From Dresden to Gaza: Some people never change
Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:51 UTC
64 years after that ill-fated day when Dresden was completely destroyed by the Allied forces and defenseless civilians perished helplessly in a firestorm of bombing raids, questions remain unanswered. One of the most beautiful and green-laden cities of Europe, "with a pleasant location and a mild climate on the Elbe, Baroque-style architecture housing numerous world-renowned museums and art collections, Dresden became known as 'Elbflorenz' (Florence on the Elbe)." The descriptions of the city as well as pictures from that time also give us an idea about the people inhabiting it: they must have been individuals who cared about beauty, art and nature, and who were predominantly civilized and refined, personality traits reflected in their cityscape. But their lives were destined to change overnight, the beautiful city traumatised by the horrific events of Valentine's Day 1945, its charred remains testimony to the psychopaths in power's relentless oppression of humanity.
As we now know, after years of following the events of our world and observing how the pathocrats make war as an excuse to "express their thirst for blood and evilness", the deliberate targeting of the most humane of people is a favorite tactic, one with the added benefit of extinguishing certain bloodlines and genetics. It wouldn't be surprising if the pathocrats wanted Dresden destroyed for what it stood for, as a symbolic warning to the rest of humanity. And the psychopathic leaders of the time went over and beyond with brutality, ceasing only at humanity's opposition. That's how psychopaths gauge when enough is enough, since they don't posses the internal "stop-cruelty switch" themselves. Same story with the recent carnage in Gaza. Without humanity voicing its opposition (citizens rather than heads of states and governments), the Israeli government would have "cleared out" Gaza completely. And so the British and US forces, following commands from above, unleashed hell on the city of Dresden.
During WWII, the warring nations had vastly improved their military aircraft technology, allowing them to kill more people more efficiently, than ever before. From the perspective of power-possessing beings with malevolent intent, the new "war toy" came with a surprising bonus: it provided them with convenient excuses for each fresh rampage - crimes that most of us would deem immoral and inexcusable - Oh! sorry, we were aiming for the military bases but, oops! killed thousands of innocent civilians by mistake. Mea culpa.
Algis Valiunas writes on the subject:
In 1921 Giulio Douhet, poet, playwright, and visionary chief of the Italian army aviation corps, whom all four writers correctly regard as the theoretical innovator of 'air power', published The Command of the Air. There he declared:And so it was that the civilians of Dresden became part of the war; without a doubt the raid was a deliberate act of state terror. After the world raised its voice against the Dresden holocaust, Arthur Harris, the British commander-in-chief of Bomber Command, in words revealing a pathological personality, replied to Winston Churchill's suggestion that the bombing of cities be stopped since the war was coming to an end:The battlefield will be limited only by the boundaries of the nations at war, and all of their citizens will become combatants, since all of them will be exposed to the aerial offensives of the enemy. There will be no distinction any longer between soldiers and civilians.Two years later, Hugh Trenchard, the principal architect of Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF), insisted that the best defense was a good offense, and that the surest offensive weapon was the bomber: "It is on the destruction of enemy industries and, above all, on the lowering of morale ...caused by bombing that ultimate victory rests."
In 1931, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, known for his vehement pusillanimity - Churchill immortalized him as "the Boneless Wonder" - explained why he was certain that complete disarmament was the only solution. The "man in the street," Baldwin said, must "realize that there is no power on earth that can prevent him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through."
As for Adolf Hitler, he was, in Jörg Friedrich's words, "a Douhetist through and through." In 1934 Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi-party theoretician, spoke of air war as a salutary means of re-forging the connection between the "man in the street" and the soldier at the front. It was Rosenberg's conviction, Friedrich writes, that "the war of the future would be carried out under the banner of the air fleets . . . and would involve the whole nation in the struggle for survival."
Attacks on cities, like any other act of war, are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified insofar as they tend to shorten the war and so preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British grenadier.He does remind us of present day Zionist utterances, doesn't he? The same Harris, when explaining why he ordered the bombing of Dresden, wrote in his autobiography:
I know that the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unnecessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were as fully justified as any other operation of war. Here I will only say that the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself, and that if their judgment was right the same arguments must apply that I have set out in an earlier chapter in which I said what I think about the ethics of bombing as a whole.And this is the argument presented by most of the proponents of the Dresden attack, that it was justified because it served strategic purposes to do so; Dresden was subsequently portrayed as a center of importance in Germany's war-machine. This makes sense given that Germany at the time, led by the psychopathic Hitler and the Nazis, was obsessed with war. But were these the only psychopaths in power during this time?
Regarding this military-strategic justification, one commentator writes:
Dresden was widely considered a city of little war-related industrial or strategic importance, although, after the fact, Winston Churchill described it in his memoirs as a "center of communications for Germany's Eastern Front." It has been claimed that the bombing was executed at the request of the Soviet Union, to attack German armoured divisions in transit through the city. However, 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).Besides, how humane is the notion of killing civilians to justify strategic causes? Can the immolation of an entire city whose population had swollen to twice its normal size - owing to its reputation as a relative safe haven in a sea of insanity - be regarded as anything less than a conscienceless act of state terror, borne of the same pathological mindset that reigns down terror today in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan?
In reviewing Frederick Taylor's book, a British historian who wrote Dresden: Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1945, Laura miller presents a different picture of Dresden, which Taylor calls 'Dresden of reality' instead of 'Dresden of the myth':
As Taylor depicts them, Dresdeners lived in a dream world, "floating happily under the illusion that their city was too beautiful and too famous to suffer as other population centers in the Reich had suffered."Not unlike present day Zionist leaders in Israel, who have convinced the Israeli Jews of their "special destiny" and rendered them blind to the reality of the regime's crimes, irrespective of how civilized or fond of art and culture its citizens may be. Taylor says that the people of Dresden were not as innocent either:
It's only when writing about this belief that the scrupulously fair and compassionate Taylor slips into testiness. He implies that this fantasy was a version of the larger German denial about what they'd allowed their nation to become under the rule of a maniac who rhapsodized about their special destiny.
The city had a solid history of anti-Semitism, and while it never had many Jews to persecute, it did its best with the victims at hand. "Dresden was a Nazi stronghold even before Hitler took power," Taylor explains, noting that the National Socialists became the city's largest party in the Reichstag elections of 1932. The local party leader and provincial governor, Martin Mutschmann, was a particularly rabid specimen and insisted that the city go into public mourning for the eight days between Hitler's suicide and the arrival of the Red Army.Even if this holds true, does the ponerization of Germany's cities justify their destruction? A destruction whose descriptions bring to mind Inferno. From Jörg Friedrich's The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945:
The firestorm simulated the atmosphere of another planet, one incompatible with life. Gas, uranium radiation, bacteria, or heat do not injure the body through violence; they simply place the body in another place, a place that does not support life. A fatal injury might come from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it does not fundamentally change the world. Annihilation, by contrast, occurs when nothing can continue to exist in a certain place... As if thrown through a revolving door, 4.5 square miles of Hamburg found itself in a room for three hours not where life dies - that always happens - but rather where life is not possible, where it cannot exist. Hamburg and Hiroshima are symbols denoting a war that isolates certain regions from the world of life.The 'strategic' bombing raid came in three waves. The first caused heavy structural damage and trapped the terrified civilians - overwhelmingly women and children - in the city's underground bunkers. The second wave unleashed obscene quantities of incendiary bombs - doubtless intended to maximise civilian casualties - incinerating the city as the fires grew into one gigantic pillar of flame that was reportedly seen for hundreds of miles around. From the RAF files of the campaign diaries, we read:
796 Lancasters and 9 Mosquitos were dispatched in two separate raids and dropped 1,478 tons of high explosive and 1,182 tons of incendiary bombs. [...] Much has been written about the fearful effects of this raid. Suffice it to say here that a firestorm, similar to the one experienced in Hamburg in July 1943, was created and large areas of the city were burnt out. No one has ever been able to discover how many people died but it is accepted that the number was greater than the 40,000 who died in the Hamburg firestorm and the Dresden figure may have exceeded 50,000.That's a whole lot of bombs, don't you think? The sheer volume used in Dresden was notable for being far in excess of any other raid, and for the heavy use of incendiary bombs relative to the more 'normal' high explosive bombs. And all these to target civilians and the city itself, as it transpires. From a letter to The Guardian, February 14th, 2004:
311 American B-17s dropped 771 tons of bombs on Dresden the next day, the railway yards being their aiming point. Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos. The Americans bombed Dresden again on the 15th and on 2nd March but it is generally accepted that it was the RAF night raid which caused the most serious damage.
Dresden doubtsAnd so the British and American armies brought Dresden and it's population to its knees. It is worth noting that in 1915, the British sunk the Dresden:
My father was one of the "anonymous RAF meteorological officers [who] finally sealed Dresden's fate" ('Mission accomplished', Michael Burleigh, February 7). A chronically short-sighted school teacher, he went into the Meteorological Office at the beginning of a war that he had hoped would not happen, but that he felt was utterly necessary. He knew he would be part of a process that sent young men out to risk their lives, and that inevitably - given the inadequacies of bomb-aiming and weather-forecasting techniques - would lead to a considerable number of civilian casualties.
The Dresden briefing was only one of many that he routinely attended, and even before the crews left the ground he was troubled because of one notable omission from the routine.
Normally, crews were given a strategic aiming point - anything from a major factory in the middle of nowhere to a small but significant railway junction within a built-up area. The smaller the aiming point and the heavier the concentration of housing around it, the greater would be the civilian casualties - but given that the strike was at a strategic aiming point those casualties could be justified.
Only at the Dresden briefing, my father told me, were the crews given no strategic aiming point. They were simply told that anywhere within the built-up area of the city would serve.
He felt that Dresden and its civilian population had been the prime target of the raid and that its destruction and their deaths served no strategic purpose, even in the widest terms; that this was a significant departure from accepting civilian deaths as a regrettable but inevitable consequence of the bomber war; and that he had been complicit in what was, at best, a very dubious operation. - David Pedlow
New York Times, March 17, 1915In ancient Greek drama the word Prooikonomia is used when the author of the play is using certain phrases at the beginning of the story, to warn us of the tragedy that is soon to befall the protagonists. The sinking of the Dresden was the Prooikonomia of things to come thirty years later.
A statement issued by the German Embassy here tonight declared that the German cruiser Dresden, sunk by a British squadron off the coast of Chile on Sunday, "apparently was attacked while in shelter of neutral waters." The embassy's information came in cablegrams yesterday and today from Valparaiso, Chile.
There's also this interesting find from Taylor's research for his book, which shows that some people were able to escape the later "sinking" of the city - the Jews:
Perhaps the first and most striking of those ironies is that Victor Klemperer, the famous Jewish diarist of the Nazi era, had been ordered to report for deportation on February 16th, along with what remained of Dresden's Jewish population (all married to "Aryans"). Everyone knew what this meant: "It promised at best transportation to the Theresienstadt ghetto, at worst a death march of the kind that had already consigned tens of thousands of Jews to a bitter and brutal fate just as the new Allied advances seemed to bring deliverance so tantalizingly close," Taylor writes. Klemperer and his wife escaped in the chaos after the bombing, posing as "Aryans" whose papers were destroyed in the fires. (Klemperer's diaries are one cultural treasure that was saved rather than destroyed by the bombing.) Another of Dresden's Jews, Henny Wolf, wrote "For us, however macabre as it may sound, the air raid was our salvation, and that was exactly how we understood it."By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them...
Though predictable, it was still astonishing to read all the proponents for the annihilation of Dresden state that it was justified because they were done for "good", whereas Hitler and the Nazis did what they did for "evil". If they were familiar with Political Ponerology, they would know that psychopathic acts stem from beings wearing all shades of army uniform, cloaked behind any suitable ideology. It is the lack of this knowledge that renders any otherwise informed historian blind to the true causes of world events.
Snaking through history, the parasitic minority have weaved their illusory web of unreality. Down the ages they slither and slide, manoeuvring themselves from one organization to the other, from one country to another. They ensure that before bringing the closing destruction upon the drained nation (that they choked just long enough for the populace to glimpse their ugly face), their poisoned tentacles are relaid anew, positioned now to destroy the old order, and in the process reclaim the trust of the people for saving them from the evils of the world. And so it goes, over and over again. They do the crime, preside over its judgement, coerce others to clean up after them, then seek the next amenable scapegoat to pay the karmic debts for the crimes they themselves committed. And it is always humanity that pays the price, the instigators walking away unscathed.
And so Dresden of 1945 becomes relevant for us today, a prooikonomia of what we can expect in the not-so-distant future. As the Zionist leaders of Israel continue their extermination of the Palestinian population and the world populace begins to see behind their mask of sanity, the psychopaths in power will prop up - as in Dresden - the Jewish people as scapegoat. Joe Quinn made the argument in 2007 that the gathering of Jews in one place was not without purpose:
The only truth in this statement is found in the words "the effect of Zionism [has been] to gather all the Jews in one place for destruction." The idea, as implied by Greenway, that this was a mistake on the part of the Zionists who created and continue to control the Zionist state is laughable, mainly because it was patently obvious, from the very outset, that to create a state for Jews in 1948 by stealing land belonging to another people and to proceed to oppress, and periodically murder, the indigenous population over the following 58 years was the best way to ensure a perpetual threat to the Jews of Israel.
A little known fact is that it was not only Palestinian blood that was shed to create the Zionist state of Israel. Over the course of the past 100 years, successive Zionist leaders deemed the lives of Jews living around the Middle East worthless enough to be used, and sacrificed, to ensure the creation of the psychopathic experiment that is the modern state of Israel.