He’s defending himself from verbal attack.
With complete fabrications, lies distortions - yeah, way to go Dio.
A reminder, casdave: you’re not allowed to call another poster a liar in Great Debates.
We don’t want any civilian casualties in a war of words.
Didn’t LeMay say the firebombing of Tokyo would be considered a war crime had we lost the war?
What is one allowed to say about a person that tells a flat out untruth? One that is demonstrably false, and in all probability was stated with an intention knowingly to propagate that untruth?
You call them a Dio. Or is that too mean?
And the risk of pointing out what might be stupidly obvious, most Germans were not Nazis.
Taylor’s book is one of the best of the recent literature on the raid and should certainly be read by anyone interested in the subject, but it appears you’ve misread certain parts of his argument. As an example, I’ll take the most strategic issue.
Taylor rather clearly doesn’t argue this. What he does is fairly thoroughly discuss how some previous authors on the bombing had proposed this as a motivation and what is the evidence that can be adduced for it. As Taylor explains, the one contemporary document that mentions such a motivation arguably does so in a rather off-hand fashion. He places rather more weight on post-war reminiscences by two of the planners, but also recognises there are counterarguments.
Taylor does, slightly rhetorically, state (p466 in the 2005 UK paperback edition):
Even in this form, this is a somewhat more nuanced position than you attribute to him. But Taylor immediately goes on to raise possible objections to this “mix of motives” interpretation. In so far as he concludes anything on the matter of intimidating the Soviets it is that the evidence is “open to different interpretations and is in any case circumstantial” and “an open verdict still seems the most plausible”.
An historian discussing a previously proposed interpretation and acknowledging that it is possibly partly true, but that we ultimately don’t know, really shouldn’t then be shoehorned into being presented as a supporter of the original proposal.
It was a factual correction of the assertion that Germany attacked us. Germany did no such thing.
Are you saying that the US forces fired at German forces first? Before the war was declared? After the war war declared? Where and when are you saying these first shots were fired?
We went over there and attacked them. I don’t know who literally fired the first shot in the first firefight, but our decision to engage Germany was not in response to an attack by Germany on the US. I’m not saying our engagement in WWII was not justified, just quibbling with the reason it was justified.
Doesn’t matter. They supported the Nazi regime, they made it possible, and they shared the guilt.
This is a pretty clear case of you digging a hole and trying to get out of it by digging downward.
The Germans attacked numerous U.S. ships, (both naval and civilian–never in response to a hostile act by the U.S. ship), prior to the U.S. entry into the war. Several of those attacks could have justified a declaration of war had the U.S. not been so intent on staing out of the “European war.”
Germany then declared war on the U.S. after the U.S. declared war on Japan, and at a point when no declaration of war against Germany was being considered in the U.S. Congress.
The issue of Dresden, (or the air war in Europe, generally), can be discussed quite easily without resorting to flagrant abuses of language that attempt to pretend that the U.S. initiated hostile action against Germany.
I was correcting a factual error. Ships are not the US.
I was going to suggest ignoring him, but never mind. Dio is a pretty well-honed troll, to be sure, but his posts are so damn funny I can’t honestly say that he is wasting my time. Dio? I’ve got my pen and paper ready!
ETA: I had forgotten to add:
8) Ignore all other questions and start crying “ad hominem”
When corrected about the definition of “ad hominem”:
9) Goto 1)
Dio,
So then neither are US sailors or soldiers? Are you claiming that Germany never attacked the US during WWII because none of their gunfire actually landed on US soil?
Yes. That’s exactly what I meant.
What about the ones in the resistance? What about the ones who didn’t support the Nazi regime but had to keep their head down, because it was a fucking totalitarian regime? For that matter, what about the children?
The whole reason we try to avoid civilian casualties is because civilians are considered innocent victims.
I always hear this “they support the government” argument when it comes to rationalizing the US slaughter of civilians (I even heard it said about Iraqi civilians, which was weirdly contradictory to the claim that we were “liberating” then), but that stance never seems to go both ways.