PDA

View Full Version : The WWII Dresden Holocaust -



Serpo
15th February 2011, 02:21 AM
The WWII Dresden Holocaust -
'A Single Column Of Flame'
2-6-2

"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr

On the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as a half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time.

___

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

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

February 13/14 1945: Holocaust over Dresden, known as the Florence of the North. Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600.000 refugees from Breslau, Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill had asked for "suggestions how to blaze 600.000 refugees". He wasn't interested how to target military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden. More than 700.000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people. One bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 o centigrade. More than 260.000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the centre of the city can't be traced. Approximately 500.000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MELTING HUMAN FLESH

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

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

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

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

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

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



http://www.rense.com/general92/dres.htm

http://www.rense.com/general92/dres.htm



The bodies weren't Jewish.

NEVER FORGET!

The dead admonish us to resist denial of the DRESDEN Holocaust!

Neuro
15th February 2011, 04:52 AM
Incredible, the greatest war crimes ever! How many of the responsible for this were tried in a tribunal?

General of Darkness
15th February 2011, 05:53 AM
Incredible, the greatest war crimes ever! How many of the responsible for this were tried in a tribunal?


None, they all got promoted.

"It is not possible to describe! Explosion after explosion. It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. So many people were horribly burnt and injured. It became more and more difficult to breathe. It was dark and all of us tried to leave this cellar with inconceivable panic. Dead and dying people were trampled upon, luggage was left or snatched up out of our hands by rescuers. The basket with our twins covered with wet cloths was snatched up out of my mother's hands and we were pushed upstairs by the people behind us. We saw the burning street, the falling ruins and the terrible firestorm. My mother covered us with wet blankets and coats she found in a water tub.

We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.

I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them."

—Lothar Metzger, survivor.


"To my left I suddenly see a woman. I can see her to this day and shall never forget it. She carries a bundle in her arms. It is a baby. She runs, she falls, and the child flies in an arc into the fire.

Suddenly, I saw people again, right in front of me. They scream and gesticulate with their hands, and then — to my utter horror and amazement — I see how one after the other they simply seem to let themselves drop to the ground. (Today I know that these unfortunate people were the victims of lack of oxygen). They fainted and then burnt to cinders.

Insane fear grips me and from then on I repeat one simple sentence to myself continuously: "I don't want to burn to death". I do not know how many people I fell over. I know only one thing: that I must not burn.

—Margaret Freyer, survivor

Still Barbaro
15th February 2011, 06:04 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.

sirgonzo420
15th February 2011, 06:09 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




When did the Germans do anything comparable to the attack on Dresden?

Book
15th February 2011, 06:25 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.



When did the Germans do anything comparable to the attack on Dresden?



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cx5YSp-ghS8/S97aCKuITOI/AAAAAAAAFfA/dXoRWzPdBVk/s1600/Hogans-Heroes-2.jpg

Still Barbaro maybe gets his history and opinions from jew-Hollywood and jew-Teevee.

:oo-->

Neuro
15th February 2011, 06:46 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




When did the Germans do anything comparable to the attack on Dresden?


That's where the 'confessions' about the labor camps in Poland, obtained under torture, during the Nürnberg trial comes in. Apart from the holohoax nothing compares to Dresden.

General of Darkness
15th February 2011, 06:53 AM
Some of you people need to get educated, and learn the difference between fact and F$ct$on.

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

Awoke
15th February 2011, 08:26 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




Sure. The jew Rosevelt and the jew Churchill were getting the "bad guys".

:oo-->

ShortJohnSilver
15th February 2011, 08:42 AM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




When did the Germans do anything comparable to the attack on Dresden?




They made some Jews feel sad.

steyr_m
15th February 2011, 02:10 PM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




You don't have sympathy for women, children, and non-combatants? wtf? WW2 was the first (modern) war where directly targeting civilians was used, and it was justified by properly demonizing them..... just as the technique used against Koresh in Waco.

It was a message, as I've posted before. The Intl Bankers made the statement of: "If you oppose us, we will annihilate you". And annihilate they did.

nunaem
15th February 2011, 02:45 PM
The British initiated the bombing of civilians during WW2. The Germans wanted to fight an honorable war but the British escalated it to total war.

Serpo
15th February 2011, 03:21 PM
I don't have any sympathy for the Germans.

Dresden (according to historians) was Churchill inflicting a psychological message to the Nazis. The intent was for the Germans to tell the grandchildren about these bombings. The Germans did the same. They did not in different means, but equally as horrific.




It was also a message to the rest of the world as to what a cowardly act it was, all basically civilians.Yes Im sure it was inflicting a psychological message to the people that got melted.

snapon
15th February 2011, 04:44 PM
Perhaps a show of force to Stalin, on an enemy that neither cared about?

snapon
15th February 2011, 05:28 PM
Hitler was a poor planner.period, If Hitler would have intended for peace, he could have stopped with a French surrender. Hitler instead occupied the country,and the others he invaded prior to the Soviet invasion.Had he simply forced the French to collapse,and offered a peace settlement to both the UK and France with honor, the war would have ended in 1940.Hitler was being vindictive to the West due to Versailles,he still could have had his surrender in the same way.
The Soviet invasion was another disaster, Instead of trying and conquer a nation of that magnitude,He could have simply initially smash the Red Army,(as they did),and then set up a defensive line, east of Ukraine,which Stalin had neither the resources or trained personnel to assault. With no war in the West, this could have been easily achieved.Say what you will, the facts speak for themselves,Hitler used National Socialism to gain control of Germany, and expand his dream of Empire.He destroyed Rotterdam,with no prior Dutch attacks(or British) in a Blitz, and yes, Britain did bomb Berlin first, but nothing to the extent that London,Coventry and Belfast were put through. His politics were sound, but his methods were flawed.

hoarder
15th February 2011, 05:44 PM
Hitler was a poor planner.period, If Hitler would have intended for peace, he could have stopped with a French surrender.The end result reveals the original intention. His job was to kill the best goyim and position Khazars as the worlds greatest professional victims.
It worked.
http://www.thefinalsolutiontoadolphhitler.com/

Serpo
15th February 2011, 07:06 PM
Still Adolf had a sense of humour and one of his jokes was that Goebbels used to go to bed with his medals pinned to his pyjamas.

nunaem
15th February 2011, 07:19 PM
Still Adolf had a sense of humour and one of his jokes was that Goebbels used to go to bed with his medals pinned to his pyjamas.


How did they invent copper wire?

They threw down a penny between two Jews.

Neuro
16th February 2011, 02:01 AM
Hitler was a poor planner.period, If Hitler would have intended for peace, he could have stopped with a French surrender. Hitler instead occupied the country,and the others he invaded prior to the Soviet invasion.Had he simply forced the French to collapse,and offered a peace settlement to both the UK and France with honor, the war would have ended in 1940.Hitler was being vindictive to the West due to Versailles,he still could have had his surrender in the same way.
The Soviet invasion was another disaster, Instead of trying and conquer a nation of that magnitude,He could have simply initially smash the Red Army,(as they did),and then set up a defensive line, east of Ukraine,which Stalin had neither the resources or trained personnel to assault. With no war in the West, this could have been easily achieved.Say what you will, the facts speak for themselves,Hitler used National Socialism to gain control of Germany, and expand his dream of Empire.He destroyed Rotterdam,with no prior Dutch attacks(or British) in a Blitz, and yes, Britain did bomb Berlin first, but nothing to the extent that London,Coventry and Belfast were put through. His politics were sound, but his methods were flawed.
True what you write, but Hitler did send his right hand Rudolf Hess to negotiate a peace with Britain, and he was sent to rot in Spandau prison, with no communication with outside world for 50 years, would be very interesting to hear what he had to say about the honorable Brits... Rudolf Hess was replaced with the disaster Martin Borman. Which may have a lot to do with the strategic mistakes as Hitler was drugged out of his mind by his doctor...

CJay8
16th February 2011, 02:46 AM
I just got back from a two week trip to Koln (Cologne), Germany. The germans are alive and well and the ones I spoke/drank with had no bad feelings about the war. I stayed less than a block from the Dom, an area that was decimated. It's thriving now thanks to the Turks. But that's a different post.

steyr_m
16th February 2011, 07:05 AM
Hitler was a poor planner.period, If Hitler would have intended for peace, he could have stopped with a French surrender. Hitler instead occupied the country,and the others he invaded prior to the Soviet invasion.Had he simply forced the French to collapse,and offered a peace settlement to both the UK and France with honor, the war would have ended in 1940.Hitler was being vindictive to the West due to Versailles,he still could have had his surrender in the same way.
The Soviet invasion was another disaster, Instead of trying and conquer a nation of that magnitude,He could have simply initially smash the Red Army,(as they did),and then set up a defensive line, east of Ukraine,which Stalin had neither the resources or trained personnel to assault. With no war in the West, this could have been easily achieved.Say what you will, the facts speak for themselves,Hitler used National Socialism to gain control of Germany, and expand his dream of Empire.He destroyed Rotterdam,with no prior Dutch attacks(or British) in a Blitz, and yes, Britain did bomb Berlin first, but nothing to the extent that London,Coventry and Belfast were put through. His politics were sound, but his methods were flawed.


You sound quite a bit like the official story. AH offered peace numerous times but GB refused. One of the main reason to invade France was to boot out the British Expeditionary Force and he let them go as a gesture of peace.

Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive strike. That's why the Soviet Union "lost" WW2, Stalin wanted to "liberate" all of Western Europe, not just the satellite nations he got after WW2.

<blockquote>
First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.

The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack.

- General Otto Ernst Remer

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html
</blockquote>

As you said, the British bombed civilians first....

steyr_m
16th February 2011, 07:11 AM
I just got back from a two week trip to Koln (Cologne), Germany. The germans are alive and well and the ones I spoke/drank with had no bad feelings about the war. I stayed less than a block from the Dom, an area that was decimated. It's thriving now thanks to the Turks. But that's a different post.


"It's thriving now thanks to the Turks" ???? I used to live in Germany, most Germans want them gone. Those Turks are making lots of money there by being on welfare and dealing drugs

nunaem
16th February 2011, 07:39 AM
"It's thriving now thanks to the Turks" ???? I used to live in Germany, most Germans want them gone.


There's their problem. All the want in the world couldn't screw in a lightbulb. Want is passive, like voting. Will is active. TPTB want the people to want, and fear the people will will.

Silver Rocket Bitches!
16th February 2011, 12:36 PM
History books are written by the victors. It's up to you to find the truth.

Interesting how you never hear about the Dresden war crimes in history class.

hoarder
16th February 2011, 01:16 PM
History books are written by the victors. It's up to you to find the truth.

Interesting how you never hear about the Dresden war crimes in history class.
Written history is mostly just a reflection of what the jewsmedia "documented". The reliance on "documentation" is thus overrated. If people want to know what really happened they need to engage in critical thinking and ask what fits together strategically. Look for forms of proof such as means, motive, opportunity, evidence, modus operandi and modus agendi. Ask cui bono?Unfortunately most people are too dull for that level of original thought so they rely on thoughts that originated elsewhere.

snapon
16th February 2011, 04:10 PM
Nothing to do with the "official story" at all, It is fact that the luftwaffe destroyed the Dutch city of Rotterdam,period.Now explain to me how the Netherlands , deserved to have a major city turned to rubble?I never stated the invasion of the Soviet Union was wrong,It was ill managed. awful things happen in Wars, that is their nature. Sure the Germans were villified after the war by the victors,no arguement there, but to state "They did it first!" is incorrect,as Rotterdam occured in May 1940, and the British bombing of Berlin was in August 1940.The arguement of "They did it first" to avoid any blame whatsoever sounds like a small child arguing with their parents over a sibling's acts.

hoarder
16th February 2011, 04:41 PM
Nothing to do with the "official story" at all, It is fact that the luftwaffe destroyed the Dutch city of Rotterdam,period.Now explain to me how the Netherlands , deserved to have a major city turned to rubble?I never stated the invasion of the Soviet Union was wrong,It was ill managed. awful things happen in Wars, that is their nature. Sure the Germans were villified after the war by the victors,no arguement there, but to state "They did it first!" is incorrect,as Rotterdam occured in May 1940, and the British bombing of Berlin was in August 1940.The arguement of "They did it first" to avoid any blame whatsoever sounds like a small child arguing with their parents over a sibling's acts.
One has to make a distinction between "The People" of a given nation and "The Rulers".

TPTB have been manipulating nations into wars they financed while their media tells the masses "The English did such and such", "The Joymans did so and so" and "The Muslims want to rule the world".

I've learned not to give blame to the people of nations for what the rulers tricked them into doing.

Cui bono? The rulers or the people?

Bigjon
16th February 2011, 08:04 PM
David Irving tells the tale of how badly Churchill needed a war with Germany.

Part 1 of 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKuXW2fLkz4

mrnhtbr2232
17th February 2011, 02:37 AM
I just got back from a two week trip to Koln (Cologne), Germany. The germans are alive and well and the ones I spoke/drank with had no bad feelings about the war. I stayed less than a block from the Dom, an area that was decimated. It's thriving now thanks to the Turks. But that's a different post.


"It's thriving now thanks to the Turks" ???? I used to live in Germany, most Germans want them gone. Those Turks are making lots of money there by being on welfare and dealing drugs


I spent some time on the east side of Cologne in Hohenberg. Our hosts were willing to comment on the minorities that have moved in, but carefully, not knowing who was listening. Their basic opinion was Germany had too many of them, and it would be <i>better if they worked harder to integrate into society</i>. This was a couple in their 40's running the gasthaus we based at. Their perspective was that it was important for multiculturalism to integrate and stop being a drain on the German economy. I didn't think they were kidding either from the looks we got from others in the room.

I also had a chance to discuss politics with another group in Wiesbaden. Same story - people are tired of the minorities but will work with them to help them get motivated. So that's probably the casualty of Dresden - the typical German seems to be operating on the theory that diversity is not wanted but has potential if properly managed. If that is the un-official way to say they hate Turks, Arabs, and Indians, you could have fooled me. On one hand Germans are plucky and I respect their tenacity. On the other hand, I got the impression they are damaged goods in terms of nationalism and the psychological message they got in WW2. BTW Dresden owns the body count, but Cologne got its ass bombed big-time in the war and had its own firestorms.

CJay8
17th February 2011, 04:21 AM
I just got back from a two week trip to Koln (Cologne), Germany. The germans are alive and well and the ones I spoke/drank with had no bad feelings about the war. I stayed less than a block from the Dom, an area that was decimated. It's thriving now thanks to the Turks. But that's a different post.


"It's thriving now thanks to the Turks" ???? I used to live in Germany, most Germans want them gone. Those Turks are making lots of money there by being on welfare and dealing drugs


I was being sarcastic Steyr. It's a beautiful german city and their most notable landmark is surrounded by turkish kiosks, turkish restaurants and groups of 4 to 5 turks that stand on the corners eyeballing german women and giving them a hard time. The germans I talked to wanted them gone but Pandora's box has been opened.

They've got the same fucked up situation there that we do here.

Libertarian_Guard
17th February 2011, 05:04 AM
I am not about to read this whole thread, but I get the just of it. I’ve read other like threads and started one myself, only to get beat up over recognizing the imperative of modern warfare, which is to destroy as much of your enemy as quickly as possible, while not affording your enemy the same opportunity. And sadly, with modern warfare, civilian causalities dwarf military causalities. This is a sad fact of our age. Once the modern war machines are engaged, the warring powers will not pull their punches. Arguments about bankers or the tri lateral commission and all that are meaningless, except in hindsight. A modern war, against somewhat equal powers, is hell on earth!

Sure, in hindsight it all sucks, and other options should have been pursued, but at the time, when everyone was well beyond the point of turning back, the war machine’s directive is to kill like there is no tomorrow and get it over fast.

We can only pray that modern war has truly become unthinkable, because the next one could be far worse for civilians.

Still Barbaro
17th February 2011, 05:28 AM
To respond to the few posts that were a response to my "lack of sympathy" for the Germans,

for the record.

I am no sympathizers to Jews nor the Zionists, who use the Holocaust as an excuse for many ill-doings today.

My opinion of the American fire-bomb attacks on Japanese cities made of wood and dropping of the A-bombs is the same.

No sympathy.

60 million people dies in WWII - The majority of these 60 millions deaths were civilians.

Sixty million people dies - mostly civilians. Dresden was a small part of tens of millions.

Personally, I don't think the USA should have aided Stalin's Soviet Union in it's fight with Germany. But that is a historical matter, and not related to the OP, which is about the Dresden Bombings.

hoarder
17th February 2011, 05:40 AM
60 million people dies in WWII - The majority of these 60 millions deaths were only goyim.Fixed it for ya!

tater
17th February 2011, 06:40 AM
60 million people dies in WWII - The majority of these 60 millions deaths were only goyim.Fixed it for ya!



I've asked these WW2 questions to family and friends before.

How many Jews died in WW2? 6 million is the answer with no hesitation whatsoever.

What was the total number of deaths? A very few said "around 60 million, wasn't it?"

How many Americans died? Uhhh...

Russians, Chinese etc? No one could say.

I would then tell them that I had to look it up because I didn't know either. I would go on that I also knew how many Jews perished
but I was unsure of the number of total deaths and had no clue or at least couldn't remember even how many of our countrymen died.
I certainly didn't know how many Russians and Chinese had died.

I have known the 6 million figure as long as I can remember. But even now I have to look up the other death numbers as I just can't
seem to remember them. I would ask my friends and family "do you find that kinda odd and strange?" Hmmm...

As to the OP. Dresden was a holocaust.

holocaust according to merriam-webster
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>