It's maybe not as black and white as you think: When the Allies invaded Normandy there were under a hundred German 88mm anti-tank guns in the area. In Germany, there were 15,000, all in use as anti-aircraft guns. At the same time, around 50% of total German industrial output was going into fighter aircraft to defend against allied air attacks. Two thirds of optical equipment production was going into air defence equipment. None of all that equipment was being used against the invading forces, who (let's be clear about this) were also liberating the Germans from Naziism. Without attacking Germany itself by air and thus leaving all that production for effective defence against ground forces in both the East and West, things might well have turned out differently. So, the air campaign is a tad more complex than "genocide", "revenge" or "war crimes". It was part of a much bigger effort to subdue Germany's ability to wage war.
I refer readers to a post I made at the time about a suggested approach for Israel. At the time I was told I was an out of touch lefty.
Yes, but your comment appeared to me to suggest that the air campaign in WW2 (specifically stated as being part of a wider campaign) was similar to what Israel is trying to do against Hamas. There are very few similarities between the two situations. Just one example (out of plenty); Hamas has no industrial base to speak of. Vast differences like that make simple comparisons rather suspect imo. If what you said is true then William the Conqueror's campaign was pretty much the same as the allied war effort in the Second World War. In a war, everyone's trying to subdue their enemy's ability to wage war.
It was more a comment about how people’s reactions can be misplaced. It was comparing the narrative of “Israel bad, Palestine good” with “Allies good, Nazis bad”. The whole reductive attitude of people who just decide Israel are committing ‘genocide’ (they’re not) but wilfully ignore occasions where ‘we’ have committed far more destructive acts, because it’s accepted that the Nazis weren’t terribly nice.
Yes, they were wrong, quite wrong. There were no military or industrial targets in Dresden. The consensus among historians is that the fire bombing of Dresden did absolutely nothing to shorten the war. Whether the bombing constituted genocide depends on the definition of that word. So probably not, but on the other hand - semantics. There’s a reason, btw, why bomber command didn’t get a memorial in Whitehall for 50 years after the war - despite the attrition rate for bomber crews being as horrendous as they were. Edit; I misread your post, thought you were talking about Dresden, a medeaval city whose main industry was pottery, not Hamburg, a strategically import port. So that does change things a little, but deliberately targeting civilians is never justified imo.
Pretty much spot on for me Archers In addition… This is not Israeli’s bad, Palestinian’s good, but Israeli military policy bad, Hamas bad Targeting civilians in Gaza will not inhibit the extremists ability to wage ‘war’ as that ability relies on anti-Israeli fervour, and this fuels it Targeting civilians in WW2 was said to be a way of breaking the morale of the German people, when that had clearly failed during the Blitz For comparison: Germany WW2 population 80m Civilian deaths 436,000 >0.5% Gaza population 2m Deaths 45,000 >2%
Biden’s trying to start WW3 on his way out Someone needs to lock the senile old fool up before he does any more damage
Tell me how you believe that is starting WW3? Not saying I agree with it, but it’s a mad situation out there. Assad is a horrid bastard, but was actually the best bet for stability out there (see Libya and Gaddafi). Currently you can choose between Assad/Russia with a side order of Iranian proxies, or AQ/Turkey with an IS/sunni mentalist side salad. Not a great choice, and clearly it’s now fallen to the latter. But it’s not going to start WW3. That’s silly hyperbole. (And the stuff the US is doing there is to do with protecting the small Kurdish groups rather than this regime change anyhow).
BBC news salaciously reporting on Assads demise as if its nothing but good news is wild. We all know what happens when less than savoury dictators fall in the Middle East as we have had Gaddafi and Saddam deposed in recent memory. How they are calling this a possible victory for democracy despite the fact it is a violent coup orchestrated by jihadist groups on pickups holding rocket launchers is just beyond parody.
Not sure they’re doing that though, thus is a reasonably sensible article. US will fear the vacuum that could replace Assad https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30enxzreyo
Can't open the article to see what that says, however all day BBC bulletins have been celebrating this as a possible victory for democracy for certain. They even had Christian Syrians whose parents fled 20 years ago and never lived in Syria talking about getting their country back, whilst being interviewed from a church in London.
Weird, will try again. US will fear the vacuum that could replace Assad https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30enxzreyo Either way, it’s front page.
