RED BARON'S WORDS

“You are prepared to evict people from their homes and you aren’t prepared to even talk with them?” Israeli settler in the Gaza strip in response to the first days of expulsions from the Gaza area as part of the withdrawal plan.

I am somewhat struck by his failure to understand the ironny of such a statement, is he simply blinkered as to history or is it a result of years of Israeli propaganda that has sought to give the impression that Israel has always existed here and thus should continue to do so? Leaving aside the actual legitimacy of Israel’s position in the Middle East which is highly questionable, it is astonishing to think that in a matter of little more than a generation the Israelis have already entrenched themselves

It is not the only current situation of contradiction, another in similar circumstances is in Ireland again where a feud between loyalist paramilitary organisations the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Ulster Volunteer Force resulting of the killing of one man. It is interesting that this does not seem to carry the same weight of news as any actions by Republicans. Ian Paisley is not trotted out onto the interview platforms and asked when the loyalist paramilitaries are going to decommission, there is not wholescale condemnation of the loyalist paramilitaries or the seeking to link current loyalist politicians with a paramilitary past as there is on the other side. If you look on the BBC for news from Ulster you will find more prominence is given to the fact that a stretch of train line in Armagh between Lurgan and Portadown was recently closed due to the discovery of a “malicious object” than the news of the killing of Michael Green or the attacks on a Catholic school and church in Ahoghill Co. Antrim which have been described by some as a concerted effort to purge Catholics from the area. Police have had to hand out fire blankets and smoke alarms to Catholic homes in the area because of a strong threat of further sectarian attacks.

Just as Israelis are not questioned forcefully about their side in the attrocities the same is true of the hardline loyalist politicians who are not questioned as to why the UVF/UFF/LVF are still in existence at all or why the loyalists are the ones permitted to derail the future of devolved government when it is precisely they that have the most vested interest in that government never coming into existence at all.

It has long been the case that the news is reported in a very subjective fashion, we should not be surprised about it but we should be aware that it is happening as part of a concerted and sustained policy and that to be able to pick what are seemingly mundane daily occurrances is not the exception but the rule.

Remember they who control the past control the future. Orwell knew it.

Song Of The Day ~ Hard Fi – Tied Up Too Tight

Original Comments:

jamal made this comment,
Correct, it is very ironic the way Israelis complained about having to move, when they have themselves neen moving of palistiniens for many years. Also Arial Sharon trying to come accross as peaceful for “giving” back the land is ironic, as can you give back what is not yours?
comment added :: 31st August 2005, 22:34 GMT+01 :: http://opinionated.blogsome.com/

I have been contacted by Richard “Nibby” David regarding the resumption of his suit against Honeywell on the grounds of his being contaminated by depleted uranium whilst he worked in the aerospace industry. I confess his name rang a vague bell but I could not place it so I did some digging. What I found was the following:

From 1985 to 1995, Nibby David worked as a civil engineer in the aerospace industry in Yeovil, UK, for the company Normalair Garrett, now owned by the US company Honeywell. During this time he had to handle many components containing depleted uranium, the consequence of which are an increased rate of dicentric and ring chromosome mutations in his lymphocytes. These mutations are known to be caused by exposure to ionising radiation. He now suffers from a very rare disease called Gitelmans syndrome which usually manifests itself at birth not in one’s late 40s as in the case of Nibby David. Nibby David is dying as a result of the exposure.

Nibby tells me that the trial has been sceduled to restart 4th October 2005 until 23rd November 2005 at the High Court in London. Sadly his case is much more against the heart of the establishment and therefore subject to less publicity than the MacLibel trial (in fact the only reference in the media I could find was IndyMedia and 1 reference last year in The Guardian) but it is in many ways a more potent and important one for the precedent that it could set. This is especially prevalent in the case of the Gulf War Syndrome cases who are currently fighting to have the medical link recognised between depleted uranium and cell detirioration and deformity, this goes some way to explaining the media blackout in Nibby’s case. Currently Nibby is without a lot of support financially and practically, for example not having anywhere to stay in London for the duration of the trial. If anyone has any way of giving him assistance I urge you to do so. For my part I will be forwarding this case on to organisations that I think could and should help such as Respect and my trade union, if you are affiliated to any such organisations please do the same. I have also contacted George Galloway to see if it is a matter he may be able to raise in Parliament and the Morning Star newspaper in an attempt to raise the public profile as much as possible.

I do not like to think of a man who has firstly suffered greatly simply as a result of a job which should not have been so hazardous and secondly then had the courage to try to do something about it on a wider scale feeling that he is alone. Furthermore it would be a disgrace if the justice for one man was curtailed in any way by financial or personal constraints and for it to be something as trivial as a place to stay beggars belief. Through much of my life I have always been apprehensive of whether I had the conviction to truly put my principles on the line in such a circumstance, it would at least be to my credit if I can help someone who clearly has that conviction.

So this is a Redbaron call to arms if you like. Time we stopped chatting about what is wrong in the world and how to change it and time to put some hours in to actually do so.

(Nibby if you are reading this and haven’t seen my reply to your last comment get in touch by the means listed there.)

Song Of The Day ~ Bob Marley – Get Up, Stand Up

Original Comments:

Mark Ellott made this comment,
I’m no longer a member of a trade union (since my redundancy) – so there’s nothing practical that I can suggest beyond what you are already doing. Frankly, it’s appalling, but then, no surprise…
comment added :: 17th August 2005, 19:29 GMT+01 :: http://longrider.blog-city.com
Pimme made this comment,
It’s sadly all too typical of a company to endanger a person and then try to keep it quiet when he seeks compensation. I hope that Mr. David wins his lawsuit. Shame on the media for all the cover ups, too!
comment added :: 21st August 2005, 01:43 GMT+01 :: http://pimme.blog-city.com

In certain circumstances it gives me no pleasure to be right, this is one of them.

Last week a Conservative party spokesman, Gerald Howarth, stated on Radio 4s Today program that if Muslims weren’t prepared to swear allegiance to Britain then they could go somewhere else. This was followed up by Liam Fox, Conservative front bench MP saying that whilst this was not central party policy it was true that if people didn’t like what Britain stood for then they had to consider their position.

In light of the already precarious position of foreigners here this really adds fuel to the fire, there will be many happy to stand behind this sort of ethos, the “if you don’t like it why don’t you go home” as if firstly just because they have a different coloured skin they are not already home, and secondly as if dissent is somehow illegal. If every dissentor was sent away under those provisos you’d never have any change, just a country full of fascists. It starts with Muslims when that “threat” is neutralised who’s next?

One musn’t forget to take this sort of comment in context. In this country there has just been a legal battle to stop curfews and exclusion orders being issued purely on the grounds of a person’s age. There have been attempts to legislate against humour as something potential to incite racial/religious hatred. Something comedian Chris Langham describes as “social engineering through the back door, telling us what we can and can’t find daft.” As comedian Rowan Atkinson says by bringing such things into the hands of government control you have a position where just because the current goverment may allow things does not mean that another will.

Add to this now the calls for those charged with terrorist offences to be charged with treason, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which came into force this week and prevents any demonstration within a half mile radius of the Houses of Parliament, this law truly establishes our “representatives” in their ivory towers. It was brought in to stop protestor Brian Haw who has been encamped in protest outside Parliament for 4 years, however Mr Haw managed to win a High Court injuction as his protest pre-dates the law, he is now the only person allowed to protest and his stance in essence renders the law redundant.

Then there is the judge-only proposals where the police can apply to extend the detention of a suspect before they actually have a charge. Furthermore these judge-only pre-trials would be used to try suspects where intercept and Secret Service evidence could be brought. Of course the old chesnut is used: ‘if the Secret Service reveal intercept evidence and the like for the first time in public then the methods of evidence collection and in some cases the informants may be revealed. This is a very dangerous smokescreen indeed because it is but one step away from the allowing of serious evidence in trials that will remain unchallenged in certain cases. Since habeas corpus as well as the right to silence have already been removed one wonders at what point the erosion of the rights of the individual within the British justice system will stop.

All this does remind me very much of the lead up in Germany from 1933 to 1939. I am not saying that in this case the agenda is the same from the outset, at least I sincerely hope it isn’t, but the potential for serious problem should anyone be in the position to abuse the legislation should be caveat enough for all of us. In Germany it was the emergency powers given to the chancellor whilst Hindenberg was the incumbant that allowed Hitler much of the free reign he later enjoyed. Furthermore it was the fact that the media was almost solely in the hands of one man, Alfred Hugenberg, that allowed Hitler to ally with Hugenberg’s Deutsche Arbeits Partei (German Workers Party) then simply replace the Hugenberg with Goebbels later in the 30s. Much of the infrastructure needed was already there in 1933 for the Nazis to use, Hitler only needed to win the election really and then it was a done deal. Since Hugenberg’s control over the media had already been pumping out extreme right-wing propaganda through the Weimar Republic years some of the groundwork had already been done. Hugenberg owned the Telegraph-Union which was a merger of 4 press agencies in 1913, in 1916 he had taken controll of the Scherl press group (Berliner Abendzeitung, Der Tag, Die Woche, Neuesten Berliner Handels- und Börsennachrichten, die Gartenlaube, Sport im Bild) in 1917 the Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft which subsumed 3 film distributors was formed, Hugenberg gained control of it in 1927, in 1922 Hugenberg found the Wirtschaftsstelle der Provinzpresse (WIPRO) a pan-regional press agency for the distribution of local/regional news, is this starting to mirror the career of anyone you can think of? This steady surge of media control by one man with his own defined political agenda had such a profoundly damaging effect in Germany what makes one think that Murdoch’s influence in the world will not go the same way?

I know the media is one of my favourite bugbears but in the context of the assualt on all human rights that we are currently undergoing you might expect media outrage calling the government to account but instead they are used as the spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down. Have some tits, who’s the latest person out of Big Brother, do you know who he went out with last night, look at the lives of these celebrities etc. etc. etc. All mindless pulp, just serving to keep bombarding us with enough shite that we miss the bigger picture and only realise when it is too late. We need to wake up now.

Song Of The Day ~ Fear Of Music – Skin & Bones

Original Comments:

Mark Ellott made this comment,
I’ve been banging on about some of these things myself – what about the civil contingencies act? This allows government to dissolve parliament and rule by cabinet in the event of an “emergency.” Who decides what is an “emergency”? Yup, government ministers…
Just don’t start me the anti terrorism legislation and habeas corpus…

comment added :: 17th August 2005, 19:34 GMT+01 :: http://longrider.blog-city.com

The last session has raised a particular question that needs perhaps to be tackled in its own subsection, call it the seminar that follows the lecture to stick with the OU analogy if you like!

There are many groups who struggle against what they see as oppression. We may indeed agree with many of their motives but we may not agree with their modus operandi. Obviously the most prevalent of these examples is when it comes to violent insurrection.

In an ideal world everyone would be represented and things would be equal without being homogenous. Without getting into an argument about how possible this may be and to what degree desirable I think we can all safely agree that it is not the case now. This means there are many marginalised and disenfranchised and they have a right to struggle for recognition, again I don’t think this is especially contentious. What is more the repressive armies and police of the state constitute quite legitimate targets and any focus on insurrection should primarily be aimed here. The problem comes if such resistance to the actual bodies of the State proves ineffectual.

Remember that the armies of the state rarely play by the rules when it suits them. Take the Israelis the most heavily-armed and crack-trained military unit in the world. Occupying large areas of land in defience of international law they flout the rules and regulations laid down and whilst they may be censured for doing so they are allowed to continue because there remains the upholding of the ‘might is right’ principle. They think nothing of obliterating whole areas of residential -?- in order to secure 1 “legitimate” target. The Palestinians would certainly be highly unlikely to inflict serious military damage against the Israeli army because it is not a level playing field, they have neither the hardware not the training nor the manpower and therefore they fight in the way they know how.

So in such a one-sided conflict it does seem rather bourgeous to sit and eulogise about only attacking military targets etc. I do not deny it is right as a utopian strategy, but I question it’s effectiveness and therefore its relevance in the modern world. Not to do so is I feel not to understand the nature of the problem, it labels such conflicts as wrong because of the methods without necessarily the acknowledgement of why these methods are adopted and the cause for which they stand. It is, for example, all very right and proper to condemn Al Queda bombers for their targeting of civilians but one must be very careful not to be swept up in that tide of condemnation that merely labels these men as mad extremists and begins a path to reprisals and retaliation. After all it IS as a direct result of US foreign policy that the West is so unpopular and not just in the Islamic world but across swathes of the Far East and Central & South America where their self-indulgant interventionist policies have ridden roughshod over democracies and the needs/wishes of the people for the good of the US establishment. Let us not forget that the US has the most-equipped Air Force in the world and has used it to bomb over 50 countries since the Second World War. It seems a large number, how many do you think you can name? In the face of B-52s and such like can one really be so self-righteous as to tell disperate groups of ordinary men that they may only attack legitimate military targets? It’s a hell of a choice. It is easy for me because I sit in my house and I can just about get by from day to day and I have just enough education to perform as it were. Would I have the luxury of such circumspection if I lived in Ramala and Israeli shells were frequently blowing up parts of the neighbourhood? Or if I was an African or South American marxist seeing my country starve because of the raping of resources by the West and the corruption of the governments that support them. Would I still feel that talking about the problem or being nobly detached from engagement empowered me in any way shape of form?

Another aspect to add to this question is that the world’s major powers now run on economic might and it is precisely this force and power that is used to subjugate so many. Should this make Wall St. a legitimate target, or the World Bank building, the WTO, the IMF offices? I feel the case for this is strong based on the widescale damage these organisations cause, and yet whilst I would certainly baulk at the possible loss of innocent lives, withdrawing from any conflict in this area may yet result in the death of thousands, maybe millions more. Do we not have to strike a balance? At what point do the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? Is there such a point, is it static or fluid? I think the only conclusion of sorts that I can come up with is that this has to be a choice for the individual, each of us may face it and based on our characters and experience we may make different decisions, history or perhaps your God may judge you for your actions. If we apply our usual tenets to any such situation it should help us decide what is right. To me the Gandhi “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind” quote is such a powerful mantra that it would have to take a very serious cause for me to reconsider that approach. After all it was Gandhi who achieved much with non-violent confrontation. I would like to think this approach can always work but I fear there are many situations where it may not and then the question raised is one of whether you are prepared to stand up for your principles and to what extent you feel prepared to take that stand. Will I ever choose violence over peace to try to achieve what I believe is right, definitely not, but will I defend what I ardently believe in, what I consider paramount for me and my family, by any means necessary, I would like to think I might find the courage to do so should the occasion ever arise.

I would like to end by citing an article of a fellow (!) academic, Abhinav Aima, which was brought to my attention by my twin and whose prose is a deal more eloquent than mine and goes some way to explaining the roots of the current Middle Eastern problem within the context of this session.

Song Of The Day ~ The Magic Numbers – Which Way To Happy?
Original Comments:

Mark Ellott made this comment,
I would suggest that the average Israeli is much the same as the average Briton and is unable to effectively influence government policy. Some Israeli soldiers are courageous enough to refuse to serve in the occupied territories and I admire their resolve.
Ultimately I stand by my original statements – the deliberate killing of civilians is murder. It matters not whether the people doing it are wearing uniforms or otherwise.

I absolutely agree with your Gandhi quote (one of my heroes). Given sufficient support, civil disobedience can bring governments to their knees. After all, if the country stops working, the economic drivers are seriously damaged. It worked for the Indians. I agree, for the Palestinians it might be more problematic, though. However, continued bombings undermine any attempts to achieve settlement by the Palestinian leadership. They should give these people a fighting chance to succeed.

comment added :: 3rd August 2005, 08:31 GMT+01 :: http://longrider.blog-city.com

I do not think I need to add anymore to my fairly well-publisised view on violence however what does need to be looked at is the perception of who the aggressor is in many of the instances of “terrorism”. It is a much-vaunted mantra that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but does the evidence support the claim?

If you take Ireland as an initial example, the problems stem from the British occupation and the planned migration of many protestant Scots to the hitherto Catholic Ireland and principally the northern Ulster province. Britain needed to drive the indigenous population as far away from the coast as possible to avoid them giving assistance to the Catholic Jacobite rebelllions which were taking place to undermine the accession of William of Orange. (Bonnie Prince Charlie and all that) Hence for many years the Irish had been fighting the English in what would legitimately have been called an independence struggle but would have been seen by the British as terrorism. In the other 3 Irish counties fighting stopped after the gaining of Irish independence after the First World War but a part of the independence conditions were the retaining of the six counties of Ulster by England as part of the United Kingdom. It is interesting that people regard partition generally as a very bad thing and see unification as an ultimate goal -look at the perception of Germany in 1990, and yet they do not understand why there are still problems in Ireland. Of course the situation of the six counties is tricky because of the Protestant contingent (the Loyalists) who do not want to go from being part of the protestant UK to part of the Catholic Republic of Ireland and the Catholic contingent (the Republicans or Nationalists) who for obvious reasons do not want to stay part of the UK. The original IRA was a Irish organisation fighting for an Irish nation pre-1922. After the treaty granting independence the organisation split many times before becoming what was known as the Provisional IRA (Provos) which is what most people think of when you mention the acronym nowadays. Generally it is accepted that the Irish had a right to fight for their autonomy and yet somehow an arbitrary line has been drawn in the sand declaring it unacceptable for those still in Ulster and remaining under British military rule to continue their struggle.

Now take the examples of the Palestinians who previous to 1948 had their land and post Israel settlement had large sections of it confiscated for the creation of a nation that has no geographic precedent (Like the Irish it was in fact the British that caused the shit in Palestine too!). Like the Irish the Palestinians had their territory occupied by a difference ethnic and religious group and this caused friction. Like the Irish the Palestinians chose to resist this in many different forms and the less electoral influence exacted the more violent tactics and civil disobedience was employed. When civil disobedience comes up against the most heavily armed force in the world it is clear that something is going to have to give. The less empowered people feel the more likely they are to take drastic measures. Unlike the Palestinians who do not have widespread representation in the Israeli Knessit, the Irish never felt the need to use suicide bombers because they always had a foot in the electoral door too which has eventually led to the potential for change. It would however be folly to suggest that the Irish question would have been in the agenda of any British premier were it not for the possibility of the IRA bombing the shit out of London. No, I do not agree with the bombing of civilians, but I also categorically disagree with the marginalising of peoples by oppressive governments leading people to believe that the only thing they can do is fight back violently. This is why I can understand the disenfranchised desperation that can lead to such actions even if it is not the course I take myself. Do not make the mistake in thinking that suicide bombing is a new or specifically Islamic thing. The military tactics of the whirling Dervishes as well as the Kamikaze Japanese pilots are a couple of examples. The most common and widespread use of suicide bombers is by the Tamil Tigers who are not islamic but a secular Marxist group fighting for autonomy in Sri Lanka. To take the example further there are Western soldiers lauded as heroes who, when the die was cast, decided if they were going to die they’d take as many of the enemy with them as possible. It’s the old cornered rat analogy. This is seen as a legitimate military tactic in war-time, which is exactly the perception of reality of many groups using such tactics today

There are a myriad assortment of other struggles from East Timor’s occupation by Indonesia, the FARC’s battle against the repressive Uribe regime in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Marxists in Nepal, Pro-Democracy movement in Burma, ETA in the Basque country in Northern Spain etc. etc. etc. However these are not high-profile cases because on the whole the incumbant regimes have done little or nothing to tick off the US, in fact in many cases the regimes have supported the US openly such as in Colombia and Central America and have therefore received funding, training and hardware courtesy of the jackbooted Uncle Sam. Basically if you have tactical significance or natural resources heaven help you if you democratically elect anyone that you’re not supposed to. You can vote for anyone you like as long as it’s the ones they tell you to.

The common thread through these conflicts is that there is a clear aggressor, whether you agree with the reasons or simply accept the way history has panned out or not, in the Ireland question it is the British, in the case of Palestine it is Israel and in Iraq as so many others it is the US. Thus the way the oppressed feel towards the oppressor determines how they feel it necessary to act in order to free themselves. In the case of many of the former Eastern Bloc countries the oppressive governments were overthrown by peaceful demonstrations whilst in Romania Ceaucescu was seen as a more entrenched despot and his use of the Securitate meant there was considerable bloodshed and battles like Timisoara in order to change the status quo. It may not even be the actual facts of the agressor that is important but the perception of the agressor and this is the part that can be used as a recruiting sergeant. The Americans have for many years used the Big Bad Wolf theory to justify many things in particular some homeland security measures and the defence budget to back up a very agressive foreign policy. The Big Bad Wolf theory requires there to be a threat from a monster, a renegade or a rogue state and looking back there has been one for the Americans for most of the modern era from Hitler direct to Stalin to Kruschev to Castro etc. etc. through Gadaffi, Ayatollah Khomeni, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden etc. There is always one, as soon as the threat from one is neutralised there must be another to take his place, the maintaining of the heightened state of public alert is paramount.

We are fed propaganda in a way similar to WWII but most people don’t see it as such. There is the belief that since we have so many different sources of news that we cannot be hoodwinked how we once could. This is a total misnomer and one of the biggest smoke screens of all. This will be discussed in Session 5 the Media.

Song Of The Day ~ Martha Reeves & The Vandellas – Heatwave

Original Comments:

haywood made this comment,
funny how one factor runs a line straight through money money money mon…….ey, yea ehhhh.
comment added :: 2nd August 2005, 02:46 GMT+01

Mark Ellott made this comment,
Minor historical correction – although it doesn’t alter the gist. The Jacobites fighting in Ireland against the usurper William of Orange were supporting King James II – Bonnie Prince Charlie’s grandfather. He was let down by the French who had promised support – that and tactical blunders cost him the battle of the Boyne – the rest, as they say, is history. Incidentally, had Charles continued south from Derby, he would probably have succeeded and the Stuarts retaken the throne.
As for freedom fighter/terrorist – those who write the history books usually decide. Having said that, they cross the line when they deliberately target civilians who have no control over the policies of their governments. Even the ballot box offers no real control. Would our middle eastern policies be any different had we a conservative government? I don’t think so.

-Redbaron responds – you are quite right about the initial Jacobite rebellions not being Bonnie Prince Charlie, tho’ there were of course a number of Jacobite rebellions in support of both the Old and the Young Pretender and the influx of ‘Blue Scots’ continued as the threat of support from Ireland for the Catholics remained. You are correct to mention the Battle of the Boyne as being something of a watershed in the level of threat from Ireland.

The victor’s version of events is definitely the one that history records. As for the policies of terrorism. It is easy for us as fairly comfortable and lucid men who find expressing ourselves easy to be able to say that civilian targets should not be acceptable when we both agree that the electoral alternative is a hollow choice. There are many who do not share our pre-disposition for discussion whether thru’ choice or lack of ability in that area and it is a fertile recruiting ground for violent extremism that they should have no other way to express their dissolution. This is why I understand it whilst not necessarily agreeing with it. These are after all the tactics of war. Hiroshima was hardly a legitimate military target, it was a civilian one set in order to bring the Japanese military to its knees. –

comment added :: 2nd August 2005, 09:18 GMT+01 :: http://longrider.blog-city.com
rocky made this comment,
great post, as always.
i agree with mark – the line is definitely crossed when innocents are targetted, whether the innocents are children in palestine or bus passengers in london or people going in to work, to the world trade centre on 9/11.

perhaps, had these ‘freedom fighters’ successfully or unsuccessfully targetted the white house or 10 downing street, we would not label them ‘terrorists’ as easily…but anyone (be it a palestinian suicide bomber or a british paki one) blowing up civilians/innocents is NOT a freedom fighter, in my opinion, he is a misguided murderer and an idiot.

-Redbaron responds – But there are so few examples of serious revolution/change etc. that do not come about within the climate of loss of innocent lives. One could maintain that soldiers are only the pawns in the games of the masters. At what point should the line be drawn? In an ideal world no violence, no death should be necessary as an expression of disenfranchisation and yet that is just not the real world. It may well be that our non-violent ideals are all very noble but conceivably outdated and ineffectual against the tactics employed by the status quo who do not shy from violent confrontation. At some point the ends have to justify the means but I cannot say what point that is. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in my view yes, so that means sacrifices are necessary, the question is how far should one have to sacrifice? –

comment added :: 2nd August 2005, 11:40 GMT+01

Mark Ellott made this comment,
Simplistic though it may be, the line is the difference between a military target and a civilian one. Soldiers sign up for active service and know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and are armed, so may fight back. Civilians have no control. The only blurring of the line occurs when soldiers are conscripted and have no choice.
The analogy of Japan – and by inference London and Dresden is an interesting one. However, with hindsight we may criticize. Those making the decisions believed that the tactic would bring the war to an end more quickly and therefore minimise casualties. If we must judge them, then we should do so on the sensibilities of their times, not ours.

-Redbaron responds – I think the line regarding Dresden and Hiroshima are more blurred, the US would have dropped the first A bomb on Dresden had it been ready in time. As it was they had to satisfy themselves with napalm. In the case of Dresden it could be argued that Germany was militarily finished by this point. Likewise in the case of Japan. But I agree hindsight is 20/20 and thus genuine critcism is reserved for hypotheses.-

comment added :: 2nd August 2005, 11:53 GMT+01 :: http://longrider.blog-city.com