Don't mention the war!!

[Gob]

The Archbishop of Canterbury last night issued an extraordinary apology for the British bombing of Dresden during the Second World War.



In what was immediately criticised as an insult to the young men who gave their lives to defeat the Nazis, the Most Rev Justin Welby told the German people of his ‘profound feeling of regret and deep sorrow’ over the attack. His comments at a ceremony in Dresden to mark the 70th anniversary of the bombings came amid a growing row about BBC coverage of the commemoration in which Britain was described as ‘worse than the Nazis’ over the raids that killed thousands at the end of the war.

Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth criticised the Archbishop, saying: ‘I do not hear Angela Merkel apologising for the Blitz.’ And historian Professor Anthony Glees said it was wrong to take a single incident in the war and say sorry for it. Archbishop Welby said the bombing of Dresden, which killed an estimated 25,000, ‘diminished all our humanity’. But he made no reference to the 55,573 British aircrew killed in the struggle to overthrow Hitler, nor to the German bombing of London and Coventry.

Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘These remarks do sound to me like an apology. For the Archbishop to make an apology for our defeat of Hitler is bizarre. I would have thought the last thing we should be doing is apologising. We should be praised for defeating Hitler. These words are an insult to the young men who gave their lives in the defeat of Germany.’ The Archbishop – whose great uncle Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal was one of the main architects of Britain’s campaign of bombing German cities – told the congregation he thought it was ‘miraculous’ that they were welcoming him given the ‘brutal and devastating’ nature of the attack.

‘Over three days in February allied bombers brought death and destruction on a scale and with a ferocity it is impossible to imagine,’ he said. ‘Much debate surrounds this most controversial raid of the allied bombing campaign. Whatever the arguments, events here 70 years ago left a deep wound and diminished all our humanity. So as a follower of Jesus I stand here among you with a profound feeling of regret and deep sorrow.’

[rubato]

Kurt Vonnegut was an allied prisoner of war in Dresden at the time of the fire storm created by the bombings. This event became a central image in Slaughterhouse 5 and was a major motivation for his anti-war feelings.

Germany provoked a world war by attacking its neighbors, on the whole, with the support of the German people. And on that grounds we can say we are justified in all military actions against the German people and all of the suffering we inflicted on them.

But when we do that we should recall that Bush II lied about WMD and in doing so marshalled the support of the American people in a stupid war in Iraq which we still suffer from. And we should recall further the decades of lies about Vietnam which we used as a lame excuse for killing more than a million south Vietnamese.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

we should recall that Bush II lied about WMD

Well, if we want to have false memories, I guess we should...

That assertion of course does not have, has never had, and in all likelyhood will never have, one single shred of proof to back it up. Merely repeating a claim over and over and stating it is as though it were a fact doesn't magically turn it in to one.

[rubato]

Bush sent the United States to war because he said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix (who caught the N. Koreans making nukes after Reagan and Bush I missed it) had been looking for WMD for months and months and said they were not there.

Either Bush was lying because they were not there after all or he was lying because he had no evidence that they were there. Either way, he lied.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Hans Blix (who caught the N. Koreans making nukes after Reagan and Bush I missed it) had been looking for WMD for months and months and said they were not there.

That's simply wrong.

Blix never reported any such conclusion to the Security Council. In his final report to the UN Security Council prior to the invasion, all he said, (as I have posted before) is that they hadn't found any WMD yet, but that there were large quantities that were known to exist that the Iraqi government had not accounted for:

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Here's the full text:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/f ... ednations1

In fact it wasn't until after the invasion of Iraq, that he said he was even beginning to suspect that Iraq had no WMD:

Friday 23 May 2003 10.39 EDT

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported today.

"I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel.

If that were the case, he said, Iraq's evasive behaviour in recent years could be due to Saddam Hussein's fixation with Iraqi honour and a wish to dictate the conditions under which people could enter the country.

"For that reason, he said 'no' in many situations and gave the impression he was hiding something," he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/iraq1

[Big RR]

Perhaps Jim, but from a CNN interview in 2004:

"Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

[Lord Jim]

2004 you say?

Gee, that hindsight looks just the slightest bit self serving....

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but he was always consistent in saying give the inspections time allow them to go forward; something W wouldn't do.

[wesw]

well, I see no harm in the apology at all. I would think we would all feel sorrow if we had killed people. I know I would.

we were forced into total war and did what we had to to survive hitler s onslaught, that doesn t make it right, just necessary.

I think a lot about our soldiers and the moral dilemmas that they face. I think that many young men, Christians at least, must make the choice to put their eternal soul at risk to protect liberty and all that they love. I believe that they make that sacrifice of their own free will and are tormented by the pain and suffering that they inflict upon the enemy, and upon jesus, by their actions.

some of them are broken by their guilt, some try to make amends, some accept their damnation and kill themselves to relieve their own suffering.

I believe atheists and other religions face the same dilemma. Christians are not unique in having a moral compass.

can you imagine the brutality of a world without remorse and guilt being felt when life is taken?

geez, a simple apology can have great effects on all involved

wes

[wesw]

to my mind, apology is necessary . it s hard to forgive someone who doesn t express sorrow for the grief that they have caused, justified or otherwise

[Big RR]

I agree, or at least an expression of regret; if I were driving down the street and struck and killed a child who ran out in front of me, I would feel profound regret and sorrow in killing the child, even if I did nothing wrong to cause it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

.. but if it was a total stranger who hit the child... would you seek out a relative of that child and apologise? (And I don't mean "express regret").

How many times have you done that lately?

[Big RR]

No, but if I ran a cab company who sent out the driver who hit the child, I might. And if I were the person the cab was coming to get and I found myself in the family's house, I might express my regret and sorrow as well. I'm not sure if that counts as an apology to you, but that's what it appears the archbishop did as well.

I recall a friend in college who had been in Vietnam and was a bit screwed up by some of his actions there (especially the killing of other people). One time he told me that while he didn't do anything he was ashamed of, there was a lot he did he wasn't proud of and he regretted and was sorry he was in the position where he felt he had to do those things. I think this is a lot like that; war makes us do a lot of things we aren't proud of and wouldn't ordinarily do; I think it's human to feel regret and sorrow about that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

All well and good if the archbishop whistled up the bombers (as one might a taxi). But he didn't, did he? Maybe he's apologizing on behalf of Uncle Ernie who was always fiddling about with the back-room boffins.

I think all people should always regret that there ever is a war because people get killed in them. But I don't think it's my place to go around apologizing for Dresden any more than it's my place to go around apologizing for Coventry, or Monte Casino or Singapore.

Besides, they started it.

[Big RR]

Perhaps, but then the archbishop speaks on behalf of the nation that sent the bombers, or at least the church to which that nations acknowledges some fealty. Further, as I understand it, he (and other bishops) sit as full members of the House of Lords and are thus, part of the representation of the people that sent them. I don't think it improper that he spoke out.

And, did he apologize, or merely express regret and sorrow? And is there a difference.

And finally, if something was done by others in your name, or on your behalf, is it really wrong to express that regret and sorrow. I can think of a number of things the American government has done that make me feel that way (and no, I won't name them and derail this thread), would you think it wrong for me to speak out about them if I had the opportunity of felt the need to? I'll rarely second guess those who made the decision and say they were wrong as I was not there at the time (unless it was clear), but I don't think it is wrong for me to speak out about it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It was neither in my name nor on my behalf (altho pols often speak of future generations as if they really care). I was not (as you point out) there at the time

We all have, as I believe a writer-lady once set down, no need for more apologies - we have a closet full of them.

[wesw]

a close friend once asked me a question. we were fairly drunk and it was the only time we ever discussed his Vietnam service. I was explaining that people my age had not been taught much about the Vietnam war. he explained that people did not discuss it because they were ashamed. I told him that it was ok to forgive himself.

this was many years ago, and we were drunk, but I ll do my best to paraphrase.

he said, we went into this village under heavy heavy fire. we blew the hell out of this place, we have to clear every hooch while this fire fight is blazing. we go into this hooch and a baby is there screaming his head off. his mom and dad are there too dead, his grandmother is in there too dead. the kids brothers and sisters are there too dead, auntie is there with her head blown off. and this baby is in the floor screaming, covered in blood. god only knows whos blood.

what do you do Wesley? what do you do? the fight isn t over, your buddies are dying around you, what do you do?

he said, you put the baby out of its misery with your rifle butt and continue the battle. you don t forgive yourself for things like that Wesley.

that talk will haunt me forever. old luke never touched red meat. he moved back to the hills of Virginia about two years ago, I really need to take a road trip to see him

[MajGenl.Meade]

Careful you must be, oh wes one... swampy back there it is

[Lord Jim]

Deleted. Reposted in wrong place...

(Seems to be my morning for mistakes... )

[BoSoxGal]

Careful you must be, oh wes one... swampy back there it is