Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime?

Ok Marxism, you obviously know where Dresden is, ignore the pedants here who worry about such things! [It was a mis understanding, it was not clear from your post that you were talking about Dresden and some other place on the Baltic]

Stick around, ignore the lectures by American conservatives on the evils of .... well everything that isn't American conservatism really....it would be interesting to learn your take on things.

How about you read a bit of history, and learn how Marxism has abused, maimed and murdered millions of people in the last 80 years.


Mistake. It hasnt abused, it Was abused.


Only the Nazi holocoust comes close to the oppression and inhuman crimes of the Communists. The Nazis crimes lasted a decade. Communist oppression began in 1918 and still exists as an ideal for a some.

Ask yourself: Would Marx and especially Lenin call Stalin (and the other nutheads) a communist?
No, because they know their stuff, unlike you.



Philosophical Marxism is a beautiful idea, but it has deadly flaws. Like Christianity and Islam, it can not tolerate the existence of any different ideal. It must reign supreme, and any means necessary can be explained as merely the historical forces of Dialectical Materialism. Marxists tend to be academics or fanatics, neither of whom have much understanding of the human condition.

I dont really understand what you are saying.


Timber, you say, must be a conservative? I think so, but then you must be a naive child to think that Marxism is an ideal worth studying and pursuing.

So he is no conservative?

Yeah, I am sorry, I should have made the War-crimes thing clear.

Just FYI, Marxism, I'm to the ideologic right of some folks here. And I agree with Asherman that as a philosophy, Marxism has appeals. As a practical ideology, however, its flaws and pitfalls are fatal. Human nature being what it is the only way Marxism can be made to work socially is by concerted effort of central authority, to the detriment of individual liberty, which renders it uniquely succesptible to counter-reformation or counter-revolution. Folks just don't work that way, even if it might be nice if they would. Pollyanna doesn't do politics well, and Utopia isn't a real place. Economically, it hasn't a chance. Its appeal is mostly to those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the amorphous "System" and have nothing to lose. And yes, I understand quite clearly the differences among Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism. Of all of them, only Maoism has been shown to have the stuff it takes to survive and compete on a global stage, and even in China, the advance of technology (particularly as regards communication ... cell phones, internet, satellite TV, etc; lose control of the media and you lose control of the mob), mercantilism, and capitalism spell doom for resdistributionist policy.

Say, just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Defense of Marxism website? If not, you might find it of interest.

Just FYI, Marxism, I'm to the ideologic right of some folks here. And I agree with Asherman that as a philosophy, Marxism has appeals. As a practical ideology, however, its flaws and pitfalls are fatal. Human nature being what it is the only way Marxism can be made to work socially is by concerted effort of central authority, to the detriment of individual liberty, which renders it uniquely succesptible to counter-reformation or counter-revolution. Folks just don't work that way, even if it might be nice if they would. Pollyanna doesn't do politics well, and Utopia isn't a real place.

Now tell me what ''job'' Socialism has?




Economically, it hasn't a chance. Its appeal is mostly to those who feel they have been disenfranchised by the amorphous "System" and have nothing to lose.


Or those that are philanthropists and dont only think of themselves, yes


And yes, I understand quite clearly the differences among Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism. Of all of them, only Maoism has been shown to have the stuff it takes to survive and compete on a global stage, and even in China, the advance of technology (particularly as regards communication ... cell phones, internet, satellite TV, etc; lose control of the media and you lose control of the mob), mercantilism, and capitalism spell doom for resdistributionist policy.


Actually, the only economical problem I see with Marxism is the circulation...

Do you happen to know Silvio Gesell?

I loved the Defense of Marxism site Timber, very well produced. In fact it was too good really, probably a classic bit of MI6 CIA handywork.

well I'd never heard of Silvio Gesell, but some people rate him quite highly


Some comments on his book The Natural Economic Order:

"I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx."
J.M. Keynes

"Clarity and literary grace...Theoretically perfectly sound"
Hugh Gaitskell

"May I say at once how delighted I am that there is to be a translation of this book?"
Professor E.A.G. Robinson,
Joint Editor of the Economic Journal, 1957.


If he was good enough for Keynes and Gaitskell is good enough for me.

Just off now to read the whole book at

http://www.appropriate-economics.org/ebooks/neo/neo2.htm :wink:

Excellent read...a real page turner (sorry clicker) off to the pub now to "read learn and inwardly digest" well a bit of inwardly digesting anyway

The ludicrous concept which Marx advances that there is an historical dialectic which can be manipulated to further the socialist revolution is the philosophical concept of Marxism, the abuse of which has had the most pernicious effect on the formation of Communist governments. Lenin's new economic plan was an honest attempt to create in Russia the industrial state thought necessary for the foundation of the socialist "workers' paradise." This is why people like Henry Ford and Armand Hammar were courted and provided aid and expertise to the foundling Soviet state. But after Dora Kaplan shot Lenin, it all went to hell--slowly, but also slowly accelerating, and largely invisibly until Stalin's show trials in the late 1930's. The abuse of the concept of dialectic historical imperatives is implicit in the concept. This was what Orwell was writing about with his character Winston and his profession as "history re-writer" in 1984. To suggest that Marxism is somehow pure, but was debased by Communist states which have existed so far ignores the most basic flaw in Marx's plan for the practical application of his ideological/economic theories--which is that same historical dialect which can so easily be warped and shaped to justify any measure, any extremity. It's little different, to my mind, from Christians who condemn anyone doing something reprehensible in the name of Christ with the contention that those people aren't "true" Christians.

I've read Gesell, both The Natural Economic Order and a number of his essays, along with critcisms, appraisals, and discussions of his work and theories. I believe his economic thinking to be more sound than that of Marx or Lenin ... or Trotsky, for that matter.

Oh, and Steve ... drop a line to those boys ... I'm sure they'll get a real kick out of your criticism of their "too good" website. An old college freind (now living in England) has some to do with them, and I can assure you, they're for real ... well, at least as "for real" as those types can get; they take themselves quite seriously :wink:

On NPR today, Terry Gross of the Fresh Air program interviewed a documentary film-maker about his new film The Fog of War. Here is the blurb from the NPR web site:



McNamara worked very closely with Curtis Lemay in the last months of the war. Lemay had been a Colonel and commander of a bombardment wing in the first "disasterous" raid on Schweinfurt and Regensburg. He soon after took command of the Eighth United States Army Air Force (Bombardment) which was based in England, and conducted the strategic bombing of Germany. Later, he was transferred to the Pacific, and coordinated the bombing missions of the Army Air Forces there. He can reasonably be stated to have been responsible for the operational planning of the very severe bombing of Japan at the end of the war. The program had passages of the McNamara interviews in which McNamara states that Lemay once told him that had the U.S. lost the war, they would all have been prosecuted as war criminals. He says that 67 Japanese cities had been fire-bombed (i hadn't realized it was that many) and points out that the fire-bombing of Tokoyo killed more than 100,000 inhabitants, far worse than Hiroshima.

Wood and paper houses burn easily and fast. It destroyed Tokyo - absolutely.

On the night of May 25/26, 1945, 502 B-29s struck Tokyo with an incendiary raid, burning out 17 square miles, or a bit over half the area, of the city. 26 B-29s were lost, and over 100 damaged. US aircrew casualties, killed, wounded, and captured, were a shade less than 200 (many of the aircraft lost managed to ditch at sea and the crewmembers were rescued by US Navy ships and submarines). Japanese casualties are estimated to have been approximately 84,000 killed, 110,000 injured, and 1,000,000 rendered homeless. Essentially all industry, transportation, military capability, and civil administration within the city limits was crippled. A portion of the Imperial Palace burned, and only heroic effort on the part of Japanese fire brigades saved the remainder of the complex, while entire neighboring districts were abandoned to the firestorm. Updrafts from the fires made it difficult for the last waves of bombers to maintain straight-and-level flight during their bombruns. The raid lasted about half an hour "time over target". Tokyo was not struck again, and the city was tagged on US mission maps as "Destroyed". In terms of destruction and Japanese loss of life, the toll was roughly comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. No European city suffered as badly, and no other single bombing effort of the war so completely demolished an urban target. The devastation remains to this day unparallelled.

In Dresden well over 250,000 people were killed (some say, half a million) and 1,600 acres of land were completely destroyed. (Dresden's only conceivable military target - its railroad yards - was ignored by Allied bombers.)

I admit, Dresden is much smaller than Tokyo, and even with all the refugees, there weren't more than about 1 million in the city.

Your figure for the dead in Dresden is way over anything i've ever read, Walter--i'd be interested in your source. Also, Timber's figure for dead in Tokoyo is less than i've read, and less than the figure mentioned by McNamara.

How about we all agree the numbers of dead will never be known with precision, and all acknowledge how appalling this all is.

One man's death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.
Joe Stalin

Just for reference, Setanta, the casualty figures for the May 25/26 Tokyo raid I cited are quite conservative ... the killed figure is derived from death certificates filed, the wounded figure from hospital records, and the homeless figure derived from an estimate of dwellings destroyed. War and chaos being what it is, the actuality no doubt outstrips the records by a large margin.

It's certainly just a statistic number, but my number really was much too high:
The precise number of the dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known due to the unknown number of refugees. Something between 85,000 to 135,000 dead seems to be the average.
[As for statistics: 3,907 tons of bombs were dropped. Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, and 62 administration buildings = 85% of Dresden was totally destroyed.]

[Some 'nice' jokes by Steven J. Shiles, USMC, from his "Support Our Troops"-website:
Q: What is the difference between the Dresden bombing and Germany's best comedian?
A: Only the first one can make you smile.

Q: Why was the Dresden bombing a mistake ?
A: The RAF made a (H)ASH of it!

Q: How many people from Dresden can you fit in a mini ?
A: About 25000 if you've got a shovel ]

Like your new tag line, there, Walter. Seems to apply most fittingly to Mr. Shiles . . .

is this the last?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1160568,00.html