Cargando la pagina... por favor espere!

No puedes ver la pagina? Click aqui
Foros de discusión El Malvinense
Bienvenidos al foro del diario digital "El Malvinense", para expresar sus ideas sin censura. Activo desde mayo 2008
InicioInicio  FAQFAQ   BuscarBuscar   MiembrosMiembros   Grupos de UsuariosGrupos de Usuarios   RegistrarseRegistrarse 
 PerfilPerfil   Entrá para ver sus mensajes privadosEntrá para ver sus mensajes privados   LoginLogin 

Crímenes británicos - British Crimes
Ir a página Anterior  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Siguiente
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Guerras
Ver tema anterior :: Ver tema siguiente  
Autor Mensaje

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 1:31 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

cas9480 escribió:

I don't see how you can become offended by a generic statement such as "Harsh? Maybe, but that's how you win wars. Fight to win."

It applies to any war, and is only paraphrasing the views of Carl Von Clausewitz. It certainly wasn't intended as a slight, only a statement of unfortunate fact.

However, I do feel that you're rather myopic in what you'll take offence to; if I, or a Chilean, defend myself with strong language we are assailed for causing insult, people want us banned from the forums, shot, hung or otherwise chastised, while it seems that to denigrate either Chile or Britain, or forum members from those Countries is entirely acceptable.

I freely admit that your posts are always courteous and well considered, but some of your countrymen don't share that trait.

Should I stay quiet when phrases such as "so I'm gonna have to speak in your pig latin language," are used? How would you respond? And what is a vaquita? A cow or something more, perhaps? Last time I looked I wasn't a cow anyway, but it doesn't seem very polite to me!
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 1:34 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Anonymous escribió:
Reconocer que para los alemanes lucharon gente de otras razas y religiones seria dar por tierra con la "pureza racial" que se le atribuye al Tercer Reich y reconocer que Stalin mato a muchos mas seres humanos que Hitler y que goberno mas tiempo nos encontraremos ante una controversia insoluble.


Voluntarios Brit?nicos en las Waffen SS Rolling Eyes

In January, 1944, the title of the unit became the Britsches Freikorps, otherwise known in English as the British Free Corps. Soon after, the BFK was accepted fully into the Waffen-SS, although it had been a part of the Waffen-SS since its formation. Upon acceptance into the ranks of the Waffen-SS, the BFK was also given proper German uniforms and a number of unique and colorful insignia were created for the members.
All members of the BFK were required to issue and sign the following statement: "I, (name), being a British subject, consider it my duty to offer my services in the common European struggle against Communism, and hereby apply to enlist in the British Free Corps."

Nota completa:

Saludos, JPL.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:28 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Ike's Open Field
German Camps 'Stretched
For 10 Kilometers'

In 1945 America and Britain Froze and Starved to
Death Over a Million German POW's And Civilians
From Reni Sentana-Ries

After roughly 5 million German civilians were rounded up and made prisoners of war in 1944/45 Europe became dotted with huge open-field barbed wire fenced camps, where these captives were held like cattle and subjected to the brutal elements of sun, heat, rain, snow and frost, given ever diminishing rations as ordered by Eisenhower until more than one million Germans had perished from hunger and disease in these open fields.

This is the yet untold story of American/British mass genocide against the German
people after the war had ended.

Saludos, JPL.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:28 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Butcher Churchill's Mass Murder
Of Anti-Communist Russians
Countless Prisoners Of War Handed
Back To Stalin By Churchill

From John Whitley

It wasn't just Ike and the Germans, Jeff. British Gen. Alexander, a fervent Christian, refused to obey Churchill's direct orders to hand over anti-Communist Russian prisoners of war to Stalin after the war. Since he was too widely admired and respected to fire, Churchill moved him 'up and out' to be Governor-General of Canada, then proceeded to get his purposes accomplished. British troops were ordered to hunt down and shoot Russian prisoners who tried to escape their fate. Some British troops, weeping, refused to fire on the hapless Russians and were then threatened by their officers with drawn pistols and made to do so. All were then read the Official Secrets Act and compelled to keep their silence. To this day, the vast majority of the British public know nothing of this war crime - directly ordered by Churchill.

And those handed over to the NKVD? As they crossed the bridge which was the handover point, multitudes of Russians threw themselves off it too their deaths on the rocks below as soon as they saw the black-uniformed troops waiting for them on the far side. The others all perished as slave labour.

A Footnote To Yalta

By Jeremy Murray-Brown

In the National Archives in Washington there exists a short clip of film which would appear to be the only one of its kind ever made. It is the unedited footage taken by an American army camera unit at a prisoner of war camp in southern Germany in February 1946. A card, headed "Return of Russian Prisoners to Russia," identifies the subject matter of the film and the location where it was taken.

For many years this unique piece of film was not available for public inspection. What it recorded was a small part of a vast operation that was one of the most sensitive of the Second World War, the handing over to Stalin of large numbers of Russians who in varying circumstances found themselves under German control by the war's end. Some of these Russians had been organized into military units to fight alongside German forces against the Red Army; in addition to them were well-known Cossack regiments who had left their homeland in the period 1917 - 1921 after the defeat of the White Russian armies by the Bolsheviks. In all, several hundred thousand Russians - a staggering number - took up arms against the Soviet Union in the years following the German invasion in June 1941.

The fate of these Russians was one of the best kept secrets of the war. As many as could surrendered to American and British forces, trusting that they would eventually be able to settle somewhere outside the Soviet Union. But in February 1945, at the Yalta conference, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to Stalin's demand that they be handed over to him. The anti-Soviet Russians in the hands of the western allies would therefore be betrayed. To carry out the repatriation order, American and British servicemen often had to resort to deception and brute force. No one doubted what was in store for the Russians once they were in Soviet hands. Many were executed on the spot.

In some instances, Allied guards responsible for turning over their prisoners could see their bodies hanging in the forests where the exchange took place. Some were transferred on the same boat that had brought the British delegation to Yalta a few months previously. They were shot behind warehouses on the quay side with low flying Soviet planes circling overhead to help drown the noise of the rifle fire. Many returned prisoners were tortured before being shot. The remainder disappeared into prison camps for long sentences, receiving the worst treatment of all the Gulag's inmates. Needless to say all were immediately stripped of the new winter clothing and personal equipment that had been generously issued to them by the British in response to the cynical demands of Soviet liasion officers. American and British officers were the appalled eyewitnesses to many desperate acts of suicide by Russian men and women who preferred their own death and that of their wives and children to falling into the hands of the Cheka/NKVD/GPU/KGB.

The Cossack General, Pyotr Krasnov, had fought against the Bolsheviks back in 1918 and hoped that the British would sympathize with his situation, remembering their own intervention at that time on the side of the White Russians. Churchill, British Secretary for War in 1919, had then been the most ardent supporter of their cause; while the Allied Commander-in-Chief in Italy, Field Marshal Alexander, still wore a Russian Imperial order awarded to him for his services against the Bolsheviks in Courland. Krasnov in turn had then been decorated with the British Military Cross. He like other White Russians had never been a Soviet citizen. But his appeals were unavailing. Under the Yalta agreement, he, too was sent back to the Soviet Union to certain death. He was for Stalin a prize captive. Another bonus came Stalin's way when zealous administrators for good measure threw in individuals and groups from the Baltic republics and Yugoslavia who found themselves on the wrong side when hostilities ended and whose repatriation had never been part of the Yalta negotiations.

Of all this, the public in the democracies knew nothing. For three decades the subject remained a closely guarded secret. Western eyewitnesses were obliged by official policy to keep silent. A few journalists knew that some handing over was taking place, but not its scale. But Alexander Solzhenitsyn had met some of the surviving Russians in Soviet prison camps and learned about their history. His account of their fate and that of their leader, General Vlasov, which appeared in the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago, published in 1973 - itself a sensation - was the first the general public in the west heard of the subject and the phenomenon, as Solzhenitsyn put it, of so many young Russians joining in a war against their own Fatherland. "Perhaps there is something to ponder here," he wrote.

When Western archives were at last available to historians, two remarkable books quickly appeared: The Last Secret, 1974, by Nicholas Bethel, and Victims of Yalta, 1977, by Nikolai Tolstoy, both shocking in their detailed accounts of what had happened. The BBC joined in with a television documentary by a Hungarian film maker, Robert Vas, based on interviews with servicemen and civilians who had been involved in the tragedy or knew about it. Some of them confessed to still feeling traumatized by what they had been ordered to do. Solzhenitsyn had written harshly about the moral weakness of Western leaders in kowtowing to Stalin, about the duplicity and short-sightedness of their repatriation policy; and though others defended the decisions taken as a necessity of war, pointed questions continued to be raised over the reputation of prominent individuals who once had a hand in determining the policy. In 1989, a bitter libel action was fought in British courts between a senior establishment figure and his detractors who accused him of being one of the military officers responsible for repatriating Cossack and Yugoslav prisoners knowing what their fate would be. Tolstoy, the author of Victims of Yalta, was one of his accusers, arguing that senior British officers were in this matter just as guilty as German officers executed for war crimes.
The film in the National Archives is thus a unique visual document, an extraordinary witness to a dark episode in this century's history. To historians of documentary films it offers an absorbing text on the elusive correspondence between visual records and historical reality, between pictorial and literary descriptions of events, a subject that requires increasing attention in our image-conscious age. For me the discovery of this film clip came at the same time as I learned with a shock that none of the students I was lecturing to, and who were about to graduate from a leading mass communications institute, was aware of "the Gulag", or indeed had heard of the term. How can one explain the significance of visual records if there is no historical imagination to give them meaning?

Read the rest of this Holocaust:

? 2000 College Of Communication, Boston University
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:29 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Hutch escribió:

“But they have done worse things, for example to be allied with the murderer of Stalin, consequently were accomplices of their crimes.”

You really are very, very naive and ignorant aren’t you JPL. You seem to have no understanding of history, politics, geopolitics and much more besides. You find it very easy to sit – geographically and in time - far away from any danger and try and pontificate from a false moral high ground. All you show is your ignorance, prejudice and a level of being naive that I would not expect an educated 15 year old to have.

Parece que "ignorante" es su palabra favorita ? no ?

Ignorante...? que es ser ignorante ?

*Por ejemplo es creer que UK y USA llevaron "democracia" a Irak ( c?mo si la democracia s?lo fuera poner un voto en una urna )

*Por ejemplo, es decir que Dresden no fu? un crimen de guerra.

*Ignorancia es creer que UK es un pa?s que exporta libertad, democracia y derechos humanos ( cuando en realidad son todo lo contrario )

* Ignorancia es creer que los imperialistas somos nosotros y no UK.

*Ignorancia es no darse cuenta de los desastres, pobreza y miseria que desatan sus gobiernos, por todo el mundo.

*Ignorancia es creer ciegamente en lo que dice la BBC, The Times o Wikipedia.

* Ignorancia es creer que las Malvinas son una democracia, cuando es una colonia se mire por donde se mire.

* etc, etc

? En cu?l de estos puntos se siente identificado, Hutch ?

Saludos, JPL.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:29 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Mass Slaughter Of 7-8 Million
More Germans, 1945-1950


In 1997 James Bacque published his Crimes and Mercies, which showed that more than nine million Germans (mostly civilians) died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after World War II. These deaths were not accidental, but were the result of deliberately genocidal policies instituted by Dwight Eisenhower and Henry Morgenthau. They began planning for this in 1944, before the extent of the atrocities of the death camps became known. (That more Germans did not starve to death or die of illness in the post-war years was due to the humanity of Herbert Hoover and others.) Awareness of this act of genocide has been suppressed for fifty years not only by the Allied governments but also by the German government.

James Bacque: Did the Allies Starve Millions of Germans?

Here is a review of James Bacque's Crimes and Mercies
By Eric Blair -

Crimes and Mercies: A Hidden Holocaust--Revealed

Chapter VIII of the book: History and Forgetting.

The book is available from Amazon US and also from Amazon UK, where a reviewer writes:

"Bacque's book is an amazing revelation of some of the worst crimes ever committed in this century - the fact that they were covered up for so long only makes it worse. After reading this book you will ask yourself who the 'good guys' really were. The truth is that there were no good guys - only amoral manipulators and criminals - on both sides. [Well, actually, as Bacque makes clear, there were some good guys: Herbert Hoover, Mackenzie King, Norman Robertson and Victor Gollancz among others.] This is the book the establishment does not want you to read - and with good reason! It tells of deliberate allied policy to 'reduce' the German population after the war by mass starvation. Well, they succeeded, by 5.7 million to be precise - this in addition to the 1.1 million starved prisoners of war, 2.5 - 3 million murdered ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe and tens of thousands of civilian forced labourers killed from maltreatement in France. Bacque's other excellent book - Other Losses - gives more information about this hidden Holocaust. Order this book now and forget the lies your history teacher told you - remember that history is only the version as told by the winners."

The book been translated into German as Der geplante Tod and is available from
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:30 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Dresden - A Real Holocaust & Act of Terrorism


Once again we pause to remember...

Fifty-nine years ago, on the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours, not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants--possibly as many as half a million--had perished in what was the worst massacre of all time. As Americans continue to bemoan the loss of fewer than 3,000 at Larry Silverstein's World Trade Center and the Pentagon as they themselves prepare to slaughter many times that number in an act of unprovoked aggression in Iraq, few know--less care--about the campaign of cold-blooded TERRORISM conducted against German civilians during World War II, culminating in the extermination of well over 300,000. The following account, taken from the Feb. 1985 issue of the NS Bulletin, tells us what a REAL holocaust is like.

Toward the end of World War II, as Allied planes rained death and destruction over Germany, the old Saxon city of Dresden lay like an island of tranquility amid desolation. Famous as a cultural center and possessing no military value, Dresden had been spared the terror that descended from the skies over the rest of the country.

In fact, little had been done to provide the ancient city of artists and craftsmen with anti-aircraft defenses. One squadron of planes had been stationed in Dresden for awhile, but the Luftwaffe decided to move the aircraft to another area where they would be of use. A gentlemen's agreement seemed to prevail, designating Dresden an "open city."

On Shrove Tuesday, February 13, 1945, a flood of refugees fleeing the Red Army 60 miles away had swollen the city's population to well over a million. Each new refugee brought fearful accounts of Soviet atrocities. Little did those refugees retreating from the Red terror imagine that they were about to die in a horror worse than anything Stalin could devise.

Normally, a carnival atmosphere prevailed in Dresden on Shrove Tuesday. In 1945, however, the outlook was rather dismal. Houses everywhere overflowed with refugees, and thousands were forced to camp out in the streets shivering in the bitter cold.

However, the people felt relatively safe; and although the mood was grim, the circus played to a full house that night as thousands came to forget for a moment the horrors of war. Bands of little girls paraded about in carnival dress in an effort to bolster waning spirits. Half-sad smiles greeted the laughing girles, but spirits were lifted.

No one realized that in less than 24 hours those same innocent chilren would die screaming in Churchill's firestorms. But, of course, no one could know that then. The Russians, to be sure, were savages, but at least the Americans and British were "honorable."

So when those first alarms signaled the start of 14 hours of hell, Dresden's people streamed dutifully into their shelters. But they did so without much enthusiasm, believing the alarms to be false, since their city had never been threatened from the air. Many would never come out alive, for that "great democratic statesman," Winston Churchill--in collusion with that other "great democratic statesman," Franklin Delano Roosevelt--had decided that the city of Dresden was to be obliterated by saturation bombing.

What where Churchill's motives? They appear to have been political, rather than military. Historians unanimously agree that Dresden had no military value. What industry it did have produced only cigarettes and china.

But the Yalta Conference was coming up, in which the Soviets and their Western allies would sit down like ghouls to carve up the shattered corpse of Europe. Churchill wanted a trump card-- a devastating "thunderclap of Anglo-American annihilation"-- with which to "impress" Stalin.

That card, however, was never played at Yalta, because bad weather delayed the originally scheduled raid. Yet Churchill insisted that the raid be carried out--to "disrupt and confuse" the German civilian population behind the lines.

Dresden's citizens barely had time to reach their shelters. The first bomb fell at 10:09 p.m. The attack lasted 24 minutes, leaving the inner city a raging sea of fire. "Precision saturation bombing" had created the desired firestorm.

A firestorm is caused when hundreds of smaller fires join in one vast conflagration. Huge masses of air are sucked in to feed the inferno, causing an artificial tornado. Those persons unlucky enough to be caught in the rush of wind are hurled down entire streets into the flames. Those who seek refuge underground often suffocate as oxygen is pulled from the air to feed the blaze, or they perish in a blast of white heat--heat intense enough to melt human flesh.


One eyewitness who survived told of seeing "young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or the collapsing buildings fell on top of them."

There was a three-hour pause between the first and second raids. The lull had been calculated to lure civilians from their shelters into the open again. To escape the flames, tens of thousands of civilians had crowded into the Grosser Garten, a magnificent park nearly one and a half miles square.

The second raid came at 1:22 a.m. with no warning. Twice as many bombers returned with a massive load of incendiary bombs. The second wave was designed to spread the raging firestorm into the Grosser Garten.

It was a complete "success." Within a few minutes a sheet of flame ripped across the grass, uprooting trees and littering the branches of others with everything from bicycles to human limbs. For days afterward, they remained bizarrely strewn about as grim reminders of Allied sadism.

At the start of the second air assault, many were still huddled in tunnels and cellars, waiting for the fires of the first attack to die down. At 1:30 a.m. an ominous rumble reached the ears of the commander of a Labor Service convoy sent into the city on a rescue mission. He described it this way:

"The detonation shook the cellar walls. The sound of the explosions mingled with a new, stranger sound which seemed to come closer and closer, the sound of a thundering waterfall; it was the sound of the mighty tornado howling in the inner city."


Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly-- they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.

Shortly after 10:30 on the morning of February 14, the last raid swept over the city. American bombers pounded the rubble that had been Dresden for a steady 38 minutes. But this attack was not nearly as heavy as the first two.

However, what distinuished this raid was the cold-blooded ruthlessness with which it was carried out. U.S. Mustangs appeared low over the city, strafing anything that moved, including a column of rescue vehicles rushing to the city to evacuate survivors. One assault was aimed at the banks of the Elbe River, where refugees had huddled during the horrible night.

In the last year of the war, Dresden had become a hospital town. During the previous night's massacre, heroic nurses had dragged thousands of crippled patients to the Elbe. The low-flying Mustangs machine-gunned those helpless patients, as well as thousands of old men, women and children who had escaped the city.

When the last plane left the sky, Dresden was a scorched ruin, its blackened streets filled with corpses. The city was spared no horror. A flock of vultures escaped from the zoo and fattened on the carnage. Rats swarmed over the piles of corpses.

A Swiss citizen described his visit to Dresden two weeks after the raid: "I could see torn-off arms and legs, mutilated torsos and heads which had been wrenched from their bodies and rolled away. In places the corpses were still lying so densely that I had to clear a path through them in order not to tread on arms and legs."

The death toll was staggering. The full extent of the Dresden Holocaust can be more readily grasped if one considers that well over 250,000--possibly as many as a half a million--persons died within a 14-hour period, whereas estimates of those who died at Hiroshima range from 90,000 to 140,000.*

Allied apologists for the massacre have often "twinned" Dresden with the English city of Coventry. But the 380 killed in Coventry during the entire war cannot begin to compare with over 1,000 times that number who were slaughtered in 14 hours at Dresden. Moreover, Coventry was a munitions center, a legitimate military target. Dresden, on the other hand, produced only china-- and cups and saucers can hardly be considered military hardware!

It is interesting to further compare the respective damage to London and Dresden, especially when we recall all the Hollywood schmaltz about the "London blitz." In one night, 1,6000 acres of land were destroyed in the Dresden massacre. London escaped with damage to only 600 acres during the entire war.

In one ironic note, Dresden's only conceivable military target-- its railroad yards--was ignored by Allied bombers. They were too busy concentrating on helpless old men, women and children.

If ever there was a war crime, then certainly the Dresden Holocaust ranks as the most sordid one of all time. Yet there are no movies made today condemning this fiendish slaugher; nor did any Allied airman--or Sir Winston--sit in the dock at Nuremberg. In fact, the Dresden airmen were actually awarded medals for their role in this mass murder. But, of course, they could not have been tried, because there were "only following orders."

This is not to say that the mountains of corpses left in Dresden were ignored by the Nuremberg Tribunal. In one final irony, the prosecution presented photographs of the Dresden dead as "evidence" of alleged National Socialist atrocities against Jewish concentration-camp inmates!

Churchill, the monster who ordered the Dresden slaugher, was knighted, and the rest is history. The cold-blooded sadism of the massacre, however, is brushed aside by his biographers, who still cannot bring themselves to tell how the desire of one madman to "impress" another one let to the mass murder of up to a half million men, women and children.


? 1985 NEW ORDER PO Box 270486/Milwaukee WI 53227
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:30 pm    Asunto: Responder citando


?It seems that "ignorant" is his favorite word right??

It can be applied to many Argentines on this site so it does get used a lot. You yourself have show ignorance a great deal JPL.

?For instance is to believe that UK and USA led "democracy" to Iraq (how democracy if only to put off a vote in a ballot box)?

Who claims this? It is a fact that there now is more democracy in Iraq than there was under Saddam but the country is still a dangerous place. Claims that the Coalition forces went into Iraq for democratic reasons have been made by some and are not believed by all ? many in the UK (a free, democratic and open nation with a long history of dissent) do not believe this.

?For example, it is not to say that Dresden was a war crime.?

Dresden was not a war crime. You ? like many other people ? have been fooled by Nazi and Communist propaganda and never bothered to think for yourself on the issue It was certainly a massive attack that caused much damage and many deaths but it was not a war crime. I do not celebrate the attack but I understand why it took place and do not feel sorry for Germany which brought this destruction on itself and murdered millions of innocent people in cold blood.

Talk of over 100,000 ( I see one of your hilarious sources lists 500,000 dead) deaths is a propaganda lie which has been repeated since the raid by many people, all seemingly unaware of the fact that the actual death toll was originally accurately counted by the Germans as far less and that the truth has been known for some time. Many of the higher estimates are based on a fake after action report (which has been visibly altered by the simple expedient of adding a zero to the end of the totals). The West German Federal Archive in Koblenz discovered a genuine copy the original report. The official "Final Report and Situation (TB47)" produced by Reich Commander of the Order Police a month after the bombings. "TB47" is probably a reasonable guide to the order of casualty numbers. It states definite figures of between 18,000 and 22,000 with estimates of final numbers of 25,000 and includes the interesting sentence "Since rumours far exceed the reality, open use can be made of the actual figures." The death toll may be higher than the city at the time thought, but 100,000? Nonsense.

Dresden was a city which was producing war material, it had ammunition and bomb making factories, it was a major rail head with the biggest rail marshalling yard in that area of Germany, it was a centre for command and control on the axis of the Soviet advance and was 22nd on the list of German target cities. Dresden was a big place ? the 7th largest city in Germany. It wasn?t some quaint little town.

It hadn?t been bombed heavily before, not because it was a pretty place or a hospital city or a ?gentleman?s agreement? but because the RAF couldn?t reach it within safety margins. With the Soviet advance, Dresden was the city which would be the centre of German resistance in the area so it had to be attacked to disrupt those efforts and shorten the war.

?Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.?

Arthur ?Bomber? Harris.

?A Dresden police report written shortly after the attacks stated that the old town and the inner eastern suburbs had been engulfed in a single fire which had destroyed almost 12,000 dwellings including residential barracks. The report also said that the raid had destroyed "24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 647 shops; 64 warehouses; 2 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theatres; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 6 chapels; 5 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. The report also mentioned that the Wermacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. Almost 200 factories were damaged, 136 seriously (including several of the Zeiss Ikon optical/precision engineering works), 28 with medium to serious damage, and 35 with light damage.?

All of this damage aided the Soviet advance, killed enemy soldiers, undermined enemy industry, damaged enemy morale and more besides. Once you get past the Nazi and Communist propaganda (as well as modern political correctness, modern political propaganda and squeamishness about war) the reasons for the raid become clear. Why no similar fuss about Hamburg? Over 40,000 people were killed there in a short series of raids but people don?t cry that Hamburg was a war crime.

Dresden is taken as an ?icon? by many people because of two reasons: gullibility and prettiness.

The Nazi propaganda machine started telling lies about Dresden two days after the raid. Two days after the raid they were telling the world that many, many tens of thousands of people had died there and they were all civilians. This was a lie as people can find out for themselves. After the war the East German Communists found a great icon of ?Western aggression? in the bombed ruins of the city and refused to rebuild much of it so it remained a visual record of capitalists crimes ? they took the Nazi lie and continued it. Ironic is it not? Other people heard about Dresden and willingly believed the worst about it as a stick to beat their own governments, to show they hated war, to promote peace, etc, etc. Maybe noble causes but still causes founded on a lie. The Dresden propaganda machine has rumbled on for over 60 years because people have believed what they were told, not looked into the issue for themselves.

Secondly, Dresden was a very pretty city and it was a cultural loss that it was flattened. Over 40,000 people died in the bombing of Hamburg but that is not held up as an icon. Because it was pretty and had a lot of culture, people find it hard to believe what it was in 1945 ? a centre of Nazi power and control, a war industry city, full of soldiers and a major resistance centre against the USSR. Every day the German resistance continued, many thousands of people were killed. The sooner the war ended the better, especially for the 10 million slaves held in Germany.

Since the Berlin Wall came down many Germans have started feeling sorry for themselves. They have started to portray themselves as victims of the war. This has especially found favour in the East. Dresden has become a focus for some of these with the so called ?Bombing Holocaust?. They forget that although Germany suffered, she started the war which killed tens of millions of people. In real life we all pay for the sins of our fathers.

?Ignorance is believing that UK is a country that exports freedom, democracy and human rights (when in fact they are quite the opposite)?

The UK has done this. Not all the time and no one claims that ? we all know (and Cas and myself have said) that the UK is not a perfect place and has some dark history. But the UK has brought freedom, democracy and human rights to various places.

?Ignorance is believing that the imperialists us and not UK.?

In the case of the FI, Argentina is the imperialist. She wants to annex ? against the democratic wishes of the inhabitants ? a territory ethnically, culturally, geographically, historically, politically, linguistically, socially separate from Argentina and crush freedom and democracy there. She does this as part of a 170+ year old manifest destiny and has included in it territory which she only decided to annex in the 20th century, S Geogia and the S S Islands.

?Ignorance is not realize disasters, poverty and misery unleashed their governments, around the world.?

Who does not recognise this?

?Ignorance is blindly believe in what he says the BBC, The Times or encyclopedia.?

Who does this? How many times has it been shown that the Argentine government, military and media tell lies about the FI. Most Argentines seem ignorant of the UK?s presence and claim on the FI in the 18th century, the fact that no violence was used in 1833, the fact that all the colonists were not expelled from the FI, etc.

?Ignorance is believing that the Malvinas are a democracy, when a colony is look where one looks.?

Who said they were a full democracy? They are a developing democracy which is growing out of a colonial situation. It is fragile as they have an aggressive, imperialist neighbour state which would annex them if it got the chance.

When it comes back to your original quote you show your ignorance JPL. It is clear you do not know what the second world war was or what happened in it. You seem to feel sorry for Germany ? the nation that started the war which killed millions of people ? and have zero understanding of what the war was and how it affected those involved. After a lifetime of believing Argentine propaganda (to an absurd, near hysterical denial of reality point as we saw in another debate) you seem very open to anything which helps you against the UK. How very pathetic.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:32 pm    Asunto: Responder citando

Hutch escribió:

When it comes back to your original quote you show your ignorance JPL. It is clear you do not know what the second world war was or what happened in it. You seem to feel sorry for Germany – the nation that started the war which killed millions of people – and have zero understanding of what the war was and how it affected those involved. After a lifetime of believing Argentine propaganda (to an absurd, near hysterical denial of reality point as we saw in another debate) you seem very open to anything which helps you against the UK. How very pathetic.

El topic se llama "cr?menes brit?nicos" por eso S?LO cito los cr?menes brit?nicos. Los alemanes tambi?n cometieron horrendos cr?menes.
Pero lo que ocurre es que la mayor?a del mundo conoce los cr?menes nazis, pero los cr?menes que cometieron "los aliados", no, o por lo menos no mucho. Esa es la diferencia.

Saludos, JPL.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado

Registrado: 20 May 2008
Mensajes: 582

MensajePublicado: Mie Jun 04, 2008 3:32 pm    Asunto: Responder citando


The issue is that you clearly have no understanding or knowledge of what world war two was ? but still make statements about it to denigrate the UK from a perspective of near total ignorance and prejudice, to make your self feel better. If the UK had not allied with the USSR, with Stalin, then German supremacy in Europe and perhaps more of the world would have been far more terrible and far longer. In war ? something you also know little about ? especially war for national survival you use your allies and any allies you may be able to get.

You also makes more mistakes such as including attacks that did not happen and American or wider Allied actions as ?British crimes?. It may help your ego and help you feel better about yourself and your nation to make a topic like this but it is riddled with flaws, errors and highly biased information.
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado
Mostrar mensajes de anteriores:   
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Guerras Todas las horas son GMT - 3 Horas
Ir a página Anterior  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Siguiente
Página 3 de 7
Cambiar a:  
Podés publicar nuevos temas en este foro
No podés responder a temas en este foro
No podés editar tus mensajes en este foro
No podés borrar tus mensajes en este foro
No podés votar en encuestas en este foro

phpBB Argento basado en phpBB © 2007 phpBB Argento

Page generation time: 0.0398s (PHP: 84% - SQL: 16%) - SQL queries: 16 - GZIP enabled - Debug on