Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the Americans

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9891
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by been-there »

Here is an alternative view of it:
By July of 1940, Germany was in complete control of the war which had been imposed upon it. The Polish aggressor had been defeated, peace with France had been established, and Hitler had graciously allowed the British to evacuate the continent (at Dunkirk), leaving their equipment behind. Furthermore, the Soviet Union and the United States were not even in the war. So then, with Germany 'holding all the cards', and Churchill now bombing German civilians, what did the big bad Hitler do?
He continued to plea for an end to the sensless war - with no strings attached. That's what!

Most students of real history, and certainly all readers of TomatoBubble.com, already know this. But did you know that Hitler went so far as to airdrop mass quantities of 'peace leaflets' over London?
It's true.
The 4-page leaflets were English-language copies of his recent speech before the German nation, a speech which the Germans arranged to have broadcast on hundreds of radio stations across Europe.
The July 19th speech was entitled: "A last appeal to reason".

Dropped over London the day after, the leaflet summarised the injustices inflicted upon Germany after the Great War of 1914-1918, warned of the machinations of Jewish warmongers and henchmen, finally closing with Hitler’s plea to call off the war.
Image
"In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on."
-- Adolf Hitler. 19th July, 1940
http://therebel.website/images/stories/ ... bD2i3O.jpg
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by Nessie »

More information on the Monchengladbach raid

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercom ... uadron.cfm

"In 1940, No. 51 began to drop bombs as well as leaflets on the enemy and during the year shared in several notable Bomber Command "firsts", ...... the first big attack on the German mainland (the exits of Monchengladbach, 11/12th May)"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peoples ... 7387.shtml

"Sheldon Richman says: "In May 11, 1940, Great Britain made a fateful decision in its approach to fighting the second world war. On that night, eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in the placid west German province of Westphalia, far from the war front. That forgotten bombing raid, which in itself was inconsequential, has been called "the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces" (See Advance to Barbarism [1953] by F.J.P. Veale)."

This was indeed the first raid on a German town, although the facts are not quite as stated. On the night of 11/12 May 37 aircraft (19 Hampdens and 18 Whitleys) raided Mönchengladbach in Westphalia to attack road and rail communications, this was the first raid of the war on a German town. Four people were killed including an Englishwoman living there. Two Hampdens and one Whitley were lost.

What your source fails to point out to those who may not know is that 10 May 1940 was the start of the Blitzkrieg and that both neutral Holland and Belgium had been invaded and that Mönchengladbach is the intersection close to both the Dutch and Belgian borders nor does he explain that the target was the road and rail infrastructure used by the invading army. Saying that they "attacked railway installations" gives it a different slant, doesn't it? As does the emotive phrase "in that placid west German province of Westphalia, far from the war front". Westphalia is a huge region (Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) stretching east from the Dutch and Belgian borders and whilst Padderborn in eastern Westphalia could be described as 'far from the war front' one cannot possibly say the same of Mönchengladbach. Nor is it explained that the raid was part of a series started on 11 May with the bombing of the Maastricht bridges and continued until 15 May, all the targets being bridges and road and rail communications, all near the battlefield. But the biggest omission is that despite the seriousness of the situation and the ferocity of the assault the bomber raids were restricted to locations west of the Rhine by political order until 15 May, the day the Germans bombed Rotterdam, when the British War Cabinet finally allowed the bombers to cross the Rhine."


So far from cherry picking I have researched further to find out what really happened. You on the other hand only looked for sources to back up your desired claim. You just end up looking very stupid when you preach and lecture on honesty and fallacies and are yet agian found to have been dishonest and reliant on fallacies. That raid was to support Belgium and the Netherlands who had been neutral but were being invaded without any declaration of war by the Nazis and it was on the infrastructure, not the town itself. I see it was four civilians killed, not four crew.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Cerdic
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:39 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by Cerdic »

Image

Add to this any number of other places... Frampol, Leningrad, London, Belfast, and others. It's clear that the neo-Nazi message is the Nazis were always right to bomb civilians, while the Allies were always wrong to do so. My country was, ofcourse, heavily bombed by the Germans. But I accept it was a part of the war and a German attempt to force our country into submission. A similar thing can be said about the British bombing campaign in Germany.

Here's a video of the remembrance ceremony last night:

„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9891
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by been-there »

Nessie wrote:More information on the Monchengladbach raid.
So far from cherry picking I have researched further to find out what really happened. You on the other hand only looked for sources to back up your desired claim.
Adding more info later obviously is not a refutation of the initial cherry picking. It is merely attempting further justification and excuse for continuing to ignore the self-accusatory English sources who — unlike some— can not be accused of having an axe to grind. So this reply is yet more proof of yet more rather unintelligent dishonesty.

Whatever... :roll:
Hope from Ashes: Why Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Quote from Dennis's article:
"in the end one of Hitler's most important principles prevailed:
the mass murder of civilians in order to achieve military and/or political goals...
By the end of the war American and British air forces were fully engaged in the mass murder of civilians through the fire-bombing of entire cities in Germany and Japan. That this fire-bombing campaign began partly as righteous revenge for Hitler's air raids against British cities only demonstrates how quickly the opposing participants in war can come to resemble one another."
Unfortunately that is completely the opposite to actual reality and demonstrates again the ignorant acceptance of victor's propaganda.

Hitler actually had an order called War Directive #2 that FORBADE bombing attacks of civilian areas.

Another early and largely forgotten criminal deliberate targeting and bombing of civilian areas was actually by the French.
"The first bombs to fall on Berlin were a handful of incendiaries dropped from a French civilian transport plane, a converted Farman NC 2234 operated by the French Navy, on June 7, 1940. The crew threw the incendiaries out of the passenger entry door."
But Churchill it was who started what was called
'Area bombing'
of civilian targets.

So it was NOT Hitler who started that.
Thus there was and is no "righteous revenge" justification (as Dennis claimed) for the British and Americans carpet bombing of civilian targets. This is a lie we have ALL bben indoctrinated with.

After the British defeat at Dunkirk, Churchill decided to attack civilian targets in Germany to "demoralise" and "terrorise" the German people and because he saw no other option open to him after the defeat of the British and French armies.

The following quotes demonstrate this.
This one from a BBC history page:
- - -
"In the first months of the war, Bomber Command was anxious
to avoid the risk of killing civilians, and constrained itself
to leaflet dropping and attacks on naval targets.
But after Dunkirk, the heavy bombers remained
the only means by which Britain could fight the Nazis in continental Europe."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... g_01.shtml
And this one quoting Churchill directly:
- - - -
"... When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental Army which can defeat the German military power. The blockade is broken and Hitler has Asia and probably Africa to draw from. Should he be repulsed here or not try invasion, he will recoil eastward, and we have nothing to stop him. But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm him by this means, without which I do not see a way through."
-- Prime Minister Winston Churchill, July 8, 1940,
quoted in Max Hastings, Bomber Command
(NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 116.
"Winston is pinning all his faith to the bombing offensive now.
The devastation it causes suits his temperament, a
nd he would be disappointed at a less destructive ending to the war."
-- General Sir Frederick Pile to Basil Liddell Hart, quoted in
Max Hastings, Bomber Command (NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 176.
"... I am all for the bombing of working class areas of German cities.
I am Cromwellian - I believe in 'slaying in the name of the Lord',
because I do not believe you will ever bring home to the civil population
of Germany the horrors of war until they have been tested in this war."
-- Mr Geoffrey Shakespeare, Liberal Member of Parliament for Norwich,
May 1942, quoted in Max Hastings, Bomber Command
(NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 125.
"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
-- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris to Sir Arthur Street, October 25, 1943"
quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare:
The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... ombing.htm

In 1940 in Britain, the airforce personnel and the British civilian population were against the targeting of civilian populations.
Just as many today instinctively feel that the bombing of civilians is immoral and terrorism.
Thus is it is that many histories imply that it was Hitler who started all that by bombing London.
But actually that all started when Churchill made his decision after Dunkirk.

He couldn't get it accepted by his chief's of staff though, nor his cabinet many of whom were against it.
He got an excuse to do it when a German bomber allegedly disobeyed Hitler's War Directive #2 by "accidentally" bombing the centre of London.
(Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?)
Churchill immediately pressed for and finally got acceptance to start a bombing campaign of Berlin.
"When on the night of 24 August 1940 the German air force, the Luftwaffe — accidentally and against Hitler's orders — dropped some bombs over London, the British prime minister requested a retaliatory raid on Berlin."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... g_01.shtml
Hitler released War Directive #2 that forbade bombing attacks on France or England. These rules were maintained during the Battle of Britain until August 25, 1940, when a lost German pilot accidentally bombed central London. The British sent a retaliatory bombing strike to Berlin the next night.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... g/AP27.htm

It is often said that Hitler started the bombing of civilian targets in Poland in 1939.
But this is also a deception probably to justify the Allies starting the 'Area Bombing' of civilian cities with no strategic or military importance.
"THE BOMBING OF WIELUN.
At 4.40am on September 1st, 1939 the Luftwaffe dropped 380 bombs on the town of Wielun just inside the Polish Border. A total of 1,200 inhabitants were killed, (according to German documents). This incident is considered by many Poles as the beginning of WW2. But as the attack took place before the first shells fell on Westerplatte, it must be considered as a peacetime tragedy."
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9891
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by been-there »

To avoid the accusation of cherry-picking, someone who wishes to argue that Britain did not initiate the deliberate targeting of civilian cities, would have to acknowledge information like the following, exposing and admitting deliberate UK governmental deceit about that policy.
Just repeating 75 years later, that now acknowledged British deception to its own populace, is dishonest and naive.
And refusing to acknowledge the deliberate deceit once it has been pointed out with credible, impartial verifiable sources is either obstinately stupid or dishonest.

The respected British military historian Martin Middlebrook wrote:
In some ways, Area Bombing was a three-year period of deceit practised upon the British public and on world opinion. It was felt to be necessary that the exact nature of R.A.F. bombing should not be revealed. It could not be concealed that German cities were being hit hard, and that residential areas in those cities were receiving many of the bombs, but the impression was usually given that industry was the main target and that any bombing of workers' housing areas was an unavoidable necessity. Charges of 'indiscriminate bombing,' were consistently denied.

The deceit lay in the concealment of the fact that the areas being most heavily bombed were nearly always either city centres or densely populated residential areas, which rarely contained any industry.. The vital links in the dissemination of this view were the press and the radio upon which the public depended for all wartime news. Neutral reports (of the campaign against the residential areas of the German city of Hamburg, for example) that 20,000 or 30,000 people had been killed were dismissed as 'Nazi-inspired stories'.

Liddell Hart, the historian (after the Thousand Bomber Raid on Cologne with its claim of so many acres of city destroyed) wrote:
"It will be ironical if the defenders of civilisation depend for victory upon the most barbaric and unskilled way of winning a war that the modern world has seen."
-- Middlebrook, 'The Battle of Hamburg'.
In his foreword, Middlebrook — predicting a backlash for exposing Allied criminal mass-murder — noted:
I am likely to be criticized...for choosing a series of raids which produced such extremes of horror on the ground. But I must point out that a large proportion of the raids carried out by R.A.F. Bomber Command in the Second World War were devoted to this type of bombing.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:More information on the Monchengladbach raid.
So far from cherry picking I have researched further to find out what really happened. You on the other hand only looked for sources to back up your desired claim.
Adding more info later obviously is not a refutation of the initial cherry picking. It is merely attempting further justification and excuse for continuing to ignore the self-accusatory English sources who — unlike some— can not be accused of having an axe to grind. So this reply is yet more proof of yet more rather unintelligent dishonesty.

Whatever... :roll:
Your reliance on fallacies is what makes your responses unintelligent and dishonest. I have shown how you stop research once you find something that fits your desired outcome. I have also shown the newspaper article you quoted is not accurate as it suggests the town of Monchengladbach was bombed. In fact it was the first raid into Germany and it was to help the Dutch and Belgians defend their countries by disrupting railways. It was also part of a series of raids targeting bridges.

Cherry picking is not about posting one source in one post. It is about consistently going for evidence to back up claim and doing your best at ignoring the rest. You are the worst for using that fallacy.

The area bombing of cities by the British came after the Nazis had razed Rotterdam's city centre to the ground and got the Dutch to surrender to stop the same happening elsewhere.

been-there wrote:
Hope from Ashes: Why Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Quote from Dennis's article:
"in the end one of Hitler's most important principles prevailed:
the mass murder of civilians in order to achieve military and/or political goals...
By the end of the war American and British air forces were fully engaged in the mass murder of civilians through the fire-bombing of entire cities in Germany and Japan. That this fire-bombing campaign began partly as righteous revenge for Hitler's air raids against British cities only demonstrates how quickly the opposing participants in war can come to resemble one another."
Unfortunately that is completely the opposite to actual reality and demonstrates again the ignorant acceptance of victor's propaganda.

Hitler actually had an order called War Directive #2 that FORBADE bombing attacks of civilian areas.
The British had the same. It changed the day after 1000 Dutch civilians were killed by the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam.
been-there wrote:Another early and largely forgotten criminal deliberate targeting and bombing of civilian areas was actually by the French.
"The first bombs to fall on Berlin were a handful of incendiaries dropped from a French civilian transport plane, a converted Farman NC 2234 operated by the French Navy, on June 7, 1940. The crew threw the incendiaries out of the passenger entry door."
The Nazis bombed the French towns of Henin-Lietard, Bruay, Lens, La Fere, Loan, Nancy, Colmar, Pontoise, Lambersart, Lyons, Bouai, Hasebrouck, Doullens and Abbeville between the 9th and 11th of May 1940.
been-there wrote:But Churchill it was who started what was called
'Area bombing'
of civilian targets.
If you ignore Warsaw, Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam.
been-there wrote:So it was NOT Hitler who started that.
Thus there was and is no "righteous revenge" justification (as Dennis claimed) for the British and Americans carpet bombing of civilian targets. This is a lie we have ALL bben indoctrinated with.

After the British defeat at Dunkirk, Churchill decided to attack civilian targets in Germany to "demoralise" and "terrorise" the German people and because he saw no other option open to him after the defeat of the British and French armies.

The following quotes demonstrate this.
This one from a BBC history page:
- - -
"In the first months of the war, Bomber Command was anxious
to avoid the risk of killing civilians, and constrained itself
to leaflet dropping and attacks on naval targets.
But after Dunkirk, the heavy bombers remained
the only means by which Britain could fight the Nazis in continental Europe."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... g_01.shtml
And this one quoting Churchill directly:
- - - -
"... When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental Army which can defeat the German military power. The blockade is broken and Hitler has Asia and probably Africa to draw from. Should he be repulsed here or not try invasion, he will recoil eastward, and we have nothing to stop him. But there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm him by this means, without which I do not see a way through."
-- Prime Minister Winston Churchill, July 8, 1940,
quoted in Max Hastings, Bomber Command
(NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 116.
"Winston is pinning all his faith to the bombing offensive now.
The devastation it causes suits his temperament, a
nd he would be disappointed at a less destructive ending to the war."
-- General Sir Frederick Pile to Basil Liddell Hart, quoted in
Max Hastings, Bomber Command (NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 176.
"... I am all for the bombing of working class areas of German cities.
I am Cromwellian - I believe in 'slaying in the name of the Lord',
because I do not believe you will ever bring home to the civil population
of Germany the horrors of war until they have been tested in this war."
-- Mr Geoffrey Shakespeare, Liberal Member of Parliament for Norwich,
May 1942, quoted in Max Hastings, Bomber Command
(NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 125.
"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
-- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris to Sir Arthur Street, October 25, 1943"
quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare:
The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... ombing.htm

In 1940 in Britain, the airforce personnel and the British civilian population were against the targeting of civilian populations.
Just as many today instinctively feel that the bombing of civilians is immoral and terrorism.
Thus is it is that many histories imply that it was Hitler who started all that by bombing London.
But actually that all started when Churchill made his decision after Dunkirk.

He couldn't get it accepted by his chief's of staff though, nor his cabinet many of whom were against it.
He got an excuse to do it when a German bomber allegedly disobeyed Hitler's War Directive #2 by "accidentally" bombing the centre of London.
(Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?)
Churchill immediately pressed for and finally got acceptance to start a bombing campaign of Berlin.
"When on the night of 24 August 1940 the German air force, the Luftwaffe — accidentally and against Hitler's orders — dropped some bombs over London, the British prime minister requested a retaliatory raid on Berlin."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... g_01.shtml
Hitler released War Directive #2 that forbade bombing attacks on France or England. These rules were maintained during the Battle of Britain until August 25, 1940, when a lost German pilot accidentally bombed central London. The British sent a retaliatory bombing strike to Berlin the next night.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... g/AP27.htm
The British and then USA had one way of taking the fight to Germany and after the intentional Nazi bombing of civilians in Poland, France, Belgium, Norway and finally the Netherlands, the British decided enough was enough and it was time to strike back.

It was typical for the Nazis and now the denier/revisionist apologists to push and push and then cry when finally their opponent pushes back.
been-there wrote:It is often said that Hitler started the bombing of civilian targets in Poland in 1939.
But this is also a deception probably to justify the Allies starting the 'Area Bombing' of civilian cities with no strategic or military importance.
"THE BOMBING OF WIELUN.
At 4.40am on September 1st, 1939 the Luftwaffe dropped 380 bombs on the town of Wielun just inside the Polish Border. A total of 1,200 inhabitants were killed, (according to German documents). This incident is considered by many Poles as the beginning of WW2. But as the attack took place before the first shells fell on Westerplatte, it must be considered as a peacetime tragedy."
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/
What is the deception about the destruction caused by the Nazis policy of bombing civilians to break moral in Poland? Frampol was of no military significance and it was miles from the German border. It was conveniently shaped like a target and had no defences. Why was it bombed in Sept 1939 and 1500 Polish civilians killed?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:To avoid the accusation of cherry-picking, someone who wishes to argue that Britain did not initiate the deliberate targeting of civilian cities, would have to acknowledge information like the following, exposing and admitting deliberate UK governmental deceit about that policy.
Just repeating 75 years later, that now acknowledged British deception to its own populace, is dishonest and naive.
And refusing to acknowledge the deliberate deceit once it has been pointed out with credible, impartial verifiable sources is either obstinately stupid or dishonest.

.....
During WWII the British newspapers carried stories of how the Nazis targeted civilians but the British were going for factories etc. The newspapers were also feeding false information about how accurate the British bombing was compared to the Nazis.

So there is no refusal to acknowledge that deliberate deceit nor stupidity or dishonesty. Instead that comment shows how bankrupt your arguments are as they rely on fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. :roll:

Is cherry picking a dishonest and unreliable way of presenting an argument? Been-there, dare you finally answer that simple question?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9891
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by been-there »

Nessie wrote:I have also shown the Telegraph newspaper article you quoted is not accurate as it suggests the town of Monchengladbach was bombed. In fact it was the first raid into Germany and it was to help the Dutch and Belgians defend their countries by disrupting railways. It was also part of a series of raids targeting bridges.

The area bombing of cities by the British came after the Nazis had razed Rotterdam's city centre to the ground and got the Dutch to surrender to stop the same happening elsewhere.

The British had the same [War Directive that FORBADE bombing attacks of civilian areas]. It changed the day after 1000 Dutch civilians were killed by the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam.

The Nazis bombed the French towns of Henin-Lietard, Bruay, Lens, La Fere, Loan, Nancy, Colmar, Pontoise, Lambersart, Lyons, Bouai, Hasebrouck, Doullens and Abbeville between the 9th and 11th of May 1940.
been-there wrote:But Churchill it was who started what was called 'Area bombing' of civilian targets.
If you ignore Warsaw, Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam.

The British and then USA had one way of taking the fight to Germany and after the intentional Nazi bombing of civilians in Poland, France, Belgium, Norway and finally the Netherlands, the British decided enough was enough and it was time to strike back.

It was typical for the Nazis and now the denier/revisionist apologists to push and push and then cry when finally their opponent pushes back.
Absolutely zero verifiable references, just more hot air and unsupported, arrogant, ignorant opinion. :roll:
And opinion that demonstrates again a lack of comprehension of key terms, e.g. such as what was referred to with the term 'area bombing'.

E.g. Cherry picking a source that still relies on a discredited contemporary UK propaganda deceit is NOT "showing the Telegraph newspaper article quoted is not accurate", its showing a lack of understanding of what is being read, and an obstinate inability to be corrected.

E.g. "Warsaw, Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam" were NOT 'area bombed'. That demonstrates the level of wilful self-delusional and stupidity/miscomprehension AGAIN. :roll:
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9891
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by been-there »

What we have again here is ironic 'holocaust denial' by an exterminationalist.

Genuine decimation by fire can more accurately be called a holocaust than alleged systematic mass-gassings, deaths from epidemics, or by mass shootings of partisan communities in Russian territory.

The deliberate policy of 'area bombing' with incendiaries to cause incineration of entire cities is an irrefutably Allied crime. It was not a German one. The fire-bombing of civilian Dresden (as well as Nagasaki and Hiroshima) stands as the most wicked example of that because it clearly did not serve any military objective but appears to have been done partly to demonstrate to Stalin that though he had troops on the ground, he should admit and submit to Anglo-American air-bomber-superiority.
An internal RAF memo spreads some light on the reason for the bombing:
“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
The burning to death,
- the asphyxiation from smoke and oxygen depletion by fire,
- the boiling to death from broken water pipes of people sheltering in cellars,
- the death by being crushed by falling masonry,
- by being roasted alive while trapped in melting asphalt
of the elderly, women and children has to be one of the most wicked acts of the war.
It was a genuine and completely undisputed HOLOCAUST. A wicked 'holocaust' perpetrated by the victorious, supposedly 'good guy' Allies.

Yet trolls like Nessie can't bring themselves to accept and condemn without quibble that irrefutable reality.
They would rather believe and defend idiotically a flawed mythology. One that is used to perpetuate an ongoing racist crime in the middle east.

Why?



A harrowing eye witness account of the firebombing of Dresden by former POW Victor Gregg.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate mass murderers were, and still are, the America

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:I have also shown the Telegraph newspaper article you quoted is not accurate as it suggests the town of Monchengladbach was bombed. In fact it was the first raid into Germany and it was to help the Dutch and Belgians defend their countries by disrupting railways. It was also part of a series of raids targeting bridges.

The area bombing of cities by the British came after the Nazis had razed Rotterdam's city centre to the ground and got the Dutch to surrender to stop the same happening elsewhere.

The British had the same [War Directive that FORBADE bombing attacks of civilian areas]. It changed the day after 1000 Dutch civilians were killed by the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam.

The Nazis bombed the French towns of Henin-Lietard, Bruay, Lens, La Fere, Loan, Nancy, Colmar, Pontoise, Lambersart, Lyons, Bouai, Hasebrouck, Doullens and Abbeville between the 9th and 11th of May 1940.
been-there wrote:But Churchill it was who started what was called 'Area bombing' of civilian targets.
If you ignore Warsaw, Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam.

The British and then USA had one way of taking the fight to Germany and after the intentional Nazi bombing of civilians in Poland, France, Belgium, Norway and finally the Netherlands, the British decided enough was enough and it was time to strike back.

It was typical for the Nazis and now the denier/revisionist apologists to push and push and then cry when finally their opponent pushes back.
Absolutely zero verifiable references, just more hot air and unsupported, arrogant, ignorant opinion. :roll:
And opinion that demonstrates again a lack of comprehension of key terms, e.g. such as what was referred to with the term 'area bombing'.
Do you deny what I said is true? Yes or no.
been-there wrote:E.g. Cherry picking a source that still relies on a discredited contemporary UK propaganda deceit is NOT "showing the Telegraph newspaper article quoted is not accurate", its showing a lack of understanding of what is being read, and an obstinate inability to be corrected.
Is cherry picking an honest and reliable way of presenting an argument? Yes or no.
been-there wrote:E.g. "Warsaw, Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam" were NOT 'area bombed'. That demonstrates the level of wilful self-delusional and stupidity/miscomprehension AGAIN. :roll:
Explain how those four places were not area bombed.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 31 guests