Slashdot Mirror


WW2 Aerial Photographs Go Online

aquarium writes "The Guardian Unlimited reports that unique aerial photographs of some of the key events of the Second World War are to be made available for the first time over the internet. The photographs are being made available through a website created by The Aerial Reconnaissance Archives (TARA) at Keele University - an official place of deposit for the National Archives at Kew, West London. The entire archive of more than five million aerial reconnaissance photographs, shot by the RAF over Western Europe during the conflict, is going online starting Monday. They include American troops landing on the Normandy beaches on D-Day, the seizure of the Pegasus bridge by British paratroops, the aftermath of the first 1,000 bomber raid on Cologne, and the German battleship Bismarck as the Royal Navy hunted her down. The multiple photographs taken by the high resolution cameras meant they were able to create 3-D images through an instrument called a "stereoscope". The technique was used to construct a detailed picture of the Normandy terrain ahead of the D-Day landings."

556 comments

  1. New Additions to the archive... by Kotukunui · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aerial photographs of their servers being "slashbombed" and crashing in flames.

    1. Re:New Additions to the archive... by aheath · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the BBC, "The pictures will go online on Monday." In the meantime, you can see six of the pictures at the BBC News web site if you read the article "WWII archive photos go online".

    2. Re:New Additions to the archive... by KingDaveRa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This site was already playing up a few days ago when I looked at it. Its the Public Records Office all over again.

      Best guess, its probably some old server on the end of a shared university 10mb line or something. JANET are going to be so pleased.

    3. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Tremanhil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was linked to on Fark early this morning, hence the slashdot effect actually happened prior to it appearing on slashdot.

    4. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

      Best guess, its probably some old server on the end of a shared university 10mb line or something. JANET are going to be so pleased.

      Don't be so certain, JANET (the Joint Academic NETwork, which links together UK universities) has a 10 Gbit/s backbone. That's a pretty fat pipe...

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    5. Re:New Additions to the archive... by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remembering the total fiasco Kew Public Records Office made of putting the 1901 UK census records online using IIS, it'll probably take them 3 months downtime to realise that they should have used SCO/Linux servers.

    6. Re:New Additions to the archive... by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      Sorry that should be GNU/Linux, I'm on another planet today.

    7. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I knew an old man who in his youth was a photographer in Army, and flew some missions over Europe taking aerial photographs. That was as dangerous as any other job on the plane. At the time, I wasn't impressed, since he wasn't a "Sargent York" or other combat hero.

      He's gone now, as are many others from that time, including my own father, who fought in the South Pacific, and had three rows of ribbons on his uniform when he returned in 1946.

    8. Re:New Additions to the archive... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean seriously - is it fair to post an article on Slashdot that centers around photographs? It's just taunting everyone because we all know we'll never get to see - as the server is having its shit ruined.

      Guess its time to subscribe.

    9. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Sinus0idal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed they do, but a lookup shows that they have chosen to host this site away from Janet... hence its dotted.

    10. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you were right the first time

    11. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it was farked before it was slashdotted.

    12. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Don't be so certain, JANET (the Joint Academic NETwork, which links together UK universities) has a 10 Gbit/s backbone. That's a pretty fat pipe...

      Of course, the backbone is mostly 2.4 Gbit/s right now. Nominal bandwidth hardly matters anyway as long as the peak usage percentage is at 30% or so. 8-) (It is rumored that a lot of NRNs are operated at even less utilization, at the tax-payers' expense.)

    13. Re:New Additions to the archive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dunno, if i hadn't used up my mod points already i woulda modded it funny for the "SCO/linux" :-)

    14. Re:New Additions to the archive... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I knew an old man who in his youth was a photographer in Army, and flew some missions over Europe taking aerial photographs. That was as dangerous as any other job on the plane.

      It could easily be a lot more dangerous. Since the planes used were likely to be fighters which had all the guns removed. To make room for cameras and increase the top speed. If they encountered an enemy fighter the only option was to run...

    15. Re:New Additions to the archive... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1
      "According to the BBC, "The pictures will go online on Monday."

      It just did. Their new website reads something like this:
      "Thank you for accessing our new website, we are currently experiencing a high volume of enquiries at www.evidenceincamera.co.uk
      Please try again later
      Thank you"
    16. Re:New Additions to the archive... by KingDaveRa · · Score: 1

      Oh they do, but you only get access to it if you're located on one of the main POPs, or within the M25. Many universities, including the one I work for are limited due to the local POP. I did try to find out who hosted it at the time, but I couldn't get through to the site so gave up.

    17. Re:New Additions to the archive... by GerritHoll · · Score: 1

      Even the Dutch news broadcast mentointed it as a nice site, but warned viewers not to visit it because it was experiencing heavy load :-)

  2. what is a steroscope? by bluelip · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a device that is a more complex version of a 'View Master' toy. Take two images from different angles. Feed one image to the right eye and the other to the left. Performs amazingly well.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
    1. Re:what is a steroscope? by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      My highschool had many maps of Canada in that format. I borrowed so many and would sit over them with the magnifier for hours

      They were amazing. 3D, like you were there.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    2. Re:what is a steroscope? by DaLiNKz · · Score: 1

      :\ I can't see stereo.. really feel left out over that stuff sometimes.

      --
      I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    3. Re:what is a steroscope? by Kobal · · Score: 1

      It's also a great way to get a headache. After working all day long for a week with those, I know I don't want to do a job that requires photointerpretation anytime soon.

    4. Re:what is a steroscope? by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      I don't know if it helps but you only need 1 eye to see these. The maps were 2 top-view images of, say, a mountain range. One photo taken from the left side and one from the right side of the range.

      You place the magnifier 1/2 over each (IIRC) and close one eye, not the eye you look into the mag with though, cuz then you only see black.

      The result is a 3D image. Hope that helps!

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    5. Re:what is a steroscope? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You need both eyes to see a 3D image, through a stereoscope or any other way.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    6. Re:what is a steroscope? by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you have the device adjusted correctly (ie, set to your interpupil distance, in focus, squint prisms rotated to compensate for your eyes, pitch, yaw and roll taken account of, etc), they don't cause eyestrain. I used a photogrammetric instrument (big machine - like the size of a desk - it was an 8-man lift if you had to move it) over about 12 years on and off in the army. Some of the smaller ones can be a bit unpleasant, though, as they don't have the adjustments that photogrammetric instruments do.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
  3. Well.. sites already slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! that was fast =)

  4. Don't bother with evidenceincamera.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was already knocked down even when it was in the Mysterious Future.

  5. Carroll O'Connor should be glad.... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

    They didn't lose his aerial photos...

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  6. Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by ten000hzlegend · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Believe it or not, Roald Dahl, the slightly scary looking and GREAT writer of childrens novels was awarded the international aerial photography award during the Second World War for taking highly detailed shots of the Gaza Strip, Crete Gardens and perhaps most famously, the Great Pyramids... he later detailed these flights in his biography

    I have a remarkable print upon my wall of these black and white photos, clear, amazing for the time and look almost isometric, perfect angle shots

    Not bad for a man who wrote about a "cunning" fox

    Kudos

    1. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by EinarH · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If I remember corrctly he enlisted in Kenya (he worked for Shell Oil Company) in 1939.

      Later (in 1940?) he was shoot down over Liby while flying a rec. aircraft. After some months in hospital he had to fly the Hurricane fighter jet. And with only ten hours of training he shoot down two german bombers over Greece. He also participated in the great battle over Athens.

      After that he started to get mediacal problems (headaches?) and they transfered him to Haifa, Palestine. But he started to get black-outs and in 1942 they transfered hoim to Washinghton as an Air Attache.

      I read about this in a biography many years ago. Great reading with many good stories both pre-war and from the war.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    2. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      What, you think just because a guy writes children's books he can't kick some a**?!?

      Seriously though, I googled a bit and couldn't find any links to any of his stuff in digital form, some good links maybe?

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    3. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by EinarH · · Score: 1
      Here is the book.

      From this page:

      With a fractured skull and a bashed in nose, he was blind for some days, but he pulled through, and six months later he joined 80 Squadron at Elevsis near Athens, Greece, that flew Hurricanes now instead of Gladiators. With a whopping seven hours training on Hurricanes, he managed to shoot down two enemy bombers. This squadron and 33 Squadron of famous ace Pat Pattle (the whole RAF force in Greece, 'all twelve of us') fought against great odds but had to pull out of Greece with heavy losses. He gives a very unglamourous insider view of the 'Battle of Athens' in which Pattle was killed.
      80 Squadron was reassembled in Haifa, Palestine. From here, Dahl flew missions every day for a period of four weeks, but then he began to get blinding headaches that gave him black-outs in the air, and he was invalided home to Britain.
      And the book also has a story about Dahl, a German citizen, a Luger and a brain being blown out during the first days of war.
      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    4. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by 1984 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter too much -- and this isn't a flame -- but the Hurricane was a prop aircraft, not a jet. Looks superficially like a Spitfire (the other backbone fighter of the RAF at the time), but a Spitfire has a bulbous cockpit, the Hurricane's is straight. All about it here.

    5. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to mention this as well. Slightly off topic, the Typhoon was the first british jet fighter I believe.

    6. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I was about to mention this as well. Slightly off topic, the Typhoon was the first british jet fighter I believe.

      The Typhoon, and its successor the Tempest, were also prop fighters. The first British get was the Gloster Meteor.
    7. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by mpe · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, Roald Dahl, the slightly scary looking and GREAT writer of childrens novels was awarded the international aerial photography award during the Second World War

      Not all of his writing was aimed at children.

    8. Re:Charlie And The One Hour Processing Factory by Nimey · · Score: 1
      he had to fly the Hurricane fighter jet.


      The Hurri was piston-engined, powered by the classic Rolls-Royce Merlin.
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Funny
    That server surrendered faster than the French! Okay, it's just a joke, we already settled it yesterday, the French fought valiantly in WWII.


    But seriously, the archive sounds like a great idea. There should be more historical material of this sort accessible online.

    1. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by TheWart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to be sure, the site is not responding, but is it actually because of a /.'ing? In a different article I read about this, it said the site will nt be up until Monday, and because of that, it was not responding when I tried to access it yesterday.

    2. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Doh. How about reading a book like "Blitzkrieg myth" by John Mosier, and learn how invasion went... and who were the real cowards in the battlefield; not soldiers, but leaders, esp. english ones. Dunkerque was a fiasco later turned as "victory" by revisionist historians. Sure, not too many losses... at the expense of losing western front for couple of years.

      French troops fought pretty valiantly, in any case (as did Polish... but somehow they are never considered same as french [which they obviously were not either btw]).

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    3. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Reductionist · · Score: 1

      Yeah and the massacre by the SS at Oradour Sur Glane, in retaliation for French Resistance action, never happened.

      Oh and this was four days AFTER the D-day invasion.

      http://www.oradour.info/ruined/summary.htm

    4. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1


      Dunno if you're aware of it, but the Italians helped out with the whole "rounding up" bit as well. Not with the same enthusiasm, but they did help.

    5. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Dunkirk was a victory...

      Put it this way, the French lines collapse and the Belgians surrender. You've got nobody defending your flanks, and Germans are pouring thru and attacking from behind. Getting any troops out is great, getting the bulk of your army away to fight another day is amazing.

    6. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by prof_peabody · · Score: 1

      Retreated faster than the Italian army?

    7. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 4, Informative
      the french were the only ones who actively aided the nazis in rounding up jews and sending them to the ovens

      Bullshit!

      Read your history on Poland, Latvia, Austria, Lithuania, and Romania.

      (I'm not trying to start a flame war here. This is a list of countries where there was extensive collaboration with the Nazi policy of genocide against Jews and Gypsies. This is not to say that there weren't people in each of these countries who risked their lives to resist the Nazis and their policies.)

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    8. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even so, it was a fiasco. We British made an AWFUL lot of mistakes in WWII, it's still a fucking mystery why the Germans failed to capitalise on them.

      Why didn't the Germans invade England? Why didn't the Germans support their U-Boats properly? Why didn't the Germans use chemical weapons in their V1s and V2s? etc etc etc I think, in the end, that it comes down to one simple ting, Hitler was not only evil, he was really fucking stupid too.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1


      The first and biggest mistake was putting British troops under French command on the continent. Second was waiting for the Germans to attack (the phoney war) instaed of attacking first. Of course, it's easy to say all of this in hindsight...

      And what constitues properly supporting a u-boat? A protective screen of destroyers? Kinda takes the element of suprise away, doesn't it?

    10. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Because the Germans couldn't win.

      Why didn't the Germans invade England?
      Because they didn't have air superiority over the channel and lacked amphibious capabilities. The Allied raid on Deppe in '42 showed that it was folly to attack without specialized ships and craft. Had the Nazis gone across in 40-41 in ferries and river barges they'd have failed.

      Why didn't the Germans support their U-Boats properly?
      They did. Then they didn't, then they did. To shorten a long story they never had the industrial ability to build enough to sink enough Allied ships. The Battle of the Atlantic was never as close as most have been taught, look at Clay Blair's 2 volume work on the U-Boat War, and the 1 volume USN submarine war in the Pacific if you are interested.

      Also, the German industrial capacity was never put 100% behind the war and all the time they had to make decisions about what to build out of steel, Railroad Guns, Tanks or Subs and the Germans were always short of vital system.

      Why didn't the Germans use chemical weapons?
      Because Hitler was gased in WW1.

    11. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      On chemical weapons in the rockets.

      It would have been very costly to the Germans to do that.

      Say in July 1944 had the V1s and later on V2s been equiped with chemical weapons it might have killed...twice as many British citizens as the conventional warheads did, seeing as a V weapon's warhead was 1,870 pounds in the V-1 and 2,000 pounds in a V-2.

      http://www.ww2guide.com/vweapon.shtml
      V-1 Number lauched: 10,000 against the UK, 12,000 against Western Europe (up to 18,000 V-1s launched total.)

      V-2s - 1,120 were launched against England (1,050 actually impacting the ground in that country )

      "About 4,320 V-2 rockets were fired by March 27, 1945 with another 600 expended in training which mainly took place near Blizna, Poland."

      "The total bomb tonnage for the Second World War dropped by both the RAF and the 8th and 15th Air Forces in Europe on Germany totalled 1,234,767 tons of bombs more than 60 percent of which were dropped between July 1944 and April 1945."

    12. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by DillPickle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Just to go along this line of thought:

      Adv. For Sale: WW2 French rifles - never fired and only dropped once. (teehee)

    13. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Offtopic but I'm a huge Ambrose fan, I've read all of his books. I haven't read any Keegan, but I just picked up a couple of them. Any suggestion on what his better books are? I just ordered the Face of Battle and First World War.

    14. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      well, his book "second world war" is pretty good. i use it alot in my mod civ class in high school. Also, the "history of warfare" is a good rebuttal to clausewitz. (clausewitz argued that war is diplomacy by other means). also, he writes many, many articles in publications. and, if you like keegan, you'll like barbara tuchman. she passed away a few years ago, but two of her best are "guns of august" on ww1, and "a distant mirror" about the 14th century. i like to read alot on similar subjects by different authors. great perspective.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    15. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      i never said that there weren't french who resisted. and i never said that there weren't french who were killed because of that. there were some very brave frenchmen who rescued allied bomber crewmen. but, as official policy, the vichy government, which was french, capitulated and asissted the nazis. and remember, the very first bullets fired at american troops in the ETO were fired by vichy french troops at cassablanca.it goes without saying that the french were not very helpful to the defeat of the nazis.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    16. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      of ocurse there were collaborators throughout europe. even in denmark and holland. and of course the croatian ustashi batallions were notorious. but, the vichy gov't ran much of occupied france, and while one could claim it was a "puppet" gov't, it was a french gov't. and they officailly sided with the nazis. in fact, it was vichy troops that fired first on US troops at cassblanca. not germans, not italians, but french. and nowhere else in europe was collaboration so widespread. in the baltic nations, those that had been stolen by stalin, they saw the nazis as possbile liberators from stalin (can you blame them), and it was only after the einsatzgruppen came by and "liquidated" the population, that things turned.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    17. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Read your history on Poland, Latvia, Austria, Lithuania, and Romania.

      As well as Hungary.

      (I'm not trying to start a flame war here. This is a list of countries where there was extensive collaboration with the Nazi policy of genocide against Jews and Gypsies.

      In several cases the collaboration involved members of the ethnic groups being attacked.

      This is not to say that there weren't people in each of these countries who risked their lives to resist the Nazis and their policies.)

      Even over 60 years on parts of the history of the Second World War are parts of myth pushed by vocal and powerful contempoary political groups.
      This includes many of the "racial purity" policies of the Nazis, even to the point where several countries have laws against questioning popular dogma. Even by historians and acheologists.

    18. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome, thanks. I'm goign to have to pick up that Guns of August, haven't read nearly enough WW1 books.

    19. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the Germans couldn't win.

      Don't know if I'm so sure about that, I think there are only 1 or 2 things that they really did wrong (or rather, right for all of us offcourse)

      Why didn't the Germans invade England?
      Because they didn't have air superiority over the channel and lacked amphibious capabilities. The Allied raid on Deppe in '42 showed that it was folly to attack without specialized ships and craft. Had the Nazis gone across in 40-41 in ferries and river barges they'd have failed.


      You're right, the question should should have been: why did they give up on England or rather give up on pummeling the RAF. I think the battle of Britain is the one point in the war where they could have won everything.

      The RAF was on the brink of collapsing, giving the germans the air superiority they needed to invade. If they could have subdued England it would have been very bad for all of us indeed.

      Luckilly for us Hitler was an idiot so he was dead set on going against Russia and wanted vengeance for the bombing of Berlin, but I think it was pretty close.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    20. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by goatan · · Score: 0
      all the Francophiles try to rewrite history, but the fact is, the myth of the French resistance, is just that, a myth. Having read numerous accounts of the ETO, from generals to privates, to historians like Ambrose and keegan, none give more than token credit to la resistance.

      Not just that but your average French Citizen regarded the resistance as the enemy because they would be on the receiving end of any retaliation, and don't forget those that actively fought or worked for the Germans or the Vichy regime

      The resistance and marquis (armed resistance) did try to do a lot for to free there country but there efforts were hampered by there own countrymen especially in the south under Vichy control. Allo Allo was the best bit of propaganda the resistance ever had

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    21. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by quigonn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why didn't the Germans use chemical weapons in their V1s and V2s?

      Chemical weapons were never considered by Hitler because he was actually a victim of a gas attack in World War I, when he was fighting for the Germans. After that, he temporarily lost his eyesight, and regained it after two weeks being blind. During the rest of his life, he always had health problems and a lot of long-term after-effects caused by the gas.

      --
      A monkey is doing the real work for me.
    22. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by jd678 · · Score: 1

      Vichy france was allowed to exist only if the Vichy french supported the Germans - this included firing on the incoming allies; the other option was losing Vichy France to the Germans. Soon enough, the French stopped firing, and as punishment Germany then took over all of France, hence ending the Vichy treaty.

      The exiled French Government in London did not support Vichy in any way.

    23. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by jd678 · · Score: 1

      And the Italians were on whose side initially?

    24. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well as Slovakia. In fact, if it wasn't for the anti-nazi Slovak National Uprising in 1944, Slovakia would be probably declared a looser in WW2 because of local government's collaboration.

      (sad but true, and don't flame, I'm Slovak too :)

    25. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by pwagland · · Score: 1
      the french were the only ones who actively aided the nazis in rounding up jews and sending them to the ovens Bullshit!

      Read your history on Poland, Latvia, Austria, Lithuania, and Romania.

      Or, if books are too much work, try watching the film "The Pianist". Roman Polanski, the director, is Polish, and that really helps to add the realistic feel of the film.
    26. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      great, and afterwards, i'll go have sex with a 13 year old.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    27. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by sprekken · · Score: 1

      Soon enough, the French stopped firing, and as punishment Germany then took over all of France, hence ending the Vichy treaty.

      I've always thought that this was an interesting fact of WWII, although I don't think that it was as much "punishment" as you say, but just generally looking out for their own interests.

      You see, Germany feared an allied attack on their western border from the British whom they'd already expelled from the European continent. The treaty with the Vichy government was, I think, an attempt by Germany to have allies to help protect against the British invasion without sacrificing a lot of German troops that could then fight against the Russians (Germany's arch rival). I think that when the Vichies stopped protecting the border Germany had to send in some armies to secure the European seaboard. IMHO, I don't think that Germany cared much about France, or wanted to really "own" it as many people think... I think that their real goal was Russia, except that all of these other countries kept getting in his way, and he had to invade France to keep everyone else out until the Russia campaign was over.

      I also think it's a bit interesting how most French people didn't mind the Germans taking over. It provided them with a stable government (which they hadn't had for a long time), and their lives were generally better with them there... that is until the Allies landed and bombed the hell out of the entire European continent. I think that must have sucked.

    28. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by sprekken · · Score: 1

      Even over 60 years on parts of the history of the Second World War are parts of myth pushed by vocal and powerful contempoary political groups.

      I've been noticing more and more of this recently in my studies of WWII, and it is really disturbing.

      ...even to the point where several countries have laws against questioning popular dogma. Even by historians and acheologists

      This is even more disturbing to me. The deeper I try to research specific topics that aren't really even that "hot" on the "popular dogma" scale I run into a lot of resistance. It is like there is someone at the bottom of all of this knowledge who is terrified of anyone finding out what really happened.

      Strange indeed.

    29. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Obviously you haven't read about the book I mentioned, have you? Belgians surrendered largely because british left (indicated they will leave), not the other way around. And while there was bit of a breakthrough by germans on french side, it wasn't something that was (at that point) outflanking british troops; nor anything that couldn't have been stopped with proper reaction. Worst thing was french leaders panicked, and as a result Churchill too panicked (which was bit unusual for him, to take french panicking too seriously). The idea that germans were unstoppable was created later to defend panicky retreat at Dunkerque.

      And that's why it'd be good to read some actual descriptions of how french campaign really went; not just what allied generals wanted to paint it as. It's not that it was THE worst outcome, but it certainly wasn't very good either. .

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    30. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Second was waiting for the Germans to attack (the phoney war) instaed of attacking first.

      Another common misconception. It's not well known, but french DID attack on western front right after Poland was invaded. And with quite a force too (3 or 4 tank divisions supported by infantry); although mostly just trying to see how it goes... too bad attack was halted right on by german minefields & fortifications at west wall. At that point, french figured they'd get slaughtered trying to attack through that part of border (and were probably right)... but they didn't want to (try to) violate Belgium or Netherlands; for good reason too -- both countries were neutral, unless a bigger country attacked, and thus might have allied with Germany if allied had tried that.

      Hitler's chances of invading England were nil, though; germans just didn't have naval force to do that to begin with, nor enough air force (which british had plenty; about the only part of military that was decently funded before the war). And Germany had also lost much/most of its airborne forces and eq; plus significant part of navy in Norway campaign. Just like Napoleon, Hitler didn't have means to fight british in their own turf.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    31. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      Well, England did have a large airforce, but how much of it could have been considered to be "front line" fighters? From what I recall (history major speaking now) Spitfires and Hurricanes were in short supply during the battle of britain... more Spitfires than hurricanes, but the 'canes were nearing the end of their careers as fighters at that point anyhow (figher/bomber was another story however).

      A lot of the RAF consisted of nearly useless medium range bombers. It wasn't until spitfire production ramped up and the Lancasters were available in large numbers (and bombing tactics improved) that the odds shifted overwhelmingly towards the RAF.

      But, you're right, the navy was the sticking point. There's no way Germany could have put any signifigant number of troops ashore without being mauled by the Royal Navy.

    32. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Hey guy!!
      French people likes jokes too!!
      but come to visit our militarys and civils cemeterys and i believe you will change your mind.
      Don't forget to visit us for the 60th birthday of the D-DAY this year.
      It will be a great pleasure for the French Nation
      to thanks again and again to OUR FRIENDS:
      American, Canadian, Scottish, Irish, English, Welsh, Australian .......
      And don't forget no more the 18 MILLIONS Russians
      who died for the LIBERTY AND FOR YOU.

      We are waiting for you ASAP.
      Have a nice DAY

      In french:
      Mon gars!!
      Les francais adorent aussi l'humour!!
      mais tu es invite a venir voir nos cimetieres militaires et civils et je crois que tu changeras
      d'avis.

      N'oublies pas de venir en France pour commemorer les 60 ans du debarquement de nos amis americains, canadiens, du royaume uni, australiens
      et francais naturellement.
      N'oublies pas non plus les 18 millions de morts civils et militaires de nos amis Russes.

      Nous t'attendons avec plaisir.

      flaplace@voila.fr

    33. Re:Slashdot Blitzkrieg by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Well, England did have a large airforce, but how much of it could have been considered to be "front line" fighters?

      My understanding was that it was relatively speaking well-funded... which doesn't necessarily mean top-notch, just better than, say, ground forces. But I understood that tank situation was much worse (was fixed by US help), and also number of infantry soldiers was way too small (to degree it was a problem for Normandy invasion... thanks to Italy operation, that was, after getting Sicily airfields, waste of time and resources).

      It's also kind of interesting how both Napoleon and Hitler had preliminary plans of invading England; Napoleon though had much more ambition, and real dedication to get it done... but eventually lost his navy, and then interest. I'm not sure if Hitler ever seriously really considered it... although german army obviously did couple of plans, just to see feasibility (or lack of, rather).

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  8. Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Bender_ · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Will they also have pictures of the devastated dresden after they bombed the city center crowded with hundreds of thousands civilian refugees and no military targets in sight?

    1. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by deadite66 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      does germany have pictures of the nazis bombing london?

    2. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the f*** marked this as flaimbait. This is absolutly not flaimbait, but a historicaly accurate fact. In fact it may bring on some intresting and insightfull comments. I for one would like the photos of Dresden publically available. Perhaps then people will see the idiocy and pointlessness of war, espically an attack driven purely out of rage and anger such as the Dresden raid. ( Not that the Germans didn't do the exact same thing to Coventry, but...)

    3. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Will they also have pictures of the devastated dresden after they bombed the
      > city center crowded with hundreds of thousands civilian refugees and no military
      > targets in sight?

      They did what they thought they needed to do to end (that is, win) the war. (Ditto with the atomic bombs dropped on Japan). It's easy to make predictions like `it had no effect`, `they would have won anyway` now, isn't it?

      Note that for some years now people have quoted David Irving to show the number of deaths in the Allied bombing on Dresden, but given that he was found in open court in the UK to be a liar, Nazi apologist and even denies that the Holocaust even happened, it's probably unwise to take his `work` too seriously.

      It's instructing to see the same mindset at work in both Dresdon, and 9/11 or Oklahoma (McVeigh).

    4. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Captain+Pedantic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they do in the print edition of the Guardian. Curiously, the BBC are showing all of the pictures printed in the paper except that one.

      There is no way the parent post should be modded flaimbait. The firebombing of Dresden was a major atrocity of WW2, and the person who lead it, "Bomber" Harris should have been tried as a war criminal. Instead, there is a nice statue of him in London. Also, he had a nice sidelne in using chemical weapons on Kurds in Iraq.

      --

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
    5. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hear that, thats the sound of Sweden and Norway shutting up.

      Thats where the Nazi (sorry , Nationlist Socalists they call themselves or something) are today.

      Clueless tards.

      Its a global community yet some people cannot grasp that concept, its too abstract. The love for one country always brings hate for another.

      Get over it, its the same fuckin rock.

    6. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe English isn't his first language, you inbred underschooled one language speaking American pig.

    7. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good question there... You can find pictures of Darmstadt which was bombed as a preparation for Desden, home of the famous Dresden technique where incendiary bombs are thrown in a way that would raise the temperature so the rest of the city can burn and suffocate. Aka the shoehorn technique.

      Why have you been ranked "flamebait" (flame? did someone say flame?) while 10 million civilian Germans were killed that way and countless Japanese children too I do not know.

      Probably because we are a few, ex Allied or ex Axis countries decendants, who have taken the trouble of verifying historical facts and get both sides of the story. My own history books never mentioned all the civilian bombings, they mentioned Hiroshima, Nagasaki but they never did mention Kobe and the fact that regular bombings did more victims than the A bomb everyone talks about when they try to sound informed. We were never asked to read The Graveyard of The Fireflies (or watch the modern animation). Now that would tell us a bit more about WWII's reality.

      I think those who did live it aren't too proud (my own stepd dad being a B-24 flight engineer) and those who were on the receiving end never had a voice... Because it doesn't look too good.

      Remember, we were the GOOD ones. If we did look bad, it meant the commies were the good ones, so that simply had to go.

      Well, I want to thank you for having the courage to stand up and reminding us what good it actualy was. I hope that instead of replying to this post and yours in hatred, people just start wondering "What the fuck are you two talkign about" and double check any points made here on the Internet. That in itself would be a heck of a victory.

    8. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Will they also have pictures of the devastated dresden after they bombed the city center crowded with hundreds of thousands civilian refugees and no military targets in sight?

      Yesterday, I was at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC. As I was wondering around (for the first time since I was 6, wow!), I happened upon a V-1 flying bomb and a V-2 rocket. These devices were used by the Germans against the civilian population of London; firebombs, similar to those used on Dresden and Hamburg, were also dropped by the Germans on Coventry and Belfast.

      Certainly, the firebombing of German cities was an atrocity; but these acts were conducted in response to previous deliberate targetting of UK cities by the Luftwaffe. This is the historical context which I think the parent post is lacking in.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    9. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i speak for everyone"

      Nein, das ist Sie nicht so.

      I resent you(r remark).

      Dresden was a massacre(no genocide), no matter what nazi's did.

    10. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Here is a hint. German should not have used the tactics they did (hell, they should not have started the war in the first place). After all, they tried to do this to London.

      Also, please lookup the meaning of the word genocide.

    11. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by random_static · · Score: 1
      They did what they thought they needed to do to end (that is, win) the war. (Ditto with the atomic bombs dropped on Japan). It's easy to make predictions like `it had no effect`, `they would have won anyway` now, isn't it?

      it's even easier to say it was a war crime.

      that the perpetrators of certain war crimes thought their crimes were necessary at the time shouldn't be much of a surprise. even the military won't let you carry a gun very long if you go committing atrocities without even that slender an excuse. but that doesn't make these actions less criminal; there's nothing about an atrocity that says, "oh well, if you really, really insist you have to, then it's not so atrocious after all". it doesn't work that way.

      it might even have actually been necessary - though of course we'll never know - and yet nonetheless been a war crime. you're no less a robber for stealing that loaf of bread just because you would have starved to death otherwise, after all.

    12. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1
      No, but apparently, Harris persisted in attacking cities even when told to switch to military targets in preparation for Normandy.

      Another opinion states he was simply the person responsible for carrying out Churchhill's orders.

      I really don't know whom to believe anymore

      Bombing cities took an enormous toll on the bombers as well, the germans knew they were coming.

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    13. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, so in your logic it is right to kill civilians of a country, because the gouvernment is committing atrocities?

      The civilised allies should have known better.

      Did you realise that this is the same logic that is used by terrorists? After all all the victims of 9/11 and almost all recent other terrorist attacks had to suffer for things done by their gouvernment.

    14. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by random_static · · Score: 1
      Certainly, the firebombing of German cities was an atrocity; but these acts were conducted in response to previous deliberate targetting of UK cities by the Luftwaffe.

      that's true, but merely being true does not prevent it from sounding an awful lot like "but he started it, mommy!".

    15. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Haeleth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless of whether you call the bombing of Dresden a war crime, genocide, an atrocity, a massacre, or just a sound tactical decision - it happened. For that reason, I hope the site when it becomes accessible does contain pictures of it, if they exist.

      Because it is important that the horrors of war be documented; not as records of "atrocities" or "necessary evils", but merely as an illustration of what we are all capable of when we fail to resolve our differences peacefully. There is little to be gained by pointing fingers of blame; but there is much to be lost if we do not strive to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

    16. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEY, FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

    17. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombing cities took an enormous toll on the bombers as well, the germans knew they were coming.

      What's the point of that statement? Afterall, flying a jet into the WTC took an enormous toll on the hijackers as well; the passengers and flight crew on board no doubt gave them some degree of resistance, injuries, death, etc.

    18. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Certainly, the firebombing of German cities was an atrocity; but these acts were conducted in response to previous deliberate targetting of UK cities by the Luftwaffe. This is the historical context which I think the parent post is lacking in.

      Sure, but that's a lousy excuse for atrocities. That the scope of german bombings was miniscule compared to allies' may be irrelevant, but the fact is none of those civilians was responsible for bombings. Further, Hitler was considered a brutal barbarian (and rightly so); allied bombing raids did nothing to make US and UK look any better. Strategic bombing was also clearly MEANT to "break the german will", by targeting alongside 'real' military targets also civilian ones... so those weren't accidents by any means. It would have been normal to have civilian casualties, obviously, but pure collateral damage would have been much less. This was, like you said, pure revenge.

      It's too bad those bombing barons were never held responsible for their callous disregard of human life (both for their own soldiers and enemy civilians); and the worst thing is it had very little positive effect on war itself. German industrial production kept on raising all through 43 (during heaviest bombing raids), all the way to summer of 44; after which germans started losing important resources (iron ore from France, Romanian oil from Ploesti), and then war industry started to decline. And as to spirit to fight... it was actually studied (after the war), and it was found to have little effect there either. Will to fight between heavily bombed cities, and those that weren't was nominal (study was done by USAF, by the way, to try to evaluate how well campaign went). One can wonder how anyone thinks that killing your loved ones makes you less willing to fight against enemy that caused the deaths.

      But not only were german civilians grilled alive by tens or hundreds of thousands; allied also lost over 100k air force personnel during the war; most of them during bomb raids. And yet many still consider generals who devised these strategic bombing campaings heroes. Sad how winners can write and rewrite history.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    19. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Parent post is that of a lying troll. 10 million German civilians were NOT killed in WWII. 780,000 WERE killed. Not even the German military lost 10 million.

      As for Harris, whilst he may have gone too far in saying that he was targetting the German population, back then there wasn't really a choice. A city was the target of a raid because a city was the smallest target that could be hit. Even then, early in the war, many bombers missed entire cities.

    20. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      One can wonder how anyone thinks that killing your loved ones makes you less willing to fight against enemy that caused the deaths.

      Which makes the whole neo-con idea of "shock and awe" all the more absurd.

      In any case, I wasn't attemtping to justify Dresden; just to point out the context in which it occured.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    21. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      The citizens of Germany voted Hitler into power and did nothing to stop him.

    22. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Fembot · · Score: 1

      genocide n.

      The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

      Looks more like just attacking civilian targets than genocide to me...

    23. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite your bait..

      Genocide == the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

      What the Allies did during WW2 was not genocide. It was a devastating fire-bombing performed to ruin the moral of Germany's remaining forces. The people on the ground were of no single racial, political, or cultural group.

      Fact is, Hitler's army dropped the first bombs on civillian targets in London. It was unintentional, apparently due to bad navigation, but it opened the door to Allies targetting civillian targets.

      The way I see it, you have a warcrime if one side bombs the other's cities. You have a mutual agreement if you decide to retaliate with the same medicine they fed you.

      So anyway, the over-simplified remark that this was genocide would likely cause someone to respond in a slightly heated manner. That's likely the reason for the mod.

    24. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by jimbo3123 · · Score: 1

      Dresden is (and has been since before WWII) one of the most industrialized cities in germany. To say that there were no military targets in sight is crazy. The Nazi war machine was largly constructed in the factories and shops throughout the area.

      --
      There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
    25. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      Ummm... I think he meant that bombing the cities gave the Germans advance warning and allowed the Germans to set up anti-air defenses and shoot down more bombers than they would have otherwise.

      So, bombing cities not only did not help the Allies militarily, it hurt them.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    26. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1


      And here's hoping they have tons of pictures of all the people who were killed by the indiscriminate policy of "unrestricted u-boat warfare".

      People die on both sides... Dresdin was no worse than putting a torpedo into a passenger liner.

    27. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by /dev/trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First rule of war. The victors never face war crime trials.

    28. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by carn1fex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the attacks on civilian targets by both sides began with the accidental bombing of a british city by the germans, mistaking it for an airfield. Then the brits hit back and things escalated. The V2 wasn't used until the end of the war.

      --

      ---------

      No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

    29. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Gumshoe · · Score: 1

      Why in God's name is this flamebait? Nazi Germany conducted a ceasless campaign against London for years on end. 1940 being the darkest year, with over 13,000 civilians being killed. It pisses me off no end when people cite Dresden and fail to mention the London Blitz.

    30. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wasn't genocide, but does it really matter if I eliminate a hundred thousand people of mixed ethnicity or a hundred thousand jews. Either way it's a BAD thing. That was my point. Also as far as I've seen there is no evidence that the destruction of civillian targets brought the war to an end any quicker. Infact it may have lengthened the war. When Hitler stoped targeting the RAF fighter bases and turned his attention to civilian targets it infact gave the RAF the upper hand. The same could be said of the allied war effort. The redirection of firepower away from military and strategic targets to civilian targets could have impeded the war effort. Especially if the civilian target had very little to do with the war effort such as in dresden. Genocide, probably not technically, immoral... YES

    31. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      the fact is none of those civilians was responsible for bombings
      Did they not work in factories building aircraft and munitions?
    32. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Well sure...'absurd' I guess, disregarding one little detail: the shock and awe of Baghdad didn't really destroy the city, did it?

      The shock and awe of today isn't flattening a large city. Shock and awe is merely that...bomb military targets with as much ferocity as you can while avoiding civilian casualties. The populace will see the effects of your bombs, and hopefully have no desire for any more to go off near them.

      Shock and awe won't make everyone cower for terror, but it will make people pause for a second and think 'hey, why is this happening? Do I want this to happen? Can I do anything to prevent this from happening again and maybe killing me and my family?' What's so bad about that? Oh yeah! It first occured while neo-cons were in power so it must be an absolutely awful idea.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    33. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never heard that one, could you provide any hints about where to read up about it?
      Thanks,
      rob

    34. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by akb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's the second rule of war. The first rule of war is that innocent people die.

    35. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by E_elven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh gee, don't anyone mention Hiroshima.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    36. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      And Americans financed him at a time when his party was almost bankrupt.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    37. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Informative

      It first occured while neo-cons were in power so it must be an absolutely awful idea.

      Actually, "shock and awe" is the logical and moral successor of the Geman Blitz. So the neo-cons didn't invent it, they just followed the lead of the Nazis.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    38. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Watch Schindler's List, then try again.

    39. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, you have a warcrime if one side bombs the other's cities. You have a mutual agreement if you decide to retaliate with the same medicine they fed you.

      I think any invividual that participates in such an agreement should be prosecuted (= put behind bars).

      But that's my personal idealism.

      In the long run we just need to learn to solve our conflicts before they escalate so far.
      At that point in the war they probably threw everything at each other that they had (except for the A-Bomb). If another war at the current (or a future) technology level escalates to that stage there will be much more devastating "mistakes" (the "oops I wiped your city"-class).

      I know this is probably obvious and common sense.
      At least I hope so...

      Disclaimer: No, I don't believe in the perversion of "surgical warfare".

    40. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 million German civilians!?
      You haven't done much "verifying historical facts" if you can spout revisionist tripe like that.

      Less than a million german civilians died as a result of the RETALIATORY bombing.

      Either US education standards have plummetted from their previously well known low level or you are a dirty Nazi troll struggling as best you can with the little english you learned from watching videos of KKK rallies.

      Either way, your dad (the alleged B-24 flight engineer - no such rank existed - ) would've better served his country by dying so that you would not have been born.

    41. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Kotukunui · · Score: 1
      the person who lead it, "Bomber" Harris should have been tried as a war criminal

      Generally speaking, you only get tried for war-crimes if you are on the losing side when hostilities subside.
      The line between war-hero and war-criminal is just as dependent on point of view as the distinction between terrorist and freedom-fighter
    42. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Samlind1 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The RAF learned the "Dresden" technique studying what the Luftwaffe did to Coventry on November 14th, 1940. After Coventry was raised, the Brits gave it back to the Germans. Harris never expressed any remorse, believing he was right until his death.

      By design and by capability, Japan's war production was distributed into a huge number of small shops, the Japanese military leaders feeling this method would blunt any attempt at effective strategic bombing by the US. Up until January 1945, they were right.

      Curtis Lemay had been working the 8th Air Force in England during 1942-43, and then sent to the Pacific theater in July 1944, rising to head the 21st Bomber Command in January 1945. Using what he had learned from the Brits in England, he proceded to fire bomb Japanese cities into ashes. On March 9-10, 1945 the firebombing of Tokyo killed 110,000 people, far more than either atomic weapon did.

      He went on to lead the Berlin Airlift, and to head the Strategic Air Command from 1949 to 1957, becoming Air Force Chief of Staff in 1961. He also was George Wallace's running mate in 1968.

    43. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      while 10 million civilian Germans were killed that way

      Where the hell did you get that figure? Dresden was the worst of the German civilian bombings, and even the Holocaust deniers would say that was 200,000 deaths. (Other accounts would call it as 20,000 deaths.) Given the amount of political capital that could come from the number of civilian German deaths being more then the number killed in the Holocaust (by any account), I'm sure the neo-Nazis would have dragged that out if that number had even the remotest relation to reality.

      We were never asked to read The Graveyard of The Fireflies (or watch the modern animation). Now that would tell us a bit more about WWII's reality.

      I take it you never read about the bombing of Chinese civilians. Japan was the agressor; they could avoided attacking other nations, could have been smart enough to limit their attacks to weaker nations, or been smart enough to accept unconditional surrender when offered. Why should have America accepted a million deaths to take Japan (farmboy's lives don't become worthless when they are drafted), when they started the war?

      If we did look bad, it meant the commies were the good ones, so that simply had to go.

      The Commies that killed 30 million of their own people, with no possible justification of war?

    44. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You may be correct. But modern America doesn't try to hide what happened.

      Modern Germany does.

    45. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Nexx · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but Dresden was peanuts compared to the firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka.

    46. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record, the whole point of Dresden was to create a firestorm (they were dropping napalm), and the raid didn't even touch what little industry existed there -- it was entirely concentrated against resisidential areas.

    47. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Obfiscator · · Score: 1
      Ditto with the atomic bombs dropped on Japan

      I would say that no, that's not why the bombs were dropped on Japan. Truman recorded in his diary that he knew the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The problem was, they wanted to surrender to the Soviets, as talks with the Americans would lose face for the emperor. Truman wanted to keep Stalin out of Japan.

      He probably also wanted the Soviets to know what kind of power the Americans had with the bomb, and to let them know the Americans didn't just have one.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    48. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by RabidStoat · · Score: 1

      Probably because the raids on Dresden happened over a period of two days not fifty seven ish (for the period generally considered the Blitz, not including other raids at other times or the V1/V2 attacks). The death toll was much higher - the second waves were designed to specifically cause more chaos by bombing the rescue attempts of the first. Some people complain about the Dresden raid because Dresden wasn't a huge military complex and therefore was of no value as a target whereas clearly London had a more significant value. I'm not saying the blitz wasn't terrible, the firebombing of Dresden was pretty horrific as well, but put in the context of WW2 neither were that significant.

    49. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese and Germans forfeited claim on mercy of any sort by initiating hostilities against us. They are lucky we did not simply choose to exterminate them and turn their ruined countries into agrarian vassal states.
      I find the ruthlessness America once had to be beautiful, pure, and certainly effective in propelling us to the top of the world.
      I thank the Nazis and the Japs for teaching us to hate, for it freed us to act, and I hope the Jihadists will similarly free the current generation from the cloying shackles of a weakling PC morality.

    50. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it had very little positive effect on war itself [...] And as to spirit to fight... it was actually studied (after the war), and it was found to have little effect there either.

      With some justification I can call your attitude 20-20 hindsight. You're probably right about the bombings, but it's a little bit too easy.

    51. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by missing000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like it or not, indescriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime as defined by the Fourth Geneval Convention.

      I think it's a bit daft to assert any civilian massacre is OK because they did it to us first. By that logic, the battle would never end. Each side would continue attack in crazily justified retribution.

      Also, the sins of the master can in no way be deemed a crime punishable with instant death of millions.

      It amazes me that tripe like the parent is insightful to anyone.

    52. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by mce · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure about which side actually made the mistake and don't know how to find the proper reference on the net, but the general idea is indeed true. Somebody (the Brits IIRC, but I could well be wrong) messed up and accidently bombed a civilian target. This caused the other side to retaliate and eventually caused Hitler to change strategy in the battle of Britain and order the bombing of London. Up till that point the Gremans had focussed on destroying the RAF in general and its airfields in particular. From their point of view, the latter was the right thing to do if they wanted to have any chance of winning but, as we all know, Hitler was an idiot (military and otherwise).

      Of course, all that does not change the fact that Rotterdam was severely bombed by the Luftwaffe even before all of the above happened.

    53. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      But not only were german civilians grilled alive by tens or hundreds of thousands; allied also lost over 100k air force personnel during the war; most of them during bomb raids. And yet many still consider generals who devised these strategic bombing campaings heroes. Sad how winners can write and rewrite history.

      I'm not a real big scholar on WW2 history, but do you think the incessant dropping of "give up" leaflets on the German troops would have caused them to surrender? At the time, Germany was the ne plus ultra evil and was experimenting with ballistic missiles.

    54. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by alext · · Score: 4, Informative

      There might be a statue, and of recent vintage (1992), but Harris was a controversial figure even during the conflict with many questions in Parliament and from the church about the area bombing strategy.

      Here's a letter Churchill nearly sent at the time, saying that he wanted no more "wanton destruction". Not that his position is exactly uncontroversial either, hence this National Archives topic.

      PS Regarding the church position, my father remembers reading comment in newspapers from a Canon Bell condemning area bombing, but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be any record of this books I've read, or on the net.

    55. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't get talked about in America. Wander around and ask most people what happened in Dresden in WW2. Even on a University, most people won't know what you're talking about.

      Hell, you'll get high school students on a test after reading Slaughterhouse 5 who won't know.

    56. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Generally I can agree with you. But "terrorist" means someone targeting civilians to scare the population into getting their leaders to do X, whereas "freedom fighters" or even "revolutionaries" (in any generally accepted definition) don't go blowing up women and children riding a bus.

    57. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You know, that is fucking news to me, considering that I am an American and I have talked about it. Hell I went to a small school and it was talked about. Not like current day germany where symbols and thought that are banned.

      But dresdin wasn't genocide. What happened to the Jews/Gypsies/Others was.

    58. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      I thought Dresden was more of an effort to make it appear we were helping the Russians more?

    59. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Remember, we were the GOOD ones. If we did look bad, it meant the commies were the good ones, so that simply had to go.
      This is all very convenient for you self-loathing types, you stomp around as much as you want.

      Personally, I'll remember only that we WERE the good guys. Does that mean that we didn't do anything bad? No, and anyone who thinks it does is frankly pretty stupid. War sucks completely. Completely. But there is such a thing as a good and bad side to things nevertheless.

      You say that "If we did look bad, it meant the commies were the good ones, so that simply had to go." - either you're confusing Nazis with Commies, or you're really talking about Communists, which is totally a different track but whatever.

      So you draw moral parallels between the Allies and the
      a) Nazis with their engineered DEATH camps, or
      b) the Soviets, whose armies basically raped everything female in Berlin and other conquered German soil?

      If you can't see a difference between "them" and "us" then you are a pretty sad individual.

      For those of us who have fought in war, it doesn't matter for crap WHY you're killing that human over there. You ARE, and you will live with that fact the rest of your life.

      But, I ask you to look carefully and imagine a world in which the Nazis had won. Was it worth doing just about anything - including killing helpless civilians, yes, even children - to end that?

      I'd imagine the ash-piles of Auschwitz alone would say yes.

      --
      -Styopa
    60. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, indescriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime as defined by the Fourth Geneval Convention.

      That's not the definition of genocide. Genocide would be to try and remove their culture from the gene pool.

      I also didn't say it's right in a moral sense, nor that is not against international law, I'm just saying to expect horrible things to occur in desparate times. Do you think the USA would have allowed any of it's leaders to be held accountable for what happened in WW2? Between the atomic attack on Japan and the fire bombing of Germany. It was percieved as something we had to do to win the war. You might want to see an iron-clad, no exceptions rule for nations to follow -- but it will rarely be enforced, never against the powerful nations. Not when it's a good vs evil scenario and 3/4 of the world's power agrees with good. I use those words figuratively, you can replace them with black and white, it doesn't change the meaning in this context.

      A question about your logic: If all the nations with nukes pointed at us fired on the USA at 12:00PM tomorrow, should the USA not return the favor? Do you really think it would not? How about China or Russia? What do you think their policies are on retalitory measures in a desparate moment? It looks like everyone with enough money is armed with weapons designed to wipe out enormous populations, instantly.


      I think it's a bit daft to assert any civilian massacre is OK because they did it to us first. By that logic, the battle would never end. Each side would continue attack in crazily justified retribution.


      Actually, I am not talking about little pissant countries that have been battling for hundreds of years. Those types will continue to battle, illegally, until darwin's theory slowly sets in.

      I'm a bit more concerned with the actions of the world's powers. Nations with nukes have them for more than just political reasons. It's a survival tool in the event some other nation begins bombing it's civilians or over-running it's borders.


      Also, the sins of the master can in no way be deemed a crime punishable with instant death of millions.


      Right, but you missed my point entirely. I am just telling you what I would expect to happen. Not what I agree with. I do not think it really matters how you feel about such things. Yes, war is terrible. There are rules. But expecting nations to comply by them in desparate times is much like expecting a fat man to slide down your chimney on christmas. It's a fun thought, but does not reflect well on reality.

      My personal feelings? War should not exist.

    61. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, the US military still maintained that the Iraqi insurgency attacking the US troops are terrorists. On the other hand, the US uses economic sanctions against Cuba and pre-war Iraqi to induce enough hardship to the general population in the hope it will force them into overflow the unfriendly government. Based on your definition, should we label US as terrorist, too? Go figure.

    62. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bombing cities not only did not help the Allies militarily, it hurt them.

      Nothing to see here. Move along. Virtually every military action fits the formula of "help ourselves, even if it hurts us a bit". Just doesn't seem worth mentioning a specific example of such a universal quality.

    63. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least it was the systematic and planned extermination of the entire Dresden (and several other cities) population.

      The op wasn't entirely successful, but more so (in percent) than e.g. the Nazi attempt to exterminate all European jews.

    64. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coventry was by no means unintentional, I suggest a visit to the ruins of the destroyed Cathederal before anyone drags out their revisionist stick

    65. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or nagasaki, or the firebombing of Tokyo.

      While we're at it though, we'd best keep our lips sealed about the torture and murder of Allied prisoners, or the disease ridden japanese concentration camps they were held in. :)

    66. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to make that statement a little more loaded?

    67. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it "peanuts" really. Maybe more people died in Tokyo (I'm not sure though), but that does not make Dresden "peanuts".

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    68. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      but, as we all know, Hitler was an idiot (military and otherwise).


      This might not be Politically Correct, but.... Hitler was certainly not an idiot. Yes, in the later stages of the war he was a deranged lunatic (due to large part the fact that his personal doctor, Dr. Morell pumped him full of drugs. In the morning he was given stimulants, in the evening he was given sleeping-pills. Every day), but before the war and in the early half of the war he was really cunning and smart. Hell, he managed to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia (spelling?) without firing a shot. He re-armed Germany, rebuilt the nation, annihilated the Versailles Treaty, conquered France (even though his generals though it would be suicide) and ALMOST annihilated Soviet Union.

      Add to that that he was propably the greatest speaker the world has ever seen... To say that he was "an idiot" is pretty ignorant IMO.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    69. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Some of them did, maybe. But large part of the people in Dresden were refugees that were fleeing the advancing Red Army. they certainly weren't working in factories.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    70. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Banjonardo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Do notice what Churchill says on his letter: for the purpose of increasing terror. I do believe that's also in the US Army (or is it air force) charter: to bring terror upon the enemy.

      This is why the more knowledgeable of us have no clue why "terrorists" and "to terrorize" became bogeymen words after 9/11: the US Military, and that of all the world, were MADE specifically to do this, among other things.

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

    71. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally I can agree with you. But "terrorist" means someone targeting civilians to scare the population into getting their leaders to do X,

      A bit like the way civilians killed when an army attacks a "suspected militant" are "collateral damage". Whereas blowing up a bus where most of the passengers are soldiers gets called "targeting civilians"...

    72. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      I went to a small private college prep high school and I know that a lot of the class that "read" Slaughterhouse 5 couldn't tell you what happened in Dresden. Most would say "they had it coming". And at University, I'm sure most of the people at Frisco State didn't know what happened at Dresden.

      I never said Dresden was genocide, and I do think that the original poster should look up genocide in a dictionary.

    73. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, the US military still maintained that the Iraqi insurgency attacking the US troops are terrorists.

      As well as insisting that they are "Bathists", without much evidence. As opposed to "Arab militiamen who don't want foreign soldiers in their country"...

      On the other hand, the US uses economic sanctions against Cuba and pre-war Iraqi to induce enough hardship to the general population in the hope it will force them into overflow the unfriendly government. Based on your definition, should we label US as terrorist, too? Go figure.

      The US is a state sponsor of terrorism using the US Government's own definition. Notably in Central America. The US is also one of only two UN member states who refuse to condem sponsorship of terrorism.

    74. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "shock and awe" is the logical and moral successor of the Geman Blitz. So the neo-cons didn't invent it, they just followed the lead of the Nazis.

      Thus maybe Prescott Bush should take the credit, rather than his grandson.

    75. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I spent a year in Caen, which is the largest city in Lower Normandy, about six miles inland from the east end of the landing beaches. The city was bombed totally flat by the Americans in July of 1944. They tried to warn the civilian population and get them into the largest church, which was spared from the bombings, but I can't imagine this strategy was completely successful. The city was infested with German soldiers and Caen was too important to capture to take time rooting them all out, so the obvious solution was to kill them all from the air.

      Now, bombing a city flat that you are trying to "liberate" is not a terribly nice thing to do. However, did the population resent it? Hell no! There are memorials to the British and Americans all over the place. Apparently the population believed that being freed was worth a great deal of death and destruction.

      In France, there is an interesting continuum from north to south. Cities in the north tend to have wide, straight streets on something that vaguely resembles a grid. Cities in the south tend to have narrow twisting streets like you'd think of in a medieval village. This is generally because cities in Normandy in particular and in the north in general were bombed flat to greater or lesser degrees by the Americans. As you progress south, the objectives become less and less important to the Americans, and the cities were, correspondingly, bombed less and less by the Americans. Despite this, we are not resented for it.

      We were the good ones. Whenever a conquering army went during that war, they were feared, except for the Americans and the British. The Russians were only welcomed as far as they were less bad than the Germans.

      We did do some terrible things during that particular war, and I'm not trying to claim otherwise. Our motivations were not even pure. However, we were vastly better than the other major participants in that war, in many very objective ways.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    76. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by ahillen · · Score: 1

      Although one has to say that the scale of the attacks were not the same. There is a difference between (13000 dead)/1 year and (50000 dead)/24 hours. Not that it makes the 13000 victims 'justified' or anything.
      I think the difference is that everything Germany did in WWII was morally wrong from the beginning (right from starting the whole thing, down to every single city where people died and suffered, regardless whether due to the air force or artillery or whatever, not to mention of course the holocaust). This is a quite generally accepted fact. On the over hand, the fight of the allies against Nazi Germany is for me in principal almost a prototype of a justified war (which is also, I think, a quite generally accepted fact). The 'dark spot' on this justified war for me are these heavy bombings, which mostly happened in the last 6 months of the war, when the allies already had landed in Normandy, and the German forces were collapsing and retreating. They were pointless and in my regard mostly driven by the desire for revenge and not military need. The aim was to destroy as much of Germany as possible, and this is in my opinion (despite the war in a whole being justified) a war crime.

    77. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you call large-scale bombing "Shock and Awe!" instead of "Terrorism" (n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments) it sounds downright... friendly.

    78. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan started it, we finished it, end of problem!!! And we almost used a third bomb on Tokyo, but they surrendered. "Built in American, tested in Japan"

    79. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      But modern America doesn't try to hide what happened.

      oh? ask any American how much of a part the Russians had in WW2, and many will say, 'the russians fought in WW2?'

      the fact is, Russia lost more soldiers than any other nation (in the millions). what did the Americans lose, like 30 thousand or so?

      the Germans were mostly defeated by Russia. the coalition forces basically landed in Normandy and did a clean up job after the heart of the German force was already crushed.

      i attended the American public school system from kindergarten thru high school, and in every history book along the way, i read that the Americans and coalition forces are responsible for the defeat of the German empire.
      i now know that while the coalition forces were surly a helping hand, it was the Russian forces that was the determining factor in the defeat of the German empire.

    80. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by l0wland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you forgot whatever happened to the person that invented these flying bombs. Was he ever convicted for warcrimes? No, it was far worse.

      --

      "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
    81. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and napalm in vietnam

      recently yugoslavia and iraki bombings..

    82. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by mce · · Score: 1
      He WAS an idiot. Even when ignoring all the rest of what his deranged mind produced, attacking the Soviets was pure madness right from the start. Do you really think a country that large can be conquered? Hell, the Germans barely reached the border of Moskow. And (his management of) Stalingrad proved it all very convincingly.


      And what about declaring war on the US??? Complete lunacy.

    83. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1
      do you think the incessant dropping of "give up" leaflets on the German troops would have caused them to surrender?

      I was hoping someone would mention leaflets... During the early stages of the war, British bombers were restricted from civilian targets, so they spent much of their time dropping leaflets. They were even instructed to make sure the leaflets were scattered from the planes, as a block of leaflets falling together 'could kill someone'. Naturally, they had little impact.

      When someone suggested firebombing the Black Forest, I believe the initial response was "but that's private property!" The first British bomb to land on German soil was released by accident.

      Churchill wasn't particularly happy about authorising attacks on German cities, but at the time it was the only way of striking back at Germany. By 1944/5, Bomber Command was firebombing city centres in the hope that it would kill so many Germans (any Germans) to end the war. This shows how attitudes and priorities change during a total war.

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    84. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Sinterklaas · · Score: 1

      What the Allies did during WW2 was not genocide.

      No, it was a crime against humanity. ICCs definition (article 7.1a):

      1. The perpetrator killed 7 one or more persons.
      2. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
      3. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

      Genocide by killing (article 6a) requires:

      1. The perpetrator killed 2 one or more persons.
      2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
      3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
      4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

      Requirement 3 was not met.

      It was a devastating fire-bombing performed to ruin the moral of Germany's remaining forces.

      Newspeak at its finest. Killing civilians does sound better if you call it 'ruining the moral', putting it in the same category as dropping leaflets. FYI, the attacks were intended to ruin to moral of the population. Early in the war, RAF Bomber Command decided that an accidental hit on a civilian target was a succesful strike against civilian morale. That turned those hits from collatoral damage into crimes against humanity IMHO. Late in the war, Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command Harris got free reign and he attacked city after city, without much regard for military targets.

      BTW, here is a review of Harris' memoires: Bomber Offensive

      The people on the ground were of no single racial, political, or cultural group.

      The attack was meant to kill german civillians. That is a national group. True, the attack hit foreigners performing forced labor and allied POWs, but they were collatoral damage.

      Fact is, Hitler's army dropped the first bombs on civillian targets in London. It was unintentional, apparently due to bad navigation, but it opened the door to Allies targetting civillian targets.

      Why should an accident excuse an intentional crime? If you are in a hurry and accidentally run into me, can I give you a body-check in return?

      The way I see it, you have a warcrime if one side bombs the other's cities. You have a mutual agreement if you decide to retaliate with the same medicine they fed you.

      The problem with this kind of reasoning is that the people doing the killing are not the people being killed. Effectively, you are beating on a third party (the populace). It would be very hard to argue that the populace is responsible for the decision to attack the opponent's populace.

    85. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, there was a choice and Harris had to fight to get his way (city bombing, instead of troop support & military bombing). Just because it was difficult to accurately hit a target, doesn't mean that you have to choose to attack civilians. Besides, the nastiest city bombing was late in the war when the night flying equipment was pretty good.

    86. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1
      He WAS an idiot. Even when ignoring all the rest of what his deranged mind produced, attacking the Soviets was pure madness right from the start. And what about declaring war on the US??? Complete lunacy.

      <TONGUE IN CHEEK> That Napolean, eh? Now he WAS an idiot. Attacking the Russians was pure madness right from the start. They barely made it back alive from Moscow. And what about his foolish delayed attack at Waterloo? Lunacy!

      Yet Napolean is still considered a military genius on the basis of his previous campaigns and victories.

      Militaristic leaders seem to crack after a certain length of time in command (corrupted by power or age?), and start making more and more poor decisions. Most of what Hitler did prior to 1941 made sense (even if it was a somewhat twisted sense). From 1941 his ratio of good ideas to bad dropped dramatically but this doesn't mean he was always an idiot.

      Of course, we all agree* Hitler was a mad/evil man.

      * YMMV - this is Slashdot after all

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    87. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Do you really think a country that large can be conquered?


      Yes, and the Germans almost did it. The reason they failed were the Italians (really!). Italy had invaded Greece, but they were getting their asses handed to them by the Greek. Germany had to save their ally, so they invaded the Balkans. That resulted in few weeks (months?) delay in Barbarossa. And, as it turns out, that time was crucial in the coming attack.

      What would have happened if Germans had attacked 1-2 months earlier? I think it's safe to say the following:

      - Leningrad would have fallen. German troops would have cut the citys supply-lines by linking with the Finnish forces in the opposite side of Lake Ladoga. That would have caused a big drop in Russians morale as a whole, and it would have consolidated Germans gain in the northern part of the front. Of course, the Germans could the free additional troops from the Northern fron to the other fronts, since Leningrad (the primary objective along with Murmans Railroad) would be achieved.

      - After Leningrad falls, Germans (and Finns) would have been able to direct more forces against the Murmansk-railroad. And that would have resulted in disruption of the biggest source of Western aid Soviets received, further eroding Soviets remaining industrial-base.

      - Germans would have been able to reach Moscow (remember, they almost did it as it is!). Moscow is a dominant political and industrial center, but what's more important, it's a vital transportation-hub. Losing Moscow would have meant that Soviets would have been unable to do any strategic force re-deployments in the north-south axis of the front. Just look at the map: all roads and railroads link at Moscow.

      - Taking Moscow would make it possible to annihilate and rout the remaining opposing enemy forces west of the Urals.

      Of course, Germans would have been more or less unable to occupy WHOLE Soviet Union. But they wouldn't have to. It would be enough to drive them to the Urals. By that time Soviet Union would have lost most of their able manpower, most of their industrial-base, large part of their farmland, just about all of their tanks and airplanes, several important oilfields etc. etc. After that, Germans could have just sat and waited.

      By this time, Soviets might opt for negotiated peace. If they didn't, Germans might have re-started their invasion in the fifties (with the Japanese attacking the remaining Soviet forces as well).
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    88. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by polar+bear · · Score: 1

      The firebombing of Dresden was an atrocity. Many innocent people died. Does that make the dropping of atomic bombs an atrocity too? Worthy of a war criminal?

    89. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Captain+Ed · · Score: 0

      The blame for all of the destruction that befell the German cities can be placed firmly on Hitler. He should have surrendered sometime in 1943, when it became the military situation was hopeless. This was his way of punishing the German people for losing the war. The Allies were simply conducting the war. The same can be said of Japan. They were finished long before Hiroshima, and they knew it, so please don't blame Truman for using the A-Bomb to end it all. It probably saved Japanese lives in the long run.

    90. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just considerably bigger. How many people do you imagine fit on a liner?

    91. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'll remember only that we WERE the good guys. Does that mean that we didn't do anything bad? No, and anyone who thinks it does is frankly pretty stupid. War sucks completely. Completely. But there is such a thing as a good and bad side to things nevertheless.

      Agreed for the most part, there is however a pretty big gap between self-loathing and thinking about the morality of your actions.

      But, I ask you to look carefully and imagine a world in which the Nazis had won. Was it worth doing just about anything - including killing helpless civilians, yes, even children - to end that?

      Yes and yes again, but that doesn't mean we should never look back and reflect on what happened...and it certainly doesn't mean we can never critisize the things that shouldn't have happened. That, I feel, is one of the reasons that made (makes?) us the good side.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    92. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That, I feel, is one of the reasons that made (makes?) us the good side.

      I'll agree with you 100% there. That we feel pain about doing it, no matter the necessity, is, ironically, a good thing.

      I just really get tired of the people who post from some utopian na-na land who can't be made to see that there is sometimes a necessity to doing something that is abhorrent. Sorry to have lumped you in there.

      --
      -Styopa
    93. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      And what happened to the American Natives. And the African slaves. And the Boers, the Armenians, the Tutsis ....

      What happend to the Germans dying in the firebombed citeis was just a little Terrorism.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    94. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Sure. They just deny it ever happened, and that it wasn't that bad after all, and that what XXX did was much worth, and that it was for their best, and look over there a dog with a pointy tail...

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    95. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      You can read it on any good site about the battle of Britain I guess....I think the pilots were actually lost and didn't so much mistake anything for an airfield but just dropped their bombs to get the hell back home

      Unfortunatly they were over London at the time. Churchill retaliated by bombing Berlin while Hitler had promised that no bombs would ever fall on the fatherland. Bombs falling on Berlin enraged him so that he ordered the luftwaffe to change their tactic from the taking on the RAF to bombing english cities.

      I believe it is what ultimately won the battle of britain and perhaps the war, since being left alone for a bit meant the RAF could recuperate, Hitler couldn't invade because of the RAF, etc. etc.

      Sorry no links, but they shouldn't be hard to find.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    96. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by jedrek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, we were the GOOD ones.

      Whatever you may think, war - in it's purest form - has no morals.

    97. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Certainly, the firebombing of German cities was an atrocity; but these acts were conducted in response to previous deliberate targetting of UK cities by the Luftwaffe.

      And that makes it ok. Right?

      A little vengeance on a group, seen only as a number. I would suppose that it would be different if you had to look each and every one of those civilians in the eyes. Or maybe it wouldn't.

      Those civilians did not bomb London. Hitler's military did. One thing I have a problem with is equating civilians with dictatorial governments. Or even non-representative governments. For instance, I should not be held responsible for the crap that the Monkey Faced Frat Boy (George Bush aka MFFB) has pulled while in office, especially the war in Iraq. But do you feel that the Iraqi people would be justified in seeking the deaths of U.S. citizens on their home turf in retaliation for the deaths of Iraqi civilians during our invasion of their country? Somehow I think the concept of someone blowing up your home, the school your kids are in, the hospitals, the churchs, the community centers, the coffee shop you stop in every morning, etc., probably doesn't sit well with you.

      Dresden was unnecessary and unjustified. Don't make lame excuses for a horrible crime.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    98. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by hackus · · Score: 1

      Yes, well...

      Do you think we should not have committed these acts?

      What if the Nazi regime were permitted to conquor, unabated without resistance, because killing is wrong?

      What happens when evil destroys all those who understand WHY killing and war is wrong? What then?

      The light in the world, would have gone out, and mankind plunged into a darkness so evil, billions would be living in slavery and repression by a government that burns human beings without prejudice.

      All war is evil, but evil doesn't respond to reason. It certainly doesn't respond to diplomacy or pleas for "Please don't shoot, if we just talk we can work it all out and things will be fine."

      It was a shining moment in our history, where a world put aside its differences and united to drive the darkness back into the shadows where it rightfully belongs.

      It is a test, ultimately of what our species is.

      Don't like it? Move to a different Universe.

      Either we will embrace the darkness that was the Nazi regime and enslave ourselves, or we will be ready to destroy the darkness when it comes again as those who understand WAR is evil.

      Come again it shall, and we will triumph again or we shall all die and the light will go out.

      Whole worlds may perish the next time it comes, and the destruction in World War II was a pitence compared to the tests that lay ahead and perhaps all technological civilizations who come of age.

      Is it any wonder many don't make it and destroy themselves.

      Poor SETI, spent what a billion dollars how many decades now? No signal yet.

      They won't find one either.

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    99. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by krlynch · · Score: 1

      ask any American how much of a part the Russians had in WW2, and many will say, 'the russians fought in WW2?'

      Many will. And many will not be able to locate Pearl Harbor, or even Hawaii on a globe. The ignorance of a few does not mean that the rest of us are ignorant of the history of the 20th century.

      what did the Americans lose, like 30 thousand or so?

      Not that it matters to the defense of your thesis, but you are off by about an order of magnitude. The US lost about 400,000 soldiers and sailors in combat and non-combat actions in the various theaters of war between Dec 7 1941, and January 1 1946, with another 700,000 wounded, out of just over 16 million on active duty. See, for instance, here

      Further, comparison of casualty figures is a particularly poor measure of the contribution of an army to a conflict; US technological advantages (medical, transportation, communication, weaponry, etc) in WWII gave the US Army major strategic and tactical doctrinal advantages that were just not available to the Soviet army, especially early on in the war. Additionally, American soldiers were not fighting on their own home soil, and very few were threatened with death by their own officers if they retreated; these two disadvantages by themselves were enough to doom many hundreds of thousands or millions of Soviet men to death in the defense of the Motherland.

      the Germans were mostly defeated by Russia.

      That is, at best, a vapid over simplification. The defeat of Germany relied on both the actions of the Soviet Army in the East, and the Western Powers opening fronts in Africa, Italy, Southern France, Normandy, Norway, and the Atlantic. It also relied on the arming of the Soviets and British by the United States, even before early 1942, and vast strategic mistakes by the German political/military leadership:

      • Had the Germany not attacked the USSR, the Soviets would have happily split Poland with Germany, and annexed/invaded their Eastern European neighbors; they certainly wouldn't have come to the defense of Britain.
      • Had the Western Allies, in particular the US, not supplied arms and supplies to the Soviets, they would have crumbled beneath the German onslaught when they ran out of supplies. Resupply via the Northern Convoys allowed the Soviets the time and materials to move their industrial capacity east of Moscow without loss of manufactured goods to maintain their army.
      • Had the US not supplied military and civilian goods to the British Empire around the world, the Empire would have collapsed, and with it, all active defense against the German army.
      • Had the Western Allies not continually maintained open fronts against the Germans on two continents, pressure would have remained very much stronger on the Soviets.
      • Had the Western Allies not destroyed the German Navy at sea, the lifeline to Murmansk would have been strangled.
      • Had the British negotiated a surrender with Germany instead of being the lone holdout against Germany, most of Europe would today speak German.
      • Had the Soviets not fought so valiantly on the Eastern Front, the Western Allies would have been unable to open additional fronts in Western Europe.

      There are many others, but these are the ones that came to immediately to mind.

      It is ridiculous to assert than any one of the three major allied powers was THE critical link in the defeat of Nazi Germany, at least the way history actually played out. Without any of them, Germany would have very likely won the war; similarly with Japan in the Pacific.

    100. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by CKW · · Score: 1

      "but the fact is none of those civilians was responsible for bombings"

      Bull SHIT. If the nation you live in wages aggressive war, YOU are responsible. And I don't see why MY DAD AND BROTHER and 10 other of my friends should die to spare YOUR FAMILY's life. If we can kill 10 of you for each one of us, so much the better. If I could be CERTAIN that not killing you would not result in a longer war and more deaths of those not "in the wrong", then I'll consider it.

      It wasn't a "police action", nor was the West assured of victory. It was TOTAL WAR. How many people a day were being killed in Death Camps, supported and run by the citizens of Germany?

      I take great offense at any callous implication that just because it involved the deaths of a lot of people, that it was an "atrocity" for whom someone was "responsible" on our side.

    101. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      And that makes it ok. Right?

      Ah yes, a strawman....

      Dresden was unnecessary and unjustified. Don't make lame excuses for a horrible crime.

      And having put words into my mouth, you then proceed to tear down the strawman. I wasn't excusing the bombing of Dresden; I was pointing out that each side was as bad as the other.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    102. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      i've been official schooled!

      thank you for a very informatative post.

    103. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by sprekken · · Score: 1
      It's funny that Churchill would say that, yet he wanted desperately to blanket the entire German countryside with cyanide dropped from bombers... to kill every single person in the country.

      This isn't revisionist history either.. I saw this on the History Channel.

    104. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by sprekken · · Score: 1

      Had the Germany not attacked the USSR, the Soviets would have happily split Poland with Germany, and annexed/invaded their Eastern European neighbors; they certainly wouldn't have come to the defense of Britain

      I have to agree with much of your post, but I differ in opinion with a few of the items you list. First, if Germany hadn't attacked the USSR, the USSR would have invaded Europe. All of it. The war would have been fought on different lands, but would have been fought nonetheless.

      Had the British negotiated a surrender with Germany instead of being the lone holdout against Germany, most of Europe would today speak German

      I don't think that everyone would have had to learn German... Hitler was more interested in preserving the European culture (albeit the anti-jewish European culture), but all the nations that he conquered kept their own language and culture.

    105. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      You missed something.

      Dresden did not have any significant military targets. That is the reason it was not targeted through the war. Its only fault was that it was going to fall into the russian sphere of influence.

      After Yalta both the British and the US stopped bombing many industrial sites in West Germany. They bombed what the Russians claimed to themselves in Yalta instead.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    106. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by arivanov · · Score: 1
      attacking the Soviets was pure madness right from the start

      Correct. Note - I am not defending Hitler. I have to note that if he did not attack Stalin would have attacked him in August. With more and better tanks, more and better planes, more and better heavy guns, much more infantry, more fleet in the Baltic, so on so forth. Stalin killed almost all of his officers going after Tuhachevski's followers, otherwise it would have been even same command level and tactics. Which in fact were devised and polished in the Spanish civil war by both sides where they killed civilians by the thousands (Gernica is just one example).

      Just to back my words lets look at tanks (rest exept field antitank and field AAA cannons is similar)

      Germans: 1941 T2 and T3 - 20 mm and 40 mm cannon, 35 mm max armour, 36 km/h max speed.

      Russians:BT7, 40 mm cannons, 35 mm max armour, 70km/h max speed and transmission capable of jumping at 30+ km/h speed from a 5m cliff into a ford (feat unmatched by any tank till today). KV1 - 75 mm cannon, 100 mm armour (impenetrable by any german field cannon ), 20-30 km/h max speed. Not even talking about T34 which just started going to field units. Compared to them the German kit in the beginning of the war was a pile of oldfashioned toys.

      And if you do not believe it ask yourselves a question - why Stalin did not bild a single military base in the occupied Polish and baltic republic terrirories for two years. The only things that were build were supply depoes containing ammunition, fuel, oil and spares. No long term concrete airfields, no fortifications, no garrisons, nothing. Only offensive positions.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    107. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      AC, you are full of shit.

    108. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      In any case, I wasn't attemtping to justify Dresden; just to point out the context in which it occured.

      Yeah, I probably overreacted a bit... but I know there are people who would consider it acceptable reason (and during war it's more understandable feeling of course), and that's a scary thought.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    109. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      With some justification I can call your attitude 20-20 hindsight. You're probably right about the bombings, but it's a little bit too easy.

      Fair enough; it's hard enough to really estimate efficiency during campaign. It's just that it was probably pretty easy to estimate civilian damage (since hitting accuracy was studied extensively during the war, plus there was plenty of intelligence material)... so it's scary how strong belief of efficiency was (even with evidence being gathered), and how it apparently was enough to justify "punishment" bombings.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    110. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      but do you think the incessant dropping of "give up" leaflets on the German troops would have caused them to surrender?

      Of course not. But problem is, the war was really won by ground forces, and strategic bombers contributed little to victory, but lots to civilian casualties and general destruction. I basically think there's point in trying to keep one's own core ideals intact; there were plenty of other military actions available (and were being used obviously). Using air power for tactical ground support, for example, was what was crucial both for initial German victories (in Poland and France) and later for allied. And Soviet troops also succesfully used Sturmoviks to support their troops; they didn't have many strategic bombers to use, and still won the war on eastern front.

      As to ballistic missiles, well, just like bombers they are just weapons with longer range, and act of developing them is not in itself ultra evil. It's just modern connotation with nuclear and chemical warheads that makes them scarier than many other weapons. That is, Nazi evilness was unfortunately expressed in many worse ways than development of V1/V2 (although, using them for hitting random civilian targets was, granted, equivalent in principle to allied nighttime fire bombing raids).

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    111. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      die to spare YOUR FAMILY's life

      When or where did I say my relatives died in Dresden, or fought with (or against for that matter) nazis? People who order cowardous fire bombings (like the ones is Dresden, or over London, or wherever) are war criminals, even if not convicted; and people who support them are immoral cowards. Your idea of revenge for anyone related by blood or creed is brutal and barbaric (I hope it's just a kneejerk reaction though).

      And as to "if the nation you live in wages aggressive war, YOU are responsible", I'm not very happy to live in USA; being by your logic responsible for that illegal unprovoked attack too. I wonder what I could do that repair the damage caused by that war of aggression, personally, to get rid of my guilt?

      And finally, go read your history books. Large-scale civilian targeting bombings of WWII really had LITTLE IF ANY (positive) effect on winning the war. That's the saddest part of it; it didn't help getting rid of Hitler. May even have helped him get last german men to fight in volksgrenadiers, prolong the war by almost a year.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    112. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Do you think we should not have committed these acts?

      What if the Nazi regime were permitted to conquor, unabated without resistance, because killing is wrong?

      You may want to read more on Dresden bombings, and similar large-scale fire bombings, to understand what I was commenting on. There is difference between fighting a war against enemy army (including attacking its support facilities such as factories, power plants, roads etc) -- which was entirely legitimate, due to Germany's aggressions --, and attacking civilian targets. My point is and was that escalating war to include civilian targets was wrong; even though germans had done the same earlier (mostly during battle for england); and it was especially senseless as such bombing did not further the main goal of winning the war and getting nazi regime responsible for its actions.

      Further, since bombing strategy was devised by limited number of high-ranking air force generals, it's reasonable to say they should be held responsible (morally, at least) for unnecessary destruction they brought; whereas most of the army fought the war without resorting to such high-level terrorism.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    113. Re:Also pictures of dresden genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. its 1945, there's 100,000 people in a big hole, now give me a plane and a nuclear weapon and i`d happily drop it on them all, and wish they die a painful death, fuck, if it was just women and children i'd do it, its the enemy, fuck everything else.

  9. We should post a memorial by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    to all the servers who were slashdotted in service to the UK. Like this one.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:We should post a memorial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking idiot.

  10. Anything that helps... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...more people understand what a tremndously heroic thing all those soldiers did can only be a good thing.

    For those of you who have never seen "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers", I recommend them. Remember, freedom comes at a price, and we should all be very thankful to all those who have paid it, and one way is by learning about, and appreciating the sacrifices made. As this archive will only further add to our accuracy or the historical events, this can only be a Good Thing.

    1. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Not all of them where heroic. Can you spell war crimes.

      Look at war today also, its still there. rape, looting, brutality, murder.

      Do not glorify war.

    2. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And also remember when watching Private Ryan and Band of Brothers... (particularly) the British, and to a lesser extent Canada and Free French also fought and died while making spectacularly brave raids -- and much of the D-Day innovations and intellegence data was obtained/developed by the British. Not that Spielberg or Tom Hanks bothered to cover such things, it was just the good old boys of the USA who did everything.

    3. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War shall never be glorified and shall be treated with the disrespect it deserves. War is always a failure.

    4. Re:Anything that helps... by Complicity · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For those of you who have never seen "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers", I recommend them.

      I am in 100% agreement with this statement. I'll go one further and state that it is my firm belief that Band Of Brothers should be mandatory viewing in every school across the WW2-allied countries.

      The mini-series may only depict American soldiers, but what they did in that war was representative of every nation involved. Those men deserve all the recognition they can get for the massive sacrifices that had to be made.
      --
      - c -
    5. Re:Anything that helps... by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those of you who have never seen "Saving Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers", I recommend them.

      And for those of you who haven't seen U-571, don't bother. Whoever was responsible in portraying the capture of an Enigma machine as the work of the USA, when it was in fact done by Brits aboard HMS Aubretia, should be shot. If you weren't aware of this pretty-insensitive reworking of history, you can read about the fuss it caused here

      Let's give credit where credit is due; WWII wouldn't have been won on the Western Front without the USA; but the Brits held out for a couple of years against the greatest military in the world, and were instrumental in defeating the Luftwaffe and the Afrika Korps. That shouldn't be taken away from them.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    6. Re:Anything that helps... by deitel99 · · Score: 1

      Remember, freedom comes at a price, and we should all be very thankful to all those who have paid it

      Althoug you are right, we must fight for freedom and defend it, we must always remember that war is a terrible thing for all involved, and that we shouldn't go to war for the sake of it.

      Due to our lack of knowledge over exactly what goes on in wars I don't think we can ever properly appreciate sacrifices made by those fighting, since many soldiers on our side are just as bad as the enemy we try to defeat. Of course this if never reported - everyone knows how terrible the Red Army was to prisoners (including Russians they were freeing) as they advanced into Germany, but the crimes committed by Allied forces in France are simply never mentioned. We really don't know who paid that price for freedom.

    7. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "War is the failure of diplomacy"

      War in and of itself is not a failure. It is simply the second and inferior choice to diplomacy but diplomacy can fail.

      Now would you like to briefly mention how diplomacy failed to prevent WW2?

    8. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at war today , the US are bloody good at yackin theyre gobs off any other time except do they talk? No they just ram stam in to iraq.

    9. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now would you like to briefly mention how diplomacy failed to prevent WW2?"

      One word for you....

      Appeasement

      One link for you on it.

      http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasem en t.htm

    10. Re:Anything that helps... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend listening to eyewitnesses or books written by persons involved in wars instead of watching a movie, of all things. But sure, these are based on actual events. However, the key word here is "based".

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    11. Re:Anything that helps... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was the poles, if I remember. When their country was about to go down, they smuggled the thing out of Poland, and gave it to the british.

      I guess everyone likes to steal credit, eh?

    12. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also worth remembering that non-US forces out-numbered the US ones...

    13. Re:Anything that helps... by fltsimbuff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just pointing something out here... Most of these movies are made in "Hollywood", in the USA. For what? Entertainment. Movies are made for a particular audience, and since these movies were made in the USA, they were meant to to entertain, install pride, and patriotism of into the American Viewers... If a movie is made in any other country, who do they concentrate on? Then do the same. Because the USA filmmaking industry is so big, many films go out to other countries for their entertainment value, and thus are going out beyond the target audience. Some appreciate the origin of the movies, and the intended audience, and some just whine about it. If I saw a movie from Japan, I would expect to see if glorifying their history and/or culture. Same with any other country. If people want to see facts, they watch a documentary. If they want to watch something entertaining, that leaves them with a sense of pride and patriotism, they watch a movie. That said... If you do not like the way events are slanted in a movie about WWII, then watch something out of your own country. That said, I know that the winning of WWII was in a very large part due to the British that fought and died as much as it was by Americans... The thing to remember is that Britain was a smaller nation, and yet was able to hold the Germans off for a very long time... Besides the revolutionary war, and that pesky war of 1812, Britain has long been an close ally. I have great respect for the people there, and their contributions to the world. Not that I usually hold a grudge, but I cannot say the same for certain other unnamed french and german countries... :P (Yeah, I still sore about the war. I'll get over it.)

    14. Re:Anything that helps... by plierhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah the fire bombing of Dresden by British and American forces was indeed heoric .. murdering innocent civilians in the thousands - knowingly, on purpose.

      Those acts were horrific but they were carried out with the intent of shortening the war by breaking the morale of those civilians and others in other German towns and cities who heard about them.

      Many hundreds of thousands of civilians were indeed killed by those raids, but during the day those same "innocent civilians" were out making bombs, planes and tanks in Germany's armament factories. Pretty much all males in Germany from age 14 upwards (though much less so females), including millions of slave labourers impotred from the occupied countries, spent their entire days directly supporting Germany's war effort. Bombing them was a valid action of war that resulted in a lower overall loss of life. And no matter how you cut it, given that the Germans started the whole thing off, it was better to kill them than be killed by them.

      --

      [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

    15. Re:Anything that helps... by humblecoder · · Score: 5, Interesting


      Let's give credit where credit is due; WWII wouldn't have been won on the Western Front without the USA; but the Brits held out for a couple of years against the greatest military in the world, and were instrumental in defeating the Luftwaffe and the Afrika Korps. That shouldn't be taken away from them.


      While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians. The Russians fought the brunt of the German war machine, and wore them down through sheer attrition. I don't recall the exact number of Russian war dead, but it ranges in the millions. If the Western Allies had to face the main core of the German army, I don't know if we would have won.

      The German army was so strung out by the time of D-Day that they had to resort to conscripting men from many of their Eastern European conquests (Russians, Poles). It was these men who manned the beaches of Normandy, by and large, on D-Day. There is even a story about how the Allies captured a group of soliders from the Far East (Korea, I believe). It turned out that they had been conscripted in the Russian army to fight the Germans, captured by the Germans, and then conscripted into the German army! Other than the German officer pointing a Luger at them from behind, they were not very motivated to fight in this battle.

      If you are interested in learning more about the contributions of the US during WWII, I urge you to read _D-Day_ and _Citizen Soldier_ by the late Steven Ambrose (the same historian who wrote the book _Band of Brothers_ on which the mini-series is based). If you want more insight into the Russian Front, a good book to read is _Stalingrad_ by Anthony Beevor. While this book doesn't cover the whole Eastern campaign, it does give a lot of insight into the brutality of the fighting on the Eastern Front. While the Germans and the Western Allies were at war with one another, there was a great deal of respect between the grunts on both sides. However, the Germans and Russians absolutely hated each other, which made for brutal fighting conditions, the likes of which were rarely seen on the Western Front.

    16. Re:Anything that helps... by fltsimbuff · · Score: 1

      Gee... and the interesting thing is that I don't even remember adding those grammar errors and mistypes. Guess I should have used the Preview button like it says.

    17. Re:Anything that helps... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      When their country was about to go down, they smuggled the thing out of Poland, and gave it to the british.

      From the BBC article, which you should have read before posting:

      The swashbuckling film - about to be released in Britain - is loosely based on the HMS Aubretia's bombing of the U-110 from which an Enigma and codes were rescued.

      No mention of Poland there, perhaps you are getting confused by a different event.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    18. Re:Anything that helps... by humblecoder · · Score: 1


      I'd recommend listening to eyewitnesses or books written by persons involved in wars instead of watching a movie, of all things. But sure, these are based on actual events. However, the key word here is "based".


      I agree. In other post on this thread, I recommend reading the books by Steven Ambrose, who wrote the book on which _Band of Brothers_ is based. All of his books contain detailed interviews with the soldiers who were there (on both sides), and some of the accounts are downright amazing. I do have to say that having both read and watched _Band of Brothers_, the mini-series does capture the overall "feel" of the book (although the book is still more authentic, in my opinion).

    19. Re:Anything that helps... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians

      This is precisely why I used the phrase "won on the Western Front", not "won the war". I agree 100% that if any country contributed more than others to the victory over axis powers, then it was the Soviet Union. Shame so many of the poor sods in the Soviet army later ended up in Siberian Gulags. A fantastic (if depressing) first-hand account of the Gulags can be found in "The Gulag Archipelago", by Nobel prizewinner Aleksandr Solzhenitstn -- an absolute must-read.

      If you want more insight into the Russian Front, a good book to read is _Stalingrad_ by Anthony Beevor.

      My Grandma lent me that last year; fantastic read, and an absolutely incredible story.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    20. Re:Anything that helps... by gilgongo · · Score: 4, Informative

      > For those of you who have never seen "Saving
      > Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers", I
      > recommend them.

      While I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you say, I wish those films were not so blatantly US-centric. Anyone watching them would be perfectly justified it concluding that America fought against the Axis powers alone and the Europeans and Anzacs had nothing to do with it.

      And just to decimate my karma even more, I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    21. Re:Anything that helps... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      A fantastic (if depressing) first-hand account of the Gulags can be found in "The Gulag Archipelago", by Nobel prizewinner Aleksandr Solzhenitstn -- an absolute must-read.

      ...and that should read "Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn", apologies.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    22. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit Sherlock. Diplomacy did nothing to stop WW2. It was inevitable. My previous post was in response to an AC stating that war is always a failure. I was showing that war is not a failure rather it is diplomacy that can fail.

    23. Re:Anything that helps... by vrt3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Both the Poles and the British intercepted an Enigma machine. You can read the whole story on Wikipedia; in a nutshell: the Poles intercepted a commercial non-military version well before the start of the war. It was however close enough in construction to be useful in understanding how to decrypt Enigma's messages. In '39 the Germans started to use more advanced versions, and the Navy used even more advanced versions. Therefore the British tried (successfully) to capture a Navy version from a U-boat.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    24. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no
      Before WW2 the Poles were working on breaking the Enigma code. Just before Germany invaded Poland the Polish mathematician who was working on how to crack to enigma smuggled the machine to Britain, all his notes and also a 1month active code book.

      The U110 was a chance capture and was the first time that the British knew abt a 4-wheel Enigma machine used by teh German Navy (unlike the 3 wheel version used by teh Army) plus also a 6month decipher book for the 4wheel variant.

      That film should never had been made let alone release. Far too many people died during WW2 just so that some Jank can attempt to re-write history to try and give the US some and get a fast buck

    25. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a movie is made in any other country, who do they concentrate on?

      There's "concentrating" on the country the film is made for, and there is rewriting history -- something Hollywood has done time and time again. Telling a small part of a large story is fine... when you, as many Hollywood films have done, pretend that America did it all you are being dishonest.

    26. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      On the other hand, that's not as bad as it sounds. At least, unlike my nation (Britain), I can't think of any occasions when America has lost any significant military engagements despite having superior numbers and equipment.

    27. Re:Anything that helps... by sllim · · Score: 0

      You are just mad cause we could whip your briny little asses into yesteryear if we wanted.

      As far as our numbers and superiority is concerned, what are you nuts???

      Are you telling me that if the President said 'We could send in an enormous amount of armement into Iraq and utterly and completly win this, but that wouldn't be fair. We are only sending in things to make it a fair fight.', that you would actually think that was smart? If you were an American soldier what would you think about going into such a fight?

      When I was on Paris Island a very wise, very scary, very big man, easily the biggest, blackest, scariest mofo I have ever met, said to me 'There are two kinds of people in a fight, those who fight fair, and those who win.'.
      This individual that told me this, he had a scar that ran from one ear to the next.

      Everything you need to know about going into a battle is in that statement. Good, sound advice as far as I have ever been concerned.

      I have a funny story about me applying that advice and 'winning' a subsequent boxing match on Paris Island. Damn those DI's were pissed, when I got back to the barracks the head DI didn't even know what to make of it.

    28. Re:Anything that helps... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Whoever was responsible in portraying the capture of an Enigma machine as the work of the USA, when it was in fact done by Brits aboard HMS Aubretia, should be shot

      Well, I wouldn't go *that* far, the winners of any war get to decide what the history books say. The US has a glorified opinion of itself (not entirely without reason) but it also has a bad memory.

      As someone else has mentioned, the Poles played a huge part as well.

      The Canucks were also involved pre-1941 (via Britain proxy) by providing materials via convoys and training spys to be inserted into German-occupied territories.

      The massive bombings by the US air power and the ability to provide 5 Sherman tanks to counter each Tiger/Panther sealed Germany's fate.

    29. Re:Anything that helps... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      If you're looking for a good book from the perspective of the common German soldier, read Forgotten soldier, by Guy Sajer.

    30. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Next time, do it by your damn selves.

    31. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, you've all got it wrong. I stole the damn thing. Smuggled it out too.

      It was all me, baby.

    32. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...From the BBC article...

      Yeah, and we all know how the BBC is a bastion of historical accuracy.
    33. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment."

      And I would like to remind you of the revolutionary war.

    34. Re:Anything that helps... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and we all know how the BBC is a bastion of historical accuracy.

      Well, it certainly is more accurate than, say, Fox. Would you care to point out a specific issue over which the BBC has dissembled?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    35. Re:Anything that helps... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The Poles smuggled out the 3-rotor version of Enigma used by the army and the Luftwaffe. The naval version use 4 rotors, and was much harder to decrypt. The recovery of materials from a U-boat (unkown to the German command) was invaluable in helping crack U-boat and other German naval communications.

      (Not that they cracked everything, by a long shot.)

      The movie Enigma has some good dramatization of this (the code cracking, not the U boat incident) and some interesting plot twists.

      --
      -- Alastair
    36. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For crying out loud.

      Europe would have been overrun if it weren't simply for the fact that the UK, whilst full of spirit, was also an Island, which helped a lot.

      America, had the UK lost out to the Nazis, would have been next on the list. The Germans had been developing an atomic device and a rocket mechanism to fly it to the Western US seaboard from Spain.

      US numbers, coupled with British ingenuity, French, Polish and Canadian grit, were the ingredients that won the war. And a lot of luck.

      The Americans engaged simply because they realised they'd be next, not because of any 'special relationship.' The UK simply "kowtowed" because they needed help.

      No one in the War had a right to be politically holier-than-thou. As does no-one on Slashdot or anywhere else in this 'enlightened' age. Hitler was the catalyst to German fury at 'losing' WW1 (even though no foreign soldier set foot on German soil.) That Dresden suffered is no greater than that of Coventry, Leeds, Exeter or London to name a few.

      Before anyone else spouts off, a quick trip to a library (real or otherwise) would probably pay dividends.

    37. Re:Anything that helps... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Ah,...but who is more responsible for the German defeat on the Eastern front... the Russians or mother nature? No slight on the Russians, but it WAS the worst winter since (ironicaly) Napolean invaded in the mid-19th century. I'd wager the outcome would have been different if the weather had been more favorable toward the Germans (considering how "close" Russia was to being defeated as it was).

      Oh crap,... find-replace Russia == Soviet Union.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    38. Re:Anything that helps... by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Despite your hot air, and the original posts taunts, there is something of a valid point in there somewhere. There does seem to be a line in American military thinking that believes that a massive show of military force is always the best approach. Now in 80% of cases that's undeniably correct, but using it all the time causes those remaining 20% to throw up all sorts of nasty problems. USA/UK experience in Baghdad/Basra is something of pointer to this maybe?

      A similar difference in thinking seemed to be around in WWII. It's noticable that the americans suffered considerably higher casualties on their beaches compared to the UK/ANZAC beaches, despite similar resistence. I believe (but have no link) that later Allied analysis attributed this to the UK/ANZAC forces being much more willing to use unconventional tactics and weapons on their beacheads (some of which worked, some of which didn't) compared to the Americans who just did an 'overwhelming force' type of assault. Of cause by that stage of the war the Brits had suffered so many casualties already that minimizing them was more of a priority compared to the USA which had the manpower to spare.

    39. Re:Anything that helps... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Geez, perhaps they are "US centric" because the series is about a US airbone unit. Not much place in such a story for say... a Russian tank battalion is there? Besides, unlike today, joint operations between nations (like the Normandy ivasion or the action in Sicily) were extremely rare due in large part to differences in command structure, hardware (radios and the like), supply systems (read:ammuntion), and of course tactics. Nowadays, our militaries routinely exercise with other nations and adhere to the "NATO playbook" which mitigates these issues.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    40. Re:Anything that helps... by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      For an interesting example of a less-biased and more historically accurate war film, check out Tora! Tora! Tora! which was done jointly by US and Japanese film makers about the attack on Pearl Harbour. You can find it on DVD for pretty cheap.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    41. Re:Anything that helps... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, that's not as bad as it sounds. At least, unlike my nation (Britain), I can't think of any occasions when America has lost any significant military engagements despite having superior numbers and equipment.

      Vietnam?

    42. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... Vietnam?

    43. Re:Anything that helps... by Gumshoe · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad someone mentioned the Russians and their efforts in WWII. Not to disprespect the Americans but modern day readers would be forgiven for thinking that they alone brought the Nazi's to heel. Consider this: the Germans fought at least four nations (the British, Americans, Russians and the French) on two fronts, to a standstill for four years. That's how powerful the Nazi army was and it required the combined efforts of the Allies to defeat them. I absolutely will not forgive anyone who suggests that any Allied nation was superfluous.

    44. Re:Anything that helps... by g00set · · Score: 1

      I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      Listen to the professor instructing the class that America is the ONLY nation, in the history of all nations and battles fought, to NEVER have won a signifigant battle without superior numbers or firepower. Your hate of America has caused you to look like a pendantic ass.

      Midway: The Incredible Victory

      --
      ... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
    45. Re:Anything that helps... by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      the most hilarious part of U-571 was the ending credits, where the say the story was loosely based on the exploits of these ships, and proceeded to list 8 ships that all started with HMS, his majesty's ship. american ship names are prefixed with USS.

    46. Re:Anything that helps... by chl · · Score: 1
      Many hundreds of thousands of civilians were indeed killed by those raids, but during the day those same "innocent civilians" were out making bombs, planes and tanks in Germany's armament factories.

      I very much doubt that the tens of thousands of refugees from the east that crowded Dresden at that time were contributing anything to the German war machine. Maybe it was different in Hamburg.

      One stated goal of the bombings was to crush the morale of the Germans, which turned out not to be very effective.

      One might argue (I wouldn't) that the bombings were necessary to win against the evil empire, but they were still an atrocity.

      chl

    47. Re:Anything that helps... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians.

      While we are handing out credit regarding WW2, it might be relevant that there was a non-agression pact signed at one point between Nazi Germany and Stalin. Maybe I'm wrong on this.

    48. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wish stories of a handful of violent yanks taking down a larger number of enemy, study US Marine Corps history.

    49. Re:Anything that helps... by mce · · Score: 1
      Quoting from one of the links in the post that you replied to:

      RAF briefing notes indicate that one of the motives was to show "the Russians when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do" (that is, to intimidate the Soviets).

      Bombing Dresden in Feruary 1945 had nothing to do with shortening the war, nor with killing Germans that would otherwise kill us. It had everything to do with making sure post-war politics would work out in the advantage of the western allies. While the latter surely was a laudable goal in itself, Stalin being not much better than Hitler, destroying Dresden and its inhabitants/refugees just for that purpose most certainly was nothing but a war crime.

    50. Re:Anything that helps... by deepfusion · · Score: 0

      While I'd agree with the poster that the cited movie and mini-series are good works (of entertainment), you'd have to be a fool to even think about citing them as historical references. Sadly though, I would be willing to bet that for a high majority of people derive their understanding of history from these works of fiction "based on actual events".
      Just think about how many blatant statists and nationalists in America view the French surrender during the war as out-right cowardliness, and that if not for GI Joe there would have been no real resistance effort. Not to downplay America's role in the fight, we sacrificed more than our full share of lives in the war. The French took what logical seemed to be best course of action considering the circumstances. They did not have enough resources to win in a tactical fight and would have been slaughtered. So they instead chose to surrender to avoid greater loss of civilian lives and fight an underground or guerrilla war. Just go down to your local library and ask for historical works regarding the French Resistance, a group of freedom-fighters that worked to counter the Germans just as bravely as our soldiers.
      The population's knowledge of our history is truly pathetic and due to the amount of dilution and propaganda in history taught in the current government-controlled monopoly we call public education. That and general apathy of course.

      Hell, the civil war, one of the most bloody and unnecessary wars in our history is portrayed as the great war against slavery. In truth it was a war of oppression against the populace in order to expand the powers of the state. It's funny to think that a blatant racist and fascist (Abraham Lincoln) would even dare to use slavery as an excuse to ignore articles and amendments of the US Constitution and breach that limitation of power to steal from the people to aid big businesses such as the railroad industry. It's often said that history is written by the winners, and how true that is...

    51. Re:Anything that helps... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      more revisionist drivel... you can not judge past war events by modern standards. If Dresden, Stalingrad or the Battle of Britain were to occur today, they would of course be atrocities. However, the further you go back in history, the more "acceptable" civilian casualties have been. This has been driven in large part by the accuracy of weapon technology. For instance, WW2 bombers had accuracies on the order of hundreds or even thousands of yards, wheras modern weapons have accuracies in the 1-100 yard range (worst case). It was not feasible to target specific buildings within a city; instead complexes or areas of a city were targeted. If these could not be taken out, the workforce and infrastructure were.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    52. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you just /love/ fratricidal wars? And you wonder why Western Civilisation is nearly exctinct...

    53. Re:Anything that helps... by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Yeah the fire bombing of Dresden by British and American forces was indeed heoric .. murdering innocent civilians in the thousands - knowingly, on purpose.


      Yeah, so what, fuck 'em. These "innocent civlilians" are the same people who were beating up Jews and breaking windows on Kristallnacht and then sent their Jewish neighbors off to camps such as Dachau, Auschwitz, et al. The firebombing of Dresden was the chickens coming home to roost.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    54. Re:Anything that helps... by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

      Two fratricidal wars in a row... Over the period of the 20th century, The Western Civilisation's tryst with Nietzschean Nihilism resulted in it teetering on the brink of physical suicide. Good work.

    55. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alanis Morissette, is that you? It's not irony, it's coincidence.

    56. Re:Anything that helps... by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      Yes... And then Germany attacked them in June of 1941 and they played a huge role in the remaining war...

    57. Re:Anything that helps... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 2, Informative
      And just to decimate my karma even more, I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      On the other side of the globe at the time, an out numbered and out gunned US Navy and Marine Corps defeated the other third of the Axis powers: Japan. The most critical battle of the war, Midway, the US Carrier fleet out numbered 3:4 by Japan's Carrier fleet, and about 5:1 with the respect to the rest of their fleet. Yet the US pulled out a victory. One of the US carriers, the Yorktown I do beleive, had barely limped into Pearl Harbor, had three months worth of repair work slapped on in 48 hours, and had been thrown into the fray. As horrible as the battles of Iwo Jima was, the US inflicted a 3:1 kill to loss ratio on the defenders.

      Against Japan, the US forces held their own despite the fact that the Pacific theatre had taken a back seat to the European theatre until Germany had been defeated.

    58. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq? At least so far no matter what GWB says, they have not one the war yet.

    59. Re:Anything that helps... by PsychoKiller · · Score: 1

      And the Canadians... :P

    60. Re:Anything that helps... by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      You took a rather odd view of Canada's involvement... I know you were just throwing it in as an example, but your choices seemed rather misrepresentative. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10th 1939 and was involved all over the picture, not just in a couple of limited ways. This was a declaration as an independant country, a few days after Britain had declared war. Canadians in the Second World War fought as Canadians, not under the British flag as they had in the first and not by proxy.

      I'll also point out that Canada's naval involvement went much beyond providing materials, and as far as training goes, the British Commonwealth Air Training Program that Canada led comes to mind much quicker than spies...

      For a country with a small population that came out of the war with the fourth largest air force and the third largest navy in the world, Canada's role in the second world war seems to be rather misunderstood.

    61. Re:Anything that helps... by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You took a rather odd view of Canada's involvement

      As a Canadian, I tend to downplay my own importance and that of my country. What won WW2 was massive force supplied by our neighbours to the south.

      We *were* a formidable force at that time because it was needed then, but now we are only known as Peacekeepers and world-class snipers (and maybe comedians). I don't speak for all Canucks, but I think we like it that way.

    62. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Those acts were horrific but they were carried out with the intent of shortening the war by breaking the morale of those civilians and others in other German towns and cities who heard about them."

      hey yeah i bet if they used A bombs then the war would have been EVEN SHORTER!

    63. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you. But I never believed that the movie was an accurate depiction of events. Very few of the major films released depict real events. If it was supposed to depict the actual events of HMS Aubretia, don't you think it would be called U-110? If this bothers you, you give Hollywood too much credit to start out with.

    64. Re:Anything that helps... by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

      Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. However, we certainly do prefer to win, and in order to ensure victory we balance our budgets with a very large military slice.

      America is not very different at all from the classic Roman Empire, IMHO. I'm just hoping that we can take a page from the British on how to get out of the empire business without the home country being overrun by barbarians.

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    65. Re:Anything that helps... by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Most of these movies are made in "Hollywood", in the USA.

      Actually, wasnt Private Ryan made mostly in Ireland? The troops in the landing scene are mostly Irish Army from what I've heard. Countryside scenes are all around Waterford or Wexford somewhere.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    66. Re:Anything that helps... by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment.

      How about the battle of Trenton. The famous image , of course, is of Washington crossing the Deleware with his raged men. But the reason that we have that image is that he lead those me into sure defeat and came out victorious.

    67. Re:Anything that helps... by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      What wars has Vatican City won? What about Latvia or Estonia or Czechslovkia? There's lots of countries with that distinction, and worse, someone else provided the numbers and equipment.

    68. Re:Anything that helps... by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Shame so many of the poor sods in the Soviet army later ended up in Siberian Gulags.

      Or that so many of them who had fallen into Allied hands were given back to the russians and mostly murdered. Even more of a shame, the non-soviet army USSR nationals who were forcibly repatriated, eg the Cossacks and white russians who fought for the Germans against the Soviet Union. We, the allies, handed these, as well as civilians (eg their families), back to the USSR knowing full well they'd be dead meat. Indeed, british officers on one ship who repatriated USSR nationals actually heard machine gun fire after the repatriatees were unloaded and herded into warehouses dockside. However, we had agreed to repatriation with Stalin at Yalta.

      There's a book somewhere which covers this, but I cant remember the name.

      A fantastic (if depressing) first-hand account of the Gulags can be found in "The Gulag Archipelago", by Nobel prizewinner Aleksandr Solzhenitstn -- an absolute must-read.

      Absolutely. And after reading it you realise that if WWII truely had been about good Vs evil then we fought the lesser of the two evil dictators. But of course WWII wasnt about good Vs evil, it was about power, Hitler was expanionist and hence a threat to power, Stalin was not, he already had plenty of people to persecute.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    69. Re:Anything that helps... by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Yes, but pre-war: the Molotov - von Ribbentrop pact of 1939. It didnt last long. :) The Germans attacked the USSR in June 1941. (grave mistake. Their early plans had been to have had britain defeated before attacking the USSR).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    70. Re:Anything that helps... by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      For instance, WW2 bombers had accuracies on the order of hundreds or even thousands of yards

      Hundreds. From the early 40s the allies had the Norden bomb sight and other gyro-stabilised sights available, with which accuracies of 150 yards could be achieved, 617 squadron apparently could achieve accuracies of 125 yards at altitudes of 20k feet. The USAAF 8th Air Force apparently had much lower accuracy, however 617 squadron were a specialist squadron and hey, how accurate do you need to be when carpet bombing industrial complexes? However, high-precision bombing was indeed quite possible in WWII.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    71. Re:Anything that helps... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      "The plot of all war movies is the same: the viewer survives"
      -- Jay Hyams, War Movies

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    72. Re:Anything that helps... by Karrots · · Score: 1

      The Code Book details the how the Poles cracked the enigma pryor to the war. Then shipped off two of the machines one to France and one to Britian a month before they were invaded. Its a pretty good book. Thats not the only thing the book is about the it devotes about 3 chapters to it.

      It also states there were more than one time where they captured code books and enigmas. Infact the capturing of codebooks was almost continous through out the war it sounded like.

    73. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the funniest scene is in the crew quarters, where they're all sitting around telling each other about home. They're supposed to be on a sub but it looks like it was filmed in a barracks or warehouse or something.

    74. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, The Thin Red Line, by Terrence Malick. It's pretty riveting. This is a remake, though i've yet to see the original. Interestingly, Keir Dullea plays the lead in that one.

    75. Re:Anything that helps... by Kvan · · Score: 1
      However, the further you go back in history, the more "acceptable" civilian casualties have been.

      That's not entirely true. Shelling or bombing civilians for the purpose of terror was pretty much not done until Nelson did it to Copenhagen in 1801.

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    76. Re:Anything that helps... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians. The Russians fought the brunt of the German war machine, and wore them down through sheer attrition. I don't recall the exact number of Russian war dead, but it ranges in the millions. If the Western Allies had to face the main core of the German army, I don't know if we would have won.


      True. Even after D-Day 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front, rest (20-30%) were spread between Western Front, Italy, and the occupied countries. and let's not forget that Russians had been fighting the Germans for a long time by the time D-Day happened. So not only did they fight a larger number of enemy troops, they fought them alot longer.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    77. Re:Anything that helps... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      You are just mad cause we could whip your briny little asses into yesteryear if we wanted.


      Who are you talking about? Europe? In that case: not really. What would you have to do in order to "whip Europe's briny little ass"? Well, you would have to bring your army across the Atlantic. Good luck trying to do that. If you thought crossing the Channel on D-Day was bad, try to do an invasion across the Atlantic.

      Or you could use nukes. In which case you would get nuked as well by the French and the Brits. Hypothetical Europe vs. USA war would be a standstill.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    78. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment.

      Midway. Guadalcanal. Now, go have a nice day.

      PS: Very few if any military leaders will choose to engage in combat if they don't have superior numbers and/or equipment. Things being equal equipment-wise, overcoming a competent defender generally requires superior numbers on the order of 2- or 3-to-1. Having superior numbers is common sense, not a point of shame. Throwing away lives on assaults doomed to failure is, on the other hand, a true sin.

    79. Re:Anything that helps... by jgardn · · Score: 1

      And just to decimate my karma even more, I would remind anyone who is inclined to think of America as an unusually heroic military force that they have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      You're right. I am proud to be a member of a country that has lost few if any wars. I'm also proud that when our country mobilizes for war, we don't play games. Put it another way, if war were football, we sould show up on the gridiron with thirty thousand marines, air support, and a couple of nukes just in case it got really bad.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    80. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ummm..

      They did.

      And it was.

    81. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er, Midway was won because a bomber group got lost, then stumbled onto the Japanese carrier group as they were rearming. You are right, but it could have VERY easily gone the other way (and almost did)

    82. Re:Anything that helps... by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 0

      Hear Hear :)

    83. Re:Anything that helps... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      [The Americans] have never won a significant military victory without superior numbers or equipment. I don't believe any other nation in history has that distinction.

      Others have pointed out that this statement is incorrect. I want to point out that its very sentiment is incorrect.

      The "right way" to win a battle is to use superior information to bring a superior force in superior numbers in a superior position and crush the enemy. Wars are won by logistics and strategy. Heroics are nice and they make for great films, but it's not what counts. A general who pulls off a victory while outnumbered may be brilliant in battle, but a general who never has to because he can always place superior force to counter the enemy is brilliant in war.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    84. Re:Anything that helps... by hoofie · · Score: 1

      I recently read a book (The Last Escape)about the forced marching of allied prisoners of war from the East (Poland etc) back to Germany in the last few months of World War II. It made a point that the Russians were making noises that if there soldiers taken captive by the Germans, and those who had fought for the Germans, were not repatriated back to Stalins clutches, then the Red Army would take the allied prisoners back to Russia and use them as bargaining chips.

      Remember, relations between the allies and Russia were becoming increasingly strained towards the end of World War II.

      As an aside, I'd recommend the book to anyone. Its uses original interviews from men in the pow camps and on the marches and sheds some light on a forgotten issue amongst the chaos in Europe at the end of the war.

    85. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a good idea to use superior information, force and numbers if you have them.

      But the parent was specifically pointing out that it isn't heroic (although the specific statement above was obviously incorrect). I also don't think being more powerful is something to be proud about (pride is part of the corrupting influence of power), but rather, with power comes responsibility.

      Personally, I'm not even particularly proud (although I am glad) of the undeniably heroic effort by which my country (Finland) managed to lose only a small part to the Soviet Union in WWII.

    86. Re:Anything that helps... by Lairdsville · · Score: 1

      I don't think America lost many, if any, significant military engagements in Vietnam. They won all the battles, but lost the war.

    87. Re:Anything that helps... by aziraphale · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. It's a film - an adventure story, set in a historical context, but which makes no claims to being a documentary. You know, Nazis never actually found the ark of the covenant in egypt, only to be foiled by a plucky american archaeologist, either...

      U-571 is a fun old world war II adventure story, and Jon Bon Jovi gets killed in an amusing way in it, so I think it's alright.

    88. Re:Anything that helps... by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I tend to downplay my own importance and that of my country.

      I don't think you should. In most of the world, Canada is hardly ever mentioned, it's as if it was only a US/English operation. But I live in the Netherlands, and most of this country was liberated by Canadians, not Americans. As everywhere in Europe, the war cemetaries are huge, and many of them here are filled with Canadians... Canada deserves more recognition.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    89. Re:Anything that helps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Stalin wanted to buy time to attack the germans and Hitler wanted to buy time before their attack. Of course, Hitler was first and he was able to advance quickly because Stalin was still building up his army at the front and he was totally unprepared for a german attack.

    90. Re:Anything that helps... by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Poles! They landed on D-Day too.

      In the film A Bridge Too Far, mention was made of the role played by the Poles at Arnhem, and how much they were shat on by the British generals, despite the brilliant leadership of General Sibi... General Sikiwo... General Szlokw... Gene Hackman.

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    91. Re:Anything that helps... by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Ever heard of books?

      I mean, please. Those films were about as accurate as a blind marksman on a pogo stick.

    92. Re:Anything that helps... by dave420 · · Score: 1
      "was representative of every nation involved"

      True, except everyone else was there from the beginning. Those shows only focus on the last year of the war (which took place for over 5, for britain and the commonwealth, at least. Eastern Europe had their war start much earlier).

      If you rely on those films for any sort of knowledge what-so-ever, you're going to end up with a crazy sense of history. really crazy.

      Those films also failed to focus on what happened to the people caught up in the war. Those non-combattants who had to endure just as much as the trained soldiers. According to those films, they never existed.

    93. Re:Anything that helps... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer Schindlers List.

    94. Re:Anything that helps... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely... in perfect conditions. However, the Norden's phenominal accuracy was severly degraded due to its use at night (tactics driven by German AAA), extremely poor weather and the use of smoke screens to obscure target areas. Sure, under perfect test conditions, it was the bomb (pun intended) but in actual combat use, the accuracy was far less.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    95. Re:Anything that helps... by alexpage · · Score: 1

      What wars has Vatican City won?

      Roughly half of the Crusades....

    96. Re:Anything that helps... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      The Battle of Midway comes to mind. The US had inferior numbers (3 aircraft carriers vs 4, a smaller surface fleet) and our aircraft were generally inferior to the Japanese. The A6M Zero was faster, more maneuverable, and better armed than the F4F Wildcat and F2A Buffalo. There was simply no comparison between the B5N Kate torpedo bomber and our TBD Devastator. The American SBD Dauntless was generally superior to the Japanese D3A Val dive bomber.

      However, we did have one overwhelming "equipment" superiority - cryptography that let us know what the Japanese had planned.

      We also had sheer luck on our side - the Japanese had fueled and armed aircraft on their carrier decks right when the American dive bombers appeared overhead.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    97. Re:Anything that helps... by sadiklis · · Score: 1
      While we are handing out credit for the victory in WW2, let's not forget about our friends, the Russians. The Russians fought the brunt of the German war machine, and wore them down through sheer attrition...

      ...and succeeded where Germans have failed - managed to occupy quite a chunk of Europe for half a century.

      Make sure to never refer to the Russians as Good Guys of WW2 in places where Eastern Europeans might hear you.


      Enemy of my enemy is my friend?

    98. Re:Anything that helps... by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty weak view of the movie making industry as a whole. Yes, the majority of movies are made with the almight dollar as the goal. Some movies, on the other hand, are crafted to tell the truth, no matter how ugly.

      I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was spectacular simply because it showed not only the U.S. troops' bravery, but their cowardice as well. It showed both sides showing no regard for human life in the war zone. It showed both sides killing and being killed with equal alacrity, sympathy, and gore.

      As for your grudge -- were you there? And even if you were, why would you hold a grudge against a people who, on the whole, didn't do the fighting?

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    99. Re:Anything that helps... by fltsimbuff · · Score: 1

      "As for your grudge -- were you there? And even if you were, why would you hold a grudge against a people who, on the whole, didn't do the fighting?"

      You do know, that I was referring to their lack of support.... no... Total and outright opposition to the Most recent Iraq war, right? And even to the deployment of Patriots to defend Israel from possible recourse from the war?
      Yes, that bothered me. I for one am glad that we ended a war that started a decade ago... Even if the fact that no WMDs have been found rather concerns me, at best. And I'm not even going to get into the "human shields" that went over there...

  11. Unbelievable by moehoward · · Score: 1

    Unbelievable that someone with so much content can't put up the bandwidth to support it. Someone goofed big time.

    What in the world did they expect?

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Unbelievable by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Someone should make a torrent then.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It isn't online until Monday!!!

      Why the fuck can't you dickheads get that through your head?

    3. Re:Unbelievable by moehoward · · Score: 0

      It is Monday in the UK right now. You need to wind up your sundial, son, and switch to decaf.

      Typical US-centric slashdot knee-jerk, um, jerk.

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    4. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, still Sunday here.
      Even GMT Monday doesn't start for another quarter hour yet.

    5. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, the UK is currently running on GMT, Monday is still over an hour off.

    6. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it isn't, its almost 11pm sunday nite right now

    7. Re:Unbelievable by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "no it isn't, its almost 11pm [GMT] sunday nite right now"

      Uhh, maybe we're taking their "we'll put the website up on monday" statement too literally... I doubt there's someone in the office at 11pm Sunday night, with "apachectl start" in a console, and finger hovering over the Enter button listening for Big Ben to strike 12...

      (yes I know it's in staffordshire... artistic license..)

  12. Wondering... by iota · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well the TARA archive is already slashdotted...
    But I'm most interested in getting answers to these questions --
    -- What's the license/use/citation policy? e.g. Can I make prints?
    -- Can I buy/license a copy of the entire archive? (Perhaps loaded onto one of these).

    1. Re:Wondering... by JoshuaDFranklin · · Score: 1
      Historical photographic archives have policies on this. For example, see this Terms of Use page from Seattle's Museum of History and Industry. Bascially, if you just want to look at it, that's fair use. If you want print(s), you pay for their time and money in making said print(s). If you want to put it in Time magazine, you'll pay the owner for the rights. Often if you're a charitable or educational organization deals can be arranged.

      Keep in mind that it's not just a bunch of pictures. Look at the Meta-Data in these things. Making copies of the whole archive would be difficult and probably not worthwhile unless you were wanting to provide, for example, an Austrailian mirror. The digital images would be stored in a database, not just in a filesystem somewhere. You really need to be using the same software they are.

      Citations are by some identifier, usually a negative number or reference ID.

  13. Re:Keinen Juden fur Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time don't use a proportional font. I had to paste it into an editor to see the swastika.

  14. Server Age by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the server hosting the pictures was from Second World War too...

    --
    Cheers,
    RoadkillBunny
  15. urgh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this was announced like a week ago, too fucking slow.

  16. Dear Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Have you no respect for those that died for your freedoms in the 2nd world war - or are you just brutally retarded?

    1. Re:Dear Trolls by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a reason they use AC for their trolling: being cowards, they prefer anonymity.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Dear Trolls by danidude · · Score: 1
      Have you no respect for those that died for your freedoms in the 2nd world war - or are you just brutally retarded?


      I think, like many people, they have no ability to put theirselves in the place of others. They only understand what directly happens to then, everithing else is abstract. In other words, they just brutally retarded, yes.

      --
      - no sig.
    3. Re:Dear Trolls by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      What the fuck is wrong with you?
      (this is from my european POV) Simple. Last time there was a war close enough to have an serious influence on our lives was more than half a century ago. For most people these days war is something you hear about on TV and is no more "real" like the next Rambo movie.
      Have you no respect for those that died for your freedoms in the 2nd world war - or are you just brutally retarded?
      Those people are only names under an old picture for most people. Not many people here have lost someone they knew in WO2 (How many /. readers are over 50?).
      Don't expect trolls to understand the full meaning of war, most are only teenagers and all they know of war is what they learned from movies and schoolbooks.
    4. Re:Dear Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you no respect for those that died for your freedoms in the 2nd world war - or are you just brutally retarded?

      The German war machine was largely defeated by the forces of the Soviet Union, under the command of one Josef Stalin. How many of those soldiers died for our freedoms?

      I'm sorry, but it has to be said - in Soviet Russia, freedom died for them.

    5. Re:Dear Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. MOD PARENT UP!

  17. Way to go by gwernol · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, now we've Slashdotted the Second World War. Do you have any idea what we might have done to history? Doesn't anyone watch quality movies like Timeline anymore?

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
    1. Re:Way to go by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Do you have any idea what we might have done to history?
      Sure: Germany won the war and continued to conquer the world. The US is now run by reighcancelier (sp?) Straugh. And there is world peace. All of us (well, those of us who were white and blond enough) speak German.
      An African-American is kept as a slave of an important German Whatever and is freed by Joe Sixpack, who wants to use the super secret German timemachine to fix history. He infiltrates the heavily garded time machine facility by dressing up as a German officer and speaking English with a German accent. Finds the time machine and is caught by Random Guard, but Afrikan-American comes in just on time to save Joe Sixpack and both of them travel back to half an hour ago and prevent /. from slashdotting the WO2 server and everybody lives happely ever after.
  18. There is a catch by Reorax · · Score: 1

    We all know that these pictures were the real purpose behind all those World War II bombing missions.

    --
    This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
    1. Re:There is a catch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like CNN ratings would be the only purpose for a current ongoing war???

      Interesting point.

  19. uhm, by relrelrel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just so everyone knows, the website: (http://www.evidenceincamera.co.uk/) has not been slashdotted, it isn't online yet, I went there about 3 days ago and it was the exact same.

    --
    --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    1. Re:uhm, by LearnToSpell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that's stupid. How can we slashdot it when it's not even up yet? *sigh* I'll just keep clicking reload until it's up and I can't connect, I guess. At least we'll be able to smash it when the dupe story comes along tomorrow.

  20. Genocide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Look up "genocide", asshat.

  21. Hey - there's uncle Martin by rcpitt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I predict that there will be a budding hobby of trying to identify people in shots that are close enough.

    I expect the war games people will have a field day with all this stuff.

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
  22. to all the ppl making jokes by relrelrel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    STFU. This isn't funny, in the slightest, you have to be a real sick puppy to try laugh about people giving their lives for you, yes, YOU, so simply shut up if you have nothing good to say.

    Any joke made should be modded down.

    --
    --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    1. Re:to all the ppl making jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up!

  23. High resolution??? by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    What was meant by high resolution cameras, back in the 40s?

    Maybe digital camera technology was farther advanced than I'd thought.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    1. Re:High resolution??? by scrote-ma-hote · · Score: 3, Informative
      You realise resolution has a lot to do with resolving power, which in turn has a lot to do with optics.

      In this context it refers to how well you can tell two pieces of information apart at a distance (there's probably a correct definition, but I can't be bothered finding it).

      dictionary.com: 6. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal.

      Like a lot of other terms, the original meaning has been taken by computers and placed somewhat out of the context it was originally used for.

    2. Re:High resolution??? by MajorDick · · Score: 1

      The resoulution of an optical camera with good lenses and film is REMARKALBE , just for example about a month ago a picture was handed to me from the 1940's of my grandfather and his car in the background, the liscence plate is about 1/4 of a centimeter in the picture, I was thinking it would be a great picture to enlarge because of the focus and tones, ANYHOW I took a loupe (a jewlers loupe) and not only could I read the liscense plate but it was crystal clear.

    3. Re:High resolution??? by rcpitt · · Score: 2, Informative
      The optics back then rival all but the absolute best now - and because color was not an issue, the film was first class too. The other thing to remember is that most of this stuff was not 35mm - it was at worst 120/620 (roll film) in something like a Roliflex or it was "gun camera" stock which was longer rolls of similar size - between 6 and 10 times the size of 35mm or larger.

      For those who have never seen the results of a large (or even medium) format B&W camera you're in for a surprise - the grain size is smaller, the continuous tone is better (than color) and the results astounding.

      --
      Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
      and didn't get it
  24. Should be fun by NickABusey · · Score: 1

    I submitted this also, but I guess he got his in first. He probably found it on those forums with the Star Wars Car like I did. Haha, no matter. I wonder if they will be released in full resolution under GPL or something similar, or if they will just be for viewing purposes. Either way, should be an interesting site none the less.

    --

    - Nick Busey
    www.pedalbmx.com
    www.nickbusey.com
    1. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, that was the most inane and content-free posting I've read all day!

  25. It's not slashdotted by bobbabemagnet · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those of you who didn't read the article, it says the archive will be opened on Monday. That's tomorrow. Don't get your knickers in a twist, just come back tomorrow and see it.

    1. Re:It's not slashdotted by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      Most Slashdotters don't even realize that they can (and should) RTFA on the day they see the story...

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
  26. Fuck off, simpleton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Get a sense of humour, you uptight piece of garbage. The world doesn't need another wound-up, chai-sipping tool like yourself.

    Moron.

    1. Re:Fuck off, simpleton by relrelrel · · Score: 1

      sorry for not finding the death of my ancestors amusing, next time i'll take into concideration the fact that they died for shitheads like you.

      --
      --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    2. Re:Fuck off, simpleton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shakes head and rolls eyes at all this hate between people*

      Doh. The clashing of 2 extremes I suppose.

  27. Visuals? by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Interesting


    This would be truly amazing (especially for WW2 history buffs) since the only images ever seen of the conflict from non-participants have always been from a first-person cameraman (possibly staged) perspective (or fighter/bomber cams).

    I want to see the Russian move into Berlin from above.

    What will be the resolution of these photos?

  28. Hmm.. by Laconian · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the data will be freely available to game companies before the whole "Ultraviolent D-Day FPS" fad finally goes away.

  29. Checking for unexploded ordinance by sam0ht · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These pics could be useful for people who want to check for unexploded bombs. If you see a line of craters with a gap, the gap is likely as not the location where one fell into the earth and didn't go off. So if they include the results of bombing runs, it could be useful.
    I had a friend who did this, inspecting WW2 photos for signs of unexploded bombs for property companies.

    1. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well done for reading the newspaper and trying to get some free mod points :)

    2. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by toxic666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dude, you obviously know little about UXO. It may be one tool, but it is not reliable in making determinations about UXO. At best, this is a limited tool for only one source of UXO.

      Most of the UXO they deal with in Europe is artillery shells and mines, and they do not have any kind of regular pattern.

      Talk to one of the large group of Belgian engineers who are still disposing of it. And not just WWII aerial bombs, but artillery from BOTH World Wars. Including the gift that keeps on giving, chemical munitions. The mines were concealed in the first place.

      Most UXO is found the old fashioned way -- farmers and construction workers who call it in.

    3. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Most unexploded ordnance is found the old fashioned way"

      When it stops being unexploded?

    4. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by toxic666 · · Score: 1

      Funny, but it happens sometimes.

      Worked on a site where a whole crew digging a new sewer line got blown up. Bad scene, as the work site had been certified clear.

    5. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      Belgium has it bad. I saw a program on UXO in Belgium.. they gave the statistic that if they never found any more UXO and chemical weapons, it would take 20 years to dispose of those which they've already found and have in storage.

    6. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by lommer · · Score: 1

      Ok, why the hell is this? I can understand how it might take a while to dispose of chemical ordinance but why is it so difficult to dispose of what they've found? Just clear everyone away and blow it up!

    7. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Animats · · Score: 1
      The effort to clean up unexploded ordnance in Western France has been going on for half a century, and they're still finding tons of stuff every month. Those WWI artillery duels, where both sides brought in trainloads of ammo and fired it off, left a huge mess.

      The US is lucky to have not had a war like that on its own territory.

    8. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but the Keele archive is used to this day to detect UXO in Germany. It is so important that the Berlin City Council paid for a complete copy of the Berlin set of photographs and provide a free search facility for construction sites in Berlin.
      You can read an article I wrote 10 years ago about this photography archive and its uses (not just UXO detection) here.

    9. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the American Civil War. That had a lot of artillery shells fired during its course. It wasn't as big as WWI of course, but it was a very large war. To this day, its total of casualties is still larger than the combined total of all other US wars since.

    10. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Animats · · Score: 1

      The American Civil War left behind only solid shot. High explosives hadn't been invented yet.

    11. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Civil War was when armies first started seriously playing around with explosive ordinance. Given the general unreliability of the stuff back then, I expect there's still some UXO lying around -- it's just that gunpowder doesn't survive 150 years of rain too well.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    12. Re:Checking for unexploded ordinance by yasa · · Score: 1

      I recently read an article about belgian WWI weapon disposal, and that's exactly the way they do it (for non chemical munition). Twice a day during week days they dig in loads of munition and blow it up.

  30. Not just europe... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few months ago i had my senior pictures taken by this little old guy with a terrible tupee, but while he was setting up his equiptment he was telling me about how after high school(he graduated from the same school as me) he joined the navy as an ariel photographer for the pacific campaign. I guess he flew missions for mapping iwo jima and a few other of the key islands. It was interesting to hear about to say the least, to bad this is /.d, but form the other posts i assume its all european photos.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Not just europe... by relrelrel · · Score: 1

      Well, Britain took part in the Invasion of Japan as well (though I suppose that's lost in today's history films and books) so I woulda thought there'd be pictures about the Pacific in there too.

      --
      --- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
    2. Re:Not just europe... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the chinditz in Burma, too. Unlike anyone else, they managed to beat the Japanese at their own game.

  31. i setup a new bookmark category for these articles by heymjo · · Score: 1

    It's called "slashdotted for sure" ...

  32. Re:fp lol omg wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I wasn't aware that they did aerial photography using ASCII during WWII.

  33. great strategy for a new site.... by f13nd · · Score: 1

    submit all your new up and coming sites to slashdot and see how long it takes to bring them down again

    --
    www.necroticobsession.com
  34. Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    I would like to see the aerial photos of the damage caused by the U.S.'s firebombing of my hometown during WWII that killed my father.

    See, Dresden was not a stategic military target, but the U.S. decided to bomb our city anyway in order to destroy the morale of the general civilian population. In other words, the U.S. engaged in terrorism because terrorism works.

    U.S. hypocrisy won't allow the bombing of my city or Japan's to be called terrorism however. Officially it's only terrorism when a powerless group does it.

    1. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dresden was a strategic military target in so many ways that you dishonour the memory of your father with your pathetic revisionism.

      Also I think you'll find that Britain dropped lots of those bombs too, not just the US.

      Large scale terror bombing was invented by the Luftwaffe.
      Presumably you don't put their raids in the same category as the US/UK raids on your father's home because the targets were mere untermenschen?

      I'm glad your father died before he spawned more garbage like yourself.

    2. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dresden was NOT a strategic target, that was just whitewash invented by the US military.

    3. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      I wonder who is being revisionist.

      Dresden Firebombing.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    4. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by random_static · · Score: 1
      See, Dresden was not a stategic military target, but the U.S. decided to bomb our city anyway in order to destroy the morale of the general civilian population. In other words, the U.S. engaged in terrorism because terrorism works.

      because they thought it would work. but given that the Blitz had not exactly demoralized Londoners, i have never quite understood why the allies thought it would work.

      much the same calculus should still apply today - human psychology being what it is, the circumstances in which strategic terrorism might work or conversely certainly won't work are probably quite static. i can't offhand think of a situation in which it definitely will work; though situations where the enemy is unknown and impossible to locate seem to favor it quite a lot. in actual, nation-on-nation shooting war, it seems like a gross waste of munitions and little else.

      (Japan was done for long before the bomb, arguably even from the very beginning, due to the economic disparity alone. they just bit off way more than they could chew, and the smarter of their admirals knew it, too. Hiroshima and Nagasaki at best only hastened the inevitable.)

    5. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Cnik70 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remind me once again, who declared war on who first? I think you'll find that Germany declared war on the US first. And Germany was the nation that started the bombings of civilian targets with their campaign on London.

      --
      -Cnik
    6. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry guy, but war is hell to quote a popular phrase. Is sad that we don't use that technique anymore. If we beat the iraqis like we beat the Germans in WWII then we would not have 500 Americans dead in iraq right now.

      The problem with the iraqis is they don't know they lost the war. The nazis knew they had their ass handed to them. Ditto for the japs. That is why they were so eager for peace.

    7. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by rufus_tuesday · · Score: 1

      Someone should have told this guy that... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3407517.st m Although, by the sounds of it, simply pointing this out makes me an anti-semite. Ho-hum.

    8. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you'd have 5000 dead instead.

      There were similar problems with guerillas ("were wolves") in germany after ww2.

    9. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were the V1 and V2 targeted against?

      And what was the primary warhead?

      Military targets or the center of london.

      In Dresden the Britsh used the firebombs from Lancasters...the americans came along with B17s the next day after and knocked down the smoldering runis with high explosives (like the V2s on london). I think the britsh after 5 plus years of total war had all rights to go after Dresden in whatever manner they wanted to.

    10. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. Personally I find it increasingly alarming that if one mentions any critiscm of Israel one is automatically labelled an anti-semite, which of course is claptrap, and dangerous claptrap too because the real wolf may happen along one day and be ignored.

      The best reply I've yet to find to point out that there are ultra-orthodox Jewish groups who are strongly anti-zionist - and pro-palestinian. Neturei Karta for example (http://www.nkusa.org/)

    11. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt we would have 50 dead.

      Yes, the Germans had some partizens, but we executed them instead of holding them in captivity for a few days.

    12. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BS...

      Learn some history.

      Germany never declared war on US. US was involved *economically* since German attacked British (hence all the U-Boots) and militarily since Pearl Harbor. If not for Japan and Pearl Harbor, US would never have gone to WW2. Pearl Harbor shocked America - mad e them realize that they are involved whether they like it or not. That pre-PH attitude produced a hickup later when Churchil and Roosevelt were negotiating with Stalin, when effectively Roosevelt sided with Stalin over Central Europe.

    13. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

      Um... yes they did: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html (guess you may want to buy a history book that comes without pop-ups)

      --
      -Cnik
    14. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your general civilian population supported Hitler, and by the time Dresden was crisped anyone not a fervent Nazi had been bumped off by those who were.
      I fail to regret that the German population got what it asked for.
      Instead, thank us nicely for the opportunity to start fresh after the war, unencumbered by all those old buildings. :P

    15. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not German. Actually, I live in one of the countries overrun by the Germans in 1914 and 1940 and my grandfather spent 4 years in the trenches fighting them. But that will not stop me from calling you a nitwit for writing nonsense like "by the time Dresden was crisped anyone not a fervent Nazi had been bumped off by those who were".

      Incredible. Don't they teach history in your corner of the world? Ever head of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg? Or Erwin Rommel? Of Wilhelm Canaris? Or Klaus Bonhoeffer? Or ... If colonels, generals, and admirals can be non-fervent Nazi's, then surely so can ordinary people in the streets of Dresden. And yes, my argument holds even though the specific people I mention were indeed all either dead or emprisoned in February 1945.

    16. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      U.S. hypocrisy won't allow the bombing of my city or Japan's to be called terrorism however.

      Was your country's bombing of London terrorism? In war, you try to bring the war to an end, with your side having the uppper hand. War crimes are when you engage in completely gratitous acts of barbarism, not when you kill the enemy. Dresden may have been ineffectual in that goal, but Hiroshima brought the war in the Pacific to an end. War is hell; if WWI didn't teach the continental powers that, perhaps Dresden was appropriate in reminding them in WWII.

    17. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by efuseekay · · Score: 1


      What has some idiot (who, as a diplomat, should have been more levelheaded : no wonder the world's screwed up) defacing some deliberately provocative art has anything to do with the discussion on firebombing of cities?

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    18. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of all the people on this earth to claim wounded innocence, a fucking german is last on the list, maybe tied with the Japanese. Or have you
      forgotten about all those people turned into
      air pollution because of the person your
      "general civilian population" ELECTED
      and SUPPORTED.

      Yeah, you started, and we fucking ended it. As
      an American, I'm not ashamed of the deaths in
      your country sixty years ago, I'M PROUD OF THEM.

      Hell, I half hope some of you get riled up
      again on your own grandiose dreams of national
      dominance so I or my kids can have a piece of
      your hide just like my grandpa did back then.

      There's an old Russian proverb: "A german is
      a good man, perhaps. But you're better to hang
      him."

    19. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      Large scale terror bombing was invented by the Luftwaffe.

      That's so wrong I don't know where to begin. Or when, really. The point of a military is to terrorize and conquer an opponent. Period. Unless I'm wrong, it's on the freakin' air force charter.

      Regardless, what do you call a medieval siege? Mass discomfortizing? How about catapulting sick cows over the city walls during a siege, or the heads of enemy armies? (Alexander the Great did this) It's terror.

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

    20. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      I would like to see the aerial photos of the damage caused by the U.S.'s firebombing of my hometown during WWII that killed my father.


      IIRC firebombing of Dresden was mostly carried out by the British. So complain to them.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    21. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by rufus_tuesday · · Score: 1

      Only relevant to your sig, which I liked :)

    22. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rotterdam happened. It was terror bombing and the Luftwaffe did it. If you think that attacking civilians is normal, you are pretty sick.

    23. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by kevjava · · Score: 1

      Seeing hatemongering like this makes me sick in the pit of my stomach. And the mods call this informative. If you're going to spread hate, at least have the courage to stand up to the repercussions it will have.

      Justification by saying that we were not the only ones doing it doesn't make it right. Justification by saying that the Germans declared war on us first doesn't make it right. Both sides were involved in a very bloody war, and I don't care what you've read, neither side was in the right.

      I am an American, a patriot. I love my country, and would fight to protect it. I have even served in the military, protecting the rights of cowards like you to the uneducated filth of your half-truths.

      This man's father was killed by my country and its allies in its quest to scare and conquer its enemy, and I'm not proud of that. To be associated by citizenship with a person who would treat the memory of thousands of dead men, women, and children with anything less than the utmost of reverence and respect makes me absolutely sick.

    24. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.....I don't understand why the Allies would bomb Dresden, Germany didn't bomb civilian targets, did they?????

      "It would be in Poland where the first signs and effects of widespread bombing could be found. When Hitler crushed Poland Warsaw refused to surrender. In Hitler's eyes this turned Warsaw from a civilian target to a legitimate military target, and for 10 days the people of Warsaw
      endured consistent bombing before surrendering to the Nazis.

      Hitler's major offensive in the west saw more destruction from the Luftwaffe. When the Nazis invaded Holland the Dutch were surprised and
      caught off guard, then retreated to protect its major cities. Again when Rotterdam did not surrender it was destroyed by German bombers.

      This act saw the RAF re-evaluate its bombing missions, which now targeted German industrial factories that supplied the Nazi war machine, but they would still not target civilians and cities.

      After the fall of France the invasion of Britain was Hitler's next target. The Luftwaffe would spearhead 'Operation Sealion' by defeating the RAF, which would leave control of the skies over England in control of the Luftwaffe, and this would allow 'Operation Sealion' to proceed without opposition from the skies. The Luftwaffe targeted RAF air fields and installations in its attempt to destroy the RAF. Day raids proved costly to the Luftwaffe as their fighter escorts could only stay over English soil for twenty minutes. When the bombers lost their escort the RAF could pick them off one by one.

      The Luftwaffe changed its tactics to night flying, but this in itself caused navigation problems in finding their intended target. Hitler had ordered no terror bombing on British cities without his direct order.

      It was one night raid that a mistake by a Nazi bomber dropped its bombs on London, this would be the trigger for the Blitz. Churchill ordered
      the RAF to bomb Berlin the following night in retribution. The British raids shocked the German people, and Goering had stated that no bombs
      would fall on German cities. Fearing civil unrest from the shocked German public, Hitler ordered the systematic bombing of British cities, specially London, as retribution for the raid.

      On 7th September 1940, the Luftwaffe started its raids on the British people, and for nearly three months in succession the cities of of Britain suffered night after night of air terror. With the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain Hitler cancelled his plans for invading Britain. Instead he looked east and concentrated on his plans to invade the Soviet Union.

      But he still continued to bomb British cities, "which was an attempt to pound the British people into submission." While the cities were being destroyed the people would seek safety in air raid shelters. Later,ignoring orders from the government, swarms of people would seek
      sanctuary in the network of the Underground stations (subway) below London, and so the government relented.

      On 10th May the Nazi's unleashed its most devastating attack on London, with more than 3000 people killed or injured in this one raid alone.
      All in all over 40,000 people perished in the Blitz.

      While people asked how long Britain could endure this, Hitler turned his focus eastward and the vast lands of the Soviet Union. Conflict with the communist state was only a matter of time, and the time had come. The Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 would be the turning point of the war. Britain would no longer be alone against Hitler, and by the end of 1941 the long awaited entrance of the United States of America and her industrial might, would be also be an ally to Britain.

      But the Blitz would not be forgotten, and the memories of the Blitz would be an incentive for the RAF and Allied forces, that would continue to pulverise Germany until the final surrender in 1945."
      http://www.leesaunders.com/html/Blitz.htm

      OK, Lets Talk About TERRORISM,And HYPOCRISY, Shall We???

    25. Re:Any pictures of Dresden, Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -BS... -
      -Learn some history. -

      -Germany never declared war on US. -

      Dude, what planet are you from?

      Germany Declares War on America

      Japan's attack on Oahu (7 December 1941) took place when Germany was the mightiest nation on earth. It gave Hitler a tremendous, if temporary, lift. "The turning point!" he exclaimed when he heard that the Japanese had hit Pearl Harbor.

      To Walter Hewel, an official from the foreign ministry assigned to Hitler's staff, he made a startling statement. "Now it is impossible for us to lose the war!" he said, wildly exaggerating the strength of Imperial Japan, which, along with Mussolini's Italy, was his partner in the Axis alliance. "We now have an ally," claimed Hitler, "who has never been vanquished in 3,000 years!"

      The German dictator personally congratulated the Japanese ambassador to Berlin for his country's success in catching US forces off guard: "You gave the right declaration of war! This method is the only proper one!"

      The source of Hitler's confidence at the time of Pearl Harbor was simple: he imagined that the Japanese would tie down American resources indefinitely.

      FDR would do everything in his power to stop the advance of fascism, but the president faced some very basic problems. Immediately after the beginning of hostilities with Japan, he doubted that the American people would tolerate a simultaneous war with Germany. It was the Japanese who had killed American sailors and soldiers on US territory in Hawaii. It was the Japanese that American citizens most feared and wanted to punish. They had no equal grudge against the German dictator.

      Ultimately, it was Hitler and Mussolini's declaration of war against the US on 11 December 1941, that overcame American opposition to a crusade against all the fascist powers.

      Interestingly, Nazi Germany had signed no treaty that bound Hitler to support Japanese aggression. He was committed to taking on the US only in the event that America initiated hostilities.

      What most drew Hitler into declaring war on the US was the very grandiosity of the thing. Not far beneath the surface, he was wildly excited that he was now the central figure in what had become the widest war in human history.

      Attempting to justify his decision for war during a speech to the Reichstag, Hitler concentrated on goading FDR, whom he called "the main culprit of this war." As he proceeded in his charges against America, he echoed US isolationists who said that Roosevelt counted on foreign adventures to divert attention from the New Deal's failure to mend the American economy.

      From behind Hitler's bravado, however, seeped out some very real concerns over the way the war was unfolding. He kept repeating that the people of the US lacked fighting spirit, but he also voiced respect for America's industrial might. Before the American blood shed at Pearl Harbor excited his lust for war with the US, Hitler had hoped that the Japanese would either attack the Soviet Far East or limit themselves to taking such Asian outposts of European colonialism as British Singapore, French Indochina, and the Dutch East Indies.

      Eventually Hitler would reveal the full extent of his reservations about fighting the United States. "This war against America is a tragedy," he told Martin Bormann, the Nazi party secretary. "Germany and the United States should have been able to support each other without undue strain on either of them."

      Joseph Stalin, as Hitler realized, would be the foremost beneficiary of the Axis war with the US, for the Soviet dictator could now be sure that Japanese forces would be spreading out further into east Asia and the Pacific, not moving north and west to invade Siberia. Units of the Red Army that had long been tied down in the Soviet Far East could now be redeployed to Europe to fight the Germans in Russia and the Ukraine.

      http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/671 2/ warONamerica.htm

  35. WWII Emotive Subject by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

    > "Okay, it's just a joke, we already settled it yesterday, the French fought valiantly in WWII"
    > "Will they also have pictures of the devastated dresden after they bombed the city center crowded with hundreds of thousands civilian refugees and no military targets in sight?"
    > "Have you no respect for those that died for your freedoms in the 2nd world war - or are you just brutally retarded?"
    > "STFU. This isn't funny, in the slightest, you have to be a real sick puppy to try laugh about people giving their lives for you, yes, YOU, so simply shut up if you have nothing good to say."

    60+ years on WWII is still a very emotive subject. Europe is still living in its effects - "don't talk about the war" still isn't that much a joke. There are still right-wing extremists, ultra-nationalists, and, increasingly, anti-Semites in Europe. The USA continues to be a strong ally but large shadow over Europe. The E.U. by all accounts could fall apart tommorrow. (And if not, it may just become another neo-colonist imperialist club) So is it any wonder WWII doesn't seem something far away for us who have never lived through it, or in many cases, our parents either?

    B.T.W. I'm a newbie here, my apologies if I haven't followed the prescribed method of quoting.

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    1. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      "There are still right-wing extremists, ultra-nationalists, and, increasingly, anti-Semites in Europe."

      You havnt seen the neo-nazi groups in the US, or the kkk!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by midwich · · Score: 1

      "There are still right-wing extremists, ultra-nationalists, and, increasingly, anti-Semites in Europe. "

      Except this time around, the anti-Semites are on the left.

    3. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, I have had some excellent conversations about WWII with my 90-year-old grandfather, who was part of a Canadian tank regiment and the 'first-wave' assaults on the European mainland. Simply put, you cannot know what it was like unless you were there. I understand you may think that to be trite, but they left loved ones behind to fight for their countries, and, in return, they were rewarded with the experiences of having fellow soldiers disappear, one by one, again and again.

      It is important to pay your respects properly.

      On the flipside, I am very excited about exploring the site with my grandfather to see if he remembers anything about it, or can recognize certain things, that is, if he wants to recall them at all.

    4. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by Limburgher · · Score: 1
      I agree that WWII is still packed with emotion for most Westerners, and have managed to keep myself from biting at Trolls. I personally find the whole thing both extremely somber (Dresden, Holocaust, Nukes) and a source for excellent humour (Maginot line, Hitler invading Russia in winter).

      As for quoting, you're ahead of the pack if you even CARE about quotation format. Most of us cant evn tpee.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    5. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by cruachan · · Score: 1

      There are anti-semities about that's true. But what worries me is an increasing propensity of some Israelis and their supporters to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semite. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also dangerous as cheapening words by using them slovenly takes away your weapons when the real thing comes along.

    6. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But what worries me is an increasing propensity of some Israelis and their supporters to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semite. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also dangerous as cheapening words by using them slovenly takes away your weapons when the real thing comes along.
      True in the abstract, and Israel is obviously not perfect and should be open to criticism like other countries. But when the vitriol and hatred directed against it is all out proportion to its actions and when its enemies are held up to nowhere near the same standards of behavior, something is wrong. Case in point: why is Ariel Sharon attacked as a war criminal for what, at worst, was a sin of omission (not stopping Christian Lebanese Arabs from massacring several hundred Muslim Lebanese Arabs) while the sins of commission carried out by Arab leaders like Saddam Hussein or Hafez Assad (who literaly leveled the town of Hama, killing 10,000+) attract not 1/10th as much interest?

      The answer is an irrational hatred of Israel. Among the European right it's the same old story- they hate Israel and its people b/c they are Jews and they are different. On the left it's a more interesting, if frightening story. They hate Israel because its people are too much like themselves- i.e. "white" and Western- and because they are in brutal conflict with poor, backwards, brown-skinned people who, in the masochistic view of the left, are always morally superior to themselves.

      Of course left-wing Israel haters aren't necessarily anti-Semitic (people like Vanessa Redgrave, Robert Fisk, and Tom Paulin seem to like weak, oppressed diaspora Jews) but they are in the same camp with and are too spineless to stand up to the genocidal hatred of their comrades in the anti-Zionist quest-i.e. Muzlims.

      Muslims have already determined that it's OK to kill not just Israeli civilians (including children), but Jews anywhere, as bombings and arson attacks against Jews and Jewish symbols in countries like Argentina, France, Turkey and North Africa demonstrate. And among the left there is not a peep against these actions committed against Jews for simply being Jews.

    7. Re:WWII Emotive Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate Israel because its people are too much like themselves- i.e. "white" and Western

      Right. Do you actually believe this drivel or are you just trolling.

      And among the left there is not a peep against these actions committed against Jews for simply being Jews.

      La la la. I'm not listening. La la la.

      Whatever.

  36. Related commercial site. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1


    Navy Ship Photos

    This is a nice commercial site for navy ship photos from a site made by a former employer of mine. You have to search to find a ship, but there's some nice pictures there. It's owned by a long-time professional navy ship photographer living in Florida, who is a pretty cool guy.

    Ryan Fenton

  37. This is their server's finest hour! by Monkey+Liar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Never has so much bandwidth been sought by so many, from so few.

    --
    He who fights with Monkeys must take it upon himself not to become a Monkey.
    1. Re:This is their server's finest hour! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      We shall download from the web servers. We shall download from the FTP servers, and from the proxies. We shall download from Windows, from Linux, and from Macintosh. We shall download the Google cache..we shall never surrender!

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:This is their server's finest hour! by ikebuma · · Score: 1

      Torrents, use Torrents! Lark's tongues! Otter's noses! Ozelot spleens! Ike

  38. oh hush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you're killing the "righteous guilt" trip. "Historical context"? thats doesn't matter, whats important is pissing off the old folks and finding some bubble headed chick who'll be impressed by your sensitivity and daring in expressing an "unpopular" opinion you read about on some Tides Foundation funded website.

  39. Ah - freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell it to the eastern europeans.

  40. I'm gonna try to download them all by atr0p1s · · Score: 1

    5,000,000 images at a (conservative estimate) ~800kb apiece = ~3,800GB wow!

  41. At 25 a veteran already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your are forgetting a whole lot of soldiers(UN) whom daily risk their lives in several wars around the globe, of which I was one, there certainly are a lot of people who "know" war younger than 50.

    Anyone who "knows" war will do a lot to prevent it;
    there is no glory, wrong or wright in war, only death(as about 500+USpeople found out in Iraq).

  42. From your own link by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the section asking if the bombing was justified:

    One popular charge against the bombing is that the city was not a military target. However, other evidence suggests otherwise; The city contained the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory (both of which were entirely devoted to manufacturing military gunsights). The immediate suburbs contained factories building components of radars and electronics, and fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Other factories produced gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters. After the attack, Germany was to claim that Dresden's industry was only making civil goods, a notion which much of the world accepted, and still accepts, as true.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:From your own link by niceandsunny · · Score: 1

      The city contained the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory (both of which were entirely devoted to manufacturing military gunsights). The immediate suburbs contained factories building components of radars and electronics, and fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Other factories produced gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters.

      In Coventry, the Luftwaffe raid destroyed most of the industry and killed
      554. The Dresden raid, on the other hand, killed 25.000 - 300.000 and destroyed a handful of factories. Still think civilians weren't the primary objective of the RAF?

    2. Re:From your own link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean workers?

    3. Re:From your own link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dresden raid, on the other hand, killed 25.000 - 30.000

      The Germans killed 30,000 civilians in a terror attack on Rotterdam. The Germans opened their campaign on Stalingrad with a bombing raid which killed 30,000 in three days. Auschwitz killed 7000 people per day, or one Dresden per week. The Soviets lost an average of 10,000 soldiers per day on the Eastern front.

      The siege of Leningrad starved two million civilians, including the shelling of refugee convoys of women and children. Several million civilians were killed in China (we'll never know exactly how many). Six million civilians were killed in Poland, and between 15 and 20 million in Russia.

      Total casualties in WWII averaged about 30,000 every single day. 60% of them were civilian. Welcome to full-scale, modern, industrial slaughter, in which a Dresden is practically routine.

    4. Re:From your own link by efuseekay · · Score: 1


      Just Germans killing civilians justified the allies' killing of civilians too? War sucks I suppose.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    5. Re:From your own link by efuseekay · · Score: 1


      I think the point is that hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the raid.

      If the fact that some factories in Dresden produced some military goods justify their deaths, then what more can I say?

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    6. Re:From your own link by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      The Germans killed 30,000 civilians in a terror attack on Rotterdam.


      The literature I have read puts the number of dead around 900.

      this site Also puts the number of casualties around 900.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:From your own link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gross.

  43. They kept that well hidden. by rufus_tuesday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a former student of the University of Keele, I am shocked and stunned that the place is actually home to something interesting! For those who've never been, Keele is a village on top of a hill with a University which was built on the land of an old RAF site, hence the link with Kew in this case I would guess. It's not exactly the centre of the universe. Other features of note include a nearby motorway services and the fact that it was where 'A very peculiar practice' http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/practice/ was filmed (starring Peter Davison, later of Dr Who fame).

    1. Re:They kept that well hidden. by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it supposed to the "Univerity of North Staffordshire". i.e. Stoke. Famously the place where people on the train from London to Manchester look out the window and say "at least I don't live here"

    2. Re:They kept that well hidden. by rufus_tuesday · · Score: 1

      Artistic licence. Keele is a few miles north of Stoke. The only other univeristy in the area is what used to be called staffs polytechnic, which is in the middle of Stoke.

    3. Re:They kept that well hidden. by Adlopa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, two mentions of Stoke in one story on ./ in one day. As I live and breathe...

  44. Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "He started it" carries a lot of weight when Western civilization is at stake.

    If the Germans had not placed Hitler in power, if the Germans had not sustained him in power, if Hitler had not plunged Europe into a war of conquest and genocide, then not a single Allied bomb would have ever fallen on German territory.

    To use another cliche, you reap what you sow.

    Hitler and the other fascists, including those ruling Japan, had to be stopped, at any cost. The cost of defeat was unthinkable.

    Trying to take the moral high ground in war is pointless. Death is death, regardless of motive. But, that is no reason to avoid fighting to win.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by random_static · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the Germans had not placed Hitler in power, if the Germans had not sustained him in power, if Hitler had not plunged Europe into a war of conquest and genocide, then not a single Allied bomb would have ever fallen on German territory.

      true, but that still seems to me like an awfully thin justification for war crimes.

      maybe it's just that i have a strange viewpoint on this; i'm mainly interested in the morals of violence and what should be counted as a "war crime", and why; blaming the deaths of some number of thousands of noncombatant civilians on how their country made the wrong guy boss a decade earlier just seems like a stretch.

      Hitler and the other fascists, including those ruling Japan, had to be stopped, at any cost. The cost of defeat was unthinkable.

      entirely true, and this comes closer to an explanation for the atrocities in question. still, i'm unconvinced that it's much of a moral (or legal) justification; i'm not convinced somebody should be let off the hook for mass murder just because they can claim that, well, if we'd lost then such-and-such worse atrocity would have resulted. that's very likely true, but does it make the atrocity in question necessary or justified?

      Trying to take the moral high ground in war is pointless. Death is death, regardless of motive. But, that is no reason to avoid fighting to win.

      i agree enthusiastically; i am, as it were, merely bickering about what moves should be considered legal and proper in the fight, and why. though it is, of course, an entirely academic dispute - the winners will decide what counted as fair, and that'll be that, just as it always has been.

    2. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      To use another cliche, you reap what you sow.

      Harris used this cliche himself. He was quite unrepentant about his decision to firebomb civilian areas saying, in an interview for The World at War: "if you sow the wind, be prepared to reap the whirlwind."

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    3. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor nit. Actually, I think it was "They have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind" But maybe he said it multiple times in different variants.'

    4. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Didnt haliburten sell oil and fuel and supplies to the germans while supplying the british at the same time ;) nice little profit earner, actually ww2 was a massive profit earner for the corporates.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    5. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by mce · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hitler and the other fascists, including those ruling Japan, had to be stopped, at any cost. The cost of defeat was unthinkable.

      Dresden, generally considered to be one of Europe's most beautiful cities before it was totally destroyed in a single night and in addition not at all a military target, was bombed on February 13, 1945. By then, allied defeat itself was unthinkable and its cost no longer an issue. By then it was the cost of victory that was the issue. In my view, the destruction of Dresden was, and will forever remain, a war crime.

      Please help funding the reconstruction of Dresden's worldfamous Frauenkirche.

    6. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want your cities wasted? Don't start any wars.

      Seems simple enough to me, but then, I'm just a dumb Yank...

    7. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by mce · · Score: 1
      I'm not German. Actually, I was born and live in one of the countries overrun by the Germans in 1914 and 1940. My grandfather spent 4 years in the trenches fighting the Germans while the rest of my family suffered the German occupation. Twice, that is. And still I stick to my opinion of the Dresden bombing.


      And let's not talk about the war in Iraq...

    8. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fund the rebuild of a church? That would memorialise an institution that killed far more people than Hitler. It got what it deserved.

    9. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by fourharpoon · · Score: 1

      "He started it" carries a lot of weight when Western civilization is at stake. This very same reason was what Hitler could have give you as an answer why he did all of those in the first place. If I'm not mistaken, what drove Hitler was his country post war condition. Not that I sympathize with Hitler or anything. But if we do bad things in return of bad things that other did, what do we have in differ from those who did first? Timing and initiative?

    10. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by alext · · Score: 1

      Actually he said this standing on top of the Air Ministry building in the middle of a raid on London.

    11. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by mce · · Score: 1

      I'm actually a convinced non-believer and fully agree that horrific crimes have been and are being commited in the name of that idea people call god (note: no capital!). And yet I helped to fund the rebuild and would/will do so again. The church in question was an architectural masterpiece, its ruins have for tens of years been a symbol of the attrocities of war, and its reconstruction (largely funded by people from outside Germany (and specificly including the city of Coventry and the son of one of the pilots that helped to destroy it), by the way) now is a symbol of reconciliation.

    12. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by fermion · · Score: 1
      It is interesting that the "he started it argument", the favorite tool of seven year old children, depends so sensitively on where you start.

      Like you, many like to start with the Hitler.

      We can also start with the end of the great war. Maybe if the vengeful and self serving Europeans would have listened to Wilson instead of using the treaty process to satisfy their own personal greed, perhaps if the U.S. would have ratified the treaty rather than focusing on the possible loss to their own personal power, perhaps if the U.S. would have been less focused on consumerism and profiteering off the reconstruction, then perhaps Germans would not have been placed in the desperate situation.

      We can go back further. Perhaps if Europe had not been so ravenous for land and wealth, perhaps if they had not built up such a military force so they could take whatever the hell they needed, perhaps if they had not lost sight that diplomacy can often work, perhaps if everyone had not assumed by the late 19th century that war was inevitable, and the best thing to do was to form alliances, then perhaps a single assassination would not have lead to the murder of millions of humans.

      If is easy to justify one's action as forced by others people. It is easy to let your life be controlled by the actions of others. We have seen time and time again where such irresponsibility has lead. People beat the shit out of each other all the time. To return to your grade school analogy, you have the choice of returning the next day and taking revenge, or understanding that your action will just used as the justifications for even worse atrocities further down the line.

      I know my history is bit whack. But so is everyone else's in this thread.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    13. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt haliburten sell oil and fuel and supplies to the germans while supplying the british at the same time ;)

      In a word: no.

      If you think you have any evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.

    14. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever get the opportunity to visit Coventry? Or look further into the meaning of "absolute war"?

    15. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't want your cities wasted? Don't start any wars. Seems simple enough to me, but then, I'm just a dumb Yank...

      WTC down, many more to go. Yes, you are just a dumb yank. Very, very dumb. Remember, if you don't want your cities destroyed, don't start any wars. Goes both ways, and sometimes small groups of individuals can take matters into their own hands with rather spectacular results.

    16. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by jdonnis · · Score: 1

      Following this argument, the US deserved what they got on 9/11, through continued support of the israeli occupation and genocides against the palestinian and other arab, people they were in their good rights to attack US targets..

      Does that sound so reasonable?
      To me it seems that the reasoning is at pre-school level...

    17. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by mce · · Score: 1

      Not yet. But I did visit Dresden. And as one of my other posts in this discussion shows, I'm fully aware of Coventry. More even so than you think, since I once upon a time read every bit of data about it that I could find: the what, the when, the how (detailed technical info on location finding techniques the Germans used in those days), etc., etc. In other words: I know my history.

    18. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Stephen+Maturin · · Score: 1

      If the Germans had not placed Hitler in power...
      Sorry... not to sound like a Hitler apologist, but if England and France had not given Germany such a brutal ass-fucking with the treaty of Versailles, Hitler would have just been another crappy artist.
      Plundering Germany and depriving her of the means of defending herself after the Great War left the German people with unbelievable inflation, a worthless currency, and skyrocketing unemployment.
      Chancellor Hitler, on the other hand, gave them full employment, a stable currency, and most importantly (or unfortunately), a scapegoat.
      So yes, you reap what you sow... but it wasn't the Germans who were sowing the field.

      --
      Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
      -- Cicero
    19. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by reallocate · · Score: 1

      There's always one demented loon in the bunch. Thanks for showing up.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    20. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by reallocate · · Score: 1

      It's sophistic to blame Germany's WWII behavior on the results of another it started, WWI. I believe Hitler was simply a racists, anti-Semitic meglomaniac psychopath. Whatever motivations you choose to ascribe to him, hoever, they are irrelevant. It was Germany's behavior, not Germany's motivation, that the Allies went to war against.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    21. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by reallocate · · Score: 1

      It is morally bankrupt to explain away an individual's or a nation's behavior by reference to its history.

      We are not unthinking automatons guided solely by historic, or economic, or societal circumstances.

      Germany suffered the impact of losing the war it began in 1914. Germany chose Hitler as its leader. Describing the historical context surrounding those events, as you attempt, does not absolve Germany and Hitler of responsibility. Nor does it transfer responsibilty to those nations who defended themselves against Germany. That, however, is the thrust of your position.

      Turning the other cheek is not an effective defnese against psychopathic killers. Perhaps it will be when humans become angels and the world becomes a utopia.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    22. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      I realize you're joking, but actually Roosevelt was adamantly opposed to anybody making a profit from the war and I think most Americans at the time would have been appalled at the idea.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    23. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by sprekken · · Score: 1

      If the Germans had not placed Hitler in power, if the Germans had not sustained him in power, if Hitler had not plunged Europe into a war of conquest and genocide, then not a single Allied bomb would have ever fallen on German territory.

      Nope, you're right. The entire European continent would have been overrun by Stalin's communist armies.

      Now that would be an interesting situation, wouldn't it?

    24. Re:Axis Powers Reaped What They Sowed by reallocate · · Score: 1

      A debatable notion. If it had come to pass, then the war would have been against Stalin.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  45. How about... by seanvaandering · · Score: 2, Informative

    We call this "pre-slashbombing" because hey --- none of us really read the articles and know that the server isn't really online! I'm sure the people over in the UK right now are just laughing their asses off looking at all the requests to the server and saying "Americans..."

    One thing, it just moves me to look at that BBC picture of Auswitz with the smoke coming up and knowing what the smoke stack represents. Unbelievable. It just gives me a new respect for what those people really went through, and thanking my lucky stars I was born now and not then.

    1. Re:How about... by nobody69 · · Score: 1

      Itym, "I'd have been looking for the first US/UK unit to surrender to after my panzer broke down/ran out of gas so the Red Army didn't use me for target practice." The Nazis were classic bullies who were too stupid to worry about logistics and got too fat and slow from shooting civilians and stealing art. Even the old school Prussian-wannabes who tried to kill Hitler were expecting to sue for peace and keep all the land they had stolen.

      --
      "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
  46. It's only worth seeing Saving Private Ryan by melted · · Score: 1

    And then only the first 15 minutes which are the most true-to-life picture of war I've ever seen on the big screen. From there it becomes pathetic and nurturing. Utter crap if you ask me. I have bought the DVD though, solely for the first 15 minutes of it.

  47. Availability of Stereoscopic Images by LuYu · · Score: 1

    While both the BBC and Slashdot articles refer to stereoscopic images taken during WWII, I have seen no mention that these images would actually be posted to the Net.

    Are they going to post all the images or just a few flat 2D images?

    Will we be able to access both stereoscopic photographs in order to make our own 3D OpenGL or VRML topographs?

    Finally, what kind of resolution will we get with the images? Will it be as good as the originals? Or just those small press images as seen in the BBC article?

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  48. where oh where by michajoe · · Score: 1

    is the website that has pictures of their crashed and burning web server?

  49. the French fleet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I would like to remind you of the French fleet.

    1. Re:the French fleet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I would like to remind you of the War of 1812, but I would like you to forget about the invasion of Canada during the war please, thank you.

  50. How's this Insightful ? by apankrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "They committed senseless crimes, so we responded the same way" - this is pretty lousy argument if you think about it for a second.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:How's this Insightful ? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      And in war, if the enemy attacks you, are you then right to fight back? If the allies had played by your rules, we would probably be beneath the thumb of German Nazism.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    2. Re:How's this Insightful ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Allied countries all declared war on Germany first.
      Some individuals (ahem) argue that Poland started everything by attacking Germany(!)
      Germany wanted retaliation for the arguably unreasonable and severe punishment and humiliation it received after having been forced to surrender "prematurely" in WW1... And so on...

      If you're gonna play the "but mommy, he started first" game when discussing WW2, then you're on a slippery slope.

      If the allies killed 250,000 civilians in 2 days (only counting Dresden now) as a retaliation for 10,000 civilian deaths in 2 months (in the entire UK), then what do you think the "proper" (using your logic) German retaliation should've been? 6,250,000 civilians in 2 hours? And so on, back and forth. :P

    3. Re:How's this Insightful ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The Allied countries all declared war on Germany first."
      Nazi Germany unilaterally invaided their neighbours first, after being warned of the consequences of continuing to do so they disregarded these sentiments and chose to take over further lands and plunge themselves into war.

      Look at the initial responces to these invasions and the apathy and apeasement, that cannot considered to be the actions of agressors but wantom lethargy in the face of agression and threat.
  51. The subject should have been different.. by Caedar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Something like "WW2 Aerial Photographs Go Offline Due to Slashdot".

  52. Fact is both side were deeply wrong by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Bombing civilian facility whatever the reson is wrong, and "ending the war quicker" is a terribly wrong one. Soldier are paid/engaged to kill each other in their nation's name. Killing civilian are wrong on so many side. Imagine a bit like a cops killing criminal's family to make thenm surrender quicker (although the comparison is quite not right as cop are paid to enforce law, not to be killed or kill others but you get the drift here). Gas Chamber were a terrible Crime. But so was firing V1 & V2 and so was atomic bombardement or conventionnal city bomb-razing. The only difference in those crime is that the victorious side deicided it was justified to kill so many civilian to force a surrender (and by the way this proved false as with or without Dresden bombardement , war ended only with berlin being invaded by both army and Hitler suiciding. One can argue that Dresden bombardement was a gratuitious crime here).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Fact is both side were deeply wrong by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Soldier are paid/engaged to kill each other in their nation's name.

      You make it seem like most soldier's in most wars aren't forced (drafted) into fighting. Iraq killing Americans is having an effect on the people who joined the Army & the Reserves. The government is offering people $10,000 to stay in. And that's not helping much.

      And to be off-topic, if WW2 Was Fought Like Vietnam.

  53. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evidence at last that the Americans didn't win the war in Europe single handedly.

    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Evidence at last that the Americans didn't win the war in Europe single handedly.

      I think it was darned nice of the French to drop all those rifles as they were retreating.

    2. Re:Great by goatan · · Score: 0

      Yep more Germans where injured by tripping over abbandond french equipment than by gun shot wounds

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

  54. well by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    That's not unusual. Many countries with religious foundings often consider an attack on the State to be an attack on the religion. Israel is a Jewish state so a criticism of its policies may well be viewed as an attack on judaism by many citizens who view israel and judaism to be the same thing.

    Similarly, countries with a strictly muslim government often view an attack on their government as an attack on islam. In the middle east, religion is government and government is religion - an attack on either will affect the other just as much.

    This is an unusual concept in the west where religion and government separate themselves more or less, so you have to view it with some cultural and historical context.

    --

    -

  55. Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm an American (family arrived well before the Declaration of Indenpendence even), but my fellow Americans here who speak so boldly about German atrocities against England, or make comments like "war is hell" with regard to American strikes against places like Dresden, are sadly lacking a good understanding of history. I can't blame them though, as American history texts have a very different view of the war than those found in Europe.

    Having studied in Germany for a while, I can assure my fellow countrymen that you have no idea just how appalling it is what we did to Germany.

    Yes, what the Germans did to London was very, very bad. Inexcusable. But, they really just targetted London. The RAF was also quite able to defend the country.

    By the time the allies started bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe was already a wreck, completely unable to function. England suffered in London, but Germany suffered in Frankfurt, Muenchen, Berlin, Hamburg, and so on. Basically, every major city in Germany was levelled. Even many minor cities that just happened to be in the flight path of American bombers. A prime example of this is Muenster, where I studied. The only thing there is a nice university and a bunch of college kids, but it is the last/first city you come to on the border if you are flying from England. It was levelled just because it was a convenient place to drop bombs. As I mention above, by the time most of these bombing raids were occuring against Germany, the war was lost for them anyway, making the raids purely gratuitous.

    To this day, if you are doing any kind of construction in Germany, you have to hire a crew to come out and look for old unexploded bombs. Most Americans really don't understand that Dresden (as just one example of atrocity) was completely non-military. Some sources even indicate that many of the refugees probably weren't even Germans, but rather eastern europeans who were fleeing the Russians coming from the east.

    Then there is that matter of the 50 years of occupation after the war by the Russians that was allowed, even encouraged by the allies. Even though Germany is a united country now, its borders were shrunk significantly by the Russians - where Poland is today used to be a major German state, and historically, Poland was farther to the east. The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state.

    Much of the intrigue of the war was the training ground for later US foreign policy "techniques" in places around the world. We like to keep countries down in remarkable ways. In fact, it is quite appalling to watch what America is doing in Iraq right now, as it is basically the same kind of model we tried in Japan and Germany. Germans today hate our guts (as they should), and it is likely we will fail with Iraq due to the same mistakes we have perpetually made elsewhere. Unfortunately, we are poor students of history.

    I am constantly amazed by even my educated American friends who still feel that Germans "aren't sorry enough for the war." This is as silly as calling the French "surrender monekys." Remarks like these just make it that much clearer how little of European history and European affairs Americans understand. What's perhaps even more appaling, is that even after being involved in two european wars, and claiming to be allied with european powers since that time, Americans (especially our governemnt)*still* have no concept of these things.

    1. Re:Dresden, etc. by zata40fan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The RAF was also quite able to defend the country

      Actually, the RAF had a very rough time of it in 1940 after Germany overran France. They were just barely able to defend their nation and came very close to capitulation. The RAF became stronger only after Hitler turned his attentions to Russia and when the US entered the war. The US was responsible for the destruction of the Luftwaffe and the British never would have made it without America's industrial ability.

      The entire Allied strategy in Western Europe before the landings in Normandy was to destroy Germany's ability to make war. This included destroying any and all factories, oil fields, railroads, and military targets. In doing this, the Allies achieved another goal: complete air superiority over the occupied nations by reducing the Luftwaffe to a token force.

      The Americans version of this strategy involved daylight precision bombing on actual military targets at hight cost through the use of the highly secret Norton bombsight. The American goal, at least was not to kill civilians but to destroy the German war machine. They did not have the same level of hatred for the Germans that the English did. Maybe if Germany had been able to bomb American cities, the US would have seen things differently then and now but the continental United States escaped all damage from both enemies in the war.

      The British thought daylight bombings were too costly in lives and material and stuck to night bombings throughout the war. This and the fact that they did not have the Norton bombsight did not led itself to bombing accuracy since all of Europe was under a strict blackout policy. As a payback to Hitler's official policy of bombing civilian targets like the city of London, the British went out of their way to terror bombing German cities with high explosives and incendiary bombs. This is a terrible policy which did not work on the Germans, just as it did not on the British who re-employed it. The civilians of Germany did not give up just as those of Britain did not. The UK has escaped the criticism it deserves for what they condoned during the war and the US has gotten far more criticism it deserves for it's part in the bombing of the most evil nation in modern history.

      As I mention above, by the time most of these bombing raids were occuring against Germany, the war was lost for them anyway, making the raids purely gratuitous.

      The war may have been lost for them but that doesn't mean the leaders of Germany believed it. The Germans did not surrender until May 8th, 1945 and I think you'll find none of those raids took place after that date. The Germans should have surrendered much earlier but Adolf Hitler would not allow it. The only reason Nazi Germany gave up when it did was because Hitler had committed suicide some days earlier and was no longer there to keep up the fight against the Allies who had clearly won months before. Right up to his last day, he was throwing lives away and he was the one completely responsible for all of those deaths.

      Even though Germany is a united country now, its borders were shrunk significantly by the Russians - where Poland is today used to be a major German state, and historically, Poland was farther to the east. The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state.

      Much of Prussia was taken away from Germany after WWI, the result of European rivalries and hatred, not because America had anything to do with it (remember, the US did not want anything to do with the Treaty of Versailles). That more of it was taken after WWII is regretable but that was a result of Russia being unreasonable and wanting more of a buffer between themselves and Western Europe.

      Germany is where it is today because of America. They would be that minor agricultural state you mentioned if America had not helped it become a world power again.

      The attack on Dresden has been justified by others and I won't defend it myself though I will say the 6 million+ people murdered by the Nazi regime and those who lived in occupied Europe at the time would most likely have had very little problem it.

    2. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It was levelled just because it was a convenient
      > place to drop bombs.

      Right. I'm sure the bombs that were intended for another target were dropped there 'just because'.

      > was completely non-military.

      Is heavy industry producing material for the war effort considered 'non-millitary'?

      > occupation after the war by the Russians that
      > was allowed, even encouraged by the allies.

      Allowed? Yes. Encouraged? Speculation and conspiracy theory at best. Besides, what was the alternative? WWIII?

      > The allies let all this happen, because they
      > wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural
      > state.

      Cite references, please. While Germany does have agriculture there is the business of industry and engineering that Germany knows a thing or two about.

    3. Re:Dresden, etc. by Eluding+Reality · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't disagree that the fire bombing of Dresden was an atrocity, but when Germany began bombing London, Britain was by no means able to defend itself

      At the start of the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had 3000 planes within range of southern England, the RAF had 1200 planes for defense. At this point, pilots in the RAF were sent into combat roughly 4 weeks after first stepping into a plane. The Luftwaffe could put about 1600 planes in the air every day, more than the entire RAF even owned, the RAF could put 650-700 planes up if needed, although the bare minimum had to be scrambled to keep the reserves strong. The Luftwaffe began the campaign by targeting front line fighter fields and at the rate the bombers were coming in, ground crews simply could not keep runways operational. Had the battle continued as it was, the RAF would have been decimated within weeks.

      The twist however came when an RAF bomber squadron lost their way over Germany and reportedly bombed the outskirts of a major German city by accident. This enraged Hitler who immediately ordered ALL bombers to target London. This single command allowed the RAF to repair the runways and get their planes in the air, and it also meant that they knew where every single German plane was going to. Had Hitler not given that one command, it is likely that the RAF would have fallen in 2-3 weeks, German landing forces would cross the channel before winter set in and Britain too would have fallen. Had this happened, the US would not have been able to get involved and the world today would be a different place.

      I am British and I am not proud of Dresden, I know that I most likely would not be writing this today if it wasn't for the US and Russian forces, but personally I have the greatest amount of respect for the pilots of the Battle of Britain who were willing to face such over-whelming odds against an airforce that had already stormed through Europe and barely stopped for breath, yet they stood up to them and in the end did what was needed of them.

    4. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Luftwaffe could put about 1600 planes in the air every day, more than the entire RAF even owned

      Yeah, but the british fighters had more effective airtime. The german fighters could only stay over London for 10 minutes before they had to go home for fuel.

    5. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Eurotrash have owned the Slashdot message boards for years now, so I'm sure the parent will be modded to +5 soon, but this is completely ridiculous:
      Then there is that matter of the 50 years of occupation after the war by the Russians that was allowed, even encouraged by the allies.
      The U.S. is responsible for the Soviet occupation of Germany? The Soviet Union was going to make sattelites out the countries it occupied no matter what the Western allies did, and there was no stomach for starting another war to stop it. In fact, the allies knew there would be confrontation wiht the Soviets after the war and so tried to seize as much Germany territory as possible to keep it outside of German hands.

      As for Dresden, I'm sick of this revisionism by people who were not there. WWII was total war- there were no smart bombs then, and the generals were not gifted w/the same marvellous hindsight as you and so could not know that "Germany was on its last legs" or that Dresden "contained mostly Eastern European civilians". Dresden was a German city, each German city produced material for the war effort, and so each German city was a legitimate target, period.

      Britain and the U.S. conducted themselves with the most honor of any of the combatants and have nothing to be ashamed of. A war crime is what is committed against civilians who have surrendered, like the mass rapes and lootings committed by the Red Army. Yet given what was done to them by the Germans first, you can't blame them. Context does matter in these things. A man who shoots at another man is a murderer; if he misses and is shot back and killed, that does not make the second man the same.

    6. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC what actually happened was that a Luftwaffe bomber got lost and ditched it's bombs over London. (accident)

      The RAF responded with a night raid over Berlin. It was a token atack, but intentional. That was when Hitler ordered the all-out London raids.

      You are correct however that this was a major tuning point in the Battle of Britian.

    7. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American (family arrived well before the Declaration of Indenpendence even),

      What does that have to do with anything? Certainly nothing to do with the rest of the sentence unless you mean you don't understand history. You are begging for some kind of credibility.

      The RAF was also quite able to defend the country.

      Yeah, They didn't manage to drop too many bombs on England.

      England suffered in London, but Germany suffered in Frankfurt, Muenchen, Berlin, Hamburg, and so on.

      Just so you know, they somehow managed to get themselves tangled up in a war.

      The only thing there is a nice university and a bunch of college kids,

      Germany was taking on the world. Would you have us believe that the country was anything but a huge war machine?

      Most Americans really don't understand that Dresden (as just one example of atrocity) was completely non-military. Some sources even indicate that many of the refugees probably weren't even Germans, but rather eastern europeans who were fleeing the Russians coming from the east.


      Don't talk like you know facts when you are not sure. If you don't know what country the people were from, how do you know the whole city was non-military?

      50 years of occupation after the war by the Russians that was allowed, even encouraged by the allies.

      I don't think it was encouraged by the allies, unless you consider Russia an ally evn through the Cold War. Immediately after the war the Western allies worked to weaken the Russian hold.

      The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state.

      Then why did it turn into a major industrial power?

      In fact, it is quite appalling to watch what America is doing in Iraq right now, as it is basically the same kind of model we tried in Japan and Germany.

      If this is what happened in Japan and Germany after the war then we better keep it up. Because those countries are doing pretty damn good now and their war rates have dropped to zero.

      Germans today hate our guts (as they should),

      Well, I guess they hate us so much they aren't going to waste their time trying to conquer the world anymore.

    8. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'r an idiot.

      After witnessing what I did in the concentration camps scattered throughout Germany, the complacently displayed by average Germans for the plight of the Nazis doomed them to such punishment.

      Maybe now the Germans will think twice about letting anti-sementic ideals form as undercurrents in their society. Whoops. Too late for that.

      I find it hard to believe that you don't think Germans should feel sorry for the systematic destruction of millions of lives.

      As for an aggressor country whose sheep like people were convinced to fight two bloody world wars, what part of America making sure it doesn't cause any more problems in the future is inappropriate. If I had a dog who kept running out of my yard and terrorizing the postman, even though the dog was repeatedly beat, I would probably put it in a yard.

      And after issuing you a humilating defeat, we paid for your defense for the next 60 years while WE fought the war against communism. If it weren't for us you and your ilk would be speaking Russian, and God knows the Russians would have been gentle to the Germans after their behavior in WWII.

      And for how little "little of European history and European affairs Americans understand", maybe you would like to do a report card on the progress of our respective countries over the last three hundred years. We have all the countries in Europe combined beat in almost every single major category that countries compete in. Like economics, military might, strategic importance.

      The real problem is that Europeans need to come to terms with their lack of relevancy in controlling the world. All you little imperial empires are belong to us and our capitalistic tendancies...

    9. Re:Dresden, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American (family arrived well before the Declaration of Indenpendence even),

      Probably not American.

      but my fellow Americans here who speak so boldly about German atrocities against England, or make comments like "war is hell" with regard to American strikes against places like Dresden, are sadly lacking a good understanding of history. I can't blame them though, as American history texts have a very different view of the war than those found in Europe.

      Most definately a troll.

      No mention of the article content, pictures, etc.

      Way off topic.

    10. Re:Dresden, etc. by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not having a go at you, here. I'm saying this with all sincerety. I respect your views and opinions.

      Yes, London got an absolute shafting in WWII, but so did many other British towns and cities. Coventry, for example, was almost wiped off the map. As for the RAF being able to defend London, how do you defend against a ballistic missile, falling to earth at over 4,500 miles an hour? Tommy gun?

      "By the time the allies started bombing Germany, the Luftwaffe was already a wreck, completely unable to function"

      The Luftwaffe were not "completely unable to function" - in fact, they were very effective at shooting people down. Coupled with their use of the "X-Gerate" (sp?) system of overlapping radio beams for guidance, they were one of the most formidable air forces we've ever seen. (The x-gerate system was eventually reduced to useless when the Brits realised they could pick up the signal, pipe it underground and re-transmit from a new location, while jamming the original, causing Nazi bombers to drop their bombs in the sea and land in Ireland).

      One thing about the ethics of WWII - the Nazis had at their disposal weapons created specifically for civillian destruction, whereas bombing cities used standard military technology (albeit used in an unethical manner). The V1 & V2 had absolutely no military application (they had to be effectively hard-wired to hit London, so using them in the field or for mobile targets was useless). We were lucky the Germans didn't have time to use the V3 super-cannon (you can thank 617 squadron of Dam Busters fame for that score).

      And to top it all off, the guy who was responsible for Germany's vengeance weapons, Werner von Braun, went to head up NASA's space programme (doesn't that make you want to reach for your stars and stripes?)

      Yes, Germany shat on Britain. Yes, Britain and the US shat on Germany. The fact remains, however, it was German tanks rolling into Poland that kicked it off for us, not British tanks rolling into Germany. "An eye for an eye" conjures up images of immature retalliation, but in this case, it was kill or be killed. Germany had to be stopped.

      "The allies let all this happen, because they wanted to turn Germany into a minor agricultural state."

      I agree with that, with Germany's track record, letting Germany turn into an industrialised superpower immediately after WWII might not be the best option (especially for Poland).

      Anyone who's been to Germany, or even talked to a German knows Germany is sorry. Really sorry. They know people attach very harsh feelings to their country (calling the french surrender-monkeys isn't in a similar vein - they surrendered with a remarkable haste, after having the Nazis on the run. Go figure.)

      The one thing you hit the nail on the head with is America's foreign policy. To criticise it in middle america (or near any republican for that matter) instantly brands you a "commie marxist lefty pinko", yet it forces completely "un-american" principles upon the people it is in place to help. Ask an American what America is, and they're most likely to mention freedom and bravery. That freedom, however, is only afforded by America to Americans. All that talk of "every man is created equal" really doesn't ride. "Every American is created equal" is more apt, as even simple rights noted throughout time as being essential to human existance are systematically denied to those around the world who need them, on purely capitalist and commercial reasons. Whole wars are started at the behest of boards of directors. Millions of people are ear-marked as collateral damage before the bombers even leave the runway. If that's freedom, someone needs to get a new dictionary.

      I know Americans are good people. Their government relies on (the abundant) staunch nationalism present in the US to pull the wool over the eyes of the common American. Slap a flag on a MOAB and it becomes a symbol of national power (to be saluted, no doubt), not just another bit of

    11. Re:Dresden, etc. by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Had Hitler not given that one command, it is likely that the RAF would have fallen in 2-3 weeks, German landing forces would cross the channel before winter set in and Britain too would have fallen. Had this happened, the US would not have been able to get involved and the world today would be a different place.

      I'm an occasional lurker in soc.history.what-if which seems to have a reasonable quantity of very smart people. The What If Sealion Succeeds (Sealion being the code name for the invasion of Britain) idea has been discussed to death. Nobody, and I mean nobody has ever come up with a reasonable change in history after the 1930s that results in Germany conquering Britain. In order for Germany to be able to pull off such an invasion, they need some heavy magic. Having a big chunk of water between you and your enemy counts for a lot. The Germans didn't have the transport capacity, nor the navy to protect it, to field anything resembling a decent army, much less supply it.

      This is mostly 20/20 hindsight, as at the time it was apparently believed that invasion was possible. But from what we know today, it was incredibly unlikely.

      Not to say that the British didn't do a good job; they did an incredible job standing up to the Germans. But the threat was not as great as it is often put.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    12. Re:Dresden, etc. by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      except for the most important, social issues. Europe is way ahead of the US in that regard, gay marriages, decrimilisation of pot etc. Btw Germany can not be blamed for WW1. That was all of Europes fault and if you have studied history was a major cause of WW2.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    13. Re:Dresden, etc. by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      its pretty much 100% that dresden was non-military. Germany was beat. The excuse they use was that it was a railhead. You don't use firebombs to destroy railway lines.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    14. Re:Dresden, etc. by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      For all the UK & US going on about how they won the war, it was basically the Russians by absorbing all germany's bullets. War of attrition that the allies won by russian weight of numbers with a bit of help by the UK and US.

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
    15. Re:Dresden, etc. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You do if they have wooden sleepers. When the sleepers burn, the rails fail. With firebombs you can destroy the whole lot, with pretty inaccurate dropping. With explosive bombs, you've got to get close to the rails to destroy them.

    16. Re:Dresden, etc. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I'll say this: although you never shrink to their level, you do need to acknowledge the rules they're playing by. And some times, applying those rules right back can convince them that the game isn't so fun anymore.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    17. Re:Dresden, etc. by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      thats a good point!

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  56. Again from your link by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    At 7.30pm this second wave of planes arrived and the first of 500 tons of high explosives began to shake the city centre. Incendiaries, both exploding and non-exploding, continued to fall amid the bombs as a continuous stream of droning bombers passed over the city. Some were aimed at industrial targets around the city but many others concentrated on bombing the centre of the city ... to create a firestorm.

    The populace hid themselves in cellars, crypts and air raid shelters as the heart of the city was ripped apart above them. Others stayed in their homes, thousands of which were destroyed or damaged. The bombing continued, with the addition of oil and landmines.

    The landmines were particularly notorious. They took form of a large metal box suspended by a parachute which would slowly and silently fall and explode above ground level with a deafening roar totally flattening anything that lay under it. The church of St Nicholas in Radford was destroyed by one of these landmines leaving dead and injured in the crypt and only one course of stones standing.


    Just because the Germans were not quite as adapt at killing cilvilians does not mean they were not targeting them - you are implying the sort of smart-targeting in existance today but there was nothing of the sort back then.

    I am not sayng the the firebombing was a good idea, only that there was some military presence there (as there was in most any city of size in Germany) and this confuses the issue quite a bit more than your "revisionist history" comment would lead one to believe.

    I am half German myself and feel quite strongly that despite things like the Dresden firebombing, Germany was doing much worse things overall. Although not that many were killed in the Blitz, you forget that Hitler was fighting multiple countries and using similar civilian demoralizing tactitcs on everyone. They were just spread around more.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Again from your link by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      I didn't make that comment on Coventry. It was some other poster but I agree with him. And Dresden was not the only city bombed this way. Cologne and others were also bombed to bits. The allies knew the kind of damage their strategic bombing could do ful well.

      Firebombing is a technique the allies used, to do maximum damage to cities (which clearly have civilians in them). Curtis Lemay was the main proponent, and when he was transfered from 8th AF in Europe to the Pacific, he instigated firebombing of japanese cities.

      Some people said it's OK to bomb Dresden because of the existence of military targets. Some people say "no the allies bomb dresden to kill civilians". I don't know which idea is the one being revised (neither is probably the correct answer). But does it matter? If hundreds of civilians were worth it, then what can I say anymore?

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  57. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this should be MODDED UP. It's interesting and a valid point of view... NOT Flamebait!

  58. Or left the camel jocks alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    we would not have 500 Americans dead in iraq right now.

    If the fuck head Bush had just left those idiots alone we wouldn't have 500+ dead either.

  59. Mod Parent UP !!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow a fellow American who can read and understand the ANY information without Fox News ( fair and unbiased !) telling them what to think about it . SO please mod this parent UP ! Support literacy and knowledge !

  60. Re:fp lol omg wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn! That is awesome, my new home page! Thank you so much...I was concerned that we were not getting our monies worth out of the Apache. That was most excellent!

  61. get your credit card out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting



    i was there three days ago and there was a nice "shop" button on the menu,the site was dead then as the whole worlds media has been pluggin this all week.

    UK isn't like USA where all goverment data is free, (even though it was our taxes that payed for the data and in this case people died grrr)

    so i expect we (and everyone else) will have to pay to view them just like we did with the 1800 national census, we can't even get friggin weather data without paying for it, so ironicly we (us cheapo web developers) have to get it from the USA

    FFM

    1. Re:get your credit card out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a moron. Weather info is free:

      http://www.metoffice.com/

      Map info is free:

      http://www.multimap.co.uk
      http://www.ordnancesu rvey.com

      Census data is free:

      http://www.statistics.gov.uk

      If you're a web developer, I'm clearly overqualified.

  62. Uggh political moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    funny how the truth hurts egh ?

    read a history lesson and you might realise the parent is talking sense, but then you probably had bowling class that day

    1. Re:Uggh political moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurts even more belonging to a civilization so long ago eclipsed that not only is everything in my life the product of American ingenuity, so are the anti-American "documentaries" I use to express my hatred of America with.

  63. Motion stereoscope by frostman · · Score: 1

    If you're interested in stereoscopes, you'll probably like this:
    motion stereoscope art.

    It's pretty cool stuff. I vaguely remember Naimark shooting a bunch of stereoscopic 16mm of a Survival Research Labs show in San Francisco, but I never saw the resulting footage.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  64. Re:Nice distraction by vandan · · Score: 1

    Yeah I'm replying to my own post.
    I just noticed that they are British images.
    Well substitute 'US' for 'UK'.
    I understand Tony Blair is taking quite a pounding over this as well :)

  65. Aww... Mod Parent up. by OtakuHawk · · Score: 1

    Kelly's Heroes joke.

    1. Re:Aww... Mod Parent up. by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

      Oh good. Someone got it.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  66. Re:Nice distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your a douche bag

  67. The Brit's also started the computer revolution to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You also need to remember that the Brit's started the IT revolution during WW2 as well. Their valve based 'Colossus' was developed to crack the Enigma code, and the technology offshoots that subsequently spread through the UK and USA were the start of the modern IT Infrastructure.


    The only reason it's no so widely known is that the UK and USA classified the technology, and sold captured Enigma and derivative machines to other foreign governments.


    Remember - the USA may be a world power, but the still follow in the footsteps of the United Kingdom.

  68. Ah - but remember the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You need to remember that the majority of American's get their information from the popular media. And the majority isn't that smart (George W Bush anyone).


    Given the requirement that all Hollywood blockbusters either; a) have to have a simple plot; or b) explain it as things go along; it's no surprise that the more complicated (more than one player) or challenging (America is not always right) points get edited out to ensure the movies sale-ability.


    Give them a break !

  69. Enhancement for next Slashdot code update ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How about dynamically generated content in message postings that indicates if the target URL is responding ?

  70. Bastogne- nasty butt-kicking for Jerry by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    A lightly armed, poorly outfitted airborn division (+ some other units) held out against armored corps dispite being cut off. There is some debate as to whether this prevented German victory in the Battle of the Bulge (it may have been completely unwinnable at all). There is no question at the time capturing Bastogne was the highest priority for the Germans once the resistance coalesced. And they couldn't take it.

    Truth is, whenever they met the Germans under reasonably even odds, they won.

  71. anti-israeli foreign policy != anti-semite by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    sigh... I'm so sick of this. After hearing Ariel Sharon on BBC24 this evening make comments about anti-semitism in Europe (apparently some art exhibition in Sweden has a tasteless piece on a suicide bomber), after reading a 3rd party opinion piece in Time magazine a while ago about rising "anti-semitism" in Europe, I'd like to state: Being critical of Israeli foreign policy is not anti-semitism. (It's criticism of foreign policy - nothing religious in that.).

    The attempted labelling of such criticism as anti-semitism is cheap, and forever more has devalued that label. Further, are the Israeli air force officers who criticised the current policies anti-semites too?

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  72. What about Midway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but we were outgunned at Midway. It was superior intelligence that won the day there.

    -Jeff

  73. Fighting fire with fire... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Trying to take the moral high ground in war is pointless. Death is death, regardless of motive. But, that is no reason to avoid fighting to win.

    Why then, do we have war crimes? Geneva convention on POWs? Treatment of civilians? Bans on bioweapons, chemical weapons, weapons designed to maim rather than kill? There is always a moral side to war, and to the way you wage war.

    It might have been a valid response if the Allies were losing. Last, desperate attempts where the only thing that matters is victory, more important than the rules of war. But it was not. No matter what the Germans had done, they were losing badly.

    While the laws that govern war and peace are different, someone committing a crime against you doesn't give you the right to do the same to them. If I got beat up once, it doesn't make it right to beat up that guy later. If the Axis bombed my civilians, it doesn't make it right to bomb their civilians later.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Fighting fire with fire... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      We have war crimes because it is to the advantage of the victors to "proscecute" the losers.

      Only a legitimate and democractically elected global legislature and executive can make and enforce legitmate war crimes legislation.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  74. You know about half... by wfolta · · Score: 1

    You mention "allied bombers" then go on to talk about American planes. As far as I know, half of all bombing was done by the British and I believe most of the "firebombing". Yes it was vengeful. Yes it went over the top.

    But when you talk about what we did to the Germans and Japanese, you must remember that they started a war of world domination and managed to slaughter millions of people and we would've been next. In the long run, we replaced murderous, racist, genocidal dictaterships with democracies.

  75. Well, it was a war... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Indeed what more can be said - it was a war with all of Europe going to the winning side, one side of which was not going to stop at Europe.

    If wars were easy they would be called "fantasy".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  76. Well... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The real question is did it do anything to stop Hitler and would he have won without the bombings. That's the problem with war, too difficult to tell what the outcome of choices like that will be - even after they happen.

    If without the firebombing Hitler would have won, then absolutely it was worth it - if only to see the spread of the gas chambers stopped. Who's to say they would have stopped with the Jewish if allowed to spread across the continent?

    From our safe position in history it's all to easy to criticize, but at the time it probably seemed necessary to try all tactics no matter how dirty.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well... by hawkfish · · Score: 1
      From our safe position in history it's all to easy to criticize, but at the time it probably seemed necessary to try all tactics no matter how dirty.
      Another poster provided this letter from Churchill which seems to suggest that even at the time it was viewed as unnecessary.
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    2. Re:Well... by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      The bombing was done in Feb 45, when the allies were poised to crossed the rhine and into Germany.

      On your question about how much it did to stop Hitler, one will never know. But if that's the justification what it takes, then the allies had indeed stared very deeply into the abyss when they fought the monster.

      I am not saying that you are defending the firebombing (it's clear to me that you are not), but I do think that one should not try to rationalize away a horrible act of wanton destruction.

      I think it's more important that we take a hard look at our own history, and be honest about it. Including criticizing the choices that we have made, so we don't make them again in the future.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is illuminating that this letter was never sent by Churchill (who sent a version with milder language instead).

  77. Yes, they do show the Dresden firebombing by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I watched an article on this on the news last night, and they indeed showed aerial pictures of the Dresden firebombing, as well as D-Day, Pegasus Bridge and many other photos.

    I commented then to my wife that if Slashdot posted it, no one would see it until next week ;) Seems I was right....

    Incidentally it was interesting to see the Pegasus Bridge photo as I had not too recently played that level in Call of Duty!

    1. Re:Yes, they do show the Dresden firebombing by 4string · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you thought it was interesting to see the Pegasus Bridge Photos as they relate to the Game Call of Duty, get the movie "The Longest Day" (1962).
      The game is extremely similar to the movie, especially the part involving the Pegasus Bridge.

  78. the conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must reassuring to all those who witnessed it. Not a war, just a minor conflict.

  79. Re:Nice distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe this didn't get modded "flamebait"..I guess that tells us a bit about the mods' view of the USA, huh?

  80. US also used firebombing tactics by Gimble · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I saw on a Channel 4 (UK) Docu last night, the US also used firebombing techniques against Japan.

    100,000 were killed in one raid on Tokyo.

    See Bombing of Tokyo in World War II.

  81. Some of you are a little too comfy... by bnet41 · · Score: 1

    I am very upset at the tone this discussion took on! WWII was hell, there is no other way to put it. We have never seen anything on that scale, encompassing so much of the world, and hopefully we will never see it again. A lot of you seem to border on defending Hitler, and thats just sad. Many of you seem a little to comfortable with your lives, the people who fought in WWII are heros. Tom Brokaw, and the like were exactly right when they call them "the greatest generation"

  82. 2.5mill Luftwaffe photos by Derf+the · · Score: 1

    If you can't find what you want once they finally decide to put the site up, don't give up, try again later ...
    cause...

    Tara is also planning to release the 2.5 million Luftwaffe photos they have; at some later(unspecified) date. These are photos that had been seized by the Allies at the end of the war.

    You heard it first here.

    --
    No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
  83. Just europe... by Derf+the · · Score: 1


    Acorrding to the archivist interviewed by the AP (unnamed, but may have been Allan Williams whom is quoted later) they are all of Western Europe.
    [ http://www.odt.co.nz/ , follow "WorldNews" link]

    But they do also mention another 2.5million Luftwaffe photos they will post later that were seized at the end of the war.

    --
    No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
  84. Freedom is never free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom always has a cost. It is never free. It is usually paid for in the blood of the dead on both sides. If you start a war, you better be certain you can finish it.

  85. Re:Anything that helps... Poland had a bigger role by janimal · · Score: 1

    In fact, it was the Polish intelligence service that cracked the way the Enigma worked and devised a system to break the code. They also got the Enigma examples that were worked on. The brits only took the info and used it with some refinements.

    I don't mean to belittle the British contribution, as the refinements were significant. But not mentioning Poland while saying the Brits did it is just like saying that the Americans did it :)

  86. Don't mention the war by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

    I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it

  87. Credit where credit is due: Allied nations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The following countries paid in blood the cost of war against fascism. One may notice that while some suffered direct agression from Germany, Japan and Italy, others could have safely avoided any participation by proclaiming "it's not my business". But they didn't.

    • Australia
    • Belgium
    • Brazil
    • Canada
    • China
    • France
    • Greece
    • Holland
    • Luxembourg
    • New Zealand
    • Norway
    • Poland
    • South Africa
    • Soviet Union
    • United Kingdom
    • United States
    • Yugoslavia
  88. Here are the Pics of Dresden genocide by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    http://www.europractica-dresden.de/n25.jpg
    http://www.ericandjoan.com/worldtrip/germany/ger2p x1.jpg

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  89. Re:Nice distraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are images of targets pre and post bombing, if that's what you'd like, from the campaign itself, at the 2003 Public Eye archive.

    Bombing nowadays is way more accurate than it was in WWII. It's worth noting that there were lots of problems with Iraq's infrastructure pre-invasion. (Due to the previous government's response to sanctions, to wit: spend the money on new weaponry, bigger palace complexes, suicide bombers in Israel, and our bank accounts in other countries.)

  90. Dresden? by drwho · · Score: 1

    Do they have pictures of the atrocities committed at Dresden? Or have these mysteriously and conveniently been 'misplaced'.

  91. & the US dares complains about palestinians by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Fact is the average suicide bombing in Israel kills more legitimate targets relative to innocent victims than the average allied bombing in WWII did.

    Look at that one the other day, IDF soldiers made up 100% of the fatalities. Or look at those bus rammings by IJ, both those buses were full of soldiers.

    One just has tp peruse the Israeli Ministry of foreign Affairs website to see that the Western allies were a lot more indiscriminate than Hamas, IJ or the AAM:-

    Megiddo junction, 5-6-2, 13 out of 17 dead are soldiers
    Meron junction, 4-8-2, 3 out of 9 dead were soldiers
    Karkur junction, 21-10-2, 8 out 14 dead are soldiers
    Tzrifin roadstop, 9-9-3, all 9 dead were soldiers

    Of course there were bombings where only 1 or 2 of the fatalities were legimate targets, like this one, where one 1 (out of the 10 dead) was a legitmate target but even so, odds on Britain's 'thousand bomber' raids over Germany & the US incendary & nuclear raids on Japan, still had a much larger collateral damage to legitimate target rate (& that's not even taking into account the high rate of reservists in Israel)

  92. It's ORDNANCE not ORDINANCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consult a freaking dictionary already!

  93. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Single truest thing on this thread. "Some could have safely avoided any participation by proclaiming 'it's not my business'. But they didn't."