Can anyone honestly recommend the movie "Fury"?

Serious question - agip, do you really think that the firebombing of Dresden was militarily justified? That just flies in the face of everything that I have ever read about that horrific moment in American history. Please don't answer by pointing out to worse atrocities committed by the Soviets, Germans, Japanese, or Ghengis Khan for that matter. Simply on the face of it, you really think that Dresden was not morally criminal?

I can honestly recommend the great Fritz Lang film, "Fury," which was inspired by a lynching in San Jose, California in the 1930s. It was his first American film. It has nothing at all to do with this Brad Pitt vehicle.

you are mixing up things.

there are three ways to look at Dresden:

1) was it a war crime

2) was it militarily justifed

3) was it immoral.

These are each different.

It was clearly not a war crime - there was no rule against bombing cities and each side bombed cities for virtually the entire war.

Yes, I believe it was militarily justified. Most military historians agree. It was a transit hub and a factory center. Particularly in optics, electronics and commo. Why is it immoral to kill someone using a weapon and a crime to kill someone making the weapon? In 1945 bombers were lucky to get within a half mile of their target - they couldn't pinpoint bomb anything.

Dresden was declared by the Germans themselves as a 'military defensive area'. I mean, enough said.

The Germans by their own admission had, out of sheer hope, not put in air raid warnings. Those would have saved lives.

was it immoral? Well in the upside down world of war, yes. here's the definition of immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality. Clearly Dresden conformed to accepted standards of morality. It wasn't even the worst one.

You'll have to define 'morally criminal' for me if you want a comment on that one. I mean war is hell - it itself is morally criminal, but that's the world we live in.

But seriously - do some reading on it. The Storm of War is a very good mainstream military history of WW2.

As the head of uk bomber command put it:

'Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre and a key transportation centre. It is now none of those things.'

rather, Why is it moral to kill someone using a weapon and a crime to kill someone making the weapon?

geez, typos. here's a fixed copy:

you are mixing up things.

there are three ways to look at Dresden:

1) was it a war crime

2) was it militarily justifed

3) was it immoral.

These are each different.

It was clearly not a war crime - there was absolutely no rule against bombing cities and each side bombed cities for virtually the entire war.

Yes, I believe it was militarily justified. Most military historians agree. It was a transit hub and a factory center. Particularly in optics, electronics and commo. Why is it moral to kill someone using a weapon and a crime to kill someone making the weapon? In 1945 bombers were lucky to get within a half mile of their target - they couldn't pinpoint bomb anything.

Dresden was declared by the Germans themselves as a 'military defensive area'. I mean, enough said.

The Germans by their own admission had, out of sheer hope, not put in air raid warnings. Those would have saved lives.

was it immoral? Well in the upside down world of war, no. here's the definition of immoral: "not conforming to accepted standards of morality." Clearly Dresden conformed to accepted standards of morality. It wasn't even the worst one.

You'll have to define 'morally criminal' for me if you want a comment on that one. I mean war is hell - it itself is morally criminal, but that's the world we live in.

But seriously - do some reading on it. A book called The Storm of War is a very good mainstream military history of WW2. Much of what I am writing is cribbed from that great book.

As the head of uk bomber command put it, in defense of the raid:

'Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre and a key transportation centre. It is now none of those things.'

agip wrote:

Historian wrote:

Germany was defeated by the British Army in North Africa, the British Navy in the Atlantic and the Soviets on the Eastern Front

....and a billion tons of American stuff.

Without American materiel both the soviets and brits would have lost.

--

what evidence do we have that the bombing of dresden was a warning to the Soviets? Any interviews with bomber command or declassified documents?

Because that sounds like seeing the war through cold war glasses. In feb 1945 they had no real idea how the new europe would look, did they?

but I don't know - I have to look into that one.

It wasn't a warning to the Soviets. It was a way to hasten the end of the war.

agip wrote:

It was clearly not a war crime - there was no rule against bombing cities and each side bombed cities for virtually the entire war.

Therefore . . . . . 911 was OK

agip wrote:

Historian wrote:

Germany was defeated by the British Army in North Africa, the British Navy in the Atlantic and the Soviets on the Eastern Front

....and a billion tons of American stuff.

Without American materiel both the soviets and brits would have lost.

Agreed. And the support of 100,000s of troops from the Empire.

kkkkkk wrote:

agip wrote:

....and a billion tons of American stuff.

Without American materiel both the soviets and brits would have lost.

--

what evidence do we have that the bombing of dresden was a warning to the Soviets? Any interviews with bomber command or declassified documents?

Because that sounds like seeing the war through cold war glasses. In feb 1945 they had no real idea how the new europe would look, did they?

but I don't know - I have to look into that one.

It wasn't a warning to the Soviets. It was a way to hasten the end of the war.

I am just copy/pasting this from an unreliable website, but I did find an RAF memo saying that one side-benefit would be that the soviets would see western air power. BUt I don't know how much to trust this site.

(definitions of 'incidental':

accompanying but not a major part of something.

liable to happen as a consequence of (an activity).)

Here's the supposed memo:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

circular reasoning wrote:

agip wrote:

It was clearly not a war crime - there was no rule against bombing cities and each side bombed cities for virtually the entire war.

Therefore . . . . . 911 was OK

only after world war 2 was the law changed to make bombing of civilian centers illegal:

In the post war environment, a series of treaties governing the laws of war were adopted starting in 1949. These Geneva Conventions would come into force, in no small part, because of a general reaction against the practices of the Second World War. Although the Fourth Geneva Convention attempted to erect some legal defenses for civilians in time of war, the bulk of the Fourth Convention devoted to explicating civilian rights in occupied territories, and no explicit attention is paid to the problems of bombardment.[32]

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths. This issue was addressed because drafters of Protocol I pointed out historical examples such as Japan in World War II who often dispersed legitimate military and industrial targets (almost two-thirds of production was from small factories of thirty or fewer persons or in wooden homes, which were clustered around the factories) throughout urban areas in many of its cities either with the sole purpose of preventing enemy forces from bombing these targets or using its civilian casualties caused by enemy bombardment as propaganda value against the enemy. This move made Japan vulnerable to area bombardment and the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) adopted a policy of carpetbombing which destroyed 69 Japanese cities with either incendiary bombs or atomic bombs, with the deaths of 381,000-500,000 Japanese people.[33][34][35][36]

The International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion in July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat Or Use Of Nuclear Weapons. The court ruled that "[t]here is in neither customary nor international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons." However, by a split vote, it also found that "[t]he threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." The Court stated that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of the state would be at stake.[37]

This MOVIE is the plagiarism of the Great Audie Murphy!

sad they didn't mention it

BTY: Before Jaws, To Hell and Back what the highest film of all time! People loved hime...but not today.

No. I acknowledged there was some hard fighting in April of 1945. But what your statistic doesn't show is that the Allies were on the offensive at every point, with German forces surrounded and overwhelmed. Some German hard core forces were fighting to the death and had the advantages of being dug in and on the defensive. Mostly in urban environments. But the bottom line is that they were hopelessly on the defensive based on everything I have ever read or heard about the war in the spring of 1945. With that in mind, why do the previews for "Fury" suggest that a single American tank crew has to hold out against an overwhelming German force in open country? I suppose there could have been some localized counter attack against American forces. But even then, the Americans probably would have welcomed it. they just would have retreated a little then surrounded the counterattack. If they dated and placed the storyline September or October 1944 in France, then yeah I can buy into that. But not April 1945. But again, all I've seen is the previews and read a synopsis. So I don't really know. Maybe I'm off base? Or maybe I'm right but there is still a compelling reason to see the movie? I'm honestly open to persuasion. Of course the movie is fiction. But so was Saving Private Ryan. I can accept some suspension of disbelief. But the movie promotion seems to be going out of their way to capture real life events.

agip wrote:

I think your sense of history is a little off -

US casualties in April 1945 were running 1,322 PER DAY - a total of 41,000 killed and wounded for the month.

So it was by no means smooth sailing into Berlin - this was fighting IN Germany - people fight very hard to defend invasion forces, and Germans were very very good fighters.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-E.html

As an aside - the scale of carnage in WW2 is amazing compared to now - we took around 27,000 casualites in 13 years in Afghanistan.

In Jan, 1945 that was about two weeks of US casualties. (Battle of the Bulge)

Ignorance is bliss.

My late uncle, one of the few candidates who didn’t get elected as a Labour MP in the 45 election, (picked wrong constituency) - worked in the Cabinet Office of our wartime coalition government and he showed me a copy of a minute penned by Churchill himself with reference to Dresden.

As soon as the horror of that raid became clear, many of those responsible had second thoughts and stared back-tracking trying to deny responsibly and put the blame elsewhere.

The minute read:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror though under other pretexts should be reviewed.

Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land.

The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of allied bombing.

I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives rather than the mere acts of terror and mass destruction, however impressive."

Without American materiel both the soviets and brits would have lost. (quote)

If only the Yanks had kept their noses out of European affairs.

It was their disastrous intervention in WW1 that ensured we had a future that brought about the success of Communism, Nazism, and also ensured the future outbreak of WW2.

And as for the huge loans by you know who that guaranteed the continuation of that conflict by both sides - no wonder Hitler had such a detestation for a certain group of parasites - he wasn’t totally irrational with his hate.

Joe Binks wrote:

And as for the huge loans by you know who that guaranteed the continuation of that conflict by both sides - no wonder Hitler had such a detestation for a certain group of parasites - he wasn’t totally irrational with his hate.

ah - you're one of those.

Now I understand what you are.

F you, moron.

would any non-Nazi sympathizers like to continue the discussion?

well we're splitting hairs here and I haven't seen the movie. ButAs one military historian once said - "historians should never use the word 'inevitable' but in WW2 the one thing that was inevitable was the German counterattack"The Germans were extraordinarily effective at counterattack - surely there is some way that a counterattack had to be stopped. SOme assets must be protected - you can't always retreat.

Hey, Jar Jar, I notice that you conveniently edited out of that minute Churchhill's desire to plunder Germany for materials to rebuild London. He wasn't worried about killing civilians; he just wanted to make sure there were materials available for the Brits to use back home. His words clearly indicate he was in favor of bombing Dresden.

Joe Binks wrote:

If only the Yanks had kept their noses out of European affairs.

It was their disastrous intervention in WW1 that ensured we had a future that brought about the success of Communism, Nazism, and also ensured the future outbreak of WW2.

And as for the huge loans by you know who that guaranteed the continuation of that conflict by both sides - no wonder Hitler had such a detestation for a certain group of parasites - he wasn’t totally irrational with his hate.