The firebombing of Dresden - 60 year anniversary

[Jaguar]

This whole thread is clearly pointless.

Obviously, if you look at it on an individual scale, the civilians of Dresden deserve sympathy. They, like many others, were unfortunate casualties of war.

But if you want to point the finger at a country and say it was their fault, the bombing of Dresden is clearly Germany's own fault. Maybe if they hadn't beaten up on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and dozens of other countries, people wouldn't have bombed their asses.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


January 1945. An interview with a Londoner, according to Kidicious.

"No, I don't think we should bomb German cities. I admit that it was only a few days ago that the German armed forces had made the Allied forces on the Western Front soil themselves with shock when they surged out of the Ardennes, and it's true that a V2 has just blown up my family. However I know for a fact that the war will be over this year, so further bombing is pointless.

I know this because a voice from the future told me so."

Fortunately I rarely get into these things with you. This is a pointless discussion. You're being ridiculous.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by molly bloom





The British and Americans commenced Operation Overlord, the invasion of France, on 6th January 1944. Just six days later the first V1 flying bombs descended on London. Only one of the ten launched arrived in London killing six people in the East End. Within days V1s were being launched at the rate of 100 per day. Almost half were shot down by fighter pilots and guns but the remainder hit the capital.

http://london.allinfo-about.com/features/rockets.html

errr-- D-Day was the 6th of JUNE

I don't know if all of that was a quote but it makes the "just 6 days later" piece questionable if they don't get D-Day right

[Flubber]

More generally, while I am very sorry for the population of Dresden, this was an era when unrestricted warfare was the order of the day and civilian populations were regularly targets. I'm not saying that is right but it was the way it was.

This discussion always reminds me of the nuking of Japan discussion where the same people on each side trot out the same arguments.

[Lincoln]

Can someone from Germany here tell me the correct translation of what I understand is "We are fed up with the Nazis"? The news in the United States says that thousands of candles (or lights of some kind) were lit in Dresden to show their opposition to the neonazis who are also demonstrating there. It seems as if most in Dresden learned a valuable lesson about attacking their neighbors while a few still want revenge.

My view on the bombing of Dresden is that war is hell. If you start one in order to expand your terrortory at the expense of your neighbors and support the leaders who lead the charge then you can expect that hell to visit you. I see no history of the citizens of Dresden protesting the activities of Hitler or their nation during the war. If there is a history of opposition I will gladly stand corrected. Why don't those on this forum who believe in collective guilt agree that Germany got what they deserved? Now the bleeding hearts would like us to give reparations to Dresden I suppose...

[Micha]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Can someone from Germany here tell me the correct translation of what I understand is "We are fed up with the Nazis"?

"Wir haben genug von den Nazis!" - quite calm
"Wir haben die Nase voll von den Nazis!" - slightly angry
"Wir haben die Schnauze voll von den Scheiss Nazis!" - very angry, vulgar

The news in the United States says that thousands of candles (or lights of some kind) were lit in Dresden to show their opposition to the neonazis who are also demonstrating there. It seems as if most in Dresden learned a valuable lesson about attacking their neighbors while a few still want revenge.

Most Germans today are pacifists, which is why Germany had such a strong anti-Bush stance in the recent past. We have learned from history what should be a fundamental truth:
"In peace, the sons bury their fathers, while in war the fathers bury their sons."
Though the protest was rather against the party of the Neonazis than against the little demonstration of baldheaded idiots. That party (NPD) had just recently gained 9% of all votes in Saxony (the federal country Dresden is capital of). That´s why there were so many people protesting the neo-nazis. Almost every week there´s an anti-NPD demonstration in Dresden, because that city is the capital and thus headquarters of the Nazi-party.

My view on the bombing of Dresden is that war is hell. If you start one in order to expand your terrortory at the expense of your neighbors and support the leaders who lead the charge then you can expect that hell to visit you. I see no history of the citizens of Dresden protesting the activities of Hitler or their nation during the war. If there is a history of opposition I will gladly stand corrected. Why don't those on this forum who believe in collective guilt agree that Germany got what they deserved? Now the bleeding hearts would like us to give reparations to Dresden I suppose...

Yeah, this is an argument I have heard many times. While personally I like the comparison between Hitler and some of today´s politicians (no names, don´t want to start *that* discussion again ), you mustn´t confuse the German society of the 1940s with the modern American society. Ok, if you don´t like Bush´s politics, you go out on the streets and protest him. Of course you´d be called "leftie" or "communist" or "liberal", but that should be about all you will have to take.
Back then, in Germany, there were quite neat organizations like the SS and the GeStaPo. Both of them pretty well known as brutal militant organizations killing people who don´t fit into the Führer´s vision of what is a "good German".
Now here´s a hint: Those organizations didn´t operate solely in occupied territory

There were several protests in the early 1930s, but as soon as those protesters disappeared mysteriously during the nights most people "reconsidered" their official stance towards the regime...

[Lincoln]

Thanks for your response, Micha. And yes I knew about disappearing protesters etc. The reason for my post was mostly to see if those who believe in collective guilt (eg. Ward Chruchill and his equating the victims of 9/11 to Nazis or "little Eichmans" for supporting wars by not protesting and continuing to pay taxes etc.)

I really am not so sure that I am not guilty for some of the crimes of the United States because I am too lazy to protest and I pay my taxes. Anyway, I am part Indian so I guess I am off the hook.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Come to the obvious conclusion, even back then, that this action would do nothing to achieve your stated goal.

Except that wasn't clear at all at the time. Again, there were people who advocated bombing of civilian targets as a way to win wars. They were not proven wrong until things were studied after the war.

Originally posted by General Ludd


So, if terror bombing wasn't hindering the british war effort, why would they think it would hinder the german war effort?


What you are quoting seems to suggest that hindsight wasn't required.

The propoenents of area bombing insisted that more force was required to achieve the desired result. Hence Bomber Command and massive raids with incendiaries and then further raids staggered over the following hours or days to keep the fire fighters from putting out the blazes.

It wasn't until extensive studies were conducted after the war that the arguments for civilian bombings were largely discredited.

Even then, you have to take into account that the bombing campaigns did produce some of the desired results. One of the few was the USAAF targeting of the German fuel and aircraft industries. By concentrating on a narrow target group, they managed to overwhelm the ability of the Germans to repair and return to business. At the same time, many civilians were killed. 'Precision bombing' with a B17 from 10,000 feet is a myth. They too plastered entire areas that often contained civilian quarters.

Originally posted by GePap
MIlitary targets could and were hit by daylight "precision" bombing- nightime incendiary raids are indiscriminiate affairs: thats the point of contention- one thing is trying to hit war industry and targets of military importance while trying to minimize civlian deaths. Bombing indescriminately, which is what Bomber Command did, is quite another thing, and hence the moral questions.

Many of the moral questions are baloney. It was acceptable at the time to unleash fleets of bombers on civilian centres. The USAAF did exactly the same thing to Berlin. They plastered the city, all of it, and they did it by day. It happens that the RAF got really, really good at it. The horror results when one examines what is possible to achieve using the exact same tactics that the Germans employed on London, except with larger numbers of aircraft carrying larger loads and then returning to suppress fire fighting.

The issue with Dresden should not be the method and level of destruction. It was at the time, and should remain the level of destruction at that late date.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Except that wasn't clear at all at the time. Again, there were people who advocated bombing of civilian targets as a way to win wars. They were not proven wrong until things were studied after the war.

But some people still don't know that today, like a certain Greek equine.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I'm not sure if anybody has mentioned it yet - but Dresden was stuffed with many thousands of refugees at the time. That 35,000 casualty figure must be bull****.

Must it? I suggest you research the numbers of casualties arrived at by the authorities in Dresden, in the aftermath of the bombing.

One of David Irving's greatest successes is getting people to believe not only his propaganda, but also Goebbels'. One of his simplest methods was to put a figure 1 in front of 35 000.

Hoopla! 35 000 becomes 135 000 and people believe it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Fortunately I rarely get into these things with you. This is a pointless discussion. You're being ridiculous.

Very far from it. Read up on WW2 history, particularly "The miracle of the West" and the Battle of the Bulge. You'll see why, in January 1945, it was entirely sensible for Allied military commanders to conclude that the morale of the Germans was very far from broken. At the moment you can't shake off hindsightism.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It wasn't until extensive studies were conducted after the war that the arguments for civilian bombings were largely discredited.

That simply isn't true - the main effect of the bombing was to convince 2 very militarist nations, Germany and Japan, to become pacifist nations and examples to the world. It had an immense impact.

Now imagine what sustained area bombing could achieve in North America

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
What about things like:

Bomb Railwaytracks, Roads, Bridges, and the factories you mentioned
instead of carpet bombing the residential areas to inflict a firestorm.

Precision bombing is difficult to this day with laser guided bombs and computer controlled rockets. In WW2 the British tried it for two years and nearly got their air force destroyed without hitting the targets. The word came down that they couldn't keep losing aircraft without hitting the target so carpet bombing was started to make sure the target was hit.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Precision bombing is difficult to this day with laser guided bombs and computer controlled rockets. In WW2 the British tried it for two years and nearly got their air force destroyed without hitting the targets. The word came down that they couldn't keep losing aircraft without hitting the target so carpet bombing was started to make sure the target was hit.

Exactly this is what I meant:
Carpetbombing the Areas where the important installations could be found instead of (intentional and successfully) trying to inflict a firestorm in the inner city, an area where (even with the firestorm) chances would be minimal to cause any damage on important installations (whereas the chance to cause high civilian losses wiould be maximal).
Someone in this thread mentioned that for example factories would be surrounded by the housings of workers and therefore, even attacks on these factories wouldn´t happen without civilian losses.
But they would rather be less than 10.000 instead of the ~35000 victims you got with the firestorm.

But of course my opinion doesn´t change that the firestorm did happen.
I think that it was, even for a general in WW2 ist was morally wrong to order these attacks and strategically a waste of ressources for little gain (just as the bombings of city areas by the Luftwaffe [AFAIK the Luftwaffe did well when they just bombed important Industries; when they switched to the english cities instead, they gave the british war industry time to recover and rebuild]).
And even the public opinion during WW2 seems to have seen the Firestorm of Dresden as morally wrong, as it caused Churchill (despite him being the one who orfdered them) to comdemn the Bombings, as soon as they got known to the public (who, before that, were told that the RAF just targetted the german war industry and military and not the civilians) and to sacrifice Arthur Harris as a Scapegoat.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Precision bombing is difficult to this day with laser guided bombs and computer controlled rockets. In WW2 the British tried it for two years and nearly got their air force destroyed without hitting the targets. The word came down that they couldn't keep losing aircraft without hitting the target so carpet bombing was started to make sure the target was hit.

Still, the US kept up "precision" daylight bombing the entire war.

Note also that when a bomber did not release its load over target, it had to wait 'til it was over water to dump its bomb load.

Now compare this reality to communist propaganda about the savagery of the US Army Airforce.