Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on March 05, 2002, 03:12:10 AM
-
I thought it would be better to continue the discussion in here...
Lets take a look at the overall situation in Europe in early February 1945. Does it look good or bad for the Germans? Any signs of any potential counterattack throwing the allies back into the sea, or the Russians back into Russia? Any signs of increased German production, any signs of stubborn resistance in the west, or any great defensive lines in the east? Not really huh.
Well lets take a look at the Luftwaffe then. Can they take to the air in vast numbers and perhaps stop or disrupt any allied air missions? Any signs of any new fighter units going active? Do they even have fuel enough to sortie more than maybe 20 fighters at the same time? Not really.
Well then, lets take a look at Dresden. Prewar population of roughly 620.000. With all the refugees from the east its population is around 1.000.000 in early Feb 1945. Most of these refugees are simply passing through on their way west. Sleeping outside in freezing weather, carrying with them all their remaining belongings. Any German units in the area? Nope, as good as every available German soldier is at the front. Dresden is however protected by antiaircraft defenses in the form of antiaircraft guns and searchlights.
How about production then? Any industries in the area? Well..yes. Dresden has at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that are legitimate military targets, and they are reported to be employing 50,000 workers. Among these are some dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the Zeiss Ikon A.G., these are the guys who make the excellent zeiss optics for the German Tiger tanks, some other factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).
Anyway, where is that place located? Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin. Two major transport routs intersects in the city. The north-south axis between Germany and Czechoslovakia runs through the valley and gorge of the Elbe River, and the east-west axis along the foot of the central European uplands. In addition to this, Dresden is the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden is connected to both cities by two main lines.
So, the case against Dresden so far, some industries, a handful of which might be considered secondary targets for any bomber mission. And rated as a key communications center together with Berlin, Leipzig and Munich when it comes to any east-west troop movements.
Enter the Russians.
At Yalta, the Soviet General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians.
"Our wishes are:
[SNIP]
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig)."
Well then, the Russians wants the allies to prevent troop movement from the west to the east. Hey, look at Dresden. The marshalling yards has been bombed twice before. On 7/10/44 8th airforce send 30 bombers who delivered 72.5 tons on target. Then on 16/1/45 the brave 8th returned with 133 B-17's, this time virtually obliterating the marshalling yards with 322 tons of bombs, 42 of which were incendiaries. We know that the marshalling yards were not in operation less than a month after this strike. In fact there aren't that many trains running at all in Germany in Feb 1945. But lets not care about such petty details now. We must stop every possible troop movement from west to east. Berlin and Leipzig has already been hit hard many times. Berlin by a staggering 67,607.3 tons, and Leipzig by a modest 11,616.4 tons. Now its time for Dresden.
So...
On the night between the 13/14th of Feb 1945 the RAF Bomber Command conducted its glorious night raid on Dresden. 722 heavy bombers dropped 1477 tons of high explosive and 1182 tons of incendiary bombs on Dresden. Naturally they did not aim for anything in particular in the city. Heck no. The night bombing is still so inaccurate that the smallest thing they can hope to hit is a city, forget trying to target any marshalling yards. No sir. Aim for the city center. Still using the good 'ol bomber stream tactic, the bombers came in individually over the target in a long long line. The night bombings went on for the better part of the night, lasting several hours. Leaving behind what can only be described as I dunno...the scene of a crime?
The bombings resulted in fires that did great damage to the city proper, particularly in the older and more densely built up areas. Early official Allied post-strike reports estimated that 85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed, that the old part of the city, which comprised the greater portion of the built-up areas was largely wiped out, that the majority of buildings in the inner suburbs was gutted, and that in the outer suburbs, few buildings were effected by the area bombing attack. Virtually all major public buildings appeared heavily gutted or severely damaged. Public utilities, and facilities such as slaughter houses, warehouses, and distribution centers, were severely affected. A very large number of the city’s industrial facilities were destroyed or severely damaged, with perhaps a four-fifth’s reduction in the productive capacity of the arms plants. Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.
So, dawn breaks on the 14th of February. No on can imagine the scenes in Dresden this morning. Anyway, as the firebrigades (or whats left of them anyway) of Dresden do their best to control some of the fires the 8th Airforce are preparing for the days strike. While the people of Dresden are fighting for their lives, trying to survive, trying to save their familymembers 316 B-17s are warming their engines. They arrive around noon. The citizens of the doomed city have no warning before the strike. No air sirens to alert them to the danger, everything in the city is already destroyed.
From the blue sky comes the second wave of destruction. This time a modest 295 tons of high explosive bombs, combined with 295 tons of incendiaries rains down on the city. This time however, the damage is concentrated in the marshalling yards area, after all, the bombers are B-17's, with their excellent Norden sights they actually have some chance of hitting what they are aiming at. The dense smoke over Dresden however makes aiming difficult, so the bombs are scattered all over the city once more.
Home they go, the brave crews of the mighty eight. Heroes of WWII, who took the fight to the Germans, and broke the back of the German war industry.
But they return of course. The next day 211 B-17's return with their load of 467 tons of High explosives. I'm not really sure why they did return a third time...a coup de graze perhaps?
I wont even bore you all with the numbers of civilians killed. No one will ever agree on the total number of killed in Dresden anyway, it was simply impossible to count them all. And no one will ever know how many refugees were in the city that first night.
Nor will anyone ever really care, no brit or american anyway. After all it was war, and the Germans started it. And what the Germans were doing in the east was far far worse. And take a look at Coventry 1940, the krauts did it first. Nope..those Germans sure had it coming.
I think I'll end this post with a quote that pretty much sums up the brittish view on things.
OPERATION 'THUNDERCLAP'
(Attack on German Civilian Morale)
Introduction [SNIP]
7. The following principles are put forward as essential to the achievement of the maximum moral effect upon a civilian population:-
(i) The attack must be delivered in such density that it imposes as nearly as possible a 100% risk of death to the individual in the area to which it is applied.
(ii) ... the total weight of the attack must be such as to produce an effect amounting to a national disaster.
(iii) The target chosen should be one involving the maximum associations, both traditional and personal, for the whole population.
(iv) The area selected should embrace the highest density of population.
(v) Attacks of this nature are likely to have maximum effect when the populaiton has become convinced that its Government is powerless to prevent a repetition. [SNIP]
15. Total devastation [...] would, moreover, offer incontovertible proof of a modern bomber force; it would convince our Russian allies [...] of the effectiveness of Anglo-American air power.
"the bombers ..... must in future be used to kill German civilians" - directive No.22 to BC
-War Cabinet policy paper, dated 3rd. November 1942
I really dont understand how any BC crew member who flew over Dresden, or any other German city for that matter, could ever look at himself in the mirror again without feeling disgust. But then again, that's just me.
-
You still miss a fundemantal difference between Nazism and "the rest"; which did indeed justify any and all measures:
One may survive, in any society by conforming. Wiether or not this confirmance is bearable to you individualy is niether here nor there, but it's still a fact. Those millions of Russians and Chineese who died under thier respective regimes were criminals in the eyes of their leaders (wither you agree with the definition of criminality set by the regime is neither here nor there). The point is: behave and survive.
Under Nazism, on the other hand, no crime was nessacery. One could be condemmend for the mere fact of one's existance.
Now, you've made many well founded critiques of the Allied's standpoints and actions. Critiques which Allied supporters do sometimes need to hear, it's true.
But you persist in defending the indefensible. And going down this dead end road ultimately diminishes you.
-
German TV aired last week a special report about the bombing of Dresden.
It showed that the main target was to kill as much civilians as possible and there has been more losses after the terrorbombing than after the nuke-bomb in Hiroshima.
Even the very near lying railwaystation of Dresden was not attacked or touched by the bombing.
The bombing was an ugly act of terrorism - the war was won for the allies and the city overcrowded with refugees from the Eastern Front.
Today Germany - especially after the reunification - is preparing to rebuild the great dome of Dresden.
40 million Euro have already been collected and the work is going on to rebuild this fantastic building.
-
russian tanks were within 90 to 100 miles of dresden
in august 1944 General Spaatz urged for concentrated attacks of oil targets he was vigorously opposed by Harris who never wavered from the belief that the systematic destruction of urban areas would on its own end the war. Inspite of a persuasive body of evidence to the contrary. But this is a moot point because at the time of the Dresden attacks germany was all but defeated.
Thunderclap was designed as an operation to crush civilian morale and end the war. Despite the fact that 45 of the 60 leading cities in Germany had already been devastated.
Harris's Directorate of Bomber Operations produced some rough calculations on the effects of thunderclap
If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000 we may expect 200,000 casualties. 50% of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack, resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany.........
Originally thunderclap made it all the way to SHAEF before being shelved. It had been opposed by Spaatz. Spaatz made a counter proposal emphasized the destruction of targets requiring precision daylight bombing rather then area bombing.
SHAEF's Psychological Warfare Division had stigmatized thunderclap as "terroristic"
The allies needing to strengthen their hands at yalta and needed some evidence to show the russians they were committed to aiding them in the east.
The joint intelligence committe of the british war cabinet was considering the same problem. On January 25 it produced 2 papers. The 1st proposed that heavy bombers should support the russians in interdicting german troop movements from west to east. The 2nd re examined thunderclap.
Air Commadore Bufton (Director of Bomnbing Ops) suggested to Vice-Admiral Bottomly (Deputy Chief of the Air Staff) that it should include simultaneous attacks on Breslau, Munich and Berlin.
If the operation were launched at a time when there was still no obvious slackening in the momentum of the Russian drive, it might well have the appearence of a close co-ordination in planning between the Russians and ourselves. Such a deduction on the part of the enemy would greatly increase the moral effect of both operations.
The 2nd paper though casted doudt on the likeyhood of the 4 day assualt causing a german colapse but moved to consider the role heavy bombers could play in triggering the uncontrollable movement of huge numbers of refugees back and forth across what was left of the Reich.
Air Chief Marshall Porter was skeptical about the Berlin option, preferring to concentrate on oil and jet fighter production. Nevertheless he conceded that the allies should commit their "available effort" to "one big attack on Berlin and attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, Chemnitz and any other city that would aid in evacuation from the east and hamper troops from the west".
On 25 January Churchill telephoned Air Minster Sinclair wanting to know what plans Bomber Command had for "blasting the Germans on their retreat from Breslau" Portal informed Sinclair about thunderclap but when Sinclair reported back to churchill he took a different line suggesting the use of the Tactical Air Force to hurry the retreating Germans rather then civilians. He stated he believed it would be extremely difficult for heavy bombers to effectively interfere with these german troop movemants.
Churchill replied
I did not ask you last night about plans for harrying the german retreat from Breslau. On the contrary, I asked whether Berlin, and no doudt other large cities in the east, should not be especially attractive targets. I am glad this is under examination. Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done"
I am tired of typing but I will follow up Bomber Commands briefing notes to the groups involved in thunderclap.
All this should be kept in context with the actual situation in Germany at the time.
Harris knew there was no real war industry in dresden, knew there was no troop movements through dresden and knew it would not end the war. Also the soviets were only 90 miles away.
What were left with is what SHAEF's Psychological Warfare Division labeled "terroristic".
-
If I remember correctly, Dresden was captured by Soviet forces 3 days after the bombings.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
You still miss a fundemantal difference between Nazism and "the rest"; which did indeed justify any and all measures:
One may survive, in any society by conforming. Wiether or not this confirmance is bearable to you individualy is niether here nor there, but it's still a fact. Those millions of Russians and Chineese who died under thier respective regimes were criminals in the eyes of their leaders (wither you agree with the definition of criminality set by the regime is neither here nor there). The point is: behave and survive.
Under Nazism, on the other hand, no crime was nessacery. One could be condemmend for the mere fact of one's existance.
Now, you've made many well founded critiques of the Allied's standpoints and actions. Critiques which Allied supporters do sometimes need to hear, it's true.
But you persist in defending the indefensible. And going down this dead end road ultimately diminishes you.
I would like to stress that I have never, ever tried to defend the nazis. And I must admit that it surprises me that you have this opinion of me. I have tried to claim that there is a difference between being German and being a nazi. If this is interpreted as me defending the nazis, then I don't really know what to say. I am also of the firm belief that if you commit a crime, be it a warcrime or a crime against humanity, it does not matter what color your uniform is, the victims will be just as dead, the action just as deplorable.
Two wrongs does not make one right. You cannot say "damn Germans, they shot our POW's" and then turn a blind eye to the instances where allied soldiers shot German POW's, or justify those actions with either "they did it first" or "they had it coming". Neither can you say "damn Germans, they killed innocent women and children", and then turn a blind eye to the Soviet monstrosities when they entered German soil in 45 or to the British area bombing campaign. I have also seen variations on these opinions under the themes "they did it first, but we did it better" or "they would have done it just as bad as us, if they had had the chance" (both these tend to pop up when you discuss wwii area bombings.
The "they did it first" argument is in my opinion hopelessly wrong. You dont really want to go down that road, because that puts you on par with one of the blackest regimes in the history of mankind. The "they had it coming" or "they did it first, we did it better" is also fundamentally flawed.
Allow me to exemplify exactly what I mean. A little known fact is that lots ( =more than 300, less than 1 000) of ethnic Germans were killed in the first days of the war in Poland. When the Germans invaded, some Polish nationalists decided to extract revenge on these Germans. So they killed them, and torched their houses. Now exactly how far would I get with any argument that this somehow justified how Germany treated poles after that?
Punish the guilty ones, regardless of their uniform. Dont blame the innocent ones, regardless of their uniform. Dont try to paint the world in black or white, because it will only lead to false conclusions. Do these opinions diminish me?
-
war is hell ... no matter wich side ... there will ever inoncent killed...
-
I really dont understand how any BC crew member who flew over Dresden, or any other German city for that matter, could ever look at himself in the mirror again without feeling disgust. But then again, that's just me. by Hortlund
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the crew on Enola Gay look themselves in the mirror.
Those 2 A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was uncalled for,,,
,,,and the explanation about huge casualties,in case of invasion
I dont buy it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and dont give the Iwo Jima,Okinawa
story,,,"look how the Jap fought fanaticly.
just my humble oppinion;).
-
At at 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945, the United States conducted the world's first nuclear test explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Nuclear Age was born, a product of the fear, violence, and suffering of World War II. J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, recalled the following passage from the Bhagavad Gita upon witnessing the explosion: "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" - this pretty much says it all.
the history of nuclear warfare (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/chron/index.html)
-
Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? :rolleyes:
The Germans were defeated....everyone new it
Weren't these the same Germans who had mounted a huge counter offensive only 8 weeks before?
War is hell, people die. The victors are heroes and the losers are criminals. This is because the victors are left to write the history. The main difference in this case is that the losers of this particular war WERE CRIMINALS! :mad:
-
War is hell, sure. Repeatedly targetting civilians with firebombs after virtually all the infrastructure of a city has been destroyed is making it worse.
Too often I see the excuse "war is hell" for anything that happens during a war. It *is* hell, I am in complete agreement. The soldiers on the ground suffering emotional stress and seeing their friends being shot to pieces are bound to be affected - I understand why they vent their frustrations in an extremely aggressive manner towards anyone they consider to be the enemy.
But what we're talking about here are men, now far separated from the war, with experience of the tragedy of deliberate bombing of civilians, who are sitting down with a brandy and a cigar and saying "maybe we ought to kill 300 000 civilians in the next two days. That might break their spirits. We know it won't of course: we've been through exactly this, and it only stiffened our resolve, but maybe this time if we let the dice loose, we'll get a7 from one die".
It's preposterous. The Americans did it the civilized way, really (as Toad and others have pointed out to me in the past). They did their best to target military installations.
But what those British gentlemen sitting in the comfort of their homes decided is nothing short of criminal in my book.
Suppose we have an audio tape with Milosevic ordering his entire airforce, including Cessna's and everything else that can fly, to "kill 200 000 Croat bastards". That'd be firm evidence in the court today.
Of course, we must see past times with past time glasses - we cannot apply our current moral standards to the past.
I contend, however, that even with past moral standards, the deliberate targetting and termination of more than 600 000 people, decided by men far away from the war in their comfortable homes, and executed by men who did brave many dangers, but didn't experience the guts and mud of the grunts, is *still* very similar to a criminal act.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have great monuments. When I ask people "what killed more, allied firebombing of Dresden or the nukes?" people say the nukes.
An arrogant atrocity. I look at this with no bias towards the Germans or the Brits. Both did atrocious things - Germans more so than Brits. It does not change the fact that those fine gentlemen did take some horrendous decisions based on something they knew to be false.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
executed by men who did brave many dangers, but didn't experience the guts and mud of the grunts
May I recommend Martin Caidin's Black Thursday. I used to have it on my shelf but it's gone somewhere. IIRC, Caidin in one chapter deals directly with this idea of "the clean air war" envied by the troops in the trenches.
Dresden? I've said all I have to say in the old threads on this topic.
-
If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000 we may expect 200,000 casualties. 50% of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack, resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany
Where did you see this?
Two thirds of the popultion casualties, over one third dead. The highest death tolls in attacks on German cities were in the order of 3%, not 33%.
No bombing rid on Germany ever approached figures like this, Hamburg, a much larger raid than Dresden, killed 40,000, Dresden 35,000. Where have you seen claims that BC calculated 110,000 deaths from a raid?
I contend, however, that even with past moral standards, the deliberate targetting and termination of more than 600 000 people, decided by men far away from the war in their comfortable homes, and executed by men who did brave many dangers, but didn't experience the guts and mud of the grunts, is *still* very similar to a criminal act.
What is your alternative pln for the war that wouldn't involve casualties?
Germn civilian deaths from bombing were a small proportion of Germn deaths overall, and a tiny proportion of total csualties for the war.
If German troops had fortified a city would you have ordered it siezed? Bear in mind the siege of Leningrad killed as many civilians as died in the whole of the war.
Bear in mind also that German death squads killed an average of 8000 civilians every single day of the war. Whatever your plans, you have to be aware every day's delay means thousands more dead.
Based on that average, 10 to 20 times as many civilians were murdered by the Germans in the days between Dresden and the end of the war as died in the Dresden attack.
-
Here's what one survivor of the Dresden raid has to say about it (His comment is at the bottom of the bomber's baedeker quote):
FROM "THE BOMBER'S BAEDEKER"
(GUIDE TO THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GERMAN TOWNS AND CITIES, 1944)
DRESDEN (Saxony)
51°3' N. 13°45' E. 600 miles: (640,000)
Dresden, the capital of Saxony, is situated on both banks of the river Elbe, and stands at approximately 360 feet above sea level. The left bank, with the Altstadt, or old town, as nucleus is the larger of the two parts; in it are found the commercial centre, the residential area and public buildings, and some industries, mainly in its S-Suburbs. Neustadt, on the right bank, and its suburbs contain industrial centres and administration.
In peace time tobacco, chocolate, and confectionery manufacture played a large part in Dresden's industrial activity; there are also a large number of light engineering works and makers of machinery which are now engaged on all kinds of war production, many of which are too small to be listed individually. Several important factories are making electric motors, precision and optical instruments and chemicals.
The munitions workshops in the old arsenal occupy an extensive area to the North of Neustadt, along the railway to Klotsche, in the industrial region which extends past the aerodrome to the Dresdner Heide. In the Heide, a large heath, munitions are reported to be stored in quantities.
Dresden is an important railway centre. The main connections between South and East Germany and the direct line from Berlin to Prague and Vienna pass through Dresden whence several branch lines lead to Leipzig and other parts of industrial Saxony. The river harbour is of considerable importance to the freight traffic of the Elbe.
To the SW. of the town in the valley of the Weisseritz is the industrial town of Freital (dealt with under its own heading) and a small coal field which supplies the light industries that have been developed in Dresden.
Along the northern bank of the Elbe between Dresden and Meissen are a number of industrial settlements which are outside the municipal area of Dresden. These have been dealt with separately under the town headings Radebeul, Coswig near Dresden, and Meissen.
COMMENT:
This is a page from a sort of directory kept aboard British and American bombers, from which crews might pick targets on their own in case they hadn't been able to carry out their assigned mission that night or day. I reproduce it here to show that there wasn't much in the Dresden area worth bombing out of business according to our own Intelligence experts. So burning the whole place down wasn't an exercise in military science. It was religious. It was Wagnerian. It was theatrical. It should be judged as such.
From the appendix of Kurt Vonnegut's "Fates Worse Than Death" Vintage, London 1992 ISBN 0-09-999890-4
-
Toad, not saying it's clean. Just saying there's less mud at 30 000 feet.
And, that other threadh was about the yanks. This one is about the Brits, and this time I got the fact straight.
:)
-
No, you were saying the airmen, "men who did brave many dangers"... "didn't experience the guts and mud of the grunts,".
Caidin does address this in Black Thursday. It's about the Schweinfurt raid that lost 60 bombers and 600 men in one day.
I believe the section has something to do with seeing a gunner sprayed all over the inside of a B-17 after being hit by a 20mm round. I seem to distinctly remember the phrase "clean air war" used with a reference to the "grunts" envying the flyboys.
It's been years since I read it but it sticks in my mind.
Ah well....
-
Where did you see this?
Two thirds of the popultion casualties, over one third dead. The highest death tolls in attacks on German cities were in the order of 3%, not 33%.
As was pointed out no one has accurate numbers. I've seen numbers as low as 3%, and I've seen others much higher. I am talking about the combined effects of the four air strikes.
No bombing rid on Germany ever approached figures like this, Hamburg, a much larger raid than Dresden, killed 40,000, Dresden 35,000. Where have you seen claims that BC calculated 110,000 deaths from a raid?
Again, the combined number of deaths at Dresden is what I am talking about.
What is your alternative pln for the war that wouldn't involve casualties?
Germn civilian deaths from bombing were a small proportion of Germn deaths overall, and a tiny proportion of total csualties for the war.
My 'alternative plan' would simply leave out the targetted assassination of civilian population by use of high explosive and fire bombs. I'd at least make an effort to hit military targets.
The US did it back in those days. The US still do it today. Quite simply, it wasn't necessary.
If German troops had fortified a city would you have ordered it siezed?
Construct as many fantasy situations as you like: I am talking about Dresden here and how the Brits handled it. I am talking about the deliberate act of trying to kill civilians, not reduce a fortification. We're talking intent here. Intent is important in any criminal investigation involving the death of humans.
I.e the idea behind bombing a fortified city: reduce the fortifications and number of enemy troops there. The idea behind deliberately targetting civilians: kill as many civilians as you can, for the sole purpose of making as many of them as dead as possible, regardless of their status.
Bear in mind also that German death squads killed an average of 8000 civilians every single day of the war.
This is the same argument I've seen over and over. Because A did something reprehensible, B, C and D are allowed to do the same, only now it is not reprehensible. Now it's justified. It's a false argument.
If Milosevic kills 30 000 Croats, then it's morally justifiable for NATO to murder 30 000 Serbs.
If the Nazi's kill 6 million Jews, then it is morally justifiable to gas 6 million Germans.
It ain't, in both cases. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Whatever your plans, you have to be aware every day's delay means thousands more dead.
The UK experienced terror bombing themselves. it was quickly established that they didn't crush the will of the civilian population. Quite the opposite. Those gentlemen in command knew it.
Based on that average, 10 to 20 times as many civilians were murdered by the Germans in the days between Dresden and the end of the war as died in the Dresden attack.
The same fallacious argument of justifying one evil with another. The bombing of the civilian population in Dresden contributed how to the allied war machine?
If I sound arrogant now, that's because that's how i read yer response. Just responding in the same tone.
While I can understand that this isn't precisely something a Brit wants to read, whatever happened has happened.
I should also mention that I do not, for one second, berate the pilots. They were doing their job at the time, and took great risks/suffered great losses, while doing so. It's the fat men at home thinking it'd be nifty to kill a couple of hundred thousand German civilians I'm calling criminal. That the Nazi regime was an evil, cruel nasty organisation with no conscience is beyond debate.
-
As to Americans doing it the civilized way - I would have thought the US firebombing of Tokyo was up there with or possibly surpassing Dresden vis-a-vis deliberate slaughter of civilians.
Death toll estimates for Dresden I've seen waver between 8,000 [the initial British estimate of the time :rolleyes:] and 250,000 - although the two figures I see most quoted seem to be 35,000 & 135,000.
The First Tokyo firebombing raid on 9 March 1945 consisted of over 300 B-29s armed with 6 kilotons of incendendiaries targeting a city made largely out of wood. The raid was almost a month after Dresden and almost 2 years after Hamburg, so the USAAF definitely had a good idea of the effects of lots of incendiaries being dropped on a place with lots of wooden buildings. They killed 83,000-100,000 civilians, and total casualties (wounded & dead) were estimated at 180,000. The raids were repeated on Tokyo & other cities and all together, the estimates are the US killed nearly 800,000 Japanese civilians by firebombing before they dropped the atomic bombs (according to Robert A. Pape, associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of "Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War").
Don't get me wrong this is not an anti-US rant - it's an "every country without exception is uncivilized when at war" rant: fairly obvious, really - if they were acting civilized, they wouldn't be at war ;). The important thing to remember for all of us though is that it's not a case of "only they could do that": the truth is far less palatable - We all could do it: all nations have done it.
Attrocities during WWII were no doubt perpetrated by people of all sides (I haven't delved enough to categorically say yes, but I trust in human nature), and IMHO no country came out of it only smelling of roses - which makes it just like every other war in history. In the words of the Dresden survivor I quoted - "So it goes."
PS for Nashwan - the quotes Wotan has are all in "Bomber Command" By Max Hastings, Pan ISBN 0-330-39204-2. Chapter 12 (or just look up Dresden in the index).
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Dresden 35,000.
This number is incorrect, or at least highly questionable. In any occation, it is not a number you want to throw around like that presenting it as some kind of truth.
As I tried to point out earlier, no one really knows how many people lost their lives that night. Because no one knows how many people were in the city at that time. It was impossible to do a body count (because in many occations there were no bodies left).
35 000 is the official allied post strike estimate. The official German estimate is 125 000. Other sources has the number of casulaties somewhere between 60 000 up to 250 000.
But as I said, we will never know.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What is your alternative pln for the war that wouldn't involve casualties?
Germn civilian deaths from bombing were a small proportion of Germn deaths overall, and a tiny proportion of total csualties for the war.
If German troops had fortified a city would you have ordered it siezed? Bear in mind the siege of Leningrad killed as many civilians as died in the whole of the war.
Bear in mind also that German death squads killed an average of 8000 civilians every single day of the war. Whatever your plans, you have to be aware every day's delay means thousands more dead.
Based on that average, 10 to 20 times as many civilians were murdered by the Germans in the days between Dresden and the end of the war as died in the Dresden attack.
There is a difference between specifically targeting civilians, and civilan casualties as "collateral damage".
BC aimed at city centers with the explicit objective of killing as many Germans as possible.
USAF aimed at industries and factories etc. Sometimes they missed completely, and civilians died in every USAF raid too.
BUT the difference is enormous between the two.
Can you prove that Dresden shortened the war with even one hour? Of cource you cant, because it didnt.
And (now comes the interesting part) the brittish bomber campaign probably lenghtened the war if anyting. The resources spent on BC was a complete waste of strategic material. Had the BC crews (all experts, highly trained aviators) been given other assignments than "kill civilians, use these expensive 4 eng bombers", and equipped with other aircraft or equipment than enormouosly expensive heavy bombers. Who knows what would have been achieved and when.
Instead of building 1 000 heavies, how about 4 000 mosquitos flooding Germany like locusts, killing every train, every bridge, every convoy? The resources wasted on BC could have equipped 2 or 3 armored divisions. How much would they have shortened the war? Instead of building 1 000 heavies, how about building
500 LST's, making a Normandy invasion possible in 1943 etc etc I'm only trying to point out, that the British bombing campaign over Germany achieved pretty much nothing, aside from the body count. The effect on German morale or production was neglectable. The resources spent could have been used to significantly shorten the war.
But even after making the flawed desicion to build a strategic bomber fleet, why not use it for something good?
Harris rejected the idea to go after German strategic industry instead of his "dehousing" project. What about a 1 000 plane raid on Ploesti in 1943? What about spreading the attacks, and focusing on German power plants in 1942 (somehting that would have effectively put Germany in a constant black out -Speers greatest fear). Would any of these scenarios have shortened the war?
But no, BC wanted to kill German civilians. Nothing else. There is NOTHING good with that "strategy", it is not justifiable in any way. In fact, had anyone else done it, it would probably be considered a warcrime.
-
thnx dead for the reference ya beat me to it.......
Nashwan 300,00 wasn't the population of dresden but the estimated night population dwelling in the target area. Also the refugee population had swelled the population of dresden.
35,000 is nothing but a guess by the US. They still dont have near half the bodies from the wtc. The estimates of total losses there have been compiled from missing persons.
I believe with some research you will find over 40,000 were eventually identified.
But if theres no one alive left to report you missing and now way to know the total population in the target area theres no possible way to know the exact numbers.
The germans say 135,000. I have seen estimates much higher then that.
Bomber Command sure earned the name "terrorflieger".
The briefing Notes sent to the bomber groups were full of lies.
......is of major value for controlling the defence of that part of the front now threatened by Marshal Konev's breakthrough........The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it the most........to prevent the use of the city in the of further advance, and incidentally to show the russians when they arrive just what Bomber Command can do
There can be no doudt that bomber commands primary objective in bombing dresden was to cause the maximum amout of destruction.
From my previous post (if you doudt the accurracy of that post please say so) that thunderclap wasn't designed to prevent enemy movements but to cause as much damage to the civilian population as possible hurrying the masses of refugees in criss crossing the reich.
Only 6 lancasters were lost in the raid.
6 Group (Canadian) flying in the second wave the crews were informed
Dresden is an important industrial Area producing electric motors, precision instruments, chemicals and munitions
1 Group was told that the aiming point was the marshalling yards and great stress was laid upon dresdens importance as a transportation center.
One crew believed there were to destroy a gestapo headquarters in the middle of the city.
Another was told they were attacking a poison gas factory.
Peter Goldie a rear gunner in 75 (New Zealand)Squadron
They started to explain to us why we going to Dresden. I think there was a hint it was Churchill's instruction to destroy the city. But they really never told us what was there. They just said, "Go in there and firebomb the city". We walked back from the briefing, talking together. I couldn't understand why this raid.
Others wondered if Dresden was so important to the Russians (whos tanks were 90 miles away) why didn't just bomb the place themselves.
On Febuary 16th an unwary air commodore at SHAEF referred to the attack as a "terror raid" and stated that the allies planned to
bomb large population centers and the to prevent relief supplies from reaching and refugees from leaving them
The Associated press jumped on the story due to these statements and reported
long-awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror bombing of the great German population centers as a ruthless expedition to hasten Hitlers doom
This report recieved wide circulation in America but was censored in Britain.
On March 6th Labor MP Richard Stokes quoted freely,in the House of Commons, from the associated press report and from the Manchester Guardian which had commented the day before
Tens of thousands who lived in Dresden are now buried under its ruins. Even an attempt at identifying victims is hopeless. What happened on that evening of Febuary 15th? There were 1,000,000 people in Dresden, including 600,000 bombed-out evacuees and refugees from the East. The raging fires which spread irresistibly in the narrow streets killed a great many from the sheer lack of oxygen
You can imagine the rough ride stokes recieved in the house of commons (any ami watch cspan coverage of the house of commons?). Despite this he launched a campaign against area bombing arguing
there is no case whatever under any conditions, in my view, for terror bombing
On March 28th Churchill minuted in the Chiefs of Staff
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.............The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing.........
With growing controversy around the bombing this note appeared to have been an attempt by Churchill to distance himself from a policy the war cabinet had endorsed since 1942.
Portal responded by demanding the pm withdraw the note, which he did.
On 1 april churchill resubmitted a more carefully worded memorandum
it seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so-called "area bombing" of german cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accomodations for ourselves and our allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the german's themselves. We must see to it that attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run then they do to the enemy's war effort. Pray let me have your views
Harris delivered his views to Bottomley on 29 March
The feeling, such as there is, over dresden, could easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdness. Actually Dresden was a mass munitions works, an intact government center and a key transportation point to the east. It is now none of these things.....
Attacks on cities, like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and so preserve the lives of Alied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaing cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier........
Sounds good dont it? Until one goes back and looks to see if what Harris is saying is truthfull.
Harris knew there was no real war industry in dresden, knew there was no troop movements through dresden and knew it would not end the war.
Everyone involved in the planning of thunderclap knew it to be nothing more then terror bombing.
Terrorfliegers............... ..
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Too often I see the excuse "war is hell" for anything that happens during a war. It *is* hell, I am in complete agreement. The soldiers on the ground suffering emotional stress and seeing their friends being shot to pieces are bound to be affected - I understand why they vent their frustrations in an extremely aggressive manner towards anyone they consider to be the enemy.
I was no saying that as an excuse but more as a "constat" (dunnot if it's an english word)
war is hell wichever side you ar on.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I was no saying that as an excuse but more as a "constat" (dunnot if it's an english word)
war is hell wichever side you ar on.
Like the danish "konstatering",,,, you constat the nature of things,
,,,not changeable?
-
ya, Dawvgrid that the meaning intended
-
Ok, here's the next thread:
"On August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima was the target of the first atomic bomb used against civil population in history. Three days later, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb over the city of Nagasaki. In total, about one fourth of a million people were killed by the two bombs.
Today, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the country of Japan are strongly engaged in banning nuclear weapons and their testing worldwide. "
=============================================
Sorry - if torching a city in war saves OUR side ONE soldiers life, the price is worth it. How would you feel if you knew your brother, father or favorite uncle would be alive today if they'd bombed the place better before sending in the ground troops. You have to break the enemies back to defeat them, sometimes that ain't pretty.
Like it's been stated b4:
WAR is HELL
- don't start one if you don't have the stomach for it's consequences.
-
I really dont understand how any BC crew member who flew over Dresden, or any other German city for that matter, could ever look at himself in the mirror again without feeling disgust. But then again, that's just me.
====
I recommend studying history. The period between 1939-1945 would be most informative to your disposition.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Sorry - if torching a city in war saves OUR side ONE soldiers life, the price is worth it.
That is too simplistic - you forget about many other factors that cost more eventually then lives of a few of your soldiers.
1. If you do not expect to totally eradicate the enemy's population, you would probably expect it to be there alongside your own country in centuries to come - may be even allied agaist some other enemy like soviet communists.
You definitely do not want to leave a country full of hate for your children to deal with.
2. Killing enemy in combat does not change a man nearly as much as murdering defenceless civilians. Do you want a nice neigbour kid to come from war as nice as before only abhorring violence? Or do you want him to come back with a necklace of human ears and wallets made of woman's skin, with no respect for humal life, whoever it is? Who would you want your children live next to?
There was a huge difference between mindset and behaviour of soldiers, civilians and government in Japain and Germany.
Japanese bombings were necessary and performed by a small number of people.
Destruction of Dresden population was a pointless mass-murder devised by some hatefull brit in which thousands of americans were made accomplices.
miko
-
Destruction of Dresden population was a pointless mass-murder devised by some hatefull brit in which thousands of americans were made accomplices.
====
Talk about simplistic!
You know, maybe it just comes down to pure karma. You know, What goes around comes around.
Dont forget about those wonderful Victory weapons, the V1 and V2, which killed thousands of Londoners -men women and children, and left many thousands more homeless and in abject despair.
No, Germany brought war upon herself and paid a terrible horrific price. Every person and every nation should heed the terrible demonstration of total war (of which Dresden was sadly just a minor event -over 40 million tragic and violent premature deaths worldwide in little more than a decade). Unfortunately, we are finding out that pure hateful animalistic brutality still roams the face of the earth on a massive scale and threatens all of us who "do remember" and "are aware" as demonstrated by recent history of the price of total war.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont forget about those wonderful Victory weapons, the V1 and V2, which killed thousands of Londoners -men women and children, and left many thousands more homeless and in abject despair.
No, Germany brought war upon herself and paid a terrible horrific price
How come US were hauling food and fuel to the same germans next winter? How come they became US friends instead of being eradicated? How come germans have been a valuable member of NATO all those years? Different germans?
What practical purpose was served by killing all those people? The war was not advanced a bit. Vengeance? If you were now given a knife and offered a bunch of germans who were civillians in 1945, how many would you have killed?
US brought the Civil War on itself, so according to your logic both sides should have been exterminated for starting it?
Price of war is terribble and horrific under the best conditions. That is no reason to let latent murderers among us to indulge in atrocities against defenceless people.
When there is a disaster like hurricane or terrorist attack, you always get rapists and murderers praying on the defenceless people. Why would you insist on putting them in uniform and making them part of our side? They are no credit to us. The war was won by US economy and real soldiers fighting real battles and a despised british homosexual breaking most of the Nazi codes.
Attributing any credit for victory to the perpetrators of attrocities takes it away from the real contributors.
miko
-
So, Miko2d, do you hold the same regard for the orginators of the idea to drop two atomic bombs on Japan or the firebombing of Japanese cities?
Or were Japanese civilians somehow more deserving of such treatment?
Or did the many hundreds of thousands of Japanese die more peaceful and humane deaths?
I'm sure it's so easy to look back now and wonder how the BC crews could do such a thing. Or how politicians could sanction it. But we weren't there. We didn't spend years under the threat of invasion. We didn't see missiles and bombs rain on our cities. We didn't see friends and family killed in a war instigated and perpetrated like no other.
I bet most BC crews could sum the situation up in one phrase: "It was them or us." I bet most didn't shed a single tear over those they killed - I think that says alot about the situation they were in. After 5+ years of total, brutal war your values shift considerably.
-
How come US were hauling food and fuel to the same germans next winter? How come they became US friends instead of being eradicated?
Because they had already surrendered. One of the best ways to bolster an economy is to go to war with the US then surrender.
How come germans have been a valuable member of NATO all those years? Different germans?
The same Germans. Don't think Europe doesn't keep one eye focussed on that nation since the wall came down. Two world wars in one century cannot be overlooked.
As for the people... I don't know that there's been anything really said about them outside of the wartime environment. At that time, they aren't the people.. they're the enemy.
AKDejaVu
-
35 000 is the official allied post strike estimate. The official German estimate is 125 000. Other sources has the number of casulaties somewhere between 60 000 up to 250 000.
No, 35,000 is the offical German estimate.
The final report of the Dresden police, dated 15 March 1945, sid 18,375 bodies had been recovered.
Report 1404 of the Berlin police, dated 22 March 1945 repeated the same number for bodies recovered, and estimated the true figure was 25,000.
Theo Miller, who worked recording the dead recovered after the Dresden raids, testified that a total of 30,000 bodies were recovered.
Report 1414 from the Berlin police, dated 3 April 45 said a total of 22,096 bodies had been recovered.
The most widely accepted figure now is from book published by historian from Dresden, Friedrich Reichert, which puts the total figure at 25,000.
The figure of 135,000 is the one most often claimed by David Irving.
Irving based his figures, as do most Nazi apologists, on the document TB 47, which claims a figure of 202,040 bodies recovered.
TB 47 had been dismissed as a fogery by historian Max Seydewitz
in the 50s, but Irving continued to use it.
Irving claimed to have recieved TB 47 from Dr Funfack, who he claimed was deputy chief medical officer in Dresden at the time.
Funfack later came forward, denied he had given the document to Irving (Irving had actually seen a copy from a friend of Funfack's), said he had been a urologist, never been involved in the recovery efforts, and had heard widely different figures third hand.
A historian tracked dow a Dresden police reservist, Werner Ehlich, who in 1945 had recieved a copy of TB47. Ehlich's copy gave the figure of 20,204 dead. The fake Irving used as a source had simply had 1 zero tacked on the end.
As you can see from the dates, the figures above are from all the major raids on Dresden, not just one night.
Harris knew there was no real war industry in dresden,
What was in Dresden?
What were the people there doing, whilst the rest of Germany was working round the clock to produce more guns and tanks and planes? When the German labour shortage was so bad they had taken 7.5 million slaves from around Europe to help production?
I'd really like an answer to this one, because I think the tale that Dresden wasn't important to the war effort is rubish, more lies like the cooked up casualty reports, intended by Nazi apologists to claim the Germans were no worse than anyone else.
Note, I'm not accusing anyone who here who made the claims of being a Nazi apologist.
And (now comes the interesting part) the brittish bomber campaign probably lenghtened the war if anyting. The resources spent on BC was a complete waste of strategic material. Had the BC crews (all experts, highly trained aviators) been given other assignments than "kill civilians, use these expensive 4 eng bombers", and equipped with other aircraft or equipment than enormouosly expensive heavy bombers. Who knows what would have been achieved and when.
The biggest problem for the allies was brining force to bear.
Double the sie of the British army and it still couldn't have invaded Europe until 1944.
The bomber offensive was the only way for Britin to engge Germany between 1940 and 1944, apart from the Med, where enough resources were used anyway.
Bomber Command used up 7% of Britains war economy.
Germany, with a much larger war economy, devoted 9% to countering it, without taking into account any damage caused.
Harris rejected the idea to go after German strategic industry instead of his "dehousing" project. What about a 1 000 plane raid on Ploesti in 1943? What about spreading the attacks, and focusing on German power plants in 1942 (somehting that would have effectively put Germany in a constant black out -Speers greatest fear). Would any of these scenarios have shortened the war?
Britin began an oil campaign in 1940, and continued it into 1941. It didn't work, because at the time accuracy wasn't good enough,
and the facts from 1944 show that even if accuracy hd been good, there weren't enough bombers to crry it through.
Take for example the Leuna oil plant. Over a period of a year, 6552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, over 18,000 tons of bombs dropped, and production managed to average 9% of normal. Fewer raids would have meant production returning near normal levels. Plants that were hit hd to be hit again and again after they were repaired.
The total tonnage dropped on oil targets in the campaign in 1944 and 45 was over 210,000, which is far more than the RAF dropped in total in 43.
Coupled with that, accuracy wasn't as good in 43, and Ploesti was captured by the Russians in 44, so to achieve the same result would have taken several times the total RAF bombload of 43.
Power attacks were considered by the RAF, and even tried briefly, but the German grid system was (wrongly) thought to be resistant to attack.
In 1944 the RAF dropped about 2/3 of it's tonnge on targets other than German cities, and far less than half in 45.
But no, BC wanted to kill German civilians. Nothing else. There is NOTHING good with that "strategy", it is not justifiable in any way. In fact, had anyone else done it, it would probably be considered a warcrime.
Kesselring pushed for the Luftwaffe to begin bombing London indiscriminately from early in the BoB. Was he tried for it?
If the Nazi's kill 6 million Jews, then it is morally justifiable to gas 6 million Germans.
If the Nazis kill 16 million "undesireables", is it morally justified to kill 500,000 Germans to stop them?
Not revenge, revenge would be to kill them after the war to punish them.
Furing the war, if ou believe it would stop the Nazis, would you have bombed German cities?
I would. To condemn millions to death because you are to squeamish to kill hundreds of thousands is immoral.
Remember, Harris believed he could win the war through bombing, just as LeMay did in Japan. You are now judging his morals on wether he was successful or not, which seems really bizare.
This is the same argument I've seen over and over. Because A did something reprehensible, B, C and D are allowed to do the same, only now it is not reprehensible. Now it's justified. It's a false argument
Not justified becuse they deserve it, or as punishment.
I am trying to point out to you the difference between modern wars and WW2.
When the Serbs or Iraquis were bombed, the west could do so carefully, taking their time to pick out individual military targets, and attack them with fairly high precision. There was no real rush, because the regimes being attacked weren't mssacring people on anything like the scale.
I'm trying to point out the pressure on the commanders. One days delay means thousands
more dead civillians. Every day.
The idea of Thunderclap was to break the Germn's morale, show them that although they were beaten, things would get worse until they surrendered.
If it had worked, it would have saved a million lives. It didn't, so it becomes immoral?
There was a huge difference between mindset and behaviour of soldiers, civilians and government in Japain and Germany.
Japanese bombings were necessary and performed by a small number of people.
Destruction of Dresden population was a pointless mass-murder devised by some hatefull brit in which thousands of americans were made accomplices.
British area bomb = war crime.
US area bomb = justified. Pathetic
-
BTW...
I've never been in a bar room fight. I don't like to drink and get roudy. But I do like to drink and I've seen quite a few of them start.
I cannot remember harboring any sympathy for the looser of a bar-room fight if he cleary started it. The beating might have been excessive... but could easily have been avoided.
I don't think Germany "deserved" to get firebombed. I don't like the firebombing concept nor how it was implimented. I do, however, believe Germany started the fight and I have little sympathy for how badly they were beaten.
Germany's armies rolled across Europe. Like it or not, that is the act of an entire nation... not just key personel. The reprisals were overwhelming... but not uninvited.
AKDejaVu
-
Spot on dowding.
I just have to keep reminding myself that awareness is a constantly evolving state and many have barely started.
-
On the number of casualties.
As I said in my first post, I dont really want to get in to that one. Simply because there are no answers, and it is easy to get caught in some surreal trench war “BC only butchered 20 000 civilians that night”..”no they didnt, they slaughtered 135 000”. As I said, the most numbers vary from 35 000 to 135 000. But since you seem to add a “revisionist touch” to the matter, I feel I have to answer.
1) There is no “official” German estimate. There is one official allied estimate.
2) Bodies recovered has pretty much nothing to do with actual number of casualties. Although the reading is far from pleasant I suggest you read a bit about the subject. Many simply disappeared, the ones getting caught outside close to the aiming point…others..this is gross, but since you seem to question the numbers I guess we have to get into the gory details…. Many times the rescue personnel would open the door to an airraid shelter and find nothing but a gooey mess. How many people? Who knows. Sometimes they used bathtubs to transport the remains. Bathtub filled with gooey mess, and a paper attached to it with scribblings like “150?” or “75-100” on it.
3) “The most widely accepted figure now” is far from 25 000. There is no “widely accepted figure”. Dresden stirrs up too much emotions for that.
What was in Dresden?
What were the people there doing, whilst the rest of Germany was working round the clock to produce more guns and tanks and planes? When the German labour shortage was so bad they had taken 7.5 million slaves from around Europe to help production?
I'd really like an answer to this one, because I think the tale that Dresden wasn't important to the war effort is rubish, more lies like the cooked up casualty reports, intended by Nazi apologists to claim the Germans were no worse than anyone else.
Note, I'm not accusing anyone who here who made the claims of being a Nazi apologist.
[/b]
Now, I just have to ask you, have you read any of my previous posts in this thread or just jumped in at the end? Some people cant be bothered to read an entire thread before they post...
ANYWAY, allow me to quote my own first post in this thread:
Dresden has at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that are legitimate military targets, and they are reported to be employing 50,000 workers. Among these are some dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the Zeiss Ikon A.G., these are the guys who make the excellent zeiss optics for the German Tiger tanks, some other factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).
Now you tell me. What industry have I missed here? Are there any secret factories perhaps?
The biggest problem for the allies was brining force to bear.
Double the sie of the British army and it still couldn't have invaded Europe until 1944.
The bomber offensive was the only way for Britin to engge Germany between 1940 and 1944, apart from the Med, where enough resources were used anyway.
Bomber Command used up 7% of Britains war economy.
Germany, with a much larger war economy, devoted 9% to countering it, without taking into account any damage caused.
[/b]
First, if you want to throw around statistics, feel free to present sources too.
Second, I strongly suspect that the 9% spent of the German war economy must have been countering allied strategic bombardment as a whole. As I have said earlier, the US version of Strategic warfare actually achieved something, and was by far a larger threat against Germany. Third, why no comment on how well 4 000 mosquitos would have put an end to the German war economy? Fourth, notice the 500 LST’s I mentioned? Would they have gotten the Allied forces to bear?
Britin began an oil campaign in 1940, and continued it into 1941. It didn't work, because at the time accuracy wasn't good enough [SNIP lots of irrelevant and/or weird remarks on brit bombing campaign]
[/b]
So if I have understood you correct you claim that
a) the area bombing of German cities achieved anyting other than a large civilian bodycount?
b) Another 1000 heavies employed against the German oil industry in 43-45 would not have made that much of a difference?
Surely you’re not serious?
Kesselring pushed for the Luftwaffe to begin bombing London indiscriminately from early in the BoB. Was he tried for it?
[/b]
No, do you want to know why?
I'm trying to point out the pressure on the commanders. One days delay means thousands
more dead civillians. Every day.
The idea of Thunderclap was to break the Germn's morale, show them that although they were beaten, things would get worse until they surrendered.
If it had worked, it would have saved a million lives. It didn't, so it becomes immoral?
[/b]
If you honestly say that the allied high command was walking around with some sort of “we must win this as soon as we can, every day of war means another thousand dead civilians”-notion, you really need to start reading books about history.
The idea of Thunderclap was to kill German civilians, period. That in itself is a crime against humanity, whether you realize this or not.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I bet most BC crews could sum the situation up in one phrase: "It was them or us." I bet most didn't shed a single tear over those they killed - I think that says alot about the situation they were in. After 5+ years of total, brutal war your values shift considerably.
This is getting rediculous.
"It was them or us"
So lets see, on the allied side, we have 722 Brittish heavy bombers with crew.
On the German side, we have an unknown amount of civilians. mostly women and children cowering in airraid shelters.
Yeah... "it was them or us" alright...especially in Feb 1945.
But I think you are right about one thing. I dont think any BC crews shed one tear over their victims.
...Neither did the SS guards at Auschwitz.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Hortlund... I didn't post that.
-
The Germans had no remorse bombing London, or performing terror strikes with V1/V2 rockets.... why should it matter that the Germans got theirs in the end?
Because they lost and are the underdogs?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Hortlund... I didn't post that.
My apologies, Ive changed it now.
-
Oh yeah, and the Germans also had plans to bomb New York City had they gotten their jet bomber.. or at the very least used Sub launched V2s.
And there's so many military targets in NYC.....
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
The Germans had no remorse bombing London, or performing terror strikes with V1/V2 rockets.... why should it matter that the Germans got theirs in the end?
Because they lost and are the underdogs?
-SW
Shouldnt the real question be:
"Why did the allies behave just as bad., or even worse than the Germans in these areas" ?
-
You're missing the bigger picture: Everything and everyone is a target in a war.
EDIT: Don't know how you can get any worse than making 1 million jews suffer and then proceed to slaughter them.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
You're missing the bigger picture: Everything and everyone is a target in a war.
EDIT: Don't know how you can get any worse than making 1 million jews suffer and then proceed to slaughter them.
-SW
No. You are wrong about that. Perhaps you (for some obscure reason) want it to be that way, but that is not the way it is now [edit: or the way it was back then]. If you want to debate this, choose your weapon, the moral/philosophical aspect of it, or the legal aspect of it.
And I was not talking about the holocaust, I was talking about killing civilians using bombers.
-
But I think you are right about one thing. I dont think any BC crews shed one tear over their victims.
...Neither did the SS guards at Auschwitz.
====
I cannot seem to formulate a reply to this. Someone help me!!!!
ARGHHH!!!!!
-
"the moral/philosophical aspect of it"
Ah, well that's all subjective. You could debate my ear off, but that still doesn't make you anymore right or wrong than I am.
"the legal aspect of it."
If I am not mistaken, the legal side is that if you support the war, than you are part of the war and the means to end it lies in you being stopped.
Both of those issues can be debated ad nauseum, but you'd never get any closer to right than the next guy. Maybe in your dream world civilians aren't targets in a war, but in reality where I reside, civilians are very much targets in a war.
Right or wrong is determined by the side who wins.
But hey, I mentioned the Germans attacking London... they had no problem killing civilians.
What was your point again? To lambast Allied bomber crews? It's those very same guys who you have to thank that you aren't in Nazi occupied Sweden right now.
-SW
-
'Now this is getting rediculous'?
How ironic, Hortlund.
First of all, your last post assumes that BC crews were privy to detailed, accurate strategic information about their enemy. I don't see how they could know Germany was defeated or Dresden was a 'civilian' target. They were told little information and surely couldn't know Germany's status as a war machine at point in the proceedings.
And that's assuming Germany was beaten or that Dresden was of no military value. An assumption too far, IMO.
Secondly, you were not there, so to make a judgement on the 'them or us' attititude is irrelevant. It's purely a subjective matter. Many thought it at the time, something you cannot get away from.
Comparing BC crew (of which a great uncle of mine was a member) to SS guards at Auschwitz is the most ridiculous and offensive concept I've ever read. Short of Irving's insistance that Hitler had nothing to do with The Final Solution, of course.
-
And I was not talking about the holocaust, I was talking about killing civilians using bombers.
No you weren't. You were talking about deliberately killing civilians during wartime. The weapon is irrelevant... unless somehow you can find a philosophical argument for how it is worse to kill someone from an aircraft than cyanide poisoning.
Germany and Japan both learned a hard lesson in regards to the destructive capabilities of the modern era. It was a major wakeup call via a slap in the face. It changed perspectives across the globe.
New technologies meant new stategies and capabilities. Some more ill conceived than others... but hindsight is super grand for most arguing in this thread.
One thing hindsight is promoting right now... a little bit of foresight.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Secondly, you were not there, so to make a judgement on the 'them or us' attititude is irrelevant. It's purely a subjective matter. Many thought it at the time, something you cannot get away from.
[/b]
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I find the "them or us" notion rediculous when it comes to bomber crews and civilans.
Comparing BC crew (of which a great uncle of mine was a member) to SS guards at Auschwitz is the most ridiculous and offensive concept I've ever read. Short of Irving's insistance that Hitler had nothing to do with The Final Solution, of course.
How apropriate. Personally I lost famlily members at Dresden. But he was just a kid, 4 yrs old (My grandmothers littlebrother in case you were wondering, and yeah, she was there that night).
I just wanted to point out though, that I did not compare BC crews to SS guards. That all happened in your head. All I said was that I dont think any SS guards shed any tears over their victims...just as you said BC crews didnt over theirs.
-
Simple harris and his cronies are war criminals for what they did......
v-1s and v-2s didnt have the capability to incinerate 40 square miles of london.
The quotes I provided were takin from the what was happening at the time.
Clearly they knew then that the targeting of civilians was terroristic.
The planners had known what was in Dresden and what wasn't there. The briefing notes sent to the groups were lies and the statements harris made after the attack are lies.
Area Bombing particularly in Febuary 1945 did nothing to end the war or save British lives.
You can cry and argue about exact numbers which will never be known and you can cry and moan about refugees mostly women and children who were fleeing from the soviet advance deserved to be fire bombed because you feel they somehow or at onetime supported their goverments war effort. You you could just come out and say which is probrably the truth,,,that targeting those civilians was for nothing more then to get a little pay back.
I could fill the thread with eyewitness accounts by women and recue workers and images as well. Theres no questioning the hell they went through. If you take the words from the mouths who planned it it is clear they had one thought, to kill civilians.
So all your speculation and guessing and rationalizing about their motives is a moot point.........
We are left with is what SHAEF's Psychological Warfare Division labeled "terroristic".
Even some folks in Britain saw it that way...............
Terrorfliegers............
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
"the moral/philosophical aspect of it"
Ah, well that's all subjective. You could debate my ear off, but that still doesn't make you anymore right or wrong than I am.
"the legal aspect of it."
If I am not mistaken, the legal side is that if you support the war, than you are part of the war and the means to end it lies in you being stopped.
Both of those issues can be debated ad nauseum, but you'd never get any closer to right than the next guy. Maybe in your dream world civilians aren't targets in a war, but in reality where I reside, civilians are very much targets in a war.
Right or wrong is determined by the side who wins.
But hey, I mentioned the Germans attacking London... they had no problem killing civilians.
What was your point again? To lambast Allied bomber crews? It's those very same guys who you have to thank that you aren't in Nazi occupied Sweden right now.
-SW
So if I have understood you correctly, you went with option C: None of the above?
Let me point out though, that you've got the legal side all screwed up. In the legal aspect, a difference is made between combatants and non-combatants. To further complicate things there are various laws and rules on what goes and what doesnt when it comes to killing off the other guys combatants (yeah, the non-combatants are generally off limits, something called "collateral damage" is accepted to an extent though...but not too much, because it is illegal to cause "unneccesary suffering") But this is getting all too detailed now huh, better leave it at simpler solutions such as "winner make the rules" or "kill em all, let God sort em out".
No, alot can be said about wwii Germany...having problems with killing innocent civilians is not one of those things though.
My point? Bring the criminals to justice, do not punish the innocent.
Silly notion really...
-
My point? Bring the criminals to justice, do not punish the innocent.
You're right, I don't know why they didn't just bypass Dresden and make a few arrests. Would have been much cleaner, and required several million less soldiers.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Simple harris and his cronies are war criminals for what they did......
v-1s and v-2s didnt have the capability to incinerate 40 square miles of london.
Dohhhhh ...
Just because the Nazy failed to build A-Bomb ...
-
Originally posted by Fatty
You're right, I don't know why they didn't just bypass Dresden and make a few arrests. Would have been much cleaner, and required several million less soldiers.
Yeah, well as I said, the idea in itself is stupid.
-
Im smellin a ROTTEN egg and it stinks.
Im out of this Hitler worship thread.
;)
-
hitler worship thread lol......
grenaaaaaaaaaaade............
-
Hortlund - you WERE comparing the reactions of BC crew to SS 'soldiers' - you know it, I know it, and anyone who cares to read this thread knows it.
Wotan - as an American, do you equally regard the orchestrators of the Japanese 'terror' bombings or the atomic attacks with the same disdain as Harris?
If not, then get ready to be called a hypocrite.
I've always found the controversy surrounding Dresden to be particularly puzzling. Especially when yanks express their distate for it, yet fail to mention Hiroshima. It's laughable, pathetic, ridiculous and stupid. In fairly healthy measures.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Hortlund - you WERE comparing the reactions of BC crew to SS 'soldiers' - you know it, I know it, and anyone who cares to read this thread knows it.
Lets see what has been said so far:
Dowding:
I bet most BC crews could sum the situation up in one phrase: "It was them or us." I bet most didn't shed a single tear over those they killed
Hortlund:
I think you are right about one thing. I dont think any BC crews shed one tear over their victims.
...Neither did the SS guards at Auschwitz.
Dowding:
Comparing BC crew (of which a great uncle of mine was a member) to SS guards at Auschwitz is the most ridiculous and offensive concept I've ever read. Short of Irving's insistance that Hitler had nothing to do with The Final Solution, of course.
Hortlund:
I did not compare BC crews to SS guards. That all happened in your head. All I said was that I dont think any SS guards shed any tears over their victims...just as you said BC crews didnt over theirs.
---------
I compared reactions? Make up your mind did I compare BC crews to SS guards, or did I compare BC crew reactions (?) to SS guards reactions?
-
Now let's see. Perhaps I should try to summarise the situation.
To compare any aspect of one thing to another is a comparison of the two.
To compare the reactions of BC crew to SS guards is still a comparison of the two.
I find that offensive.
It really is that simple, Hortlund. Not a single whiff of smoke or mirror in sight.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Now let's see. Perhaps I should try to summarise the situation.
To compare any aspect of one thing to another is a comparison of the two.
To compare the reactions of BC crew to SS guards is still a comparison of the two.
I find that offensive.
It really is that simple, Hortlund. Not a single whiff of smoke or mirror in sight.
Uh?
First, if you find it offensive, then perhaps you should think before you type next time. I do believe that you are right though, that not many BC crews shed any tears for the women and children they killed.
Second, why do you find it offensive? The comparisson between BC crews and SS guards should only be offensive if the same results comes up for both categories no? If I were to compare SS guards to US marines and find that there are no similarities whatsoever between the two, what then is offensive in that comparrisson?
-
So if I have understood you correctly, you went with option C: None of the above?
I went with the option that you are trying to justify Germany's war crimes by stating the Allies did the same thing. I am telling you it's different.
Let me point out though, that you've got the legal side all screwed up. In the legal aspect, a difference is made between combatants and non-combatants. To further complicate things there are various laws and rules on what goes and what doesnt when it comes to killing off the other guys combatants (yeah, the non-combatants are generally off limits, something called "collateral damage" is accepted to an extent though...but not too much, because it is illegal to cause "unneccesary suffering") But this is getting all too detailed now huh, better leave it at simpler solutions such as "winner make the rules" or "kill em all, let God sort em out".
We can leave it at simpler solutions, since in your mind you somehow believe that we are either a) going to change the course of history, b) are going to try young men who were fighting on the side of a just cause through this thread, or c) you just want someone other than yourself to see the allies as criminals.
No, alot can be said about wwii Germany...having problems with killing innocent civilians is not one of those things though.
There's several thousand dead British, French, Russians, and many more, civilians that can't testify otherwise....
My point? Bring the criminals to justice, do not punish the innocent.
Silly notion really...
Yes it is a silly notion, considering the war crimes started the day WWII started. And coincendently, they were all on the behalf of Germany.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
I went with the option that you are trying to justify Germany's war crimes by stating the Allies did the same thing. I am telling you it's different.
[/b]
Would that justify anything? "Its ok because the allies did it too"?
The idea is absurd.
We can leave it at simpler solutions, since in your mind you somehow believe that we are either a) going to change the course of history, b) are going to try young men who were fighting on the side of a just cause through this thread, or c) you just want someone other than yourself to see the allies as criminals.
[/b]
If a German soldier shoots a prisoner, would that be a warcrime?
If an allied soldier shoots a prisoner, would that be a warcrime?
If a German soldier shoots a civilian, would that be a warcrime?
If an allied soldier shoots a civilian, would that be a warcrime?
If you answer ANY of the questions above other than with a "yes" you should think long and hard on why. We can start there.
And try to remember that gulit is individual.
No, alot can be said about wwii Germany...having problems with killing innocent civilians is not one of those things though.
There's several thousand dead British, French, Russians, and many more, civilians that can't testify otherwise....
Is english your first language?
Yes it is a silly notion, considering the war crimes started the day WWII started. And coincendently, they were all on the behalf of Germany.
-SW
Well, I guess that sums up your version of events. All warcrimes were on the behalf of Germany. I take it then, that Germany is also responsible (in some twisted way) for the rape of Nanking too? Hmm, but wait, that took place before wwii, and the perps were japanese not German..how can that be?
-
Dowding it would be easy for me to state my disdain for the American Bombing Campaign over Japan.......especially to maintain consistency
I would though however refer you to a quote by Harris
The feeling, such as there is, over dresden, could easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdness. Actually Dresden was a mass munitions works, an intact government center and a key transportation point to the east. It is now none of these things.....
Attacks on cities, like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and so preserve the lives of Alied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaing cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier........
I think most would agree with Harris's statement here. Atleast some of us in this thread. If fact some have argued this point to justify Dresden.
The fact is the nukes dropped on Japan ended the war and actually saved lives and was concieved as such.
What we have in Dresden is quite different. The planners of thunderclap knew that area bombing and in paticular the specific fire bombing of Dresden would not end the war. And in fact it did not.
There are those that argue Dresden was also a "munition works" as Harris does in the above quote. But we know those that planned the raid knew there were no such munitions works.
Then there are those that argue that the raid on Dresden would disrupt troop movements and aid the Russian break through. But we know those that planned the raid knew there were no troops moving through Dresden and the fact that the Marshalling yards were not hit and in take.
So to compare what happened in Dresden and during thunderclap to what happened over Japan is rediculous.
Especially when we can find quotes by those who planned thunderclap such as this
If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000 we may expect 200,000 casualties. 50% of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack, resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany.........
On top of that we have Churchills own words
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.............The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing.........
and finally miko summoned it up here
There was a huge difference between mindset and behaviour of soldiers, civilians and government in Japain and Germany.
Japanese bombings were necessary and performed by a small number of people.
Destruction of Dresden population was a pointless mass-murder devised by some hatefull brit in which thousands of americans were made accomplices.
What amazing to me is you folks who attempt to rationalize the raid on Dresden especially when the record at the time is clear. Those that planned the dresden raid knew exactly what they were doing and have even said so.
I leave you with with British MP Stokes had to say about the raid
there is no case whatever under any conditions, in my view, for terror bombing
-
And coincendently, they were all on the behalf of Germany.
And who would have been guilty if germany won the war?
Have you ever seen winning side doing war crimes? :D
What would make tear of SS guard not comparable to tear of BC? Both are ordinary human beings. Even if both have followed orders and killed hundreds of civilians :)
-
Would that justify anything? "Its ok because the allies did it too"?
The idea is absurd.
So what's your real agenda then? It's either to clear Germany of something it did during WWII or to paint the Allies with the same brush.
Was every German airman, soldier, sub-mariner, or anyone that was not a high ranking official indicted for warcrimes?
I don't believe so, it was all of Hitler's henchmen and the Waffen SS.
Is english your first language?
Yes, but this looks like to me "No, alot can be said about wwii Germany...having problems with killing innocent civilians is not one of those things though." that a lot can be said about germany, killing innocent civilians is not one of those things... in other words, they did not kill innocent civilians. That's the biggest load of cow manure I've heard in a long time- they initiated the killing of civilians when they bombed London.
Well, I guess that sums up your version of events. All warcrimes were on the behalf of Germany. I take it then, that Germany is also responsible (in some twisted way) for the rape of Nanking too? Hmm, but wait, that took place before wwii, and the perps were japanese not German..how can that be?
You are ignoring what I'm saying, perhaps hoping I will slip up and admit I don't know what I'm talking about. Although it's quite clear that your agenda is to either elevate Germany's criminals/military to allied status or to lower the allies to Germany's status during WWII.. either way, Germany invades Poland without a declaration of war? Proceeds into France, and then to Britain? Germany bombed several towns, villages, cities and bombarded with artillery too as it crossed Europe in it's Blitzkrieg.
What exactly is your point? So far the only thing I can find is that you are trying to make criminals out of allied bomber crews, the same ones who brought Hitler's Wehrmacht to it's knees and ultimately forced Germany's surrender.
I don't know what your agenda is here, but it sure stinks of something rotten.
-SW
-
Both might be ordinary human beings, but one lead to the future still being there for Jews, and other non-white/aryan people... I'll give ya a hint, they didn't have a swastika on their flags.
and Hortlund, quite trying to insinuate things I never said.
I take it then, that Germany is also responsible (in some twisted way) for the rape of Nanking too? Hmm, but wait, that took place before wwii, and the perps were japanese not German..how can that be?
You answered that yourself, we are talking about Germany vs the Allies DURING WWII. I stated, I thought clearly, that the war crimes started the day WWII started... notice how I said war crimes and the start of WWII? Therefore, the rape of Nanking and Japanese do not play into this.
So stop the roadkill, stick to what I said otherwise I'll give up on this "debate" and let you wallow in your own pity for those poor misunderstood Nazis.
-SW
-
the only real question here is do you believe the targetting of civilians for no military reason is justified?
Those who were in the know about the Dresden Raid have themselves labeled it "terroristic" and admitted that it was specifically targeted at civiliian casualties.
Forget you rationalizations and call it what is was, what is was labeled by churchill himself......
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.............The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing.........
-
All I know of the German Military of WW2 was from watching episodes of "Hogan's Heroes." I would hate to think that Sargeant Schultz is considered a war criminal...or Colonel Klink, or even General Bulkhalter...however, that shiftless little SS Major with the "mollester" mustache was a real dick and I hope he got hung with the rest of the hard-core Nazis.
-
Regardless of morality, the destruction of Dresden DID have a positive effect on the Allied war effort. In a total war (like WW2) you win it by completely destroying the enemy's economy. You must destroy their ability to feed their people, their ability to produce war materials, and their ability to resist. Completely leveling a large city has MASSIVE economic implications--and in early 1945 Germany was in no position to sustain this sort of damage. Every destroyed house, every homeless family, all of that was a drain that the German economy could ill-afford.
Had the Allied command been smart they would have started these firebombing campaigns sooner; had these raids begun in early 1943 and leveled every major German city I find it unlikely that the war would have lasted into 1945. In the end fewer people would have likely been killed overall, too.
Is it immoral and cruel? Probably, but war is inheretently cruel. All that matters is ending it ASAP to save as many of your own people as possible--you can't worry about enemy civilian casualities. In a total war you must destroy your enemy. The total destruction of a country is a savage, terrible thing and this is why wars in general (and WW2 in particular) aren't usually noted as bright times in human history. Debate all you want, the fact is in a total war the sole idea is to save your country by destroying the enemy--there is no reason to "ease up" on them just because they're losing. War is not romantic and it certainly isn't nice.
Dresden and the Holocaust cannot be compared. Yes, both involve killing of many, many innocents. However, the Holocaust had utterly no military value (indeed the murder of 6 million Jews actually weakened the German economy). Destruction of a city DOES have strategic military value because it weakens the enemy's economy. Dresden may have had little tactical value, but the strategic (read: economic) value to destroying it was there. The object of the Dreden raid was to shorten the war (debatable as to whether it actually did). The sole purpose of the Holocaust was to exterminate the Jewish people. This is why the Dresden raid was immoral, but the Holocaust was purely evil.
One thing cannot be debated--WW2 was one of the worst episodes in human history; pray we never repeat it.
J_A_B
-
Harris was an ass. His morality even if you only consider his attitude to the lives of his men is non defendable, much less his attitude to towards the lives of the French and German civilians that he killed. His morality is indistinguishable from a Nazi war criminal. Murderous bureaucrat.
But
If the German people had been willing to take the casualties to stop their evil masters instead of the free peoples of the world paying the price I might have more sympathy.
If the Swedes had been willing to pay some of that price instead of trading high grade steel for the gold from Jewish teeth I might have more time for a Swede trying to teach us some moral lesson about the war. The Swedish lesson is clear.
The Germans started that war because Adolf believed that the weak democracies didn’t have the gut to wage total war. He was wrong. The people he had convinced paid the price for believing and supporting him. Yet with the most powerful army in the world behind him Uncle Joe never made the same mistake, could Dresden have helped him form that opinion?.
-
There was a huge difference between mindset and behaviour of soldiers, civilians and government in Japain and Germany.
Japanese bombings were necessary and performed by a small number of people.
What is the difference between the US raids on Tokyo etc and RAF raids on Germany?
1) There is no “official” German estimate. There is one official allied estimate.
There are estimates by the offical German agencies responsible, namely the Dresden police.
2) Bodies recovered has pretty much nothing to do with actual number of casualties. Although the reading is far from pleasant I suggest you read a bit about the subject. Many simply disappeared, the ones getting caught outside close to the aiming point…others..this is gross, but since you seem to question the numbers I guess we have to get into the gory details…. Many times the rescue personnel would open the door to an airraid shelter and find nothing but a gooey mess. How many people? Who knows. Sometimes they used bathtubs to transport the remains. Bathtub filled with gooey mess, and a paper attached to it with scribblings like “150?” or “75-100” on it.
Knowing Dresden quite well from my years at school, I visited Dresden April 14, 1945. Together with the fire police officer in the staff of the Chief of Police (BdO), I drove through the areas of main damage and looked at them with the eyes of a Hamburg experienced person.
The number of killed, then, was named already as between 30 and 35 thousand. This was a well-founded estimate based on the number of recovered victims until then (March 31: 22 096 persons)... We can take for sure, today: the amount of losses in Dresden 1945 was not higher than in Hamburg in 1943.
Hans Brunswig, head of the fire police in Hamburg
35,000 people, including refugees, were registered missing following the raids. Around 10,000 of these later turned up alive.
21,271 burials and cremations were recorded following the raids.
According to Walter Weidauer, author of Inferno Dresden, only in four cases was it impossible to establish the number of bodies in a location, and those four instances ammounted to no more than 100 bodies.
3) “The most widely accepted figure now” is far from 25 000. There is no “widely accepted figure”. Dresden stirrs up too much emotions for that.
Certainly the Nazi apologists want to hang on to their fictions.
However, I was speaking of more accepted historians, and most of them seem to settle on a figure of 25-35,000.
-
Now the argument pops up again.
The Nazi's bombed London. The Nazi's were a pretty nasty bunch.
The Brits deliberately target German civilians, but on a grander scale. Because Germany started, the Brits calling the air raids are war heroes.
Put in a more neutral way:
Action P is morally objectionable at time T.
Country A does action P on country B at time T.
Country B, at time T+n, does action P to country B, justifying it on the basis that country A did it at time T.
At time T+n, the morally reprehensible action is now fully justified because country A did it before time T+n.
Said in other words: a man of one family skins a girl of the family next door alive, then cooks her and eat her brains.
The next door family, upon learning of this, promptly break into his house, take his son, skins him alive, cut of his limbs, remove his guts and then proceed to boil and eat him in his entirety.
The police drops by. Who should the police arrest?
That A does action B to C doesn't make action B done to A by C afterwards justifiable.
If you're the good guy, you don't do evil things deliberately and for no real purpose.
About casualties: the US has a grim reminder of how hard it is to locate remains on Sept 11. After several months, not all remains have been found.
With lots of collapsing buidings and plenty of fire - and very limited resources, it is hard to expect that the Germans in Dresden could do much better. Lots more were killed than bodies were found, and that's about the end of that.
If the Nazis kill 16 million "undesireables", is it morally justified to kill 500,000 Germans to stop them?
This is misrepresenting what happened. The firebombing of Dresden wasn't done to stop the Germans. They held little strategic value and actually directed resources *away* from the real war from places where they could do more good. The Brits, having experienced the Blitz, knew such terror bombing would not crush the moral of the civilian population.
Sign in Berlin says it all: "you may break our walls, but you'll never break our hearts".
The answer to your question is yes, and that the question is irrelevant with regards to the discussion of the Brit bombing of Dresden.
Not revenge, revenge would be to kill them after the war to punish them.
I disagree. For a thing to be an act of revenge, it does not have to happen after the war has ended. The Brits wanted to get even for the earlier humiliation they'd suffered, and they did get even.
Furing the war, if ou believe it would stop the Nazis, would you have bombed German cities?
A very good question. Yes I would. There are many legitimate military targets in cities. I'd target those.
But would I, knowing the futility and pointlessness of it, order thousands of sorties against civilians in cities - mind you, with the intent of purpose of killing them, not military installations? No, I most certainly would not.
I would. To condemn millions to death because you are to squeamish to kill hundreds of thousands is immoral.
Agreed. To needlessly target civilians because you're pissed and wanna get even is immoral too.
Remember, Harris believed he could win the war through bombing, just as LeMay did in Japan. You are now judging his morals on wether he was successful or not, which seems really bizare.
No. I ain't saying a *thing* about using bombers to drop on military targets - to bomb the enemys forces so hard they have little to resist with when the invasion comes. But Harris was around during the Blitz. he saw what it did to his own countrymen Rather than shake their resolve, it made it more firm. He knew it, yet still ordered the massive strikes against civilians.
I said:
This is the same argument I've seen over and over. Because A did something reprehensible, B, C and D
are allowed to do the same, only now it is not reprehensible. Now it's justified. It's a false argument
Not justified becuse they deserve it, or as punishment.
I am trying to point out to you the difference between modern wars and WW2.
When the Serbs or Iraquis were bombed, the west could do so carefully, taking their time to pick out individual military targets, and attack them with fairly high precision. There was no real rush, because the regimes being attacked weren't mssacring people on anything like the scale.
The Americans in their bombings of Germany seemed to be able to target specific military targets. And, they never agreed to bomb just to terror bomb. And, if there's a real rush, it seems odd to me to divert so many resources away from where they could be useful to a place where all they could do was kill toejameloads of civilians.
The idea of Thunderclap was to break the Germn's morale, show them that although they were beaten, things would get worse until they surrendered.
By terror bombing their cities. The idea was flawed. This was shown during the Blitz, and it doesn't seem like the bombing of Dresden shook the German morale as a whole very much - on the contrar, it probably made a lot of people very angry, firming their resolve to at least give some back (odd how that cycle starts).
If it had worked, it would have saved a million lives. It didn't, so it becomes immoral? [/b}
It had already been established that terror bombing really didn't work. He still went ahead with it.
And, you could turn this around: if the Germans had been succesful with their Blitz, would this be morally justifiable?
Not in my book. YMMV.
We could talk about the Blitz, and I'd say *the exact same things* I am saying now - only I'd add that they'd be even worse for doing it the first time. (And aye, I know they did it in Spain, too, on a much smaller scale).
-
But Harris was around during the Blitz. he saw what it did to his own countrymen Rather than shake their resolve, it made it more firm. He knew it, yet still ordered the massive strikes against civilians.
You KNOW what Harris believed?
Harris ran Bomber Command from early 1942, when the outcome of the war was still in doubt. Right from the first, he carried out a policy of area bombing.
You contend he did this purely from revenge, knowing it wasn't effective, knowing therefore that it could cost Britain the war?
As regards effectiveness of area bombing:
The Germans started the war with tactical bombers, tried precision bombing of Britain, switched to area bombing.
The RAF tried precision bombing, switched to area bombing.
The US tried precision bombing in Europe and Japan, switched to area bombing in Japan (even before the nukes), and carried out a great many area raids in Europe towards the end.
The USSBS gives the following figures for accuracy:
Air Force and Technique Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming 26.8
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument 12.4
8th AF, full instrument 5.4
RAF, night Pathfinder technique 15.8
Weighted average 12.6
Take out BC figures, and you will see the USAAF managed an average accuracy of 12% or less. These figures are for attacks against three oil plants, each with an average area of over 1 sq mile.
So only 12% of bombs would hit a target a mile square.
Where do you think the bombs were actually falling when they bombed a factory in the suburbs?
About casualties: the US has a grim reminder of how hard it is to locate remains on Sept 11. After several months, not all remains have been found.
With lots of collapsing buidings and plenty of fire - and very limited resources, it is hard to expect that the Germans in Dresden could do much better. Lots more were killed than bodies were found, and that's about the end of that.
Well, the Berlin police chief, who had plenty of exerience in the matter, seemed confident enough to predict a figure.
The man in charge of recording the bodies recovered, Theo Miller, seemed fairly certain that no more than 20% should be added to the casualty figures for unrecoverable bodies.
Reichert, the Dresden historian, seems fairly certain that there weren't large numbers whose bodies were never recovered, as do Bergander and Weidauer, who have both studied the matter thoroughly.
The Hamburg fire chief, who went to almost all the German cities hit by firestorms as an advisor. seemed pretty certain as well.
What credible evidence have you seen to suggest otherwise?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
So what's your real agenda then? It's either to clear Germany of something it did during WWII or to paint the Allies with the same brush.
My agenda? As I have said quite a few times before, bring the criminals to justice, do not punish the innocent. Why do you find that idea so offensive? In some cases, allied soldiers behaved just as bad as German soldiers. Why do you defend those allied soldiers? Why cant you just say: Yeah, allied solders committed crimes too? Why are you falling over yourself trying to come up with various excuses? Why defend the indefensible? Does the color on the uniform of the criminals really matter that much to you?
Was every German airman, soldier, sub-mariner, or anyone that was not a high ranking official indicted for warcrimes?
No, does this mean that in your opinion those who weren't indicted were innocent?
I don't believe so, it was all of Hitler's henchmen and the Waffen SS.
Actually it was the SS not only the Waffen SS.
Yes, but this looks like to me "No, alot can be said about wwii Germany...having problems with killing innocent civilians is not one of those things though." that a lot can be said about germany, killing innocent civilians is not one of those things... in other words, they did not kill innocent civilians. That's the biggest load of cow manure I've heard in a long time- they initiated the killing of civilians when they bombed London.
I find this slightly amusing actually. First I say something you obviously misunderstood. You start arguing against then thing I never said. I point out that you misunderstood what I wrote. This does not seem to deter you however, and you happily continue to argue against what I never wrote. Feel free to continue this debating against yourself.
You are ignoring what I'm saying, perhaps hoping I will slip up and admit I don't know what I'm talking about. Although it's quite clear that your agenda is to either elevate Germany's criminals/military to allied status or to lower the allies to Germany's status during WWII.. either way, Germany invades Poland without a declaration of war? Proceeds into France, and then to Britain? Germany bombed several towns, villages, cities and bombarded with artillery too as it crossed Europe in it's Blitzkrieg.
Oh, you have shown plenty of times already that you dont know what you're talking about.
This one is fantastic: "elevate Germany's criminals/military (btw..wtf does that "/"mean? Should it be interpreted as "and/or", or as "its the same thing"?) to allied status". What exactly would that status be? Brave killers of women and children? Heroic rapists? Glorious executioners of unarmed prisoners? (If you doubt any of those crimes, please let me know, and Ill present some sources). Do remember that the Soviet union was one of the allies, and their track-record aint exactly spotless in this area.
What I have been trying to say is that guilt is individual. There is no "allied level" or "German level". The idea is strange. What, for example would the "allied level" be? The soviet level or the French level? What would the German level be? That of the SD or that of the kriegsmarine?
What difference does a declaration of war make? The soviet union (The "allies" remember) did not declare war on Finland before its invasion, does this change anything? France and England declared war on Germany, not the other way around. As for the " Germany bombed several towns, villages, cities and bombarded with artillery too as it crossed Europe in it's Blitzkrieg" …point being?
What exactly is your point? So far the only thing I can find is that you are trying to make criminals out of allied bomber crews, the same ones who brought Hitler's Wehrmacht to it's knees and ultimately forced Germany's surrender.
Yeah, the allied bomber crews sure brought Germany to her knees and forced Germany's surrender. See above about not knowing what your talking about.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Regardless of morality, the destruction of Dresden DID have a positive effect on the Allied war effort. In a total war (like WW2) you win it by completely destroying the enemy's economy. You must destroy their ability to feed their people, their ability to produce war materials, and their ability to resist. Completely leveling a large city has MASSIVE economic implications--and in early 1945 Germany was in no position to sustain this sort of damage. Every destroyed house, every homeless family, all of that was a drain that the German economy could ill-afford.
I disagree.
1) There is no difference between "total war" and "normal war" …there's just "war".
The "total war" idea came from Goebbles and was used for PR purposes only.
2) There are more ways to win a war than destroying the enemy's economy.
3) By Feb 1945 the German economy had already collapsed. Dresden did not change this fact.
Had the Allied command been smart they would have started these firebombing campaigns sooner; had these raids begun in early 1943 and leveled every major German city I find it unlikely that the war would have lasted into 1945. In the end fewer people would have likely been killed overall, too.
Exactly how do you reach the conclusion that if you level every major German city, fewer people in the end would have been killed overall? Lets assume the German population in 1943 was 70 000 000, of these, say 35 000 000 lived in the cities you want destroyed. Calculate with a casualty rating of 10 % killed and 30 % wounded in each city raid. 10 500 000 casualties. All civilians too. Great plan. Its right up there with the British (naturally) idea to use spread the plutonium produced in the Manhattan project over German crop fields.
Is it immoral and cruel? Probably, but war is inheretently cruel. All that matters is ending it ASAP to save as many of your own people as possible--you can't worry about enemy civilian casualities.
Probably? "Is it immoral and cruel to specifically target civilians with the objective of killing as many of them as possible?" -Probably?
War is horrible enough in itself, we dont have to strive to make it worse.
In a total war you must destroy your enemy. The total destruction of a country is a savage, terrible thing and this is why wars in general (and WW2 in particular) aren't usually noted as bright times in human history. Debate all you want, the fact is in a total war the sole idea is to save your country by destroying the enemy--there is no reason to "ease up" on them just because they're losing. War is not romantic and it certainly isn't nice.
Civilians are not, must not, and can not be valid targets of war. Civilians are indeed essential for the enemy's war economy, his infrastructure, his morale etc. They are also comparatively easy prey. In fact, the only thing that stands between civilians and their nations enemies is the armed forces of their nation. This however does not mean that since civilians are so essential for the enemy's war effort, it makes them a viable target of war.
The enemy's infrastructure, his factories, rail network, his bridges etc, they are all viable targets. They could, and indeed should, if possible be destroyed. His hospitals, schools, kindergardens, fire brigades etc are not. Why? To answer that question we would have to try to peer down into the moral and ethic values we have in the western civilization. To some extent these values can be seen in the laws of war that we have all agreed upon in several different conventions.
In my humble opinion the fact that civilians are not viable targets of war, is so fundamental and basic, that I thought anyone would agree on this.
We do not want armies or airforces targeting residential areas in order to kill the workers at the enemy's factories. We do not want fighters to strafe schoolyards and kindergardens in order to kill as many kids as possible (this would of cource lead to a significant drop in morale for the enemy, as well as a prevention of ever having to face those kids in the trenches 10 years later).
With your line of reasoning you are walking a very dangerous path on very very thin ice.
-
I wouldn't bomb the enemy cities to rubble for the sole purpose of killing civilians, I'd do it for the purpose of destruction of the enemy economy and infastructure. Massive numbers of civilian casualities would be an unfortunate side effect of my tactics. True terror is killing people for no reason whatsoever, which this is not.
You will note that what I would do is what everyone DID do, given the chance. Everyone was inflicting as much damage on each other as possible. I'm not saying it's "right" to fight this way; but when the survival of the free world is at stake and the utter destruction of your enemy is the only way to win that's what you have to do. This is what WW2 was, like it or not. Debating whether it was "right" or "wrong" is pointless. There is a REASON people say things like "War is Hell"--because it IS. With the passage of time it's easy to forget how horrible war is. War is savage, dehumanizing, immoral, terrible beyond reason. Dresden is a painful reminder of what war is. War isn't the romanticized notion of "good versus evil"; war is cities reduced to rubble and piles of dead burnt bodies. Veterans tend to not want to discuss what went on; nightmares and emotional scarring is not uncommon among Vets. Think about horrors such as Dresden and you'll know why.
Do you think the Allied (or even Axis) aircrews liked the fact that they were killing thousands of civilians? Do you think submarine crews liked watching crew after crew drown as they torpedoed unarmed merchant ships? Do you really think killing was makng these people feel all warm and fuzzy inside? With the exception of a tiny number of sick individuals, of course not. But there was no choice; WW2 was an "us or them" situation.
And all wars are NOT equal. Claiming that is claiming that the conflict in Afghanistan (I hesitate to call it a war as the media does) is no different than WW2, which is obviously a false premise. To win a conflict on the scale of WW2, it is indeed necessary to completely devastate the enemy's economy--this is why the Axis could not have won after 1940. Regardless of their successes in the field, they didn't touch American infastructure or Soviet infastructure east of the Urals. Hindsight is always perfect. The fact is, if you were living in 1945 then the war in Europe wasn't over until V-E day and up until then there was no reason to ease up on the Germans just because they were losing.
You blame the Allied command. Why not blame the Germans for not suing for peace when it became obvious they couldn't win? They gave the Allies no choice.
This is why I prefer AH's imaginary battle between non-existant countries. I'd rather leave WW2 in the history books where it belongs.
J_A_B
-
Hortlund: Civilians are not, must not, and can not be valid targets of war
Wasn't it the basic premise of "Mutual Assured Destruction" a nominally guaranteed elimination of an entire nation's civilian population?
Seems like post-WW2 the USSR and the US/Nato countries embraced a view of war that accepted and planned for this result.
Many ideals don't surivive the first encounter with war. "Civilians as non-valid targets" is an ideal that didn't even survive WWI actually.
"The Birth of Strategic Bombing (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/ww1/ww1-6.htm)
"There were 159 Zeppelin attacks against England in WWI, resulting in the death of 557 people, primarily civilians, and damages of $7,500,000."
The civilians weren't actually the targets?
Well, the "targeteers" knew civilians were going to die in "stategic raids" since the first raid ever flown. They sent the bombs anyway.
I'll suggest it makes no difference to the dead whether they were officially designated as targets or not.
Mutual Assured Destruction....... civilians aren't targets? The world came to grips with the reality of the situation a long time ago.
In the end, it's always the civilians that pay the highest price for their governments actions.
-
There is a difference between explicitly targeting civilians and targeting valid military targets and the attacks resulting in civilian casualties.
Do you want the legal aspect of it or the philosophical one?
wwi is not a good example, because no one after wwi wanted to enforce the laws of war. Nuremberg changed that after wwii.
MAD is someting that is so sick to its core that it is hard to grasp now. But just because the phenomenon existed does not make it justifiable in any way.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
MAD is someting that is so sick to its core that it is hard to grasp now. But just because the phenomenon existed does not make it justifiable in any way.
Oh, indeed. I agree wholeheartedly.
However, like wearing garlic around your neck to ward off vampires....... MAD apparently worked. (Don't see any vampires around here, do you? :) )
We're all still here despite recently going through 50 years of incredibly huge nuclear arsenals armed and ready to fire and the "high tension" political events of that same time period.
Was it MAD that kept the fingers off the triggers? Who will ever know for sure? But the fingers WERE kept off the triggers and MAD may well have been the doctrine responsible for that fact.
... and CLEARLY BOTH SIDES were targeting civilians and making no secret about it.
Or maybe it was just the dawning of the Age of Aquarius that saved us.
Idealize all you like. Civilians are always killed in war. Always have been, always will be.
There is a difference between explicitly targeting civilians and targeting valid military targets and the attacks resulting in civilian casualties.
[/b]
Yeah, the difference is that you usually kill more if you explicitly target them. But you'll still kill some, even if non-targeted and using "smart" weapons.
As I said, specificity of targeting makes no difference to the dead; they're still dead.
So, is it OK to kill some civilians if you didn't mean too? But bad if you meant to?
How about this:
"Don't start nothing, won't BE nothing."
Sadly, Adolph, Benito and Hideki probably hadn't heard that one before they set out to conquer the world.
Man, just think how many civilians would have lived to old age if these three politicos had been able to control their egos. Hey, do you think these three figured some civilians were maybe going to die if they implemented their various schemes of conquest?
It's real easy to keep your civilians from being killed in a war. Don't start a war.
There ya go! :)
-
Toad...your post is awesome.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Toad...your post is awesome.
Bah, you're just pissed at me becuase your stuck in the Ju88 for this tour. ;)
-
You keep saying "Bring the criminals to justice, don't punish the innocent"
Who the shreck are you going to bring to justice? And who the shreck is punishing the innocent? As far as I can tell these "innocent" (Nazi supporters mind you) are long dead, their punishment, or lack thereof, was a bomb going off above their head or in their home killing them instantly.
Who exactly are the criminals you keep referring to? You can't even clarify that, you want someone to suffer for something that happened 60 years ago against a nation that was hell bent on exterminating anything that crossed their paths that wasn't of the "aryan race".
Hey Hortland, riddle me this, if air power doesn't win wars then why was Desert Storm 1 week long? Why is it that in any war where the one with dominant air superiority will always advance the furthest on the ground?
The bomber crews destroyed Germany's ability to manufacture more weapons, gas, oil, ball bearings and the list goes on. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And yes, the color of the uniform does matter to me. Well atleast the little arm badge with the swastika. One side fought for the right cause, preventing Hitler's 3rd Reich from expanding the globe and the other one fought for Hitler's cause. When you are fighting a criminal army, I don't see how you can not commit crimes yourself.
You know just as well as I do that if Germany had won WWII, there would be no mention of war crimes.... because no one but Germans/Aryans would be left alive.
The / means and/or.
What difference does a declaration of war make? Pearl Harbor, if you can't understand that then I can't help you.
My point being about Germany destroying towns and cities, etc, as they advanced through most of Europe is that at those initial days of WWII is when Germany initiated the war crimes and never stopped.
The allied bomber crews did what they were told, if you are looking for criminals you'll find them in the higher ranks. But the lowly soldier does what's he's supposed to do- just keep soldiering on.
-SW
-
there should be no doudt about it
Bomber "Civilian Killer" Harris is a war criminal.
He knowingly targeted civilians in order to cause as much terror as possible.
SHAEF conceded the attack on Dresden as such and so did Churchill. Harris's own words he used to justify area bombing , whichk the conditions he out lined were not the case in Dresden, prove his own guilt.
Theres no question to attack on Dresden specifically targeted civilians at a time when the Russians were 90 miles away.
Dresden as known before hand did nothing to end the war, or save any allied life, or stop any vital war production, or stop the movement of any German troops, and it can be argued Harris's bloodlust actually put at risk more allies then the raid could ever hope to spare.
The brits have a history of targeting civilians from our own Revolutionary War to The Boar War.
There was a series made by 2 Canadian Brothers the Valour and Honor that sheds light on the tactic of area bombing.
-
Hey Hortland, riddle me this, if air power doesn't win wars then why was Desert Storm 1 week long? Why is it that in any war where the one with dominant air superiority will always advance the furthest on the ground?
The bomber crews destroyed Germany's ability to manufacture more weapons, gas, oil, ball bearings and the list goes on. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
First off air power alone didn't win Desert Storm. Secondly area bombing was used in Desert storm. Thirdly the ground targets attacked were Command Control Centers and military forces. They didnt fly b52s over Bagdad and targets theres site on residential areas.
Bomber Crews destroyed Germany's ability to make tools for war yes. But Harris was constantly opposed to having Bomber Command do anything but area bombing. He opposed diverting his forces during overlord when they were to hit railway yards. He opposed diverting his forces to hit oil targets, even when these very types of attacks were veruy successfull in shutting down german oil production.
Secondly it was the US daylight raids which specifically targeted the German War machine. Area Bombing and specifically the targeting of civilians in the Dresden raid did nothing to save lives or end the war.
Again reread the post from the guys at the time.
-
Adolph Hitler voluntarily offered up German civilians as targets for mass destruction when he ordered the Anschluss of Austria... but nothing happened that time.
Adolph Hitler voluntarily offered up German civilians as targets for mass destruction when he ordered the occupation of Czechoslovakia.... but nothing happened that time.
Adolph Hitler voluntarily offered up German civilians as targets for mass destruction when he ordered the attack on Poland.... Mars took Hitler up on his offer. That was the time the fate of the German civilians was sealed.
Place the blame for the targeting of German civilians where it should lie, on the man who gave the orders to plunge Germany into world war.
Had it not been Poland, it would have been on June 22, 1941 when Operation Barbarossa jumped off. The same man gave the order for that, too. Place the blame where it should lie.
Hiroshima? The attack on Pearl Harbor came on the heels of the Japanese government's decision, under Premier Hideki Tojo that the United States would take an active role in the Pacific theater in the event that Japan attacked Southeast Asia.
Tojo and his government voluntarily offered up Japanese civilians as targets for mass destruction when they gave the order to attack Pearl. Mars took Tojo up on his offer.
Place the blame for the targeting of Japanese civilians where it should lie, on the man who gave the orders to plunge Japan into world war.
None of those men were unaware of the nature of war. They were just incredibly overly optimistic with regards to their own capabilities. Their nations paid the price for that overoptimism.
Don't start nothing, won't BE nothing.
-
I am a little late to reading this "debate", but I'll throw my two cents in.
0. I am a pacifist, an ex-Marine, and a Viet Vet.
1. Sherman was wrong, War is not hell ... It is evil and vile.
2. There are NO good wars. All wars are bad.
3. The bombing of London was wrong, the bombing of Dresden was wrong, the bombing of Tokyo was wrong, the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong, the bombing of Nagasaki was wrong .....
4. No one any any war, anywhere, at anytime was "right".
5. Justifation is just that - Justifaction.
6. Trying to make rules for war, to somehow make them cleaner or more acceptable is rediculous. Chivalrous war is a myth.
7. No sane person believes it is okay to kill innocent people.
8. No warrior is ever the same for the experience.
9. Many (if not most) bomber crews, grunts, soldiers of every type on all sides lived sad and broken lives as the result of their experiences.
10. When it comes to war there are no winners, it is a zero sum game. All lose.
The ghosts of all I have killed live with me everyday and I shall always bear the shame that we could not have come up with a better solution.
Edit - added for completeness least someone think I am hiding behind my handle.
SSgt Melvin D. Hendrick
USMC #2493009
ps - I think JAB and Toad had the best points.
That is my opinion - your mileage may vary.
-
Stating that theres nothing wrong with "getting a little payback" is different then saying that the attack on Dresden was of some military value. Or that it accomplished anything beyond causing terror.
Regardless of German Aggression England and France started the war supposedly to stop it then sat on their hands and gave hitler time to plan for the invasion of France. Had they done so from the git go there would have been no war. And had they been ready to invade Germany soon after Germany invaded Poland there would be no need to Kill civilians in 1945. Or they could have conceded poland and waited for the inevitable Soviet German war.
This ofcourse is hindsight but still relevant especially when you use the excuse of German Aggression as an excuse to kill civilians.
-
Regardless of German Aggression England and France started the war supposedly to stop it then sat on their hands and gave hitler time to plan for the invasion of France.
England and France started the war? Yikes! All of my history books are wrong!!
So if German aggression was ignored by England and France we could have saved all those civilians in Dresden?
Or...if the English expeditionary force had "done its job" instead of leaving via Dunkirk then Dresden would be safe? Paaleeezzee!
Or..we could have left the fate of the world in the hands of Hitler and Stalin....yea! that's the ticket!
Toad's post is brilliant in its simplicity. Well done sir.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
England and France started the war? Yikes! All of my history books are wrong!!
So if German aggression was ignored by England and France we could have saved all those civilians in Dresden?
Or...if the English expeditionary force had "done its job" instead of leaving via Dunkirk then Dresden would be safe? Paaleeezzee!
Or..we could have left the fate of the world in the hands of Hitler and Stalin....yea! that's the ticket!
Heh heh. It's the old "Stop me before I kill again" line.
- Oldman
-
You're off your head Wotan. You have to be.
The brits have a history of targeting civilians from our own Revolutionary War to The Boar War.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????
So it's some inherent character trait now? Mass-murder is a cornerstone of the British character?!
An imbecilic attitute and one which is disproven after a cursory examination of human conflict through the ages.
Of course the Germans are a peaceful and harmless nation, who are incapable of malice. Salute to that great race! That innocent people! Hail their unparalleled humanity!
Perhaps mistakes were made by the Allies during the war. But the scale of those mistakes pales into insignificance in comparison to the pure, unadulterated evil perpetrated by GERMANS, in a war started by GERMANS and lost by GERMANS.
And the truly laughable aspect of your stance on this subject is the continued insistance that the firebombing of Japanese cities (killing 100,000 a night in some raids) was somehow morally justified whereas RAF raids were indefensible. You also neglect to mention the fact that Nagasaki was effectively chosen based on the fact it had not been attacked previously and would be a good test-bed for an atomic strike. It could be argued Nagasaki was the US Dresden and that it had no strategic value.
And what's that crap about US Japanese bombings being carried out by a small number of people? Not only is it untrue but it's completely irrelevant.
I'm out of this discussion. It's clear this board attracts a certain kind of person, easily deluded into believing the Germans were fighting a morally defensible war, the combatants of which should be held as heroes and quoted as such.
They weren't heroes. They were fools - swept along by nationalistic fervour and jingoism at best, consumed by pure hatred at worst.
-
So it's some inherent character trait now? Mass-murder is a cornerstone of the British character?!
Isn'it this the same arguement thats made about any german that happened to exist during the Nazi years?
The Nazi's paid for what they did. You could argue they even deserve more. However, Dresden wasn't to punish Nazi's but to kill and cause terror to civilians at a time when the war was basically won.
I made no excuse for Nazi terror but you are all to willing to excuse British terror and then justify it by comparing it as a justified response to Nazi terror.
Both are equally wrong.
I referred you to Harris' quote for the justification of use for area bombing. Like I said others in this thread make that arguement to justify Dresden, however the facts surrounding Dresden dont support that.
However I actually agree with Harris on that point. The facts around Nagasaki and Hiroshima are all with in those bounds. Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the War and prevented the US from having to invade, saving lives. Even the firebombing in tokyo as wrong as it was, was a far cry different then what happened in Dresden. Japan wasnt defeated and still capable to fight back.
Britain never planned to invade Dresden and they knew it wouldn't end the war and they knew there were no troops moving through Dresden and the knew theres was no real war industry.
My mother has dual us/brit citizenship. My Grandmother lived in conventry during the war but that doesn't change what happened in Dresden or to the Boar civilians or anything else for that matter.
for the record I dont believe in any form of "collective guilt".
-
So the Germans and British, for all intents and purposes were the same during WW2?
Then let me ask you this, who would you have perferred to win? Why?
-
I am feeling downtrodden, the world has crushed my spirits. But then, I meet a new friend. He tells me how valuable I am, how important I am, how the world has so unjustly held me down. More over, he’s a real doer. We all need money though. There are shop owners around with money, money they don’t deserve to have, and to top it all off they are minority third world scum who don’t deserve the money anyway. There are also people living in nice houses, in better neighborhoods with better access to the shopping malls that I covet.
My friend tells me: stick with me kid, and you won’t believe what glory will come. We will take the money that is ours by birthright. We will take the property that is our destiny. We will show them, and if they stand in the way they will face the consequences. I like what I hear, I remember being taught something different about “do onto others…” at one time but, but you see, the others in this case either don’t deserve what they have compared to my absolute destiny, and/or they don’t count in a human sense anyway. I am not alone though, we took a poll, no stings attached, where my neighbors and myself ratified our faith in my friend and all he stood for by about a 99% approval rating. We did this more than once, and we knew his agenda clearly.
My friend doesn’t have a car, though, and he needs a gun and some bullets because our destiny will only come through Blood and Iron. He also needs a driver to get the things that we both desire. I provide him with all of that. In exchange, I get some money, a good job, and improved self-esteem.
I drive my friend into the neighborhoods where the homes he covets are located. Several neighborhood associations give into his suggestion that they adopt new management. Some have a lot of my friend’s cousins living there are they are quite happy at the news. Others don’t, but the police aren’t particularly interested in getting involved if they can help it (manpower shortages), so these neighborhoods see the writing on the wall and give in. The police finally say, if you do that again we will stop you. My friend laughs, we all laugh, because my friend is now a god in our eyes.
We go to a new neighborhood. My friend has talked long and hard about how this neighborhood is ours by history and destiny. I drive him to the border, in a moving van this time. He gets out, shots are fired. Did you see that? my friend says, they shot first, now start unloading that sofa.
Now though, the police are after us. At first I am worried, but my friend tells me not to worry. And indeed, for the next several months we have the police on the run while we rampage through a variety of neighborhoods, taking what we want. As to the people in these neighborhoods -- the clearly inferior ones -- he takes them to a special place, I don’t know what he does to them, though I clearly do know that he is doing something. Perhaps they spend the days painting clown faces on each other and kissing the sunflowers. I don’t’ think too much about it really, and don’t want to know.
The other slightly less inferior people who are left behind will serve me on my great ranch, which used to be their’s until my friend came along. They will be my serfs, taught enough math and writing to go into town and buy supplies, but nothing more. They should be happy to be part of our great destiny, and if not, then, then they get what they deserve.
Similarly, I also drive my friend, or one of his thug associates, to the local shops ran by all those inferiors that are keeping me down. When the thug walks out, I am told the problem is “taken care of.” Of course, when I occasionally heard a shot or two, or some rumor in the news, I chose not to think about it very much. I don’t really know if he is actually killing those people, though he has said numerous times that they are rats deserving a rat’s fate. And you can’t prove I did know he was killing them.
We have supported my friend all along, knowing full well what he was going to do, and support him today in this time of need. My friend never minced words. I couldn’t count how many speeches, documentaries, feature films, books and articles my friend presented that clearly stated his full intentions, even down to an only slightly ambiguous statement as to what would happen to the undesirables should they force his hand in another war (see, it’s their fault anyway). I am worried, but have nothing but faith.
More neighborhoods fall, the police look like fools. My friend lets it be known that the police will pay a price for their pursuit. We shoot the cops, and when that doesn’t work, we start shooting their families to make them back off. All we want is a simple live and let live. If you can live with us controlling all these neighborhoods, we will let you and your family live -- period.
Finally though, my friend picks a neighborhood that has a leader just about as thuggish as he is. The fighting is tough. No matter how many tens of millions of their innocent family we kill, they just don’t give up. I don’t feel that bad about it, as long as we win. If we lose there is going to be hell to pay, because those savages actually seem to value their inferior blood as strongly as I value my superior blood. And their own leader has killed more than a few himself! Hell, the millions that we killed shouldn’t even count because he killed millions too. The outrage!
Well, the time is drawing near. The enemy in the East is relentless. The police are relentless. The ghouls even target innocents like my family and myself. I couldn’t tell you how hard it is to drive the car and get the bullets and guns to the appropriate thugs. One monster came into my house with machine guns blazing, not even a search warrant or a sniper, even though my friend was cornered somewhere else and the end was obviously near! Why would someone be so twisted, I mean, It’s not like we spent the past years trying to grind him and all he stood for into the dust. And the Eastern neighbors! Raping and pillaging our innocent people, whose only “crime” was not caring what the hell happened to anyone else as long as we were winning. The outrage!
But I, and most of my associates, still have total faith in our friend. We will follow him wherever he leads us, and we won’t ask any hard questions or ponder why we are where we are today. It’s not my fault. What possible choice could we have had! I’M SO SORRY, SORRY WE DIDN’T WIN!
Charon
-
man, you really need to work on your analogies
-
Toad, while I basically understand and agree with the essence of your statement, there are things I disagree with.
You're saying that if country A starts a war with country B, that justifies all actions country B can take against A.
This, I do not agree with.
OTOH, I do agree with 'don't start a war if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences'.
-
Santa, see Phantom4-Mag33's post.
The first rule of war is that there are no rules. OR, if you like, the first rule is that all the rules will be broken once the war begins. Whichever way you prefer. The idea of "civilized" war is a joke.
I'm saying that if A starts a war with B, bad things are going to happen to the civilians of both A and B, rules or no rules.
Don't want bad things to happen to your civilians? Don't start a war.
How's that?
Blaming "Bomber" Harris may make somebody feel all moral and superior or something...... and Harris' targeting does deserve criticism...... but would we have ever even heard of "Bomber" Harris without Hitler starting WW2?
No.
So put the blame for Dresden where it reallyl lies, on Hitler and his henchmen.
Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'.
And now, I REALLY am done with this thread.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
You keep saying "Bring the criminals to justice, don't punish the innocent"
Yeah, stupid huh?
Who the shreck are you going to bring to justice? And who the shreck is punishing the innocent? As far as I can tell these "innocent" (Nazi supporters mind you) are long dead, their punishment, or lack thereof, was a bomb going off above their head or in their home killing them instantly.
Who exactly are the criminals you keep referring to? You can't even clarify that, you want someone to suffer for something that happened 60 years ago against a nation that was hell bent on exterminating anything that crossed their paths that wasn't of the "aryan race".
The first half of this quote is puzzling. "Their punishment, or lack thereof, was a bomb killing them instantly" Now, bear in mind that we are talking about women and children here, I call them "innocent civilians", you call them "nazi supporters". (Naturally you can prove that somehow, otherwise you would just be making yet another unsubstantiated assumption.) ANYWAY, apparently death by firebombing is a "lack of punishment". What exactly are you aiming for here? Death by torture to all German women and children living in 1945?
Over to the other half of your quote. Again, from your analysis of Nazi Germany, it would appear that your knowledge in history is eh..somewhat lacking. Nevermind such petty details though. Who are the criminals? Actually you have managed to stumble onto a question that has been debated and analyzed by lawyers and philosophers since day one at Nuremberg. Where do you draw the line between guilt and innocence when it comes to warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Most people tend to agree that somewhere guilt stops, that it is unreasonable to argue, for example, that every single individual alive in Germany 1945 shared equal guilt in the holocaust. Because that would mean that a 4 yr old shared the same guilt as a SS camp guard. In the end, everyone must answer that question according to his own heart. I think Nuremburg reached some reasonable conclusions. Note if you will, that "Germany" as a whole wasnt convicted of anything (says something about collective vs individual guilt, and how the judges saw that)
Examples of guilty persons (according to the reasoning behind the convictions at Nuremberg) on the allied side would be (among others):
- Harris
- The US unit who liberated Dachau in 45 and gunned down over 100 German prisoners. (The actual shooters as well as the unit commander would be the guilty ones there)
(sidenote: the ironic part is that the real SS guards had fled the night before, in the morning another unit, retreating from the east, came into the area, and was promptly executed by furious US soldiers..Im sure there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere)
- Bradley (for his "take no Waffen SS prisoners" order after Malmedy)
- Numerous Soviet soldiers guilty of rape, torture, plunder and murder inside Germany 45.
Hey Hortland, riddle me this, if air power doesn't win wars then why was Desert Storm 1 week long? Why is it that in any war where the one with dominant air superiority will always advance the furthest on the ground?
Desert Storm is an example of a war where the airforce was not used to kill enemy civilians. I'm not sure whether you know this or not. Desert Storm is also an example of the need for ground units if you are to take control of any territory, no matter how much air supremacy you have.
The bomber crews destroyed Germany's ability to manufacture more weapons, gas, oil, ball bearings and the list goes on. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
No, its still you.
Can you list any German production numbers that dropped thanks to the british area bombing campaign? As I have tried to point out before, the USAF actually tried to hit German industry, and the USAF actually did some damage too.
Take a look at German production numbers in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. The strategic bombing campaign started in 1943, and reached its peak in early/mid 1944. When in this time period was German production at its lowest? (1942) When did German production peak? Late 1944 perhaps?
No German ability to produce anything was completely destroyed. Least of all by the British. No, the brits went about their merry task of killing as many German civilians as possible by area bombing German cities. While they were doing that, Speer moved German production from the cities to other locations, and managed to increase German production month by month, year by year.
And yes, the color of the uniform does matter to me. Well atleast the little arm badge with the swastika. One side fought for the right cause, preventing Hitler's 3rd Reich from expanding the globe and the other one fought for Hitler's cause. When you are fighting a criminal army, I don't see how you can not commit crimes yourself.
So in other words, whatever the Germans did on the eastern front should be excused because they were fighting against a criminal army? You my friend, have a tendency to oversimplify things.
You know just as well as I do that if Germany had won WWII, there would be no mention of war crimes.... because no one but Germans/Aryans would be left alive.
Rubbish. The German plan was never to exterminate all other races from the face of the planet.
What difference does a declaration of war make? Pearl Harbor, if you can't understand that then I can't help you.
Uh?
Question: "What difference does a declaration of war make?"
Answer: "Pearl Harbor"
...Well, I guess you cant help me then.
My point being about Germany destroying towns and cities, etc, as they advanced through most of Europe is that at those initial days of WWII is when Germany initiated the war crimes and never stopped.
Does it matter alot to you who committed the first warcrime? If one side commits one warcrime, then it is "the gloves are off, no rules apply, and it is the fault of the one who started it"? (Before you answer that one and walk right into something, read what I wrote about Polish nationals killing ethnical Germans in the first days of wwii)
The allied bomber crews did what they were told, if you are looking for criminals you'll find them in the higher ranks. But the lowly soldier does what's he's supposed to do- just keep soldiering on.
See what I wrote above on the Nuremberg trial.
-
Can you list any German production numbers that dropped thanks to the british area bombing campaign? As I have tried to point out before, the USAF actually tried to hit German industry, and the USAF actually did some damage too.
Hamburg.
Five months after the raids, industrial production had reached 80% of it's pre raid level.
Blohm und Voss shipyards had 300 workers report for work the day after the first raid. By September, 5000 of the 9500 workers were back in work. By November, over 20% still hadn't come back to work.
The Blohm und Voss shipyard wasn't hit, but it lost production of 25 submarines.
During the 3 months after the raid, the average absentee rate amongst the workers in war industries in Hamburg was 48%.
There was a series made by 2 Canadian Brothers the Valour and Honor that sheds light on the tactic of area bombing
It was called The Valour and The Horror.
The Canadian senate mounted an investigation after a wave of complaints. There findings were:
It is the Sub-Committee's opnion that the criticisms leveled at The Valour and the Horror are for the most part legitimate. Simply put, while the film-makers have a right to their point of view, they have failed to present that point of view with any degree of accuracy or fairness. The second and third episodes, dealing with the bomber offensive and the Normandy campaign respectively, are riddled with inaccuracies and bias perceptions, and suffer from a critical lack of balance.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They weren't heroes. They were fools - swept along by nationalistic fervour and jingoism at best, consumed by pure hatred at worst.
That's a quote to remember.
- oldman
-
Hortland, since analogies seem to be over your head, how about this: Support of the German people: Europe’s Greatest Democracy Nazi Mandate (http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/ahpopular.htm) This is a source I’m sure you’ll have a hard time arguing with, since it is a Nazi revisionist site. 45 million is a pretty good mandate. The data is verifiable. Other support for this contention can be found in the following:
Loyalty Oath (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm)
90% Referendum (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess2.htm)
Election propaganda (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/wilweg02.htm)
I have yet to read or hear a serious German telling of the period that suggests otherwise, whether the subject doing the telling was apologetic or defiant. Is it really surprising given the culture was, until the end of WW1, a comfortable, authoritarian monarchy? Hortland, how do you feel the Social Democrats failed in meeting the Nazi political challenge, since they ultimately were the biggest political losers?
Known Nazi Policy Goals
There is no shortage of film, audio, written or first person accounts that clearly state the ultimate goals of National Socialism. You have to hand it to the Nazis, propaganda or not, they were really up front with the people about what they were going to do and they delivered. Did the Nazi’s say -- war with Britain in 1939? No. It was more like, we have lands that need to revert to our control, and heaven help those who stand in the way. Did the Nazi’s say -- we will gas 12 million people (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. in factory killing machines? No, but pretty close.
A state which in this age of racial poisoning dedicates itself to the care of its best racial elements must some day become lord of the earth. (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/)
Road to war (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/heer.htm)
The Jew or us, one of us will have to go. (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley3.htm)
Exterminate the Jews/1933 style (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds6.htm)
Not our fault! (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/wehr02.htm)
Really, we feel no hatred against the Czech people (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-01-39.html)
Poland excuse (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html)
-- Were the majority of the German people pro Nazi: clearly yes.
-- Were the majority of the people hard core nazis: probably not.
-- Did they decide to go along with the program and not ask too many uncomfortable questions of their leadership as long as they had jobs, full stomachs and goods to buy? I would say yes, and the Nazi reluctance to go to a war footing domestically until well into the war would seem to support this.
-- Were they war mongers? Some actively, most at least passively as long as the war was going well.
-- Did the mass public support the SD/Gestapo against “nonconformists” or were they victimized? Plenty of good German documentation would indicate the former.
-- Were they responsible for the extreme war crimes and supporting a war of aggression? When they stopped questioning their leadership and voluntarily gave Hitler a full “power of attorney” to do as he wished, I would say they acquired some definite responsibility.
Dreseden
Was terror bombing to break the will of the people a disproved theory? It had achieved success in Rotterdam (even with the mistake), so there was precedence for it. There seems to be a willingness to believe, among both the British and Germans, that while terror did not work on “us” the other side had a weaker will. The German focus on the wasteful V-program illustrates that even the Germans felt this way as late as 1944. Terror bombing v. morale, German style 1944 (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/dr02.htm)
Was dehousing a legitimate strategy?
First off, here’s a link that provides a good history of the British area bombing campaign for background purposes. Background (http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwmsds/hi247harris.htm)
In hindsight, it was a rather ineffective strategy per resources expended, but one where the actual results on German productivity, lines of communications and the economy were not fully known until the bombing surveys AFTER THE WAR. In general, IMO, winning a world war against a force as aggressive and vile as Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan for that matter, granted a lot of leeway to take any approach that would end the war earlier and minimize allied casualties even at the expense of German civilians. The German civilians had plenty of choices in 1932, 1933, 1936…1939… and they never backed away from supporting the Nazi regime in any significant way until the end of the war.
Was Dresden beyond the pale? Yes, IMO and shameful at that point in the war. Nor was it an oversight since there were those who found it a disagreeable action even before the first bomb fell. But it was on the borderline of an accepted military strategy used by all sides (along with unrestricted submarine warfare) so I’m not sure if it is technically within the war crimes realm. I even believe, though I may be wrong, that the Nuremberg charges against Goring focused on his “supporting a war of aggression” and not on his terror bombing campaign. As Toad pointed out, without Poland there would have been no Dresden. [edit: the escalation of the terror bombing campaign was encouraged by Churchill early on to draw attention away from the airfields/no BBS room to leave orig. text in w/correction]
What about the air war against Japan?
Well, for starters the first approach tried was high altitude precision bombing which failed because of jet stream wind conditions at altitude. About 1 in 50 bombs hit the intended target, for little result -- a prohibitive exercise given the extreme logistics required to run a bombing campaign from the Marianas. Indeed, attacks from Navy fighter-bombers fared much better hitting many of the same targets during carrier sweep operations. Further, casualties among bomber crews were relatively high and morale was suffering. Enter LeMay and area bombing.
Japan had an industrial infrastructure susceptible to area bombing and, unlike Germany, lacked the ability to significantly disperse industry. Further, the industrial base was located in residential areas and relied heavily on small “local shops” for both manufacturing and assembly/sub-assembly. Dehousing not only got rid of the civilian worker infrastructure, but typically the industrial facilities themselves.
Here are the bombing survey estimates:
Physical damage to plant installations by either area or precision attacks, plus decreases due to dispersal forced by the threat of further physical damage, reduced physical productive capacity by roughly the following percentages of pre-attack plant capacity: oil refineries, 83 percent; aircraft engine plants, 75 percent; air-frame plants, 60 percent; electronics and communication equipment plants, 70 percent; army ordnance plants, 30 percent; naval ordnance plants, 28 percent; merchant and naval shipyards, 15 percent; light metals, 35 percent; ingot steel, 15 percent; chemicals, 10 percent.
The goal in all cases was clearly to defeat Japan without having to endure the hundreds of thousands of allied causalities required with an invasion. As with the Germans, perhaps even more so, the Japanese leadership had the widespread support of its people. Surrender, despite terrible hardship, was not on the horizon. In fact, in the case of an invasion many of these civilians (women and children included) were ready to meet the allies on the beaches with sharpened bamboo spears. Similarly, a horde of Kamikazes awaited. The resolve of the Japanese people can be illustrated by the wife of a Kamikaze pilot who killed herself so that her husband could die in battle without any distractions.
The atomic bombs, were entirely within the scope of the goals, capabilities and general impact of the conventional bombing campaign. They did provide a “Power from Above” element that allowed for a face-saving exit from the war for the Japanese leadership. The war ended, fortunately before any Soviet occupation of the home islands (perhaps the main focus of the quick Nagasaki attack, though there was little indication that Hiroshima was going to pay off without another example that there was more then one bomb).
Perhaps Hortland, living in a country that has not had to spill blood in such a cause (at least sine 1814) provides you with a different perspective than mine. It can be more of a philosophical exercise for you. I had relatives who fought in the war, which they would have rather missed out on if given a choice. My grandfather would have been sitting on a command/communications ship off of Japan had an invasion occurred, manning a 5” gun as the kamikazes came in. In the countries where the death notices of sons and fathers arrive, protecting the lives of foreign civilians who are actively supporting THEIR war of aggression is secondary. Ending the war, restoring peace and getting the boys home is the first priority. In the end, it usually saves enemy lives.
There is no credible evident that the Japanese leadership was seriously considering surrender. Some unqualified junior functionaries had produced peace feelers, seemingly on their own initiative, but they lacked authority and an unconditional surrender was not a serious consideration in any case. The alternative to the bombing of Japan would have been blockade and starvation. Starvation was well on it’s way Japan, and ending the war when it did likely prevented a much greater catastrophe. Saburo Sakai touched on this in “Samurai.”
Charon
-
Again, I would like to add that my positions are centered on the WW2 era German adults. Germany since the war has been very progressive about learning from the past and moving on, better than my own country in many regards. We have to learn from our mistakes or we may very well make them again, when another Hitler type, with another bag of pleasing, simple but ultimately reprehensible solutions slithers by.
Charon
-
This thread was about the specific act of fire Dresden.
I can see where some were confused because the best arguement that those who attempt to rationalize that raid is is "Nazis: they are all evil".
The facts around the Dresden Raid show it was for only 1 purpose. To target civilians and create as much terror as possible.
If you doudt this I would ask that you reread the thread in particularly the quotes I have posted.
For some reason folks have trouble addressing the specific question as it relates to Dresden..........
Is the targeting of civilians acceptable when it designed for 1 purpose, to cause as much terror as possible?
Dresden didnt end the war nor was it expected to, Dresden didn't aid the russian or stop German troop Movements (the Marshalling yards weren't hit), Dresden did not save allied lives and it can be righly argued that in fact in put more lives at risk then it could have saved.
I leave you with a quote from Churchill
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.............The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing.........
If your arguement is "well so what" thats onething but dont say that what happened in Dresden did anything to stop Nazi terror.
Let this thread die...............
Or answer the specific narrow question about Dresden...........
No the Bombing of Dresden was not at the time classified as a "War Crime" nor was Area Bombing. But neither were most of the crimes the Nazis were charged with. Precedent was set by the "International Military Tribunal".
Senator Robert A. Taft delivered a speech, in the middle of the heaterd 1946 US election campaign, attacking both the legal basis for the trials and the sentences which were imposed. John F. Kennedy published a book, Profiles in Courage, in which he commended Taft for taking his stand, adding that Taft's views "are shared by a substantial number of Americans at the time".
Anyway this is the only place you can get accused of being a Nazi apologist for opposing the specific targeting of civilians for no other reason then to cause terror...:rolleyes:
-
Amen
-
Originally posted by Charon
Hortland, since analogies seem to be over your head, how about this: Support of the German people: Europe’s Greatest Democracy Nazi Mandate (http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/ahpopular.htm) This is a source I’m sure you’ll have a hard time arguing with, since it is a Nazi revisionist site. 45 million is a pretty good mandate. The data is verifiable. Other support for this contention can be found in the following:
This was above and beyond the call of duty, Charon. Very to-the-point. Very saved.
- Oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
This was above and beyond the call of duty, Charon. Very to-the-point. Very saved.
- Oldman
Did you give up our other discussion oldman?
-
Originally posted by Charon
This is a source I’m sure you’ll have a hard time arguing with, since it is a Nazi revisionist site.
Im too drunk right now to answer your entire post, I'll do it on monday at work.
But please explain exactly wtf you mean by this quote Charon. Im serious here, explain to me why you choose those exact words.
-
he means your a Nazi/Nazi Apologist/Nazi Excusionist/ and or at the very least a Revisionist because you disagree with 1 terror act should result in another. After all its only fair......:rolleyes:
-
It's just amazing isn't it, how those World War things can just get right out of hand once you start one? Next thing you know innocent people start dying and stuff like that!
:rolleyes:
-
I just don't get it...
Hortlund, Wotan what is the point? Do we stop viewing those who fought against the evil regime of the Nazi's and preserved our freedoms and the freedom of MILLIONS as heros? Should we really start looking at their actions through the filter of time and hindsight and decide that they were just men? DUH!
History has made its judgement of these men as far as I am concerned. There is no way of knowing the feelings in their hearts or the process of decisions made. That all happened in their minds, and those were bent and twisted by the war.
Or look at it this way.....If you had to choose to defend the Commandant of Bergen Belsen or the Commander of the British Bomber Corps, which would you feel you could be successful with?
-
BTW..Wotan
Robert Taft spoke out against those German Leaders who were indicted and convicted of "waging an aggressive war". This does seem to be a catchall charge that probably was used improperly. It does absolutely nothing to further your point however, just the opposite. It can also be argued that the bombing of Dresden was "aggressive war", and Taft would have been against that as a war crime too.
-
If you had to choose to defend the Commandant of Bergen Belsen or the Commander of the British Bomber Corps, which would you feel you could be successful with?
This thread needs to die so I will answer this then thats it.
I wouldn't defend either.....why would have to?
What need would I have to be successful?
If I were a defense attorney I would withdraw from the case.
I will tell you this my defense for either wouldn't be to ask that my clients crimes be excused because of the crimes of the other.
You can argue all you want how them "Nazi women and children deserved it". But you cant change what it was and what it was admitted to be.
You as an individual can choose whatever mitigating circumstances you want to forgive/forget what happened at Dresden.
But what you cant do is call it anything other then what it was......
Targeting of civilians in order to cause terror..........
And you cant after the fact come and tell me there was some stragtegic necessity that Dresden be fire
bombed.
-
You also can't change the fact that it wouldn't have happened at all if Hitler hadn't started WW2.
Want to place blame?
-
Well, Hortland, your vision of the era does seem somewhat in line with that of many revisionists/apologists. In fact, many of your themes from this and the other thread, are contained at this disagreeable site. Now, there is a lot of other material at this site that goes far beyond anything posted by you in these threads, and I'm certainly not attributing those positions to you since you haven't stated those positions. [edit: BTW, I post a lot of stuff against Israel's current/past policy, so I am aware of the dangers with jumping to conclusions, since I don't appreciate false assumptions made about my motivations. However, I do make sure people know exactly where I'm coming from in a broad sense, so they know exactly who they are dealing with. I am a "race defiler" anyway (my wife is Jewish), so there is only so far those assumptions can realistically be drawn :) It's funny, I actually know far more about the holocaust, or Israeli politics than she does and likely ever will.]
True revisionists actually trumpet Hitler's mandate over Germany (true democracy in action), say the German war aims were really fair and just, then deny that events like the holocaust occurred. There's no need to say the people didn't know since, well, there was nothing to know in the first place.
First you eliminate Germany as an aggressor, the Holocaust (12 million plus Henry Ford style) as a stunningly evil event, and then even things out with the: My side bombed yours, you bombed mine, what’s the difference? The next step, of course, becomes Hitler had the right idea and the Germans were the real victims. Just look what the Russians did to us! It's time for Aryan action! BTW Hortland, could you footnote, attribute or link the specific points in your reply?
Wotan, as I stated, Harris was wrong on that specific attack, perhaps even criminally wrong in spirit if not by definition. But, terror bombing itself was just another horrible, but conventional element in a total, 20th century industrial war. The days where armies were measured in the tens of thousands (or less) and fought one or two battles on some remote field to decide the war are long gone -- well, they may actually be coming back now in the 21st century.
You almost have to completely destroy a determined industrial country's infrastructure and economy(including its means of production) in order to stop it. Destroying its will to fight is much harder (if there's a significant will to fight in the first place), but that was a lesson learned FROM WW2, not before or even during, apparently.
If the de-housing aspects of terror bombing helped end the war a year earlier and saved allied lives (as the non-aggressors in the conflict) then I will not say we should have allowed more allied soldiers to die in order to save German civilians who were only "innocent" up to a point.
Similarly, individual excesses have always occurred, and yes, all sides are guilty throughout the ages. The difference I see is between a "manslaughter" act and a "1st degree murder" act. Individuals on all sides shot pilots in their chutes in the heat of battle. Individuals on all sides shot potential prisoners trying to surrender in the heat of battle, particularly if they had just killed some friends. I can accept that as a "part of war."
If you look at the allies, Harris might well have committed "1st degree murder" at Dresden (though he would probably have gotten off on a technicality). If you look at the Axis, "1st Degree murder" starts when the first tank rolls into Poland and continues through some 50 Million dead. I do see a distinction. At the battlefield level, for each Allied cold act of "1st degree murder" attributable to an individual commander making a cold-blooded decsion out of personal hate, how many similar Axis events were committed against civilians or captured troops as a matter of APPROVED POLICY in order to send a message (partisan activity reprisal, commandos captured, etc.)?
Here's one to throw out for consideration: The battle of the Bismark Sea.
In January 1943, a combined army of Australian and American troops started to move on the Japanese in New Guinea. Admiral Yamamoto was still determined to hold his bases at Salamoua and Lae.
So, on Febuary 28,1943, 8 destroyers and 8 transports carrying 6,000 troops slipped out of Rabaul, heading along the coast of New Britain Island and through the Bismarck Sea towards Lae. The next day, an RAAF Liberator spotted the convoy. Despite the initial raid by B-17 Flying Fortesses, which blew up two of the transports (wow, it actually did happen at least twice), the convoy stayed on course. They were about to turn around the Huon Peninsula and make their final run for Lae when, on the morning of March 3rd, 84 American bombers and fighters, accompanied by 13 RAAF Beaufighters swept in mast-high out of the morning sun.
Four destroyers and the remaining transports were sunk, leaving hundreds of men clinging to wreckage. More and more Allied aircraft (330 in all) now zoomed in to machine gun the survivors. Later that night, the grisly work continued, to stop the Japanese from coming ashore. About 3000 Japanese died in what the Japanese called the "Bismarck Sea Massacre". Only 850 reached Lae, where they too soon perished. After that, there was little Yamamoto could do to reinforce his forces in New Guinea.
Some Factors to Consider:
1. Many still had their weapons, none had surrendered
2. There was a good chance they would make it to the war zone, and many did.
Charon
-
Specifics surrounding the dresden raid support none of your points.
The attck on dresden did not save anyone did not end anything and this was known prior to the attck.
I have quoted in each thread evrything that supports my view and I have stated it clearly.
I have also stated that given the points made for area bombing by the quote I posted in numerous replies by harris that to a degree I would agree with him there. Again however none of the points he stated wer true in the dresden raid. They admit it was a terror raid no matter what excuse you make for them.
Wrap your selves it what evr you need to excuse what happened in Dresden but dont keep telling me there was some military necessity for what happened there.
"Hitler made me do it" is no more an excuse then "the devil made me do it" for either side.
-
reread what I said about Taft and harris...
didn't I say that Harris at the time of Dresden there was no legal basis for charging him as war criminal?
I used the Taft quote to show that not only was harris not guilty of war crimes but some folks also believed that prosecuting anyone for war crimes in general was unjust.
I dont know what you read but give it another try.
I am not asking you whether you believe Harris was a war criminal I know he purposely approved a plan to target civilians for no other purpose then for terror. To me he was a criminal.
This is really it for me in this thread.
I am starting to say the same things over and over ........... any further reply to my posts have been answered in the previous replies. Save us both the time and reread the post to find the answer to any question you have.
-
Toad, while your argument is immediately compelling and emotionally satisfying, I believe it is a simplification of the moral and ethical questions at hand.
Furthermore, it doesn't deal with the real moral and ethical question raised.
Blame is certainly an issue that can be discussed. However, laying blame is not the essence of this discussion as I see it.
The question is: Is the deliberate targetting and concerted efforts to kill as many civilians as possible a morally just act? This is a generic question that is abstracted from the Dresden case.
Intention is important here, as is acquired and existing knowledge.
The intention (specific to the Dresden case): To break the morale of the enemy, thus shortening the war and reducing overall loss of innocent lives.
The knowledge (also specific to Dresden case): terror bombing has occured several times in past history. While partly succesful in one area (Rotterdam) experiences in the UK during the Blitz would indicate that an eventual succes of such an enterprise would be questionable.
Also included in knowledge: The understanding that the massive resources needed to achieve the intended goal (ending the war) would have to be diverted from other efforts, and that these efforts had a more direct, quantifiable effect. It is hard to quantify a qualitative thing like morale, whereas it is easily quantifiable (comparatively) to see whether a factory is still producing goods, or whether a tank has been destroyed or not.
So, to ask the first question in a way that is specific to the Dresden case:
Is it ethically and morally justifiable to deliberately and intentionally divert massive resources that could be used to shorten the war in other way into an effort to kill as many German civilians as possible, when knowing firsthand that this attempt would at the very least have a questionable success rate?
In other words, the blame is not what we're discussing. We're discussing an act. The generic act could be applied to any country, and at any time.
To make it fair: We should view it from a modern point of view with current moral standards, as well as the existing one. In the latter case, it is possible to infer something from the Nüremberg trials.
Will not comment on blame at this point as I feel it is a strawman argument :).
-
What almost this entire thread seems to ignore is contained in Phantom-Mag33's post.
War itself is an atrocity. By its nature, modern war is an ever-escalating atrocity.
The concern all of you show for the "poor innocent civilians" is touching. However, it is of absolutely no consequence. Once an unlimited World War starts it almost immediately spirals far out of control and beyond any bounds of decency.
Look at the opening act, the invasion of Poland; there's plenty of "dead civilian" atrocities right from the beginning. It was just a matter of degree. The atrocities just got greater and more monsterous as the war spiraled out of control, far beyond any bounds of "decency".
This aside from the fact that a "modern" long duration war like WW2, cannot be waged without the support of the civilian population.
Where along the supply trail do you draw the line between combatant and non-combatant? Is the farmer that grows the food that sustains the troops-in-contact a target? How about the guy that builds the tank? Is he a target? Only when he's at the factory or when he sleeps in his home at night as well?
Those who would pretend that a global conflict with national survival at stake should have rules like a bridge tournament :rolleyes: are pollyannas of the highest order. Oh, their intent and well-wishes are fine; the idea itself is a delusion. Man tries, but events soon overwhelm the good intentions
Yeah, wouldn't it be wonderful if full scale global conflicts could be waged like a tennis match, in a sporting, "humanitarian" way. Wouldn't it be even MORE wonderful if man would learn from his recent past, Dresden included, and eschew war altogether as a means of "problem solving"?The reality and history of war suggests otherwise.
If a particular nation does not want its civilians to be targets in a world war, the best way is NOT TO START A WAR. Because once it starts, its civilians are going to die. In large numbers.
That's probably never been more true than now, when so many of the potential combatants have nuclear weapons.
If we wanted to take a lesson from Dresden, particularly given the number of nations with nukes, it would simple be that many, many civilians are going to die in a "world war" scenario.
Whether that is "moral" or not will not change that fact.
-
Double post, sorry.
-
For Toad:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/feat/cc/detail.asp?ID=8443
Which I think sums up the whole argument in a nice, politicaly correct allegory we can all agree with.
-
If a particular nation does not want its civilians to be targets in a world war, the best way is NOT TO START A WAR. Because once it starts, its civilians are going to die. In large numbers.
That's probably never been more true than now, when so many of the potential combatants have nuclear weapons.
Toad
That reminds me of the glorious time recently when both India and Pakistan showed off their new toys. All the cheering crowds dancing in the streets, they were almost weeping with joy, because they had finally "Made It" into the big club. Man, I couldn't help but think: "Just wait until your incenerated corpses are rotting in the sun, you'll have some real appreciation for the glory of the bomb then."
It doesn't look like either country is really taking it as serious as they need to, given the universal human maxim -- toejame happens. Given their rather patchy early warning and threat analysis systems, they shouldn't be doing anything even remotely agressive now.
Charon
-
I still disagree with ya Toad.
That a war is taking place does not exempt the acts taken within it from coming under scrutiny in the ethic/moral microscope.
There's a war. Everything is moral. War is hell.
Perhaps you're saying that morals do not count during a war, then I'd be inclined to agree.
That it does seem to matter, later wars are clear indictors of. We didn't see too much terror bombing of Iraq, for instance.
Circumstances ust be taken into account, but all actions can be judged, none are exempt from judgement.
And the High Lords behind their desks ordering troops to kill civilians should keep that in mind.
-
StSanta, one thing that keeps getting overlooked is that a lot of what we know about the relative success or failure of any bombing approach was learned after the fact. The bombing surveys did not come out until after the war. At the time, both strategic and dehousing were considered to be more successful than they were (at least directly, see ancillary benefits below). However, they were very successful in some areas (petroleum) and provided at least short-term disruption in most areas attacked -- a week, two weeks, a month -- it all added up. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the terror concept was also still alive and well, in some circles at least. Hitler, for example, seems to have held on to it longer than most with his wasteful V-weapon programs. Terror hadn't been "soundly" rejected, though it was certainly questioned.
There were a lot of ancillary factors as well:
1. You have to factor in a reduction in quality, reliability and service life with the weapons produced.
2. You have to factor in the impact on resources with having to defend the homeland. Each plane defending the homeland couldn't be used out East. Each experienced pilot killed couldn't be replaced (some claim that this aspect made the campaign successful in its own right). Even the "bombing round the clock" concept, that started as a sales pitch to save daylight bombardment, caused a increased dilution of the defense infrastructure compared to a daylight only approach. All of these factors made D-day that much easier, the Russian advance that much easier, and helped speed the end of the war.
3. The fact that we don't know what the final German production numbers would have been without the disruption, drain from relocation, death of skilled workers, and the damage of heavy equipment that couldn't be replaced or relocated. Remember too, those surging production numbers late in the war reflect, in part, Germany's belated switch to a war economy and I believe Speer's partial cleaning of up of the corruption and lack of coordination that had plagued German industry earlier. 25 fewer submarines or several hundred fewer Tigers here or there, and the war is that much shorter with fewer allied causalities.
Hindsight is great, but what's the alternative at the time? Allow unhindered production and say: "The lives of my soldiers and sailors and the life and well being of all those people living in the occupied territories is less important than the lives of German civilians who are supporting their country's war of conquest?" How do you sell that to the families of your soldiers, whose husbands and sons wouldn't even be putting their lives on the line in the first place if it wasn't for Axis aggression? In my estimation, a soldier fighting in defense or to liberate occupied lands is no less valuable than a German housewife. And hell, even in America, hardly the worst sufferer of the war, we lost over 3 "World Trade Centers" a month in war dead.
In an industrial war, one lasting half a decade, production has to be stopped. Tanks that are not made don't kill your tank crews. Torpedoes that aren't fired, because a submarine is not in existence to be on station, allow your troops and weapons to arrive where they are needed. You ask why population center's weren't attacked in Iraq? No need to with no industrial production base. Once a tank is killed on the battlefield it is not going to be replaced.
And speaking of terror. While looking up some facts I came across a photo. I'll post it below but be warned, it is GRAPHIC. Each day the war went on the terror continued in the occupied territories, and bombs weren't involved.
Each day the war was shortened, the more innocent NONAGRESSORS that survived. You'll notice a woman, wounded in a massacre but still alive and fighting for her life in a pit of death. You'll also notice that her terror is finally about to end. Somebody made the bullets in the killer's rifle, the transport that brought the killers East, the ME-109s that spearheaded the advance, and even the dashing uniforms worn by those heroes.
I've seen similarly horrible pictures of German housewives and children killed in an air raid. That is very tragic and horrible. But I would exchange their lives, as a necessary evil, to save as many lives as possible from an unnecessary evil. I would even be fairly generous about the ratio. I would even do it if I didn't know for sure it would be 100 percent effective But strategic bombing did have, in many facets including its main purpose, more than a minor effect on the length of the war. Tragic, but not as tragic as stopping Nazi aggression as rapidly as possible. [edit: I think the statistics still show that FAR more innocents died at the hands of the Nazis than were killed stopping the Nazis, even if you go so far as to consider every civilian and even every soldier as being completely innocent and without blame in the actions of the state.]
Charon
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Did you give up our other discussion oldman?
Sort of. Seemed to me that everyone who was interested had laid out his view on whether Nazi planes were really Nazi planes. And fewer were staying interested. I am content to let you have the last word in that thread. We must start a new one.
- Oldman
-
Yeah, well, you wont have to wait long. :)
Im writing a short essay here as a reply to Charons post. I dont think I'll be able to post it today though (big day in court tomorrow) but I'll try to have it finished by tomorrow night.
-
Hortlund - Neither can you say "damn Germans, they killed innocent women and children", and then turn a blind eye to the Soviet monstrosities when they entered German soil in 45
Did you really say "mostrosities"? If I were you I would be just plain grateful that advancing Russian troops left anyone alive after what Germans did in Russia. To get the idea of what "monstrosity" really means you'd need to visit some sites where German troops demonstarted how "civilised" Europeans deal with people who can't fight back. Keep in mind that before Soviet Army entered (what sounds almost like a holy grail) "German soil" it had kicked nazi swines out off Russian territory. Also helps to keep in mind the simple fact that on 22 June 1941 it was Germans who attacked Russia bombing cities and towns and killing your-ever-so-loved civilians in their thousands. Or don't they count?
One's just gotta love the whole discussion - a Swede is moralizing about rights or wrongs of WWII, laying blaim left, right and centre. Am I forgetting something here or were you ... err... not involved?
:eek:
p.s. Absolutely no disrespect to the Germans as a nation.
-
Charon pretty cheesy to put that kinda picture up. I could do the same with dresden pictures.
But nevertheless look at the uniforms and the guns that them soldiers have............
Looks Russian to me atleast provide the source of your picture and any caption that is with it.
I dont think any here is making any excuse for Germany atrocities so quit mixing up the discussion.
Dresden as admitted by those who planned was a terror raid. Reread my posts and try to address that and maybe keep it under a thousand words. After about 200 words of your drivel I stop reading and skip to the next post.
Dresden didnt shorten the war.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
That a war is taking place does not exempt the acts taken within it from coming under scrutiny in the ethic/moral microscope.
I don't believe I said that war did exempt the acts Santa.
That it does seem to matter, later wars are clear indictors of. We didn't see too much terror bombing of Iraq, for instance.
Well, think about that. The Coalition that bombed Iraq STILL killed civilians. Despite all the "smart" weapons and "careful" targeting, civilians still died. Not a huge WW2 bombing raid type number but more than enough. So was it OK to kill them, since the Coalition wasn't "terror bombing" per se?
Further, it was such a clear case of overmatched adversaries with a predictably short timeline (the Coalition pretty much ran out of strategic targets in short order and tactical targets were cut to an easily "serviced" number relatively quickly... the Coalition knew it was going to win. It didn't actually realize how fast it was going to go though.
Had it drug out 6 years, would things have been different? We'll never know now.
Circumstances ust be taken into account, but all actions can be judged, none are exempt from judgement.
And the High Lords behind their desks ordering troops to kill civilians should keep that in mind.
Judge any and and all you like and the facts will still remain.
Without someone starting a war, there can be no "war crimes".
Once a war starts, there WILL be war crimes, attributable to all participants.
So look for the root cause. War = war crimes. Inevitably.
No war = no war crimes. Indisputably.
There's no discussion of the basic history. Adolph Hitler KNEW there was the risk of war during the Austrian Anschluss, the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. He and his henchmen may have spread the BS around to cover their actions but any and all of these could be considered causus belli and they knew it.
With that knowledge came the knowledge that if they didn't win, the horrors of war would be visited upon the German populace. Even if they DID win, they knew that Germans.. soldiers and civilians were going to die.
They made the decision to commit the country to war, knowing all these things.
Therefore, Hitler bear the responsibility for starting the war and with that, all the rest.
So take all the moralizing and the various Geneva conventions bind them in volumes done in fine leather and start passing them out......
Give some to Israel and Palestine.
Give some to the Muslims and Hindus in India.
Give some to the Bosnia Christians and Muslims.
Give some to the Sudanese Muslims and Christians.
Give some to the Coalition forces and Al-quaeda in Afghanistan.
Give some to the Phillipine government and Abu Sayyad.
Give some to the Chechens and the Russian government.
Then see if anything changes. ;)
Man is inhumane and war is his most inhumane instrument. Once it starts, the only time actions will be judged is in the courts of the victors....... with predictable results.
... and it won't make any difference at all to the slain.
-
There's still a fundamental point being missed.
There's looneys, nutters and bad bastards in every human gathering. The difference is the sponsoring culture.
The fact is that right from the start the Allied forces recognised the concept of war crimes (which may or may not match our current criteria almost a centuary later); and prosecuted those held responsible. There was even a motion to prosecute Harris, and as has been mentioned, there was opposition in the house of parliament to some of his planning.
None of that happened on the Axis side. I'm no historian, but I really can't think of the any examples of any Axis prosecutions for war crimes. Not one. Hopefully our learned friend will enlighten me.
Not after the invasion of Poland.
Not after the refugee colums were straffed in France.
The essential difference between the Allied side and the philosophy espoused by some of the posters in here is that while war is hell, and humans fail, the Allied still held some moral scruples, even if they weren't scrupulous enough. The Axis had none.
I say again: It was possible at any time to avoid the Allied transgressions - one could cease waging war. It was never at any time possible to avoid the Axis. The facts of one's existance was in of it's self a death sentance.
-
bump
Subject came up in Aircraft forum, no point in rediscussing these issues there.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I thought it would be better to continue the discussion in here...
Lets take a look at the overall situation in Europe in early February 1945. Does it look good or bad for the Germans? Any signs of any potential counterattack throwing the allies back into the sea, or the Russians back into Russia? Any signs of increased German production, any signs of stubborn resistance in the west, or any great defensive lines in the east? Not really huh.
Well lets take a look at the Luftwaffe then. Can they take to the air in vast numbers and perhaps stop or disrupt any allied air missions? Any signs of any new fighter units going active? Do they even have fuel enough to sortie more than maybe 20 fighters at the same time? Not really.
Well then, lets take a look at Dresden. Prewar population of roughly 620.000. With all the refugees from the east its population is around 1.000.000 in early Feb 1945. Most of these refugees are simply passing through on their way west. Sleeping outside in freezing weather, carrying with them all their remaining belongings. Any German units in the area? Nope, as good as every available German soldier is at the front. Dresden is however protected by antiaircraft defenses in the form of antiaircraft guns and searchlights.
How about production then? Any industries in the area? Well..yes. Dresden has at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that are legitimate military targets, and they are reported to be employing 50,000 workers. Among these are some dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the Zeiss Ikon A.G., these are the guys who make the excellent zeiss optics for the German Tiger tanks, some other factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).
Anyway, where is that place located? Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin. Two major transport routs intersects in the city. The north-south axis between Germany and Czechoslovakia runs through the valley and gorge of the Elbe River, and the east-west axis along the foot of the central European uplands. In addition to this, Dresden is the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden is connected to both cities by two main lines.
So, the case against Dresden so far, some industries, a handful of which might be considered secondary targets for any bomber mission. And rated as a key communications center together with Berlin, Leipzig and Munich when it comes to any east-west troop movements.
Enter the Russians.
At Yalta, the Soviet General Antonov made three specific requests for Allied assistance to the Russians.
"Our wishes are:
[SNIP]
b. By air action on communications hinder the enemy from carrying out the shifting of his troops to the East from the Western Front, from Norway, and from Italy (In particular, to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig)."
Well then, the Russians wants the allies to prevent troop movement from the west to the east. Hey, look at Dresden. The marshalling yards has been bombed twice before. On 7/10/44 8th airforce send 30 bombers who delivered 72.5 tons on target. Then on 16/1/45 the brave 8th returned with 133 B-17's, this time virtually obliterating the marshalling yards with 322 tons of bombs, 42 of which were incendiaries. We know that the marshalling yards were not in operation less than a month after this strike. In fact there aren't that many trains running at all in Germany in Feb 1945. But lets not care about such petty details now. We must stop every possible troop movement from west to east. Berlin and Leipzig has already been hit hard many times. Berlin by a staggering 67,607.3 tons, and Leipzig by a modest 11,616.4 tons. Now its time for Dresden.
So...
On the night between the 13/14th of Feb 1945 the RAF Bomber Command conducted its glorious night raid on Dresden. 722 heavy bombers dropped 1477 tons of high explosive and 1182 tons of incendiary bombs on Dresden. Naturally they did not aim for anything in particular in the city. Heck no. The night bombing is still so inaccurate that the smallest thing they can hope to hit is a city, forget trying to target any marshalling yards. No sir. Aim for the city center. Still using the good 'ol bomber stream tactic, the bombers came in individually over the target in a long long line. The night bombings went on for the better part of the night, lasting several hours. Leaving behind what can only be described as I dunno...the scene of a crime?
The bombings resulted in fires that did great damage to the city proper, particularly in the older and more densely built up areas. Early official Allied post-strike reports estimated that 85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed, that the old part of the city, which comprised the greater portion of the built-up areas was largely wiped out, that the majority of buildings in the inner suburbs was gutted, and that in the outer suburbs, few buildings were effected by the area bombing attack. Virtually all major public buildings appeared heavily gutted or severely damaged. Public utilities, and facilities such as slaughter houses, warehouses, and distribution centers, were severely affected. A very large number of the city’s industrial facilities were destroyed or severely damaged, with perhaps a four-fifth’s reduction in the productive capacity of the arms plants. Later British assessments, which were more conservative, concluded that 23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged.
So, dawn breaks on the 14th of February. No on can imagine the scenes in Dresden this morning. Anyway, as the firebrigades (or whats left of them anyway) of Dresden do their best to control some of the fires the 8th Airforce are preparing for the days strike. While the people of Dresden are fighting for their lives, trying to survive, trying to save their familymembers 316 B-17s are warming their engines. They arrive around noon. The citizens of the doomed city have no warning before the strike. No air sirens to alert them to the danger, everything in the city is already destroyed.
From the blue sky comes the second wave of destruction. This time a modest 295 tons of high explosive bombs, combined with 295 tons of incendiaries rains down on the city. This time however, the damage is concentrated in the marshalling yards area, after all, the bombers are B-17's, with their excellent Norden sights they actually have some chance of hitting what they are aiming at. The dense smoke over Dresden however makes aiming difficult, so the bombs are scattered all over the city once more.
Home they go, the brave crews of the mighty eight. Heroes of WWII, who took the fight to the Germans, and broke the back of the German war industry.
But they return of course. The next day 211 B-17's return with their load of 467 tons of High explosives. I'm not really sure why they did return a third time...a coup de graze perhaps?
I wont even bore you all with the numbers of civilians killed. No one will ever agree on the total number of killed in Dresden anyway, it was simply impossible to count them all. And no one will ever know how many refugees were in the city that first night.
Nor will anyone ever really care, no brit or american anyway. After all it was war, and the Germans started it. And what the Germans were doing in the east was far far worse. And take a look at Coventry 1940, the krauts did it first. Nope..those Germans sure had it coming.
I think I'll end this post with a quote that pretty much sums up the brittish view on things.
I really dont understand how any BC crew member who flew over Dresden, or any other German city for that matter, could ever look at himself in the mirror again without feeling disgust. But then again, that's just me.
I just came upon this post and haven't read any of the following posts. Hortlund, in this case I agree wholeheartedly (surprise). It was a calculated mission to take out as many of the civillian population as possible. State sponsored murder.
....and to those that might argue otherwise, punishing the whole for the fraction is wrong.
wSNPR
-
WOW!! :eek:
Just finished to read the ENTIRE thread!!
It took more than an hour (and a big translating effort).
The 2 Eurocent I want to add are (paraphrasing Toad ;) ):
If you dont want your thread become a "you are a nazi!" "we kicked your arse!" "It's black and white!" discussion, DONT START A THREAD!!!
:D :p ;)
P.S.
English are criminals, they like the Spitfire!!! :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? :rolleyes:
The Germans were defeated....everyone new it
Weren't these the same Germans who had mounted a huge counter offensive only 8 weeks before?
yes it was .. so whats your point ?
-
btw i didnt get whats that HELL about that WAR ?
-
these threads didnt come up in aircraft forum you drug umm up when a few folks said they were tired of your rediculous drivel.
-
I disagree Wotan. These threads are directly related to the off-topic discussion that was developing and is continuing in the aircraft forum. I dug them up because I didn't feel there was any use in rehashing what had already been covered (which is being rehased regardless, what 3 pages now?). Why reinvent the wheel every 4 months when the topic arises, particularly in an off-topic forum?
Charon
-
"They were doing their job at the time"
All too often I hear and have heard servicemen refer to "just doing my job." Job? How about Duty? During my 20 years of service, I never thought I had a job. I might have tasks that I executed under my duty.
Totaly off the subject, just a rant.
-
It would seem that there may be another side to this issue. I found this in an Air Force military site.
Casualties among the Dresden populace were inevitably very heavy in consequence of the fires that swept over the city following the RAF area raid on the night of 13/14 February. In addition to its normal population, the city had experienced a heavy influx of refugees from the east and of evacuees from bombings in other areas, particularly from Berlin.52 The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established.53 Contemporary British estimates were that from 8,200 to 16,400 persons were killed and that similar numbers of persons may have been seriously injured.54 Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February.55 Although the latest available post-war accounts play up the “terroristic” aspects of the Dresden bombings, it is significant that they accept much lower casualty figures than those circulated by the Germans immediately after the raids and, from time to time, in the years immediately following the war.56 The most distorted account of the Dresden bombings--one that may have become the basis of Communist propaganda against the Allies, particularly against the Americans, in recent years--was prepared by two former German general officers for the Historical Division, European Command (U.S.A.) in 1948.57 In this account, the number of dead from the Dresden bombings was declared to be 250,000. That this figure may be the probable number of dead, multiplied by ten for the sake of exaggeration, becomes apparent by comparing the weight of the Dresden bombings of 14-15 February 1945 with the total tonnages expanded by the Allies against the six other largest German cities (see Chart A) and by comparing the various estimates of the Dresden casualties with the best estimate of the total casualties suffered by the Germans from all Allied bombings during World War II.
Did I forget to call people names?
-
Here is the chart mentioned above.
City Population in 1939
Total Bomb Tonnages
Berlin
4,339,000
67,607.6
Hamberg
1,129,000
38,687.6
Munich
841,000
27,110.9
Cologne
772,000
44,923.2
Leipzig
707,000
11,616.4
Essen
667,000
37,938.0
Dresden
642,000
7,100.5
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that 305,000 persons were killed and 780,000 were wounded as the consequence of all Allied bombings against Germany in World War II,58 from a total Allied bomb expenditure of 3,697,473.59 It may therefore be presumed that the estimates of 25,000 dead and 30,000 wounded, as presented in most of the latest available German estimates of the Dresden bombings, are reasonable and acceptable.
-
But Midnight, did you miss this part: The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established.
After that, any excercise with numbers is just pointless. If you look at my original post you will find this quote:
I wont even bore you all with the numbers of civilians killed. No one will ever agree on the total number of killed in Dresden anyway, it was simply impossible to count them all. And no one will ever know how many refugees were in the city that first night.
Nor will anyone ever really care, no brit or american anyway. After all it was war, and the Germans started it. And what the Germans were doing in the east was far far worse. And take a look at Coventry 1940, the krauts did it first. Nope..those Germans sure had it coming.
[/b]
I find it both sad and pathetic that you would prove me right.
That this figure may be the probable number of dead, multiplied by ten for the sake of exaggeration, becomes apparent by comparing the weight of the Dresden bombings of 14-15 February 1945 with the total tonnages expanded by the Allies against the six other largest German cities
And this doesnt quite cut it either, Hamburg and Dresden stick out, because these two towns are the only ones who suffered unique damage. Let me try to explain.
What happened in Hamburg, was basically that all the incediaries created a big wall of fire that moved downwind over the city.
In Dresden, a "firestorm" was created. Basically all the incediaries created an intensly heated "core-fire". This fire was so hot and so large that it created its own meteorological system around it. Air flowed into this core with hurricane strength. Basically anyone or anything caught outside was sucked into the flames where the intense heat obliterated any remains.
Now I know that you probably wont believe me, since you never do. But the effects on Hamburg and Dresden are well known, and you should have little problem finding more info on the web.
My point here is this: You cannot simply do a tonnage-comparrison and expect to draw any conclusions from that when the destruction of Dresden was so different from anyting else.
-
I have no idea why you insist on being such a condesending twit Hortlund! All I did was post some interesting information from an arguably reliable source on the subject of this thread.
I could really care less how "Sad and Pathetic" you feel "proving you right" might be. And I apologize for not bowing to your greatness when you told everyone that the numbers of dead will never be agreed upon. I didn't realize you were setting up the rules for the thread.
I am also well aware of the incindiary devices used on Hamburg and Dresden, and the fires that developed. I was about to post one more chart relating to that issue. Now please try to grow up so the discussion doesn't degenerate too far.
Despite the lack of accurate statistics on the number of killed and wounded in the Dresden raid, as well as in other Allied bombings of German cities, it would appear from such estimates as are available that the casualties suffered in the Dresden bombings were not disproportionate to those suffered in area attacks on other German cities. The reports of the United States Bombing Survey give specific estimates of the dead for only four of the German cities which were subject to fire raids during area attacks.60 Assuming that there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the night the 13/14 February RAF attack,61 these are the comparative death rates in Dresden and the four cities for which the United States Strategic Bombing Survey has given estimates of moralities from incendiary area attacks:62
City
Population
Killed
Percentage rate
Darmstadt
109,000
8,100
.075
Kassel
220,000
8,659
.039
Dresden
1,000,000
25,000
.025
Hamberg
1,738,000
41,800
.024
Wuppertal
400,000
5,219
.013
-
What part of "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established." did you not understand?
What part of " You cannot simply do a tonnage-comparrison and expect to draw any conclusions from that when the destruction of Dresden was so different from anyting else." did you not understand?
Why do you insist on trying to post numbers that are guesswork at most? There are between 1 000 000 up to 4 500 000 Germans unacounted for after the war. No one knows what happened to them. Perhaps some of them died in the bombing raids where we dont know how many people perished?
Cant you just leave it at "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established."?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What part of "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established." did you not understand?
I understand it completely. When were you made the almighty? Are you saying I may not try to post information that attempts to establish a reasonably accurate body count? If so I must be in the wrong place for an OPEN discussion. Damn! You act as if "IF HORTLUND SAID IT IT MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED" is painted on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling!
What part of " You cannot simply do a tonnage-comparrison and expect to draw any conclusions from that when the destruction of Dresden was so different from anyting else." did you not understand?
I guess you decided to post your little rant before reading my last post. Go back to see what it says before you accuse me of basing the information solely on tonnage. I even made all the refrences to incidiary in bold for you.
Why do you insist on trying to post numbers that are guesswork at most? There are between 1 000 000 up to 4 500 000 Germans unacounted for after the war. No one knows what happened to them. Perhaps some of them died in the bombing raids where we dont know how many people perished?
Guesswork? By who's standards? I believe I have found a reliable source for these numbers. The number of dead in Dresden was no higher (by %) than Hamburg and lower (by %) than in Kassel or Darmstadt.
Cant you just leave it at "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established."?
Nope, because it is the horrific numbers of casualties quoted by some sources that fuels this debate. Once the actual numbers are posted it becomes only a question of the military significance of the target.
And BTW I am horrified by even the 25,000 deaths. That would be equal to 8 WTC attacks in 2 days.
One other issue is the method by which the huge claims of 250,000 dead originated.
Read this:
It is, however, understandable that the surviving Dresden populace should have regarded the bombings as even more devastating and death-dealing than they actually were,69 and that the bombings were seized upon by the German authorities as a means of conducting psychological warfare against the Allies in the closing months of the war. The distorted and highly exaggerated accounts of the admittedly grim casualties suffered in Dresden issued by German propaganda agencies immediately following the bombings,70 coupled with an inadvertent and misinformed Allied news release concerning the Dresden and other simultaneous bombings, let to an investigation by Headquarters, Army Air Forces, of the purpose and character of the current American strategic bombing operations in Europe.
32. At a meeting with Allied press correspondents on 16 February 1945 a member of the SHAEF public relations staff released inaccurate and misleading statements concerning the current Allied bombing operations against German cities, primarily against communications centers, among which Dresden was obviously included.71 American press accounts of the remarks made to newsmen at SHAEF implied that the American and British bombing forces had begun a deliberate campaign of indiscriminate terror bombing” against German cities, thereby deviating from long-established policies concerning the employment of Allied strategic air power.72 Confirmed with the sensational American news stories and the German propaganda “plants” in the foreign press, Headquarters, Army Air Forces, in Washington, at once demanded from American air authorities in Europe a full explanation of the basis of the lurid press accounts and insisted that American bombing forces must not deviate from official bombing policy, either as to objectives and priorities or as to bombing methods.73
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I guess you decided to post your little rant before reading my last post. Go back to see what it says before you accuse me of basing the information solely on tonnage. I even made all the refrences to incidiary in bold for you.
[/b]
Actually, no. As I tried to say in my post, Dresden and Hamburg were unique. In no other bombing raid during the war did those two conditions occur. In all other bombing raids with incediaries, lots of fires broke out. But no where else did all these fires combine into a "wall of fire" (Hamburg) or "firestorm" (Dresden). Now, as I said, you probably wont take my word for this, so please go check all the internet sources you want.
Do you understand why I insist that it is pointless then, to do a tonnage comparrison, even if you are comparing with other raids using incediaries?
Guesswork? By who's standards? I believe I have found a reliable source for these numbers. The number of dead in Dresden was no higher (by %) than Hamburg and lower (by %) than in Kassel or Darmstadt.
[/b]
Stop this nonsense. NO seriously, stop posting drivel like this.
Take a look at what you said at the top of your own post. Something along the lines of "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established", nevertheless you proceed to compare the number of dead in Dresden (which is unknown by your own admission) with the number of dead in other raids. It is ludicrious.
Nope, because it is the horrific numbers of casualties quoted by some sources that fuels this debate. Once the actual numbers are posted it becomes only a question of the military significance of the target.
And BTW I am horrified by even the 25,000 deaths. That would be equal to 8 WTC attacks in 2 days.
One other issue is the method by which the huge claims of 250,000 dead originated.
[/b]
So first you are saying "You are right, the exact number of casulaties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established" and then you proceed to say that "once the actual numbers are posted it becomes a question of the military significance of the target". But I thought we had agreed that that number wont ever be known? What are you trying to say...really?
Midnight, I have been staring at your post now trying to make some sense of it. What are you trying to say, what is it that you want? I wrote this in my original post:
I wont even bore you all with the numbers of civilians killed. No one will ever agree on the total number of killed in Dresden anyway, it was simply impossible to count them all. And no one will ever know how many refugees were in the city that first night.
Why are you so provoked by this? Why is it so impossible for you to accept the fact that we wont ever know how many people perished in Dresden that night?
Read this:
It is, however, understandable that the surviving Dresden populace should have regarded the bombings as even more devastating and death-dealing than they actually were,69 and that the bombings were seized upon by the German authorities as a means of conducting psychological warfare against the Allies in the closing months of the war. The distorted and highly exaggerated accounts of the admittedly grim casualties suffered in Dresden issued by German propaganda agencies immediately following the bombings,70 coupled with an inadvertent and misinformed Allied news release concerning the Dresden and other simultaneous bombings, let to an investigation by Headquarters, Army Air Forces, of the purpose and character of the current American strategic bombing operations in Europe.
32. At a meeting with Allied press correspondents on 16 February 1945 a member of the SHAEF public relations staff released inaccurate and misleading statements concerning the current Allied bombing operations against German cities, primarily against communications centers, among which Dresden was obviously included.71 American press accounts of the remarks made to newsmen at SHAEF implied that the American and British bombing forces had begun a deliberate campaign of indiscriminate terror bombing” against German cities, thereby deviating from long-established policies concerning the employment of Allied strategic air power.72 Confirmed with the sensational American news stories and the German propaganda “plants” in the foreign press, Headquarters, Army Air Forces, in Washington, at once demanded from American air authorities in Europe a full explanation of the basis of the lurid press accounts and insisted that American bombing forces must not deviate from official bombing policy, either as to objectives and priorities or as to bombing methods.73
Ok, I have read it. And it doesnt seem to be very objective at all actually. Rather some half hearted attempt to somehow blame German propaganda for the bad PR.
Midnight, no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish, Dresden will not turn into some German propaganda myth. Nor will the stain on the US and UK go away. Live with it.
-
all do respect i have read that report before and its hardly anymore credible the any others. The fact is no one knows. That havent found all the bodies of the people missing from wtc. They know who most are. In dresden the population had swelled do to refugees moving west to escape the russians.
I posted the numbers of casualties that Shaef expected from such a raid. The fact they didnt hit their target numbers or they after the fact may or may not have tried to play down the casulties doesn't obsolve them from the responsibility from targeting civilians in what they termed at the time were "terror" raids.
The dehousing policy of Harris was ineffective in breaking the will of the german people or to bringing an end to the war. Harris was opposed to diverting his bombers to other tasks which were proven to have added the defeat of the Nazis. The attacks on production of oil, transportation, communications and to a smaller degree war industries.
Heres a series of quote by the Nazis themselves as to the effect of strategic bombing.
In the days immediately following the surrender of Germany, the Allies interrogated numerous high-ranking Germans. All were asked what chief factor led to their country's defeat. Here is a sampling and summary of what they said:
Hjalmar Schacht, Finance Minister:
"Your bombers destroyed German production."
Adolf Galland:
"Allied bombing of our oil industries had the greatest effect."
Gen. Jahn, Commander in Lombardy:
"The attacks on the German transportation system."
Generaloberst Heinz Guderian, Inspector General of armored units:
"Lack of German air superiority; the German Air Force was unable to cope with Allied air power in the West."
Generalmajor Albrect von Massow, Luftwaffe Training Commander:
"The attacks on German oil production."
Generalmajor Herhudt von Rohden, chief of historical section, Luftwaffe
General Staff:
"Strategic bombing. It was the decisive factor in the long run."
Generalmajor Kolb, in charge of technical training, Air Ministry: "The power of Allied day and night bombing."
General Ingenieur Spies, chief engineer of Luftflotte 10: "Strategic disruption of communications."
Generaloberst Georg Lindemann, commander of troops in Denmark:
"Allied air superiority."
Gen. Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, commander in chief in the West:
"Three factors: the superiority of your air force, which made all
movement in daylight impossible; lack of motor fuel so that panzers were unable to move; and the systematic destruction of all railway communications so that it was impossible to bring even one single railroad train across the Rhine."
Gen. der Infanterie Georg Thomas, chief of the German Office of
Production:
"Without strategic bombing, the war would have lasted years longer."
Fritz Thyssen, leading German steel producer:
"I knew that German steel production would be bombed and destroyed--as it was."
Gen. der Flieger Hans-Georg von Seidel, C in C, Luftflotte 10:
"The decisive factor was disruption of German transport communications."
Generaleutnant Karl Jacob Veith, in charge of flak training:
"The destruction of the oil industry."
Generalmajor Ibel, commander of 2 Fighter Div.:
"Allied air superiority allowed everything else to happen."
General Wolff, SS Obergruppenfuehrer:
"The ever-increasing disruption of production and transportation
facilities starved the frontlines to death."
Generaloberst von Vietinghoff, supreme commander SW Italy: "Allied air attacks on the aircraft and fuel industries."
Oscar Henschel, industrialist:
"American bombing caused our production figures to drop considerably."
Unnamed director of Germany's steel combine:
"The virtual flattening of the great steel city of Dusseldorf contributed at least 50 percent to the collapse of the war effort."
Feldmarschall Robert Ritter von Greim, Goering's successor:
"The destruction of the Luftwaffe."
Unnamed general manager of Junkers:
"The attacks on the ball-bearing industry disorganized Germany's entire war production."
General Feldmarschall Hugo Sperrle, C in C Luftflotte 3:
"Allied bombing, particularly of communications."
Unnamed executive at Siemens-Schuckert:
"In March, 1943, one bomb ignited the oil tanks in our transformer plant, which we believe is the largest in the world, and completely stopped production of the large type of transformers needed for chemcial and steel plants. We were the sole manufacturer of such machines. We were never able to make them again."
Gen. der Flieger Karl Bodenschatz, chief of Ministeramt, Luftwaffe high command:
"I am very much impressed with the accuracy of American daylight bombing, which really concentrated on military targets, stations and factories, to the exclusion of civilian targets."
Christian Schneider, manager of the Leuna Works, producer of synthetic petroleum products:
"The 8th AF twice knocked out the plant and the RAF did once. Production, once resumed, was a pitifully thin trickle."
Alfred Krupp, weapons maker:
"The Allies made a great mistake in failing to bomb rail lines and canals much earlier. Transport was the great bottleneck in production. Plants can be and were dispersed, but the Reichsbahn couldn't put its lines underground."
General Dollman, diarist of the 7th Army high command:
"The continual control of the field of battle by Allied air forces makes daylight movement impossible and leads to the destruction from air of our preparations and attacks."
Herman Goering: "[USAAF] precision bombing had a greater effect on the defeat of Germany than [RAF] area bombing because destroyed cities could be evacuated but destroyed industry was difficult to replace. [8th AF] selection of targets was good. Without the U.S. [Army] Air Force, the war would still be going on."
The facts are there. The terror bombing of civilians did very little to end the war or save allied soldiers. The planners of the Dresden Raid were aware of this. I have quoted numerous sources in my other posts in this thread that show that. Churchill himself realized it for what it was. Harris' own life after the war should tell you something.
Arguing over the specific number of dead women and children may make make you feel better but it doesnt change the fact that the fire bombing of dresden was a terrorist act committed against civilians.
-
Stop this nonsense. NO seriously, stop posting drivel like this.
Take a look at what you said at the top of your own post. Something along the lines of "The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established", nevertheless you proceed to compare the number of dead in Dresden (which is unknown by your own admission) with the number of dead in other raids. It is ludicrious.
Nonsense? roadkill! The post said, "That the exact number may never be known", then went on to establish a logically derived estimate. The EXACT NUMBER is in question, not the estimate. Which part of THAT statement don't You understand?
And the numbers you have in your infinite wisdom called "Nonsense" and "drivel" come directly from the:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
Midnight, no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish, Dresden will not turn into some German propaganda myth. Nor will the stain on the US and UK go away. Live with it.
In the words of that elderly gentleman who once was our President.....There you go again. Do you know what condesending means? Do you do it on purpose, or are you just naturally rude?
BTW I'm not so sure there is a stain, but I am willing to concede that there might be. Are you willing to concede that there might not be? I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Nonsense? roadkill! The post said, "That the exact number may never be known", then went on to establish a logically derived estimate. The EXACT NUMBER is in question, not the estimate. Which part of THAT statement don't You understand?
[/b]
But it is nonsense. The exact number WILL never be known. After that, all you are doing is guessing. One extreme (USAF) want to pick low numbers for some reason, the other extreme (Irvin) want to pick high numbers for some reason. But basically what they all are doing is pulling numbers out of thin air.
Ok, so the USAF comes up with one estimate. SO WHAT? There are other estimates too you know. I think I posted somewhere that the estimated numbers vary from 35 000 up to 250 000.
Can you just leave it at that? Why are you so obsessed with getting the number of victims at Dresden as low as possible?
I say: "No one will ever know the exact number"
You say: "that is true, but there are lots of guesses"
I say: "but those are only guesses"
You say "yes, but its the USAF that has done the guesswork".
And the numbers you have in your infinite wisdom called "Nonsense" and "drivel" come directly from the:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
[/b]
Now there is a pillar of unbiased truth!
Hmm..what airforce was involved in the slaughter of Dresden in the first place? Anyway, see above on who does the guessing.
In the words of that elderly gentleman who once was our President.....There you go again. Do you know what condesending means? Do you do it on purpose, or are you just naturally rude?
[/b]
Do YOU know what condesending means?
LOL, you are too funny man. Hypocritical to the core.
You know, when we talk about something on this board, you always try to claim the moral high ground. And you always fail miserably because in our latest arguments you are stuck with defending weird and hopelessly biased positions. "all Germans were nazis", "no one died in Dresden" etc etc.
BTW I'm not so sure there is a stain, but I am willing to concede that there might be. Are you willing to concede that there might not be? I doubt it.
[/b]
Are you a politician? "I am willing to concede that there might be"
-or in other words "blah blah blah".
No, I am not willing to concede that the slaughter of an unknown number of women and children using heavy bombers and incediaries for no military purpose should not cast a stain on the perps. It was a henious crime, plain and simple. And the only reason the guilty ones are left unpunished is because they belonged to the winning side in the war.
Btw Midnight, I cant help but notice that there are alot of other things in my post that you did not reply to. Does that mean that you think Im right about those things? (Im especially interested in my statement that a tonnage comparrisson is pointless because of the unique nature of the firestorm that was created).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
"blah blah blah".
Btw Midnight, I cant help but notice that there are alot of other things in my post that you did not reply to. Does that mean that you think Im right about those things? (Im especially interested in my statement that a tonnage comparrisson is pointless because of the unique nature of the firestorm that was created).
I guess you just didn't read the post on percentages of population killed in incediary attacks. Nothing about tonnage was mentioned. Hamburg and Dresden had similar percentages of their population killed, and the estimate of the population of Dresden was increased to 1 million to account for refugees.
And I guess you also failed to notice that the estimate of 25,000 deaths was not the lowest figure quoted. The British estimate was as low as 8,200. The 25,000 figure was also "the latest German post-war estimate"
How about this question:
Can an attack on a city center ever be considered a viable option in total war?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I guess you just didn't read the post on percentages of population killed in incediary attacks. Nothing about tonnage was mentioned. Hamburg and Dresden had similar percentages of their population killed, and the estimate of the population of Dresden was increased to 1 million to account for refugees.
And I guess you also failed to notice that the estimate of 25,000 deaths was not the lowest figure quoted. The British estimate was as low as 8,200. The 25,000 figure was also "the latest German post-war estimate"
How about this question:
Can an attack on a city center ever be considered a viable option in total war?
This is like talking to a brick wall.
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AT DRESDEN WAS KILLED WHEN WE DONT KNOW THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS?
And we can change the subject if you want, but first give up this part of the discussion please.
-
You are funny Steve. You asked a direct question, I answered it directly and you say I'm the brick wall? What exactly do you want me to give up? The logically derived estimate of 25,000 deaths? Why should I "give it up"?
Hortlund "you can't compare tonnage ...it was a fire bombing"
Tahgut "Ok here are percentage numbers of fire bombed cities"
Hortlund "Nonsense, Drivel.. the fire was different in Dresden and Hamburg"
Tahgut "But the comparison includes Hamburg"
Hortlund "Nonsense, Drivel... the USAF is biased"
Tahgut "But the estimate is GERMAN"
Hortlund "Nonsense, Drivel ... you are a brick wall!"
And one more thing mister "You need to read" , I never once said "All Germans are Nazi's". I did try to have a discusion with you regarding the "German Democracy of 1945". You need to quit using such a broad brush to paint those who dare to disagree with you.
-
Midnight. Please read my posts before you answer them.
Have I ever said that the number of victims in Hamburg is unknown? What I said was that Hamburg and Dresden were unique, each in its own way. Therefore, neither Hamburg or Dresden would be a good candidate for a strict tonnage comparrisson.
And you quote me wrong in your post. Now I dont know if you do that on purpose, or if it is a honest mistake.
What would be the difference between a German estimate, a USAF estimate, a BC estimate, a revisionist estimate, your estimate or my estimate?
No matter who makes the estimate, it is still nothing other than pulling number out of the air. Now, please, just say "Ok, we will never know the exact number of victims at Dresden. We can guess, but we will never know"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And one more thing mister "You need to read" , I never once said "All Germans are Nazi's". I did try to have a discusion with you regarding the "German Democracy of 1945". You need to quit using such a broad brush to paint those who dare to disagree with you.
I apologize for that. I got you confused for that other guy (Pongo).
-
Let me quote you directly then: "You know, when we talk about something on this board, you always try to claim the moral high ground. And you always fail miserably because in our latest arguments you are stuck with defending weird and hopelessly biased positions. "all Germans were nazis", "no one died in Dresden" etc etc.
I never said "all Germans were Nazis" I never said "No one died in Dresden"
You continue to harp on the "exact number will never be known".
Please try to understand that there is a huge difference between an estimate and a guess.
One can estimate the number of beans in a jar to a fairly high level of accuracy by figuring the approximate space each bean occupies, and dividing the volume of the jar by this number. It is still an estimate, you will never know the exact number unless the beans are counted. It is NOT a guess! The estimates of civilian deaths in Dresden are not "numbers pulled out of the air". Comparisons were made based both on tonnage and on casualties incurred as a percentage of the population. Comparisons were made to other fire bombed cities including Hamburg.
This was interesting: On 14 February, following the RAF area bombing of the city, Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the German SS, sent this message to the head of the SS in Dresden: “The attacks were obviously severe, yet every first air raid gives the impression that the town has been completely destroyed.”
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now, please, just say "Ok, we will never know the exact number of victims at Dresden. We can guess, but we will never know"
We will never know the exact number of victims at Dresden.
However, we do know that the Nazi leadership was entirely responsible for those deaths by starting the war and then refusing to surrender.
-
Just ask the Jews who survived the concentration camps if they felt sorry for the fine folks who died at Dresden……………or ask the soldiers who survived the "Batan Death March" if they felt sorry for the Jap's that fried in the "Tokyo Fire Bombing" ……enough said………..so all u anti-US chumps please shut-up.....the British did all the dirty work at Dresden anyway-right?