Victor Klemperer (Otto’s brother)

Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Wonder how many people know that Otto is “Colonel Wilhelm Klink’s” father? ["Hogan's Heroes"] (Werner Klemperer was nonetheless a serious and good actor and a fine musician…must run in the family.)

Read the diaries of Victor Klemperer (Otto’s brother): he was actually saved by the bombing of Dresden!

People who argue that we shouldn’t have dropped the bomb always say Japan was already defeated. The Japanese didn’t think so.

Blake on February 22, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Nor were they on the verge of surrender, contrary to liberal mythology. In fact, they didn’t even surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima. In the wake of that attack, Japan went through a neutral third party and offered the US this: They would cease hostilities, and in return the US had to allow Japan to keep its entire military, the emperor retained his sovereign power, and the US could never again set foot on Japanese soil. This is not a surrender and the US knew it. It was a chance for Japan to regroup and Pearl Harbor us again. The US replied by dropping another, different type of atom bomb on Nagasaki. Then, and only then, was Japan ready to surrender.

I admire your ability to type through the tears.

Yes, we know. We know that if we used a bomb as a demo and it didn’t explode, it would have the opposite psychological effect. We know that if we used a bomb as a demo and it did explode and the Japanese didn’t surrender, which was the case when we did use it, we would have had only one bomb to left. While others were being produced, let me say for the nth time, any delay in ending the war meant people were continued to be killed, starved, and dying of disease. This we will never know crap is a ridiculous argument. We never know about anything, ya’ know? Again, we made the best decision on what we did know.

Blake on February 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Now on this matter I fully concur with you, except that where you used the word ridiculous I might have used, oh, something like selfrighteous pontification instead.

2% is far better than 60%

If you’re the moral relativist type of guy. I’m not.

Blake on February 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM

You clearly do not have a very good understanding of “moral relativism”. You do, however, demonstrate a good understanding of compulsive selfrighteous pontification.

(1) Nuke, gas, and biological weapons
(2) Rape, torture, and maim children to get their parents to give up information
(3) Wipe out the entire population (genocide) whom you are fighting if you suspect they might rise up against you in future.
(4) Use human prisoners as test subjects for your weaponry. This helps you win faster, and saves money.
(5) Ignore your own citizens’ rights if those are interfering with your prosecution of the war. Kill, silence, imprison, torture, rape, whatever you have to do to Americans who oppose your efforts to win; make them stop by whatever means necessary.

All that’s required after this is done, is to change your name to “United States Soviet Republic”. But your citizens will be safe! Yep, good plan.

Now, I assume (optimistically) that most of the diehard “do what it takes” people on this board would not agree to the five consequences above; they just haven’t thought it through. Therefore we agree that not everything is justified to win a war. People have human dignity, including enemy civilians and even enemy soldiers. Reduction ad absurdum. QED.

This is interesting.

Heard it all before. We (I do not speak for the French) did nothing wrong and Bacque is full of crap.

2% is far better than 60%

If you’re the moral relativist type of guy. I’m not.

With respect to the Bomb, we will never know. But the fact that a significant number of people (some, like Teller and myself, quite patriotic) have questioned and continue to question the morality of using the Bombs, the United States has completely given up the grounds of moral superiority in this matter.

unclesmrgol on February 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Yes, we know. We know that if we used a bomb as a demo and it didn’t explode, it would have the opposite psychological effect. We know that if we used a bomb as a demo and it did explode and the Japanese didn’t surrender, which was the case when we did use it, we would have had only one bomb to left. While others were being produced, let me say for the nth time, any delay in ending the war meant people were continued to be killed, starved, and dying of disease. This we will never know crap is a ridiculous argument. We never know about anything, ya’ know? Again, we made the best decision on what we did know.

Teller may have regretted that the bomb was dropped on civilians – who doesn’t? But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do and resulted in less lives loss than a ground invasion or a blockade. His statement about a demo is irrelevant. The decision was considered and rejected. The significant number of people, as you put it, who object to the bombings, are insignificant compared to those who support it. “[G]iven up the grounds of moral superiority” my ass.

No, in war there are only two rules:

1. Do what it takes to win, so that the enemy is totally defeated.
2. When in doubt about your actions, refer to rule #1.

This is our problem with modern war. We don’t kill enough…

Tim Burton on February 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM

Agreed. I believe this is called the Rush Doctrine. The theory is that, until you defeat an opponent, you’re only extendign the conflict. See Israel as an example. As long as Israel lets Palestinians live on their borders, the Palestinians will plot their revenge, because there’s always a rabble-rouser around to use their ethnic identity to assist his rise to power.

Likewise the Cold War. Russia hasn’t given up on its plans to be the dominant world power, because they were never forced to face the military and economic superiority of their opponent (us).

Who cares? It should have been 0%. And the 2% does not include the percentage that were starved but not to death, beaten, used as slave labor, denied medical treatment. That other countries treated our POWs worse does not give Germany a pass.

Or, it could have been an unmitigated disaster. Since, they had only tested one bomb and they had limited materials, and considered what would happen if the bomb didn’t explode, they made the best decision. Also, patience = the killing and the deaths by starvation continued.

Blake on February 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM

This is interesting.

So is this.

2% is far better than 60%

And way, way, way better than 100%, as appears to have been the case with regard to our adversaries in the War on Terror.

With respect to the Bomb, we will never know. But the fact that a significant number of people (some, like Teller and myself, quite patriotic) have questioned and continue to question the morality of using the Bombs, the United States has completely given up the grounds of moral superiority in this matter. The fact that we used the Bomb must have scared the Soviets shitless until they had one of their own. I think the use of the Bomb increased the tensions in the Cold War tremendously, since the Soviets had a record of the United States making First Use. It’s like watching a dog that has bit twice looking at you. One can understand the Iranian (and the Indians, and the Pakistanis, and the Chinese) desire to have a Bomb under these circumstances too.

We bombed French cities during and after Normandy for the same reason – to deny major highways to the Germans and make them go around the cities and get bogged down in the mud when retreating. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed in these raids. War is hell.

Akzed on February 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Boy, did we bomb Normandy! I saw some old declassified military film on the bombings. They targeted almost every bridge. My neighbor was also a 6 year old child living in Normandy at the time. The house next door to hers took a direct hit. On another raid, the concussion caused her to be thrown from where she was sitting, knocking her out.

We bombed French cities during and after Normandy for the same reason – to deny major highways to the Germans and make them go around the cities and get bogged down in the mud when retreating. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed in these raids. War is hell.

This is exactly right and IMO the intensity was excessive & morally wrong as it was part of Harris’ admitted policy (to demoralize) of deliberately killing large numbers of civilians with bombing designed to create a fire storm.

Have you and others considered that we had multiple goals? Demoralize the enemy and destroy it’s war industry and rail system? As far as “intensity was excessive” the percentage of killed was less than other bombings and the force used was no worse than that used in the raids on Hamburg, Cologne, and Frankfurt am Main. LINK Yet, people continue to whine about Dresden.

Large numbers of women & children fleeing the advancing Russians took refuge there.

Chessplayer on February 22, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Wrong. Large numbers of refugees passed through Dresden and kept going. This is one of the reasons why the death toll was reported as being much higher than it really was.

Seriously, it’s 60 plus years after the fact and people are still spreading Nazi and communist propaganda and using it to bash their own country.

WWI raged for 3 years until the US entered the war. It was over in 18 months. We lost 117,000 Americans.

WWII saw the deaths of millions of Europeans until the US entered the war. In 4 1/2 years we lost 400,000 Americans and the war was won. Russia lost 23 million.

In both cases, the US had a greater effect with fewer losses than any other major participant. Sounds like a super power to me.

csdeven on February 23, 2009 at 7:54 AM

In WWI, we were the tipping point for the exhausted combatants. We were fresh, they were worn down. We were like Blucher at Waterloo, arriving in the nick of time to save the day. After WWI, we backslid militarily; the Depression didn’t help. Don’t forget the court-martial of then Col. Billy Mitchell, either. It always happens with us after a war. We always cut back too far militarily after a war. Always. Just look at Clinton’s ‘Peace Dividend’ from the end of the Cold War. Inside-the-box thinking every time. War’s over, no more military spending. And forget R&D money. There are government social programs to fund.

2% is quite a good number, given those statistics, and is much better than the 50% number quoted for POW losses at Japanese hands.

unclesmrgol on February 22, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Who cares? It should have been 0%. And the 2% does not include the percentage that were starved but not to death, beaten, used as slave labor, denied medical treatment. That other countries treated our POWs worse does not give Germany a pass.

My point is that a demonstration and patience might have worked as well, and with far fewer casualties.

Or, it could have been an unmitigated disaster. Since, they had only tested one bomb and they had limited materials, and considered what would happen if the bomb didn’t explode, they made the best decision. Also, patience = the killing and the deaths by starvation continued.

Sounds like a super power to me.

csdeven on February 23, 2009 at 7:54 AM

Besides attending History 101, you should be taking Statistics 101 as well.

But not then, as you imply.

RickZ on February 23, 2009 at 7:00 AM

WWI raged for 3 years until the US entered the war. It was over in 18 months. We lost 117,000 Americans.

WWII saw the deaths of millions of Europeans until the US entered the war. In 4 1/2 years we lost 400,000 Americans and the war was won. Russia lost 23 million.

In both cases, the US had a greater effect with fewer losses than any other major participant. Sounds like a super power to me.

The real war crime was Hitler not surrendering earlier so that Germany would not be bombed to rubble and hundreds of thousands of Germans killed.

The other war crime was the U.S. high command at the end of WWII allowing the Russians to take over the eastern part of Germany and the eastern European countries that formed the future Soviet bloc.
Why was it terrible that Hitler and Germany took over countries in Europe such as France, Poland, Italy, etc., but it was okay for Stalin and the Russians to take over Poland, Latvia, east Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc.?

albill on February 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Hear, hear!

So good, I had to let ya say it at least twice.

Now we are a super power, . . .

Herb on February 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM

But not then, as you imply. The forgotten history. Too many Americans now have a warped, historically illiterate perspective that we’ve always been a top dog. Nothing could be further from the truth, and our preparedness for WWII shows how lowly we were militarily. 4 months into the war, Gen. Doolittle’s raid was sheer bravado, an act of desparation. WWII was a desparate, titanic, no holds barred struggle right through to the end, both in Germany and in Japan, revisionism be d*mned. That we came out of WWII a top dog is no fault of our own even though we went in with a small, poorly trained and poorly equipped military.