Dresden

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That of course changes the ethical implications and makes it much more complex. I do not have the information to judge it in that case.

and....the temporal element is that we were at war and there was not time to sip tea and cogitate. If you did not have the information why did you make such a ridged assertion? Come on, let's play a game....I have a loaded and cocked gun and am holding it to your head. I assure you that if you do not answer my question in 15 seconds I will blow your brains all over the floor. You believe me. Now, Mr. Ian, You have a strategic target whose existance takes the lives of your countrymen. You either blow it (and everything in it) to kingdom come or not. Which will it be ....

tick tock....




Why therefore declare war on nazi Germany? If they think it's ok to murder millions of Jews, then they are correct in this ethical judgement by definition according to you.
Your knowledge of history is pertty darn lame.

tick, tock...... [/QUOTE]

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

No, just the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. It's reprehensible whichever side does it.

Innocent?

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Innocent?

People cannot reflect on the Holocaust without quavering in terror at what was inflicted on Europe's Jews. Perhaps the enormity of the crime makes us think that it stems from an innate human fault--albeit one exploited by an evil man. Looking within--specifically within the Germans--is Goldhagen's sphere of inquiry. Previously, explanations for how the Holocaust could have happened were divided into two categories: the "intentionalist" school, which argues Hitler planned a Final Solution all along, and a "functionalist" group involving bureaucratic radicalization of anti-Semitic precepts. This author junks both ideas and presents a ground-up view of the people who pulled the triggers and dropped the Zykon-B. According to the author, the Germans were permeated with an "eliminationist ideal" reaching back to the nineteenth century and further, which posited the Jews as aliens who had to go--somehow.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pr...0/002-5049470-8086414?_encoding=UTF8&n=283155

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That of course changes the ethical implications and makes it much more complex. I do not have the information to judge it in that case.

Ed
and....the temporal element is that we were at war and there was not time to sip tea and cogitate.

Yes there was, although it wouldn't do much good in your case.

If you did not have the information why did you make such a ridged assertion?

My understanding was that Dresden was not a military target. If that is not so then obviously the ethical implications have to be reassessed. I have less than zero confidence though in what people on this board assert since they're inevitably wrong on the subject of the paranormal.

Why therefore declare war on nazi Germany? If they think it's ok to murder millions of Jews, then they are correct in this ethical judgement by definition according to you.

Ed
Your knowledge of history is pertty darn lame.

tick, tock......

A holocaust denier as well -- this surprises me not at all. It's besides the point of my argument anyway. Just imagine the Nazi's did kill millions of Jews. By definition you cannot claim that what they were doing was unethical from their perspective given that ethics is culturally and/or temporally specific.

 

[Ed]

tick, tock.....

 

[Bikewer]

The Wikipedia article seems to have a pretty good overview of the situation; both from the Allied thinking in regards to the strategic impact of the attack, and the subsequent complaints of "war crime".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden

I do not know just offhand if any Luftwaffe command staff or pilots (mostly dead by then) were tried for war crimes regarding the Blitz.
I do not believe that there was any attempt to bring such charges against the decisions to firebomb Tokyo and other targets in Japan, attacks which were much more destructive than the atomic bomb attacks, killing over 100,000 people.

 

[PogoPedant]

Dresden (got to get rid of the Re:s...)

A holocaust denier as well -- this surprises me not at all. It's besides the point of my argument anyway. Just imagine the Nazi's did kill millions of Jews. By definition you cannot claim that what they were doing was unethical from their perspective given that ethics is culturally and/or temporally specific.

Far be it from me to second guess another poster, but I don't think Ed is a holocaust denier. In fact, I rather think that he was alluding to that the reason for the Allies to go to war against Nazi-Germany had little, if anything, to do with the Holocaust. Do read up on history, lots of interesting stuff there. Start with 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Great book.

 

[Ed]

Re: Dresden (got to get rid of the Re:s...)

Far be it from me to second guess another poster, but I don't think Ed is a holocaust denier. In fact, I rather think that he was alluding to that the reason for the Allies to go to war against Nazi-Germany had little, if anything, to do with the Holocaust. Do read up on history, lots of interesting stuff there. Start with 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Great book.

If after 50,000 posts on Jews, Isreal, ans associated subjects Ian can think that I deny the Holocaust I am numb. And my Dad did go thru Aushwitz, BTW. He was part of Pattons Army at the time.

Funny story...

Recall the slapping incident? Patton knocked around some kid who was shell shocked and had to apologise to his Army. Well, Patton was scheduled to apologise to my Dad (actually his regiment) and they waited for hours. Patton finally arrived, all spit and polish and apologised thusly:

We came here to kill Germans. Let's kill the sons of bitches.

That was it.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Why therefore declare war on nazi Germany?

Cause they invaded Poland and was a threat to the security of France and England, you don't think the Allies went to war for altruistic reasons do you? The Holocaust hadn't even started by then.

If they think it's ok to murder millions of Jews, then they are correct in this ethical judgement by definition according to you.

No, if they think it's OK then they are correct in this ethical judgement according to them. They are not correct according to my ethical judgement. I wastly prefer my ethical judgement to theirs, but I don't claim it's given by god or determined by nature, it has been shaped by my culture and my time.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Dresden (got to get rid of the Re:s...)

Far be it from me to second guess another poster, but I don't think Ed is a holocaust denier. In fact, I rather think that he was alluding to that the reason for the Allies to go to war against Nazi-Germany had little, if anything, to do with the Holocaust. Do read up on history, lots of interesting stuff there. Start with 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Great book.

If he were then that is a non-sequitur. And he should also try to learn to communicate more effectively.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Dresden (got to get rid of the Re:s...)

If he were then that is a non-sequitur. And he should also try to learn to communicate more effectively.

Tick, tock......

time is awastein'

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Cause they invaded Poland and was a threat to the security of France and England, you don't think the Allies went to war for Altruistic reasons, the Holocaust hadn't even started by then.

No I don't think that. Therefore they shouldn't have declared war at all.

No, if they think it's OK then they are correct in this ethical judgement according to them. They are not correct according to my ethical judgement. I wastly prefer my ethical judgement to theirs, but I don't claim it's given by god or determined by nature, it has been shaped by my culture and my time.

This means your "ethical" judgement is entirely vacuous. If you're not interested in what's right or wrong, then just say say so.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

No I don't think that. Therefore they shouldn't have declared war at all.

You don't think that countries are allowed to defend themselves?

This means your "ethical" judgement is entirely vacuous. If you're not interested in what's right or wrong, then just say say so.

No it means my "ethical" judgement is culturally determined, so is yours, that you deny it doesn't change the fact.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Dresden (got to get rid of the Re:s...)

If after 50,000 posts on Jews, Isreal, ans associated subjects Ian can think that I deny the Holocaust I am numb. And my Dad did go thru Aushwitz, BTW. He was part of Pattons Army at the time.

You effectively said you were in this thread. I have no idea what you have said on previous occasions since I scarcely ever read the politics forum.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

You don't think that countries are allowed to defend themselves?

Well, you don't have to declare war to do that.

No it means my "ethical" judgement is culturally determined, so is yours, that you deny it doesn't change the fact.

It's not entirely culturally determined otherwise people would never question behaviour which is generally considered to be ok eg eating mammals.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Well, you don't have to declare war to do that.

Sometimesa you do, WW2 seems rather obvious case.

It's not entirely culturally determined otherwise people would never question behaviour which is generally considered to be ok eg eating mammals.

No not entirelly, but mainly.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well, you don't have to declare war to do that.

Kerberos
Sometimesa you do, WW2 seems rather obvious case.

France and the UK declared war on Germany, then sat back and didn't do anything until Germany decided to invade France. What were France and the UK doing which they couldn't have done if they hadn't declared war?

quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not entirely culturally determined otherwise people would never question behaviour which is generally considered to be ok eg eating mammals.

Kerberos
No not entirelly, but mainly. [/B]

I make a distinction between the words ethics and morality. Morality is a culture's perceived objective ethics. Clearly morality is heavily influenced by the peculiarities of ones culture. Nevertheless I think we are all potentially able to apprehend an objective ethics if we can just loosen the shackles of cultural preconceptions.

But your position is most peculiar. Normally people would hold that either ethics is culturally determined, or it is objective. So what are you saying? You can't be saying some ethical standards are objective but most are culturally determined because you reject objective ethics. So what accounts for some peoples' convictions such as it's wrong to eat mammals? They must surely, by definition, simply be in error?

 

[jay gw]

Has anyone mentioned that Germany bombed Stalingrad almost to dust before invading it? It was standard policy to bomb everything in the city before the Nazis rolled in.

Battle of Stalingrad

A massive German air bombardment on 23 August had caused a firestorm in the city, killing thousands of civilians and turning the city into a vast landscape of rubble and burnt ruins. Eighty percent of the living space in the city was destroyed. The Soviet 62nd Army formed defence lines amid the debris, with strongpoints situated in houses and factories.

Stalingrad, 1943

I wonder what happened to those buildings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

So what about Dresden? Sorry, but getting sympathy won't be easy.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

France and the UK declared war on Germany, then sat back and didn't do anything until Germany decided to invade France. What were France and the UK doing which they couldn't have done if they hadn't declared war?

Well Uk helped the Norwegians, they didn't suceed but I'm given to believe that this was at least partially due to bad luck. Of course with the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that UK and France should have declared war ealier when Germany was weak.

I make a distinction between the words ethics and morality. Morality is a culture's perceived objective ethics. Clearly morality is heavily influenced by the peculiarities of ones culture. Nevertheless I think we are all potentially able to apprehend an objective ethics if we can just loosen the shackles of cultural preconceptions.

How does one apprehend this objective ethic and what is it?

But your position is most peculiar. Normally people would hold that either ethics is culturally determined, or it is objective. So what are you saying? You can't be saying some ethical standards are objective but most are culturally determined because you reject objective ethics. So what accounts for some peoples' convictions such as it's wrong to eat mammals? They must surely, by definition, simply be in error?

I doubt my position is particuarly unique. Culture is the main component but there is never one single totaly uniform culture that is the only one you encounter. People are prone to take elements of the different cultures and recombine them rather than adopting a single one unchanged. The notion that mamals have a higher moral value than fish is, I should say, not foreign to our culture and neither is the notion that we shouldn't eat things with a high moral value ((say cats).

As for what non-cultural factors could influence you morals, personal experience might be one, if you're raised in an anti-semitic culture, and you form a friendship with someone who you only latter learn is Jewish this might course you to reconsider the notion that Jews have a lesser moral value. Also cultures change over time and I'd say that this is at least in part due to objective factors. Fx I have heard it sugested that the Muslim reluctance to eat pork is due to a dissease (called tricinner in Danish) that you could get from eating pork from the Middle East at that time.

 

[Kerberos]

Has anyone mentioned that Germany bombed Stalingrad almost to dust before invading it? It was standard policy to bomb everything in the city before the Nazis rolled in.

Battle of Stalingrad

A massive German air bombardment on 23 August had caused a firestorm in the city, killing thousands of civilians and turning the city into a vast landscape of rubble and burnt ruins. Eighty percent of the living space in the city was destroyed. The Soviet 62nd Army formed defence lines amid the debris, with strongpoints situated in houses and factories.

snip

So what about Dresden? Sorry, but getting sympathy won't be easy.

No I don't think that anybody mentioned Stalingrad, so what? Can't the German mourn 35.000 dead without going through a detailed list of every warcrime the Nazis commited first?