Dresden

[Toad]

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....

[StSanta]

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.

[-dead-]

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 ] 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).

[Hortlund]

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.

[Hortlund]

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.

[Wotan]

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............... ..

[straffo]

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.

[Dawvgrid]

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?

[straffo]

ya, Dawvgrid that the meaning intended

[Eagler]

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.

[Yeager]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[Yeager]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[Dowding]

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.