Well…… TG, pardon my harsh words, but this is BS.
“unfortunate civilians” … do you mean: 600,000 civilians of 161 cities and 800 villages, 75,000 unfortunate children and 78,000 unfortunate slave-workers.
And do you think you would call amied strikes at factories then an “area saturation doctrine” ?? With incendiary attacks from 28/03/42 (Luebeck … has a baltic port) over the 1000-bomber-raid on Cologne on the 31/05/42, Essen (a valid target though, with a big steel producing industry) three days later …
Huh, I heard the civilian deaths were larger then the ones you gave. But the point still stands, the great majority of bombing attacks were aimed at war producing factories or logistical stations. I dare you to say otherwise.
But … Dresden? Swinemuende (a refugee port!) ? Two new “single target” bomb record in march 45 (with 4.660 tons on the 11th onto Essen, and 4.800 tons on the 12th in Dortmund), Bombing the ruins of Hamburg again on the 21/03/45, attacking Hildesheim two days later (anyone of you knows where Hildesheim is, and what kind of military or strategical importance it could have??) More than 1000 bombers attacking Berlin on the 10/04/45 ?
We been over this point before, you know that. You could say these attacks were intended to bottle up the movement of Axis forces (both attacks on the army and logistical wise - at least for Dresden). Also, the 1000 bomber attack on Berlin had purpose, it was to clear the way for the advancing Russian Army (and I’m sure military targets were involved, unless you can prove me otherwise), and as for the Battle of Berlin, it was probably the second bloodiest battle since Stalingrad (if not more so).
having dropped more than 100,000 tons by late may 1943, being proud of “wiping off the map” half of a city (Wuppertal, 29/05/43, btw what is now a suburb of Wuppertal was hit not month after that).
And then such things as “Operation Gomorrah” being called “the probably the most complete blotting out of a city that ever happened” by UK Air Ministry.
And these are the understandable attacks, as the war was still raging high at that point.
What has the no-fly-zone to do with the UN? That was a totally illegal thing set up by the US. So… they defended themselves there against illegal intruders.
Not at all. THe no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel was made to monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. The northern no-fly zone is not an aggression against Iraq or a violation of its sovereignty, it is a necessary and legitimate measure to limit Iraq’s aggressive air activities.
For the mentioning of WWI, and the notion of “cleaning up the mess they created” … it would have been nice, if the US had defended their peace proposal much more, and not withdrawn and given in some demand sof the French and British after WWI. Could have saved the world from a lot of later trouble.
Perhaps, though I don’t US was guilty anywhere near as France, UK, or Italy. Besides, US was more of a non-factor. What could we say? We were barely in the war for less than a year before it ended. We didn’t experience anywhere near the horrors of France (in particular - it was their country that was devestated) and UK, and had already lost millions of guys. Who were we to dictate the terms of the peace treaty.
