred."

---I don't hate them for being German, I hate them for being nazis. There is a difference. I hate them for they do. Besides, I'm very fair and balanced, I do not hate their descendants, in fact, I love german food, but if a German wants me to feel guilty for Dresden he's barking up the wrong tree.

Anonymous said...

Just because evil isn't seen it doesn't mean it's not there.

It does mean that one cannot use as justification for an action something that is not known.

Frankly, I don't care what justification they used, Dresden was a German city and thus an enemy target.

Which is the same justification that Hitler used in bombing London.

---Bombing a city is not the same as putting people in gas chambers.

You already admitted that the Allies didn't know about the camps and the gas chambers and yet here you are trying to use the same rational and justification again. Even after you admit you are wrong, you still try to advance the same dis-proven theory over and over and over.

---It is heroic to admit you're doing something wrong and make a change. Oscar Schindler did, he went to war profiteer to savior of thousands, by the time the war was over he was bankrupt.

Schlindler never swore an oath to the Hitler personally. He was a member of the Nazi Party, just like those in Dresden you claim were culpable and should be bombed for bringing Hitler to power. He never helped enslave people. Your German military "heroes" did just that.

---Propaganda isn't enough,

Your industry worked for the Nazis though. Must be nice, huh? Must be nice knowing that the tactics and things you do and worship are the same things that the Nazis did to kill millions of people in camps.

---So I'm supposed to have compassion for Germans? Why? Did they have compassion for anyone else?

So which is it? Are the people like Schlinder and von Stauffenberg "heroes" for their compassion or are they monsters not deserving of compassion for supporting Hitler in the first place?

---I don't hate them for being German, I hate them for being nazis.

How many of the citizens of Dresden were Nazis? We know that Schlindler was a member of the Nazi Party. von Stauffenberg was not a member of the Nazi Party but had sworn an oath to Hitler.

Besides, I'm very fair and balanced,

That's a laugh.

I love german food, but if a German wants me to feel guilty for Dresden he's barking up the wrong tree.

You still don't get it do you? It was not right to target the citizens of Dresden any more than it was right for Hitler to target the citizens of London.

You feel some sort of moral superiority for applauding the same tactics that Hitler used. As such, that makes you no different than Hitler, the people that surrounded him, and the Germans that you hate so much.

In the case of Dresden, Walt Kelly was right.

Oh, and by the way, Dresden is still not Berlin.

Bobby said...

"Schlindler never swore an oath to the Hitler personally. He was a member of the Nazi Party, just like those in Dresden you claim were culpable and should be bombed for bringing Hitler to power. He never helped enslave people. Your German military "heroes" did just that."

---Schindler never did anything against the jews or anyone else. He was a member just to make money. He wasn't a true believer.


"Your industry worked for the Nazis though. Must be nice, huh? Must be nice knowing that the tactics and things you do and worship are the same things that the Nazis did to kill millions of people in camps."

---Do you drive Mercedes? Do you take Bayer aspirin? Have you ever driven a Ford? There are lots of things connected to the nazis, they for example invented the highway system. Besides, advertising political or otherwise has existed since the invention of the newspaper, there are political ads against Abraham Lincoln that accuse him of being a negro.

Let me ask you a question, does the inventor of the AK-47 face responsability for all the people that have been killed by other using that gun? I like the AK-47, I think it's a fine gun, very reliable, and I don't care if Osama bin Ladden likes that gun. In fact, I know plenty of gun owners that don't mind buying imports because when it comes to self-defense, you get the best. There is no room for politics.


"So which is it? Are the people like Schlinder and von Stauffenberg "heroes" for their compassion or are they monsters not deserving of compassion for supporting Hitler in the first place?"

---They are heroes for betraying Hitler. Don't you get it? Don't you understand what these men sacrificed for their principles? Can you not give them any credit?


"How many of the citizens of Dresden were Nazis? We know that Schlindler was a member of the Nazi Party. von Stauffenberg was not a member of the Nazi Party but had sworn an oath to Hitler."

---Do you always have compassion for the enemy? Do you feel guilty about all the civilians that have died in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What about Panama? Panama was our closest ally, we used Noriega whenever we wanted to talk to Castro, yet because of some drug allegations we invaded his country, killed lots of his people, and imprisoned their leader. Do you feel guilty about that?

Plenty of drugs are shipped from the Bahamas and Jamaica, should we invade them as well?

"You still don't get it do you? It was not right to target the citizens of Dresden any more than it was right for Hitler to target the citizens of London."

---Casualties of war, in the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima" two US soldiers are assigned with guarding 3 japanese prisoners, yet because they'd rather go somewhere else, they simply shot them and got away with it. What we did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far worse than what we did in Dresden, yet whoever said that war was a pretty thing?


"You feel some sort of moral superiority for applauding the same tactics that Hitler used. As such, that makes you no different than Hitler, the people that surrounded him, and the Germans that you hate so much."

---Using one tactic of Hitler doesn't make me you Hitler. WW2 was more than the bombing of Dresden, there are many factors you have to take into account. Who knows? Maybe we where running out of places to bomb, besides, small towns have no military value.

Besides, what do you want America to do about Dresden? Should we apologize? Do we have to build them a memorial? Should we make a movie about it?

Sorry, but I'm tired of apologizing, it's bad enough Obama does it with the world, I refuse to join him in his mea culpa trip.

Anonymous said...

---Schindler never did anything against the jews or anyone else. He was a member just to make money. He wasn't a true believer.

So, enabling the Nazis to do what they wanted with the Jews is benevolent in your little world?

they for example invented the highway system.

Ummm.... no. They didn't. The roots of the highways system go back to the Romans.

This is what is so infuriating in trying to discuss things with you. You make stuff up all the time and try to sell it to anyone that is as naive and ignorant as you are.

---They are heroes for betraying Hitler. Don't you get it? Don't you understand what these men sacrificed for their principles?

No, they are not heroes and their principles put Hitler into power to begin with.

---Do you always have compassion for the enemy? Do you feel guilty about all the civilians that have died in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yes you moronic twit, I do feel compassion for the civilians that are deliberately targeted for strikes. In fact, one of the reasons we returned to Iraq was to protect the citizens of Iraq from military strikes from Saddam. (I am sure you will disagree with that, but before you do you should read the Authorization for Use Of Force In Iraq.)

---Casualties of war, in the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima" two US soldiers are assigned with guarding 3 japanese prisoners, yet because they'd rather go somewhere else, they simply shot them and got away with it.

Great. More "history" from Hollywood. I hate to break this to you Booby, but the movie made that up. The book never contained that incident.

What we did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was far worse than what we did in Dresden, yet whoever said that war was a pretty thing?

It would be so easy to argue this point but you are simply so clueless and ignorant that the truth would slip right past you.

---Using one tactic of Hitler doesn't make me you Hitler.

In this case, it makes you indistinguishable from Hitler.

Who knows? Maybe we where running out of places to bomb, besides, small towns have no military value.

First, "running out of places to bomb" is no excuse for targeting civilians. That is what happened in Dresden. Civilians were targeted. What you cannot wrap your feeble little Hollywood worshiping mind around is that there is a difference between collateral damage / civilian causalities from a strike on a legitimate military target, and targeting civilians directly.

Secondly to address your ridiculous point of "small towns have no military value," perhaps you should tell the Panzer Lehr Division and the 82nd Airborne how militarily insignificant the small town of Bastogne was. Bastogne had 1.25% of the size and population of Dresden, and yet it was of huge military importance.

Let's re-write the history books! Booby says that small towns are militarily insignificant!!

Besides, what do you want America to do about Dresden?

Acknowledge that the targeting of civilians in Dresden was a mistake. That is all that has to be done.

You see Booby, being on the side of right doesn't mean that you did the right things.

Sorry, but I'm tired of apologizing,

I am sure that you do it a lot. But one thing is clear: from our discussions your "apologies" never amount to anything. You continue to come back with the same lies and distortions even after you say you were wrong. You have no credibility in "apologies."

I refuse to join him in his mea culpa trip.

Thank goodness. Having Obama out there is bad enough. You traveling around exposing your bigotry and ignorance would only make things worse.