It is the anniversary of the darkest day in WWII (or The War Of Jewish Aggression, as it's known in civilized countries) — when the ZOGGED """"Allies"""" wantonly murdered a gorillion civilians for NO REASON in a country that NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER targeted civilians for ANY REASON.

Grandpa was probably drafted like the majority of WW2 soldiers, didn't really give a frick who he was killing, and only celebrated afterwards because it's fun to win.

Also years of bombing london

Zionist lies

And Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. They barely killed anyone but that was incompetence rather than intent.

they genuinely believed that they could never be bombed

Herman Meyer even said "No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer"

I love this quote so much,

IDK stay home, don't wage a war of aggression, have your straggy volksgemeinschaft or whatever and your shitty europoor cities won't be bombed, its not that hard

Do it again bomber Harris

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS!

DO IT UNTIL EVERY KRAUT MELTS INTO THE PAVEMENT ALIVE!

DO IT AND GIVE THEM A SNEAK PREVIEW OF THE HECK THEY WILL BE BANISHED TO!

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

The events were so horrific that when kraut rescue squads arrived to many underground station shelters, they found disgusting green liquid slurries with human bones drifting in them - the overhead streets were so incomprehensibly hot, that people in underground shelters, directly beneath these pyro tornadoes from the intense firebombing cooked the people beneath them into literal biomatter soup

!goyslopenjoyers would you dare to drink the green germoid goygoo?

And while startegic bombing onto military targets was successful in degrading Nazi infrastructure and ability to wage war, strategic bombing over civilian areas was deemed less than worthless

Arguments like this rely on knowing that it wasn't effective against civilian targets which they didn't at the time. In retrospect we know that they should have focused on industrial targets (which would still have caught huge amounts of civilian housing as the accuracy of a bomber was measured in miles) but at the time they were just trying what worked. Besides Dresden was chosen because it had one of the last surviving major rail hubs that was moving materiel not because they wanted to bomb refugees, it was a valid military target not just trying to roast Germans. The only strong arguments against things like Dresden that don't rely on Bomber Command having a time machine or technology that didn't exist yet are things like them diverting resources away from anti-UBoat patrols for petty reasons.

The fact the British government was horrified by it shows the innate moral superiority of the Anglo, they saw what happened when they efficiently bombed logistics hubs and decided to change tact while the Teuton or Slav would have probably orgasmed.

Churchill even explicitly left out thanking the Bomber command out of the victory parades celebration

My heckin bombs m m murdered people?

Not one single person is gonna read all that

Reminder that warcrimes as we know them today, literally didn't exist as legal concepts during WW2

Yeah, throughout human history, war has generally been fought between tribes/clans/nations/civilizations as what we might now think of as "total war", where conquest means the death or effective enslavement of everyone, and where a negotiated peace typically meant one side being societally disarmed and forced to pay perpetual tribute or endure collective punishment, that sort of thing.

The large-scale atrocities, destructive power, and media coverage of industrialized warfare in WWII led to this kind of widespread revulsion, a kind of gut-level sense that some acts of war are just incompatible with our self-conception as honorable human beings, and gave rise to these ideas that there ought to be (or even could be) limits on what is "permissible" in warfighting.

It's still a relatively early experiment, this notion that we can get everyone to respect a sort of gentlemen's agreement about how far we are willing to go...

as tempers cooled

presumably Dresden was still too hot to cool off

I mean there's this heinous shit we did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kumagaya

If you're sitting at the table with a nazi, then you're a nazi

And Slaughterhouse V. I guess indirectly if Vonnegut got it from Nazi propaganda. Almost every burger teenager in high school was supposed to read that book about a dude broken from the Dresden bombing and write essays and stuff on it.

Poland shouldn't have tried to join NATO and threatened Germany's security

It's all Churchill's fault, Hitler wanted to work with Britain, he said he wouldn't invade them. Yes he also promised not to invade Poland and Czechoslovakia but that was different ok!

If Allies had not given those empty assurances we would have destroyed Hitler ourselves, it's just that we did not want to go all out when it was seemingly not necessary.

How did it not work?

Not only did the bombings gradually erode German and Japanese industry — both countries never completely lost their heavy industry but it's not like their war industry benefited from so many factories burned to the ground — but they destroyed the air power of the Axis. This is a major aspect of the bombing campaign that people always forget

Part of why Germany won in France is because of their close air support. The Luftwaffe generally had air superiority over the allies. Individual German soldiers could pull out a radio and call down air strikes on enemy positions while the French and British rarely if ever had the same advantage

So when it came time to counterattack into Fortress Europa, one of the main purposes of the bombing campaigns was to tie down the Luftwaffe. Even before D-Day was a possibility, the bombings were the quickest and easiest way to open up the second front Stalin wanted so bad. To force a growing fraction of Germany's fighter power away from the eastern front

As the war went on, Germany all but ceased production of non-fighter planes. They were so desperate to stop the bombings that they only wanted to make high altitude interceptors; no more dive bombers, tank busters, mine layers, even transports. Just V2s and FW190s Kraut-rigged into ground strikers at best. That was when both the Soviets and the western allies basically won on the fronts. Every allied offensive would enjoy close air support, and every Wehrmacht operation would go without it

The Pacific War played out differently due to the geographic distances involved. There was no allied Great Britain sitting right next to Japan that allowed constant bombings. But once B-29s came online and the allies captured appropriate airbase locations, the strategic bombings began to play out the same way. By the end of the war Japan's air power was largely depleted, and mostly shot down over China and the waters of the Pacific, but what little development potential they had left was still spent on high altitude interceptors to counter B-29s. Had a ground invasion come to pass, they would have also forfeited the chance for close air support. And in the context of hitting factories, bombing Japan was easier because so many of their buildings were made out of paper. Fires would start and spread to industrial districts even if the bombers missed, nor could they succeed at hiding factories inside of other buildings for the same reason

You bring up Korea and Vietnam, and I say those air campaigns were even more advanced than what was seen in WWII. The air war is one thing that always went right for America even when other things went tits up.

SHOW MORE

I think bombing civilians does work but should still be avoided barring exotic extenuating circumstances (i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Lots of horrible inhuman things that shouldn't be done work

Bombing civilians was pretty gosh darn effective in ending WWI

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it was shocking to the conscience and incompatible with a national self-conception as an honorable and civilized society.

usa is blue in video games while germany is red/black so its justified

Darn @Grue you really managed to find someone just as r-slurred as you

It's an incredibly r-slurred take. the reason why "we learned" that it "doesnt work" isnt because it's not effective militarily. It's because the world powers saw the sheer scale of death that an all-out war between the big powers, if conducted the normal way.

To compare pre ww2 civilian deaths to something like vietnam is r-slurred

even comparing Korea and Vietnam this way is r-slurred

"it just leads to partisanship!" is a post-ww2 small scale minor conflict logic

SHOW MORE

It works if you kill them all

>have small easily defensible ultra fortified island

>thousands of years to dig in

>still struggle to defend it from years of attacks vs dudes from nearly landlocked country launching bombing runs from a hostile recently conquered territory