Feb 13-15, 1945: Bombers dropped 3,900 tons on Dresden

[He219]

Feb. 13th, 1945: In a raid that has been controversial ever since, 805 aircraft of RAF Bomber Command dropped 2,600 tons of bombs on Dresden, an important transport centre for the German army on the Eastern Front, generating a firestorm which left an estimated 50,000 dead. - MoD


The Bombing of Dresden in World War II by the Allies remains controversial after more than 50 years. Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was fire-bombed by Allied air forces (the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) over three days (February 13-15, 1945) near the end of World War II. Air Marshall Arthur Harris, inventor of area bombing, ordered the action. He was never held accountable for breaches of Geneva convention or war crimes.

Dresden was widely considered a city of little war-related industrial or strategic importance. Dresden itself was most noted as a cultural centre, with noted architecture in the Zwinger Palace, the Dresden State Opera House and its historic churches. It has been claimed that the bombing was at the request of Russia, to attack a German armoured division 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 Russians).

At the time, town was full of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army. Bomber Command was ordered to attack Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig and other east German cities to "cause confusion in the evacuation from the east" and "hamper the movements of troops from the west". This directive led to the raid on Dresden and marked the erosion of one last moral restriction in the bombing war: the term "evacuation from the east" did not refer to retreating troops but to the civilian refugees fleeing from the advancing Russians. Although these refugees clearly did not contribute to the German war effort, they were considered legitimate targets simply because the chaos caused by attacks on them might obstruct German troop reinforcements to the Eastern Front. There are reports that even civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by British and American aircraft.

http://www.brooksart.com/Noturning.jpg

The fire-bombing consisted of dropping large amounts of high-explosive to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. This eventually created a self-sustaining 'fire storm' with temperatures peaking at over 1500 degrees C. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

3,900 tonnes of bombs were dropped. Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, and 62 administration buildings.

The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Numbers vary from 85,000 to 335,000 dead. (In comparison, some 100,000 died in the bombing of Hiroshima, about 50,000 in the bombing of Nagasaki and 100,000 in the bombing of Tokyo and 200,000 were killed in Warsaw during the Warsaw uprising 1944.) There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ranging as high as a quarter of a million, but they are from disputed sources, primarily the Nazi Propaganda Ministry and holocaust denier David Irving. The Nazis made use of Dresden in their propaganda and promised swift retaliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/9a/Dresd_4.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/6/6c/Dresden.jpg
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000.

There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Some had nightmares, some thought they would go to hell as war criminals, some had unshakable visions of the fires and the burning cities.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-vetscor/911999/posts

[mustamato]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG

"There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Some had nightmares, some thought they would go to hell as war criminals, some had unshakable visions of the fires and the burning cities."


Well, they were just doing their "duty", and would probably have been shot
or ended up in jail if they had refused to. But I hope that those that took
the decision are burning in hell now and will keep doing so.

And I hope that in 100 years or so when the historians will get more objective,
this will definitively be described as the war crime it was. Just as the US
conventional bombings of Tokyo that killed 200.000 and so forth, the atomic
bombings later on and so forth.

[Uninen]

One ****ed up world it was, and still is.. RIP.

[hedgehog]

http://www.frauenkirche-dresden.org/


Check out that link. It describes the reconstruction of one of the main churches that was destroyed in the raid which should be completed next year (60 years after the war finished)

http://212.227.220.31/fkdd/hoffnung.php?i=000033&p=000015&pp=000015&l=en

is a webcam... you can see the difference between the original (black stone) and newly made stones (sand colour)

Apparetnly the new cross that will crown the top was made by the son of guy who particpated in the raid. Pretty ironic but a nice touch

[Tengu]

It would be funny to see how a german would accuse Air Marshall Arthur Harris of a war crime. Especially at that time.

[fantassin]

Yesterday the Sächsiche Staastskapelle played Mozart's Requiem K626 in Dresden in memory of all the victims of this horrible war crime.

This German orchestra was conducted by Sir Colin Davis who has been a member of the Sächsiche Staastskapelle for over a decade.

Let the victims rest in peace.

[oldsoak]

I could never understand the Dresden raid and I not sure there is an explanation why we would risk bomber crews on a target of little military worth to achieve little more than destruction of refugees and a particularly fine town of great culture. I'm afraid risks to civilian lives were not on anyones agenda in those times, simply because an enemy's capability to wage war depended partly on civilian workers who worked in the factories producing weapons. :( That attitude is not one we have now - thankfully. Nowadays precision weaponry enables us to minimise collateral damage and real time intelligence enables us to target effectively. I think it a great thing that the son of one who took part should make the cross on the cathedral - these acts promote healing of old wounds which can only be a good thing.

[Tengu]

I could never understand the Dresden raid and I not sure there is an explanation why we would risk bomber crews on a target of little military worth to achieve little more than destruction of refugees and a particularly fine town of great culture. I'm afraid risks to civilian lives were not on anyones agenda in those times, simply because an enemy's capability to wage war depended partly on civilian workers who worked in the factories producing weapons. :( That attitude is not one we have now - thankfully. Nowadays precision weaponry enables us to minimise collateral damage and real time intelligence enables us to target effectively. I think it a great thing that the son of one who took part should make the cross on the cathedral - these acts promote healing of old wounds which can only be a good thing.precision weapons are very good. But there are regimes who take advantage of western compasion and place there AA-guns next to schools etc.

[Red]

BS,if you start a war,you should be able to take whatever comes to you.The Germans started that **** storm they were fair game.I find nothing wrong with the dresden bombing

[squarehead]

BS,if you start a war,you should be able to take whatever comes to you.The Germans started that **** storm they were fair game.I find nothing wrong with the dresden bombing

So according to your views, it would be perfectly ok if some iraqis came over and killed 50,000 americans? Your government started the war with them so it should be fair game to kill american civilians. :bash:

[Fenna]

I find it astonishing that people can call this a war crime.
It was a war, sadly there weren't any LGBs for the allies to use, so carpet bombing was the option. I wonder if Dresden would have been bombed if Germany hadn't started the war in the first place?

Also funny how the people calling the allied bombing of Germany can call this a war crime, while forgetting the whole extermination of the Jews thing

[Ian H]

I don't think anyone's forgetting that. It is possible, you realise, (though obviously regrettable) for a conflict to contain more than one war crime, and for either side to be responsible for committing them. Just because the Holocaust was a war crime doesn't mean Dresden or Katyn Wood (for example) weren't.

[Haiw]

I find it astonishing that people can call this a war crime.
It was a war, sadly there weren't any LGBs for the allies to use, so carpet bombing was the option.
What you're forgetting is that they in this case they didn't use carpet bombing to hit a military target. The target was a civilian target, the city of Dresden, and the sole intent was to bomb it into rubble and kill as much of the civilians as possible. This happened quite often actually, and the worst thing is that it later proved that those deliberate bombings of civilian targets had practically no effect on the German war effort.

[Fenna]

I find it astonishing that people can call this a war crime.
It was a war, sadly there weren't any LGBs for the allies to use, so carpet bombing was the option.
What you're forgetting is that they in this case they didn't use carpet bombing to hit a military target. The target was a civilian target, the city of Dresden, and the sole intent was to bomb it into rubble and kill as much of the civilians as possible. This happened quite often actually, and the worst thing is that it later proved that those deliberate bombings of civilian targets had practically no effect on the German war effort.

Yeah happened all the time, but Dresden wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for Rotterdam, London, Coventry.

[Red]

who is going to talk for the victims of the V-2 attacks on london,the extermination of african-germans,the sacking of stalingrad?who talks for them?germany deserved what they got and that is what i believe.I guess if Germany won the war we would all be talking about something else wont we?what the heck am i saying,i wont even be here.

[radon]

The question is was that necessary for the war?

[Haiw]

Yeah happened all the time, but Dresden wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for Rotterdam, London, Coventry.
That's not the point. The point is that the allies basically had a whole 'civil targets bombing campaign' that had totally NO effect on the German war effort. The only thing it did was kill innocent civilians. Same goes for the German bombing off the UK.

[Chmiel]

Yeah happened all the time, but Dresden wouldn't have occurred if it wasn't for Rotterdam, London, Coventry.

Don't forget 'bout Warsaw. After Warsaw Uprising in 1944 Hitler ordered to level down whole city as a punishment. Germans first burn the city and after they demolish it with explosives....What for?
Before the WWII in Warsaw were 1.200.000 citizens....after little more than 400.000...

http://www.varsaviana.waw.pl/wo1starowka.jpg
Old Town in Warsaw....after WWII

[Seiyuuki]

Considering, we don't speak about these matters with pride.

[He219]

Two wrongs don't make it right!

The targeting of civilians in a metropolitan area using a combination of saturation and incendiary bombing for the purpose of inflicting maximum collateral damage through a firestorm is nothing less than deplorabe - regardless of what side of the line you may find yourself on.

It has only one name, Terror!


In March, 1945, Winston Churchill gave instructions to Harris to bring an end to area bombing (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarea.htm). As he explained: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."


http://www.rense.com/1.imagesC/dd1.jpg

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."

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.
The WWII Dresden Holocaust - 'A Single Column Of Flame' (http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/europe_german_destruction/img/5.jpg

Bodies are piled up for burning in the streets of Dresden after the 1945 firebombing.

Many refugees died in the firestorm, after fleeing to Dresden to escape the fast-advancing Soviet forces.

One man recorded in his diary in March: "Russian commandos are still busy burning charcoal corpses on huge pyres in the middle of town."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/pictures/DRpyre.JPG

The thousands of bodies had to be cremated after the air raid, in public, on Dresden's Altmarkt square.


Dresden is considered the worst single event massacre of all time.
:|

[Kitsune]

I am quoting an "article" of mine, I posted some time ago:


Ok. I first wanted to sent only a pm but i decided to post this. Its an Add to my earlier post. It is inteded to all those who, like oakes, think that German civilian casualties during the allied bombing campaign were just "collateral damage".

There were some doubts about Allied strategic bombing and wether it really targeted civilian population.

It did. This is not some crap I invented. It is the truth and if you do some research you will find that this is not even debated.

The idea of Strategic Bombing was developed in the 20ties by some Italian military expert. The British adopted it in the early thirties (before the war started) and applied it to their German adversary in WWII. The idea of strategic bombing is to eradicate city after city, causing as much damage as possible, killing as much civilians as possible, destroying as much homes as possible, destroying the supply of food, water, medical stuff...as much as possible. The result (this all was worked by British experts) should be such an enourmus ammount of suffering, (people killed, homeless, starving, unburied corpses leading to disease etc.) that it results in insurrection, the toppling of the Nazi regime and finally in the end of the war.
British intelligence had made a list of all German cities, assessed parameters like population, industry (not only military important one), "burnability" (it's true) and stuff. The bombing war was about destroying one city after another until the war ended. Now of course they still attacked targets which were only of military importance. But again...this was not the whole point of Strategic Bombing. The point was to target everyone. Cities like Lübeck or Dresden (among others) had nearly no military industry. (Lübeck had a high "burnability" parameter, because of its many wooden buildings).
To optimize destruction, a special mix of explosive bombs, phosphor torches and time bombs were used. The main killer were the phosphor torches...each one quite harmless (one can pick it up, it doesn't heard if you take the right end). But hundreds of thousands were used to start thousands of fires, resulting in the burning down of whole cities. In Hamburg a special firestorm effect could be seen for the first time. Later missions tried to create Firestorms deliberatly (with success in Dresden, without success in Berlin, here there were to many broad streets so that the burnings could not combine very well).
The British even thought about using Mustard Gas to eradicate the population (I think Chruchill himself proposed it, but I could be wrong. Any way he knew about the idea). It was not done because experts came to the conclusion that the used mixture of bombs, torches, time bombs was more effective than Mustard Gas (which isn't very effective...Side Note: the only gas who would have been effective was the German Tabun, which is much deadlier than Mustard Gas. Nonetheless the Nazis never used it, even during the Blitz against London. Why is still a mystery to me. Possibly Hitler did not take the British serious enough...).
The Americans indeed targeted military objects only at first. But they joined the British strategy to tatrget the civilian population after a while. British and Amercan bombing tactics did differ however. For example the British preffered night attacks, Americans rather attacked during daylight.

This is just to inform you about the Western allied bombings. It resulted in more than 500.000 German civilian casualties. And they were not "collateral damage". Times have changed indeed: The Allies tried to kill German civilians, the Germans tried to protect there own. Today the American Air Force tries to prevent the killing of civilians whereas the enemy tries to position his headquartes in such a way that as much innocents are killed as possible. :roll:


But again: I did not make this up! Anyone who does not believe it do some research. It is the truth !

Otherwise I can only emphazise what He 219 said:

Two wrongs don't make it right!

It obviously needed, seeing all those posts of "ethically challenged" people like benibo and fenna. (Possibly some people need to be killed in a warcrime before they recognize one...)

For those who fear that we could forget about the Holocaust or the Warsaw ghetto, rest assured! Atleast here in Germany we are constantly bombarded with accusing documentaries about German committed astrocities. I could not even forget even if I wanted to.

Lets put it straight: If members of nation X kill innocent men, women and children of nation Y, they are criminals and deserve to be termed "evil". If members of nation Y now deliberately kill innocent men, women and children of nation X in retaliation, this is also a criminal and evil deed. One crime DOES NOT justify another. Guilt is not transmitted by nationality or race or religion.
I do not want to compare the Dresden bombings to the Holocaust, since we are conditoned here in Germany from childhood on to accept that the Holocaust is the worst crime in human history and not to be compared to any other.
But if SS troopers entered a Polish or French village and put every man, women and child up against the wall it is considered a war crime. And rightly so. (The purpose was to cower the population in submission through the deliberate application of terror to prevent them from supporting resistance movements). Can this compared to the Hamburg, Lübeck, Dresden bombings?
IT CAN. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME. And your British/American war heroes did it. They resorted to the same tactis as the Nazis. In this regard even on a larger scale.

I know it cannot be made undone. All I hope for is, that it is finally recognized. THESE BOMBINGS WERE MASSIVE WARCRIMES AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE WERE WARCRIMINALS.

[Red]

THe point is the Germans started the whole mess,so whatever happened after that was what they deserved.The germans were lucky that they were nok nuked

[Schwabo Elite]

A typical answer for someone who does not have the slightest idea of moral and ethics.
No doubt Germany and the Axis forces were the agressors in the war, but the methods of the allies, of destroying civilian targets, are not justified by that. The basic moral principal of this would be:
You killed my brother, I so I kill either you or your brother...

I cannot believe how many people still adhere to this old testamentarian idea of "an eye for an eye" (no offense to the noc-Christians ment here). And I especially cannot believe how many of these people come out of the biggest and oldest democracy, our US friends.
The British suffered a lot in WW2, but next to the USA they suffered the least of all coutries involved. The Russians, the most fearsome enemy the Wehrmacht had to face, gave a damn about regular massbombardments, although Germany did most damage it caused to USSR territory and citizens. They focussed on crushing the Reich by superior military force and not by trying to break the will through bombing the shi* out of the citizens. The Red Army strategy proved to be more efective, the Germans were more affraid of the Sowjets than of the US/B/F forces.

SE

[hedgehog]

History is written by the victors...always has always will be... I mean c'mon you don't hear manny brave heroic stories about Iraqi soldiers who died fighting for their country.....and they were fighting 2 nations that WMD :) (please don't respond I'm happy S.H. is gone....just trying to shine a light on the other side of the stone)

[oldsoak]

The individuals ultimately responsible for Dresden, Hamburg, Rotterdam , Warzaw etc were those that kicked off the war in the first place. One event leads to another. Sad but true. No 1/9/39 no 13/2/45.

[He219]

THe point is the Germans started the whole mess,so whatever happened after that was what they deserved.The germans were lucky that they were nok nuked

:cantbeli:

No civilian 'deserves' to be targeted for the purpose of propagating terror. You have shared your paltry knowledge of history and should realize the following:

World War II was a socio-political reprecussion fostered by a climate of greed and profiteering in the asymmetric establishment of War Repairations immediately following the Great War. Order within Germany collapsed at the close of WWI starting with the massive American effort that tipped the balance in favor of the Allies, followed by the United States officially entering into the war in 1917 and ending with a Naval mutiny and Communist revolts within the general German polulus by late 1918.

Germany entered into and Armistice based on Wilson's Fourteen Points, however, it was the Versaille Treaty that deprived Germany of around 13.5% of its 1914 territory (some seven million people) and all of its colonial overseas possessions. Alsace-Lorraine was ceded to France and Belgium was enlarged in the east with the addition of the formerly German border areas of Eupen and Malmedy. Among other territorial re-arrangements, an area of East Prussia was handed over to Lithuania, and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia. The United States meanwhile never ratified the Treaty of Versailles after a political shift in Congress.

The irony is that the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian Nationalists and Austria's declaration of War aginst Serbia was only the pretext for mobilization to war a complex system of alliances governed by the aspiration of Rival Central Powers intent on exercizing their military might for socio-economic gain.

And as for that crack about the 'nuke', benibo, the Germanic states up through the creation of Germany proper were culturally progressive by affordeding Jews opportunities rare in other parts of Europe. European anti-semetism eventually took hold in Germany through a socialistic surge that sought to place blame upon the Jews for the ills of WWI. Alas, the fear that German scientists were developing the 'Atom' bomb spurred FDR to enlist the participation of Dissident Italian, German and Hungarian scientists to develop the 'Atomic' Bomb first. However, it was not completed until July 16, 1945, after the War in Europe was already won and after we found out that Hitler was nowhere near attaining an atomic weapon of his own.

Mass murder is no justification to meet political objectives. Period.
:roll:

[AFACadet]

Kitsune actually had a pretty accurate post (or actually re-post I should say).




A couple things I would like the add:

That Italian guy was Air Marshall Douhet. He along with Trenchard came up with the concept of civilian bombing.


As we can clearly see, it was an utter failure and the concept does not work.


The only thing I will take exception with is this part:


The Americans indeed targeted military objects only at first. But they joined the British strategy to tatrget the civilian population after a while. British and Amercan bombing tactics did differ however. For example the British preffered night attacks, Americans rather attacked during daylight.

The USAAF attacked military targets throughout the war.

YES, there were a couple times like Dresden where US bombers were specifically tasked with attacking a city, but those couple times were the exception (a rather poor and ugly exception I should add), rather than the rule.

The USAAF continued to fly during the day to accuratly (as much as possible with the limited technology available) to hit military targets. Once again, there were a couple exceptions, but they were few and far between.


Were civilian targets hit more than I am indicating by the USAAF? Once again, yes, but in most cases, those were not the target. Just think of what was available to the bomber crews to get dumb bombs on target from 15,000 to 25,000 with no computers...



The Pacific is a very different matter though. In the Pacific, the USAAF started hitting Japanese military and industrial targets, but it proved ineffective. So, anti-city campaign started. Unlike in Europe where the military and industry was the target to the end (which required day bombing), the USAAF switched to night bombing to hit Japanese area targets.


There WAS still a military value to hitting Japanese cities with fire bombs--unlike in Europe, there were few centerlized industrial or military centers. Instead, there were very small production buildings spread throughout the city. Daylight bombing was ineffective because they simply could not hit these targets. Being that most buildings in Japan were wood and very close, fire bombs created huge amounts of damage.

The USAAF destroyed these widely spaced production and military centers, but at the same time, took out entire cities.

With that said, there is no getting around the fact that the Japanese bombing campaign was designed to target the Japanese population itself. In the Pacific, we were no better than the British or Germans in Europe (General Le May even stated after the war that if the Japanese had won, he would have been put on trial for war crimes).



Looking back, all this stuff is clear now, but put yourself in the WWII mindset. Many of your opinions would have been MUCH different if you were living in WWII England, US, Germany, or Japan.

[He219]

You misinterpreted Kitsune's remarks.

The Americans indeed targeted military objects only at first. But they joined the British strategy to tatrget the civilian population after a while.
That statement is a far cry from saying we discontinued the bombing of military related targets thereafter...
;)


YES, there were a couple times like Dresden where US bombers were specifically tasked with attacking a city, but those couple times were the exception (a rather poor and ugly exception I should add), rather than the rule.

In terms of civilian casualties, the Firestorm at Dresden was the worst. Hamburg experienced several Firestorms. The industrialized Ruhr bore incessant bombing of civilian centers (it was the rule there) and only southern german cities escaped ruin, mainly because of their range and the enemy defenses over such distances (ie Schweinfurt).

Some area bombing examples where the cities themselves were the target and not the exception:

Berlin (http://www.efootage.com/clip_list.php?cat_id=42)
Essen (http://www.thefilmvault.com/WWII/img145.jpg)
Deusberg (http://www.thefilmvault.com/WWII/img146.jpg)
Cologne (http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/img/PL-42542lrg.jpg)
Frankfurt (http://www.altfrankfurt.com/Spezial/Krieg/)
Nürnberg (http://thirdreichruins.com/nurnruins2.jpg)
Würzburg (http://thirdreichruins.com/42IDWB2.jpg)

Imagine, we even attacked the French city of Caen (http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/img/pa-116510lg.jpg) when heavy bombers dropped 2,561 tons of bombs on the city. At dawn, only smouldering ruins could be seen; a useless destruction since German troops had already retreated and settled in the vicinity.

Have you ever been to Germany, AFACadet? I don't believe that you would have made such a remark had you seen any major northern german city that was laid to waste during the war ...
:D

[AFACadet]

Notice I didn't say area bombing was not used.


I stated area bombing was not the rule for the USAAF. Most of the civilian centers were destroyed by British bombers for the specific reason to kill civilians.


A number of the cities you listed were specifically attacked by the USAAF for punishment purposes (eg the targeting of civilians). But when you look at the amount of USAAF missions to attack military targets vs punishment missions, the percentage is EXTREMELY small.

Also, attacking a military target does not mean the civilian areas around the target will not be harmed. Remember the technology they were using at the time.

You brought up Caen. It is true US Heavy bombers attacked the city itself. But have you read any of the declassified documents from the USAAF or any analsys on this raid? Intel stated that the city was filled with Germans. The mission was to root out the German targets (but like you said, they had already left).

Killing entrenched Germans as opposed to specifically trying to kill civilians are two very different things (most of the town was not there anyway).

[bobdakilla]

You guys are all forgeting one thing .......... how the french forgien legion owns j00 face bitchs

[He219]

Fo' shizzle, AFACadet!

It doesn't take much research (http://www.hco.hagen.de/ruhr/chronic1.htm#1945) to corroberate that British Bomber Command focused on civilians targets wheras the USAAF focused on military (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/raids/hamburg.html) targets .....

;)



bobdakilla, 'forgien' yourself ...
:P

[Catch22]

I think there's a new book on Dresden raid just released. I saw interwiev with author - he's name is Francis Taylor if I remembered corectly. Well, I dont intend to get involved into the Dresden discussion too much but I would like to quote a few things that historian said.

> Dresden was in fact declared a "festung" by german military - ironically civilians werent informed (to prevent panic?), so almost no evacuation had place. About fate of such "stronghold/festung" cities try reading about Breslau/modern polish Wrocław...

> There was quite numerous military production sites in Dresden, so it could be treated as a military target. Dresden in peacetime had had many small factories and workshops producing luxury products from cigarettes to some precise machinery - since Ruhrgebiet was under bombardment, small arms and munition factories tended to move east - some of them were located in Dresden.

> Remember that noone knew in february 45 that end of war is at hand. Allies suffered a heavy losses in Ardennes, there were still occasionally a V1's or V2's over London. Russian winter offensive was at its beggining. Morale wasn't high... They wanted to strike a direct blow to the Germany and force it to surrender ASAP. One of the ways to getting that done was that complex bombing plan - Dresden wasn't "honoured" it was just on the schedule among other german cities.

> Dresden was a tragedy, thats for sure. I'm not fully certain how it sholud be compared with other war-crimes, its hard to match the criteria to compare aforementioned Katyn Wood mass executions and bombing civilian areas. Again Dresden was a tragedy in both human and cultural dimension - Capital of Saxony was a pearl of XVII/XVIII century architecture!

> Last thought: Dresden is a clear example that modern, industrial states simply cannot allow themselves to fight a war against each other - the losses were incalculable 60 years ago, just think about them now.

[martinexsquaddie]

Dresden was targeted at the request of the russians who'd asked for it at the yalta confrence.
interesting fact guess who the dresden authuorities got to ask to dispose of the mass number of corpses. The SS as they had the experiances sorry vote nazi's into power get firebombed tough.
memo to germans don't start wars of agression and genocide if you don't wnat your cities burned

[Royal]

AFA Cadet, as has been said - If you believe that the USAAF only bombed civilian areas of France, Germany or Italy in error, you should take a look at the number of 'errors' your predecesors made.

The bombing of cities (purely to target civilian populations) in WWII was started by the RAF's bombing of Berlin in the spring and summer of 1940. Hitler ordered the 'blitz' of London (and other cities) as a retaliation (indirectly causing the failure of Operation Sealion, as the Luftwaffe couldn't destroy the RAF and carry out the blitz).

The tactic continued for the remainder of the war culminating in the firebombing of cities such as Dresden, Tokyo and Hamburg by both the RAF and USAAF...

[oldsoak]

The roots of strategic bombing go back to WWI - Zepplin raids onto population centres in the UK etc, and the allies doing much the same thing to Germany. In WWII the British set about targetting German cities initially in response to the Germans accidentally bombing London ( The Luftwaffe had been ordered not to ) - the Brits had retaliated by bombing Berlin on the night of 25/8/40 . On 4/9/40 Hitler in a speech directed the Luftwaffe to attack the populations and defences of large cities in the UK. London and other cities got blitzed and then the gloves were well and truly off. ( Incedentally, at the time there was a question raised in the Houses of Parliament about the propriety of bombing private property in Germany, strange though it might seem.)
Hey ho.

[AFACadet]

AFA Cadet, as has been said - If you believe that the USAAF only bombed civilian areas of France, Germany or Italy in error, you should take a look at the number of 'errors' your predecesors made.

Reread ALL of my posts again--very carefully.


You will see I never said that once.

[fantassin]

A few examples of allied bombardments over occupied France:

Allied raids (1941-45) over France : from 1941 to 1944, they caused a total of 67 078 killed and at least 75 000 wounded.

The most infamous were:

1942 -3-3 Paris (Renault factory) 623 †
1943 -4-4 (Renault factory again). 403 †
16/23-9 Nantes 712 † and 800 wounded
sept. Paris 105 †
1944 april Lyon 600 †, St-Étienne 870 †
20-4-1944 Paris (Chapelle train station) 642 †, 2 000 wounded
27-5-1944 Marseille 1 979 †.

[seventy6er]

Würzburg (http://thirdreichruins.com/42IDWB2.jpg)


That's my hometown.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

To say that the Allies who ordered & conducted this raid did so only to cause innocent death, and that they knew it would do nothing to shorten the war is not reasonable, IMHO. They would have had to by psycopathic killers to do this, and they would probably have continued it elsewhere, once the war was over.

I believe that they must have had good reason to do it. Even if it only shortened the war by a day, they could have justified it. Like AFA Cadet said - this must be viewed from the POV of the people ordering the raids at the time. They were swimming in death - innocent and otherwise. They ordered "innocent" soldiers of their own forces to their death every day. Their friends, family, and comrades had been killed in the war.

I wonder who they viewed as more "innocent" - a 17 year old kid from Iowa who was drafted & sent to the front line, or a 35 year old woman in Dresden who made bombsites for the Luftwaffe?

We now look at it with 50+ years of separation & abhor the violence. The planners wanted the war over fast & viewed it as their duty to do everything possible to end it. Much as Saddam's forces did in Iraq - using mosques for planning & conducting raids, they probably believed Dresden was used as a safe haven of sorts.

Man, if I'd lived in those times in Germany - the last freekin' place I would have wanted to hide would be a city. Cities get bombed. Did the Allies drop leaflets there & tell the civillians it was off limits or something? The Brits had to evacuate all their city kids to the countryside, didn't they? Did the Germans do the same?

[fantassin]

There was a documentary on british TV last year on the subject of german cities bombing.

They acknowledged the fact that Churchill had asked for a list of German cities classified by different degrees of "burnability" (that was the word used then) to be drafted.

Whenever he felt the Germans had to feel the pressure of the allied, he would order a highly "burnable" city to be attacked.

Wurzburg was given as the perfect example of a city with no industrial or military value that fell prey to the "burnability" list because it was an ancient city in which many houses made of wood were packed close together.

[AFACadet]

2Sheds_Jackson,


The British commanders (and US commenders in Japan) at the time honestly felt that bombing the cities WOULD result in the war ending sooner.

Sure, part of it was simply due to the fact that they wanted to punish the enemy as much as possible, but current airpower theory of the time thought that the people of the bombed cities would revolt, take down the government, and end the war.

Its only in hindsight we see that is not the case.


The US planners that came up with the air war in Germany fully understood that concept, but thought attacking other military and industrial targets would be MORE effective than bombing the population.

Also think about what much of the population of England and Germany was doing at the time--supporting the war effort. If you're in direct support of the war industry by build weapons ect, who's to say that you are not actually an actuall military target?

That's when you get into moral questions though and it gets down to personal opinion.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

At some level, the people were supporting the war effort, and respoinding to the bombing would divert forces from the German military. But I guess "how much" is the question.

Also, just because the Allies compiled lists of cities that would burn easily doesn't give any insight into anything. To them, I imagine that the list simply separated "targets" from "really good targets"...not "targets" from "non-targets".

Does anybody know if there were any areas that were truly "off limits" to both or either side? For example, nobody bombed St. Peter's Square in the Vatican.

A purely hypothetical quesiton-

What if a nation built a missile silo in the center of a huge city, like London, Paris, NY etc, and fired missiles at its' enemy, killing tens of thousands every year? The only way to destroy the silo would be a direct hit with a nuke. Would the attacked nation be justified in nuking the heart of a huge city to stop the killing? Surely some in the city would be involved with the silo - operations, support, material, etc., but the vast majority would be "innocents". These are the kind of questions that leaders deal with in wartime. Ugly stuff.

The question doesn't match Dresden very well, because nobody thought destroying Dresden would certainly end the war. But it's a logic exercise of sorts - can killing innocents ever be justified? I don't know, and the more I think about it, the more I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.

[hank]

That is tough. The weighing of human lives is a messy business. I have to say that overall I don't have a lot of sympathy for Dresden. I mean if the Germans had had B-17s in 1940 London might have looked a lot different. Not our fault that we were more efficient bombers, is it? I mean, where do you stop.

Certainly individual German citizens can't be blamed for WWII attrocities, but there is a certain complicity level in allowing a megalomaniac like Hitler to get power, kill 6 million Jews, invade Russia, and generally take the world to the brink of destruction. In that context, why cry about Dresden? Not to disregard human life, b/c it is a horrible story to be sure. But let's face it, there are a lot of horrible stories that come from WWII.

I mean, carrying this to its logical conclusion, every bomb dropped on a city, intentional or not, is unjustified, right? They don't call it total war for nothing.

The missile thing is tough. For Truman, I think we know his decision. I'd hate to have to make it though.

hank

[Kitsune]

@2Sheds_Jackson & Hank

I have read your comments, and I must say I am disgusted. You both are either evil or stupid or both.


I have really thought about wether I should answer this at all. I have decided to do it, I don't know why exactly. Anyway.


Let's begin here:
2Sheds_Jackson wrote:


To say that the Allies who ordered & conducted this raid did so only to cause innocent death, and that they knew it would do nothing to shorten the war is not reasonable, IMHO. They would have had to by psycopathic killers to do this, and they would probably have continued it elsewhere, once the war was over.

Of course some thought that. As the campaign started Harris held a speech in which he said: "There are those, who say that a war can never be won with bombs. But I say: It has never been tried befor!"
This shows clearly, that there were doubts, wether this would be effective. It was done nontheless.

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:

I wonder who they viewed as more "innocent" - a 17 year old kid from Iowa who was drafted & sent to the front line, or a 35 year old woman in Dresden who made bombsites for the Luftwaffe?
What a kind of reasoning! What aboout the 17 year old German boys the bombings killed? The 6 year old girls? The 5 weeks old babies? Besides it was YOU ****ING GOVERNMENT that chose to draft these 17 year old Iowanians. Probably you should add this to the accusations and not justify the killings of innocents with it.

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:

Man, if I'd lived in those times in Germany - the last freekin' place I would have wanted to hide would be a city. Cities get bombed. Did the Allies drop leaflets there & tell the civillians it was off limits or something? The Brits had to evacuate all their city kids to the countryside, didn't they? Did the Germans do the same?
Yeah of course. Cities were evacuated as much as possible, children got seperated from their parents. But what do you want to say here? That if one bombs the cities and civilians are killed it is there fault because they were stupid enough to be there? Or what?
(Besides: After the big raid on Dreseden there were aditional air-raids mounted, this time targeting the suburbs: British intelligence had information that many refugees had fled there after the raid. They now tried to kill them there. A interviewed British bomber brew member said, that after this prep session with the intelligence guys there could have been no question anymore, that killing civilians was the main objective here.)

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:

The question doesn't match Dresden very well, because nobody thought destroying Dresden would certainly end the war. But it's a logic exercise of sorts - can killing innocents ever be justified? I don't know, and the more I think about it, the more I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.

Yeah, I must say, after reading this I tried to imagine what it must have been like to be Harris...to make that decision. I literally bursted into tears. Did not stop sobbing for three hours. The poor man. In a speech to his SS Gruppenführer Himmler said something similiar. That the killing of innocent jewish people puts a terrible strain on the soul not everyone can take. It is soooooo saaaad!!!*Whimper*
:cantbeli:

hank wrote:

That is tough. The weighing of human lives is a messy business.
Yeah isn't it? But after reading your posts I must say you seem not too much troubled by it. Neither is 2Sheds_Jackson. Is this mental strenth, lack of imagination or just plain cruelty?

AFACadet wrote:

The British commanders (and US commenders in Japan) at the time honestly felt that bombing the cities WOULD result in the war ending sooner.

Sure, part of it was simply due to the fact that they wanted to punish the enemy as much as possible, but current airpower theory of the time thought that the people of the bombed cities would revolt, take down the government, and end the war.

Its only in hindsight we see that is not the case.

Let's come back to the question wether it is ok to kill innocent civilians.
First some facts: A report of the US armed forces released in the first days of January 1945 assessed the Wehrmachts resistance capability as nearly not existent with the exception of Berlin itself (which the Americans decided to leave to the Russians) and some possible Guerilla like resistance in the Alps.
Nonetheless the bombing terror continued unmitigated. Death Toll from January 1st 1945 to May 8th 1945: around 150.000 civilians.
And let me remind you: To end the Holocaust was never on the American/British agenda. Neither did Allied troops (or bomber pilots) know about it, nor was in any way tried to liberate the concentration/death camps as soon as possible, to save lives.
All in all the leadership of the forces of light displayed an attitude that can be only described as callosity.

But is it ok to kill innocents, to make war on women and children, if you think it is possible that a conflicts ends sooner?

Question: what about the SS eradicating Villages in France and Poland? You know that they did this to because French and Polish civilians supported the resistance? They just wanted to end it as soon as possible...Yeah, only in hindsight one can say that this were bad deeds, right?

Or lets take Saddams gassing of Kurdish villagers. Some (Americans) seem to have a problem with it, but why? There was an Kurdish insurrection taking place, you know? Sadam just wanted to end this as soon as possible, preventing bloodshed. Yeah...he probably had the best intentions in mind. Now, thinking of it, the man should probably be nominated for Nobel peace prize, shouldn't he?

Yeah and what about 9/11? If its legitmate to kill every civilian (he is contributing to the enemies efforts after all) the WTC was a perfect legitimate target, was it not?. What's the problem?

And if it is not working? If a conflict is not shortened? (Actually, there is an agreement now, that the bombing of civilians did not shorten the war by one day. Had one used these resources to additionally bomb military tagets or strengthening ground forces the war could have been even shorter. Ironically the Germans had made the same mistake. Until a British raid on Berlin the Luftwaffe was strictly forbidden strike civilian targets or even London. After this British raid, Hitler was so furious that he now ordered civilian targets like London, Birmingham or Manchester attacked (the man was evil you know)...experts now agree that this additional efforts of the Luftwaffe made it possible for the RAF to recover, and therefore the Germans lost the Battle of Britain.

But anyway...the British/American command did not know it would not work! Who can blame them for trying?
I CAN. AND I DO. If this would be an acceptable excuse, everyone could start to slaughter women and children in ANY conflict. "I just wanted to end these terrible war as soon as possible! It did not work? Ups :oops: . Well, I did not know that!" should be a line memorized by every dictator and terrorist.
In fact the whole term "warcrime" would become senseless. And the Americans are quite pecky here! They even courtmarshalled civilans who lynched shot down bombing crews! (Not that this is a right and just thing to do. But the civilans, who attacked their tormentors, I atleast CAN understand. I DO NOT understand how somebody can kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, women and children included and then accuse people who lynch bombing crews of committing a crime. The nerve!)


In the end it is quire simple. You make war on soldiers. Never on civilians. Never on women and children. Sometimes civilians will die. But that is called collateral damge and should be prevented as much as possible. But it happens. It is sad but no warcrime. (And this is also the solution to 2sheds_Jacksons example:

What if a nation built a missile silo in the center of a huge city, like London, Paris, NY etc, and fired missiles at its' enemy, killing tens of thousands every year? The only way to destroy the silo would be a direct hit with a nuke. Would the attacked nation be justified in nuking the heart of a huge city to stop the killing? Surely some in the city would be involved with the silo - operations, support, material, etc., but the vast majority would be "innocents". These are the kind of questions that leaders deal with in wartime. Ugly stuff.

If a nuclear bomb would be the ONLY option to prevent this military target from firing, then you have no choice. But even hten you should use a tac nuke and not a 10 Megaton H-bomb, if possible.

But to make civilians your EXPLICIT target (As British and Americans have done), to kill them deliberately (As British and Americans have done), to agonize them, to terrorize them...is a WARCRIME. "Good intentions" do not excuse it. The idiotic phrase "it were different times back then" does not excuse it. The German warcrimes do NOT excuse it (neither are the German warcrimes in any way mitigated by the Allied ones). There is NO excuse for it.
A soldier does not make a war on non-combatant men, women and children. If you do, you become a terrorist in uniform. A warcriminal.

There are no exceptions.

Any other comments like:

Certainly individual German citizens can't be blamed for WWII attrocities, but there is a certain complicity level in allowing a megalomaniac like Hitler to get power, kill 6 million Jews, invade Russia, and generally take the world to the brink of destruction. In that context, why cry about Dresden? Not to disregard human life, b/c it is a horrible story to be sure. But let's face it, there are a lot of horrible stories that come from WWII.

show only what a complete asshole the commentor is.

hank wrote:
I have to say that overall I don't have a lot of sympathy for Dresden.
And I don't have have much sympathy for you. If you are ripped apart by a bomb I will not shed a tear, believe me.

[Fox2]

Until a British raid on Berlin the Luftwaffe was strictly forbidden strike civilian targets or even London. After this British raid, Hitler was so furious that he now ordered civilian targets like London, Birmingham or Manchester attacked (the man was evil you know)...experts now agree that this additional efforts of the Luftwaffe made it possible for the RAF to recover, and therefore the Germans lost the Battle of Britain.

As much as I enjoy a good flame, this is false. I guess the invasion of Poland in '39, when the Luftwaffe intentionally and deliberately bombed civilian targets doesn't count. You see, they saw that if they bombed the city, the civilians would all clog the roads trying to get out, and therefore keep the military contained. Once they dropped a single bomb on a village, taking out the military there was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'm gonna stay out of this inevitable flame war though, because I think Kitsune here has something personal in it. Hence, why he is defending the tactics of the Germans so fervently and attacking the Allied viewpoint so vehemently.

Comparing the Allied liberation of Europe to the events of September, 2001 is repulsive, and an all-time low for this forum.

Believe what you wish, but arrogance and ignorance will not win you any credibility. Neither will name-calling and immature quips such as "You are either evil, stupid or both."

[AFACadet]

I agree, I'm going to stay out of this one as well. The anger clouding people's vision too much.



I am going to leave with this:


I know a lady (and her husband who died a couple months ago). They came over to America in the Late 40s/early 50s. Her husband was in the Luftwaffe for a while (He 111 nav on the Eastern Front) and fought in the Battle of the Bulge as a German Paratrooper.

She worked in an ammunition factory back at home. In fact, she was bombed by some US bombers while working there and lost her foot to the attack.


Where these two bitter and angery?


They had every right to be, because Kitsune, unlike you, they actually lived though it. They actually saw people around them die. They experenced the cities being destroyed. He was shot at--and shot back. She was personally affected by the bombing attacks--for the rest of her life.


No, these people aren't bitter or angery or blameing, ect, ect, ect. I never heard a hateful word come out of their mouths--ever.


You could see it in their face when they talked, they knew they had to move on.




With that I'm done with this thread.

[hank]

Kitsune, I don't really see your point. Of course I am troubled by it. But why do you think that the people of Dresden are more deserving of my sympathy than the people of London? Germany started the mess when they began their European domination plan. Once that happened, all bets are off.

My preference would be to never bomb another country again. Let alone another city where civilians die. But in this case, and a lot of others, we don't get that choice.

I am sorry that you think I am being cavalier about this. Maybe this will clear something up. I went to Germany in 1992. Very soon after the wall came down. Went to Dresden for a day. Also went to Buchenwald for a day. Moving experiences both. Before that time I had it in my mind that Hitler killed just the jews in concentration camps. Buchenwald, in fact, held relatively few Jews. Many Jews died to be sure, but in camps other than Buchenwald. Buchenwald killed mostly communists, Gypsies, and mentally ill people. Brutal was the treatment they received. I looked into the ovens. I saw a pile of gold teeth that were pulled from the mouths of live people before they died. I saw jewelry made from human bone. Stunning. Life-altering. Disgusting.

Worst part is the sign at the gate. Denken sind frie. Thoughts are free. Some really sick f--k put that on the gate. I understand this phrase was common.

Now, you want my sympathies for the people of Dresden. You have it. Awful what happened there. An absolute tradegy. Needless loss of life to be sure.

So was Buchenwald. What did the Gypsies and slavs killed there do to deserve their treatment? Born wrong?

Point is that at some level the German people in Germany in the 1930s bear responsibility for Hitler. They paid a terrible price for that responsibility to be sure. But the nation of Germany took affirmative action to install Hitler into power and suffered consequences. What afirmative action did the Gypsies take? The jews? You tell me.

I choose were my sympathies fall, and after seeing Dresden and Buchenwald first hand - mine fall with the Dead at Buchenwald.

Sorry if you disagree, you have that right. There is a lot of pain to go around in Europe from WWII. I am not offended at your post. But think twice before you accuse someone of being cavalier about death.

By the way, I stayed in Jena during summer 1992. George Patton walked the streets of jena in summer 1945 b/c the US 3rd Army captured the town. Then Ike traded that territory for 3/4 of Berlin later in 1945. I feel for the people of Jena who welcomed Patton. The people of Jena told us that many Jenans who helped Patton were killed by communists when America turned it over. I feel for them, too.

hank

[hank]

You know what Kitsune, after I posted my thoughtful response and said I was not offended, I read your post again. Changed my mind. F--K you. F--k Dresden. A whole lot af Americans died to free Europe and the more of you jackasses I meet the more I think it was a waste of valuable American lives.

We should have let Stalin march all the way to France and kept the whole GD forsaken place. I've been to Europe three times. Not again.

F--k you mindless jack---.

hank

[Kitsune]

Fox2 wrote:
I guess the invasion of Poland in '39, when the Luftwaffe intentionally and deliberately bombed civilian targets doesn't count.]

You are absolutly right there Fox2. IT DOES NOT COUNT. What ever the Germans did has nothing to do with it. One warcrime does not justify another. If someone kills your wife, he is a criminal. If you kill his daughter as revenge, you are a criminal as well. Get it?

fox2 wrote:

Comparing the Allied liberation of Europe to the events of September, 2001 is repulsive, and an all-time low for this forum.
Why? Because 3000 Americans are more worth than 50.000 Germans? What ever Americans felt back in NY, Germans felt in Dresden. Only Dresden was worse. As was Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Lübeck, Würzbug, Mannheim, Bremen...
An act of terrorism civilians is like any other. And this was terroism. Planned with chilling cruelty ("burnability factor"), only surpassed by the German planning of the Holocaust. (Which does not mitigate it). Object was to cause as much suffering as possible to TERRORIZE the German population into throwing of the Nazi rulership (mistake of thought: once a civilian sits in the ruins of the city, scavenging for food, he or she has hardly any time to plan overthrowing anyone, anymore). It does not get more terroristic as that. Wearing uniforms does not change it. Think about it. (If you can!)

Fox2 wrote:
Believe what you wish, but arrogance and ignorance will not win you any credibility. Neither will name-calling and immature quips such as "You are either evil, stupid or both."

I am hardly the ignorant here. I called them that because it is true. And obviously it goes for you, too.

Fox2 wrote:

I'm gonna stay out of this inevitable flame war though
Please do.

AFACadet wrote:

The anger clouding people's vision too much.

For yourself anger is not even needed. Yor vision is permanently clouded.

I know that a surpring number of Germans, who lived through it, blamed not he Americans for it. It is astounding indeed. On the other hand the British (who lost 30.000 civilians compared to the more 500.000 German civilians and whose cities were far less reduced to rubble, whereas in Germany our history was literally taken away in nearly every city) are often resentful to this very day. Probably a psychological phenomenon.

But that is also no excuse. I am angry, thats damn right. Angry about the incredible arrogance, callosity and indifference of some people, who try to excuse the deliberate mass slaughter of civilians with a shrug.
Everyone is always bitching about Germany, we are exspected to face the astrocities of our past.
But why does this not go for you as well? Gives the victory the right to you to portray yourself in the shining light of goodness and justice?

Americans and British represented the ethically better side, no question about it. But they also committed shocking astrocities, which, until these very day, have never been acknowledged by them. Every other year a new German astrocity is uncovered (a short time ago it was a village in Italy were civilians were shot as a punishing act by the SS) and again we go. But similiar actions of the Allies are ignored. Only they used the Air Forces to do it. As if it were any difference. And it goes for the Germans and the Japanese alike.
120.000 perished in the raid on Tokyo in May 1945. If the US had at least demonstrated the nuclear bomb by using the first in the countryside only the second would have been necessary. This would have saved 80.000 lives. The US did not even try.

You, know in some way you are lucky that the Holocaust has happened. I have always asked myself wether the British/Americans would have used the same tactics if the Germans hadn't committed astrocities. Although we will never know for sure, the bombings were NOT justified with German astrocities towards the Polish, for example, as they were implented. And the German behaviour towards the British was surprisingly fair and respectful. After Hitler had conquered France he in fact offered the British peace. He even offered them to stop the occupation of France if Britain would stop the war, did you know that? Britain declined. The Air raids were against military targets only (Coventry for example was a nexus of the British arms industry) until the British raided CIVILIAN targets in Berlin. Only then he ordered British cities attacked. (This was quite predictable, I have always asked myself wether the British actually could have foressen that reaction...chilling thought. But we will never know).

Possibly, without German astrocities, Americans and British would be in trouble know. But they happened. "So let's not talk about Dresden. So many worse things happened in WWII. Lets talk a bit more about German mass murders..."


AFACadet, Fox2, hanks, 2Sheds_Jackson or who ever else, wether I have personally seen the bombings or not, I am damn right in pointing this out. You haven't seen it either AND excuse it this slaughter as justified or as not that bad.

Sorry but...I am not the arrogant bastard here.

[Kitsune]

I must say, came quite close to regretting some things I said....until I read hanks last post.
That simply does it.

Hank, you a really beneath contempt.

[hank]

Dickhead, Truman warned the Emperor and got a bug f--k you before he dropped the first one. Then after the first one we got another big f--k you. They surrendered after the second one. Good thing, I guess, b/c we only had the two and it would have taken time to build more.

You're a punk. Nobody is saying that needless lives were lost in Dresden. But hell, man, look around. Every continent, except maybe South America, exprienced needless loss of life in WWII. If you want me to cry for Dresden, so be it. It was awful. Absolutely awful. But was it the worst, who the hell knows. I can't remember the number of worldwide dead as a result of WWII but it would have to be in excess of 20 million I would think. 20 Million so Hitler could have Europe? And you want us to say that Dresden was the worst or uncalled for? Get a f--kin clue.

hank

[hank]

Kitsune, the feeling is mutual, I assure you. I regret ever coming to this thread. But now I just pity you. Real pity.

hank

[Fox2]

Kitsune, American lives are not worth any more than German lives.

I understand now you have a personal stake in this being from wherever you're from (I'm guessing Germany) and cannot be objective. What you need to understand is that the WTC attacks were just two years ago, and are still fresh in the minds of most Americans. When you compare Nazi Germany to the US of today and terrorists to the Allies of WW2, that is as disrespectful as you claim us to be.

The difference between the two is thus:

Germany instigated World War 2. Germany decided to invade the rest of Europe.

The events of 2001 are different in that we weren't at war with Al Qaeda at the time. The inhabitants of the WTC were not building the machinations of war so that the US could invade Afghanistan. We did not invade their land. We did not attack them first. They were the aggressors.

No one is saying two wrongs make a right. The bombing of Dresden was definitely a tragedy and not something to be proud of. But if you can't see the cause and effect there, then you will not ever see it.

Insulting others' intelligence and throwing around playground labels simply shows that you are immature to have a fruitful discussion about the subject.

[hank]

Fox2 - thanks - that last Kitsune post just p---ed me off. Lost lives are lost and thus tragic, whatever the nationality. Tell you what Kitsune, I'll pray for Dresden tonight before I close my eyes.

hank

[sepiasilence]

Strategic Bombing during World War II was unlike anything the world had previously witnessed. The strategic bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing) campaigns conducted by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and the Empire of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan) used conventional weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_weapon), incendiaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_bomb), and nuclear weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon).
The Government of the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich) authorised the bombing of civilian targets from the first days of the war, while the British Government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules prohibiting attacking civilian infrastructure outside the combat zones, this adherence to the draft rules was abandoned on May 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15) 1940, one day after the Rotterdam Blitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#_note-FrederickTaylor)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#_note-ICRC-Amsterdam) On August 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_24) 1940 some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast of the city. A period of reciprocal retaliation begun, mainly focussed on industrial areas. In February 1942 the British abandoned attempts at strategic precision bombing and with the issuing of the area bombing directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive) to the RAF, put most of their strategic bombing efforts into area bombardment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombardment) and the "dehousing" of the German workforce.
The United States Government entered the war intending to use strategic precision bombing, which was used with mixed success in Europe and never abandoned as a policy. However over Japan because of the jetstream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstream), strategic precision bombing proved to be a failure and the policy was abandoned in favour of policy of area bombardment.
In World War II aerial bombardment claimed 60,595 British and between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilian lives.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#_note-0)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#_note-1) The American fire bombing of Tokyo, Yokohama, Kobe and many other Japanese cities and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians

[sepiasilence]

From the beginning of the war Germany engaged in massive air raids against Polish cities, bombing civilians, hospitals, and refugees. Cities like Warsaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw),Wieluń (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielu%C5%84),Frampol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frampol) and many others were devastated by indiscriminate German air bombardments, often targeting civilians. In case of Frampol, the city was destroyed as test case to determine the effects and accuracy of bombardment. The first bombs that fell on Germany during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), were dropped by a single PZL.23 Karaś (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Kara%C5%9B) of the 21st escadre on a factory in Olawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olawa). Even though the Polish Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Force) had a small fleet of modern medium-range bombers such as the PZL.37 Łoś (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.37_%C5%81o%C5%9B), before the full scale of German war atrocities became known, Polish officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_%28armed_forces%29) were reluctant to order strategic bombardment of targets in Germany for humanitarian reasons. Then just in a period of a few days the Luftwaffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe)'s numerical and technological superiority took its toll on the Polish Air Force and such operations were impossible to carry out.

[sepiasilence]

A lost German bomber crew accidentally bombed London. The RAF responded by bombing Berlin on the night of 25/26 August. This was politically embarrassing for Goering as he had boasted of the Luftwaffe ability to protect major German cities. Not realizing how close the Luftwaffe was to success, after the bombing of Berlin, Goering switched Luftwaffe strategy, from attacking airfields and strictly military targets to bombing cities, in particular London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London), which was attacked for the first time on September 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_7). Many other British cities were hit, including Birmingham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham), Liverpool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool), Bristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol), Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast), Cardiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff), and Coventry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry). The given aim was strategic—to destroy ports and industrial installations—but there is no room to doubt that destroying the will of ordinary people to fight was a major factor, perhaps the major factor. [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#_note-3)

[sepiasilence]

Year RAF Bomber Command US 8th Air Force1939 31 tons -1940 13,033 tons -1941 31,504 tons -1942 45,561 tons 1,561 tons1943 157,457 tons 44,165 tons1944 525,518 tons 389,119 tons1945 191,540 tons 188,573 tonsAll's fair in love and warfact of life..it aint fair, your countrys at war...your at war...your a target, go on bout ethics and all that bollocks for as long as you want, wont change ****millions of civillians died as a result of both sides actions...but the bottom line is the allies wudnt av taken these actions themselves if the GERMANS hadnt started a global ****in war u dip****

[Sith]

I have read other threads such as this one and it always ends the same. Many times people unconsciously view history through a contemporary lens. Then people start flaming each other with comments such as “your country did this and that; therefore, you deserved it,” “it’s a war crime,” or “You did it first so it makes it right for us.” Or whatever the statement, it does not really matter. The point is that it gets emotional, uncivil and unproductive.

Let’s face it, all sides commit terrible acts during WWII. When speaking of strategic bombing, it is not a matter of who did what. The real question is WHY did they do it. The answer is Dewhey’s theory of airpower. (Dewhey is spelled wrong. I can not remember the correct way so this is phonetic.) This theory was created during the interwar years and it was based on the Zeppelin bombings of London during WWI. At the theory’s core was two basic beliefs. First, was that the bomber would always get through. Second, was that by bombing cities the civilian population would begin to apply intense pressure to its government to end the war (to stop their suffering). This second factor was the critical one. All sides believed that they could end the war through strategic bombing. Despite the fact that there were plenty of opportunities during the war to see that the theory was junk, they continued to believe it. WHY? Because of three reasons. First, The belief that it was intensely affecting the enemy’s war effort. Second, they were caught up in the situation and did not take the time to reflect back to the degree they could after the war. Third, was cultural egocentrism. When a particular people were on the receiving end of strategic bombing, they tended to believe that they were exempt from such things. “We can take it because we are British, German, Japanese, French, Russian, etc.”

The point of all of this is that strategic bombing was implemented because everyone honestly believed that it was a war winning strategy. Were some bombings conducted for vengeance purposes? Absolutely, however, it was always conducted within the context of the theory. They were going to get revenge by breaking the other side’s population and win the war. It was only after the war when people could take the time to look back did they realize that they had believed wrong.

I have stepped into this thread because I wanted to convey that such things were not done because they wanted to be murderous. They did it because they wanted to win. Today we can look back upon and firmly state that Dresden was wrong in every way shape or form. By doing so we can avoid such things in the future.

I am not saying that there are not evil and cruel people in the world, but, the question to explore is why good people commit themselves to evil tasks. This is far more productive than playing the blame game when such topics come up.

Thank you,
Sith

[Kilgor]

Let’s face it, all sides commit terrible acts during WWII. When speaking of strategic bombing, it is not a matter of who did what. The real question is WHY did they do it. The answer is Dewhey’s theory of airpower. (Dewhey is spelled wrong. I can not remember the correct way so this is phonetic.) This theory was created during the interwar years and it was based on the Zeppelin bombings of London during WWI. At the theory’s core was two basic beliefs. First, was that the bomber would always get through. Second, was that by bombing cities the civilian population would begin to apply intense pressure to its government to end the war (to stop their suffering). This second factor was the critical one. All sides believed that they could end the war through strategic bombing. Despite the fact that there were plenty of opportunities during the war to see that the theory was junk, they continued to believe it. WHY? Because of three reasons. First, The belief that it was intensely affecting the enemy’s war effort. Second, they were caught up in the situation and did not take the time to reflect back to the degree they could after the war. Third, was cultural egocentrism. When a particular people were on the receiving end of strategic bombing, they tended to believe that they were exempt from such things. “We can take it because we are British, German, Japanese, French, Russian, etc.”



Very well put. Some believe that strat bombing was down out of pure vegence, but its clearly not the case.