Dresden marks anniversary of WWII bombings

[Feuer Frei!]

THE eastern German city of Dresden on Sunday marked the 66th anniversary of a deadly Allied bomb attack at the end of World War II.

The day began with a wreath-laying ceremony at a cemetery where thousands of victims are buried attended by Stanislaw Tillich, who heads the regional government of Saxony and other political and religious representatives.
A massive bombing raid by Allied forces on Dresden beginning on February 13, 1945 sparked a firestorm that destroyed much of the historical centre of the city.

Critics said the raid was strategically unjustified as Hitler's Germany was already effectively defeated and the bombs appeared to target civilians rather than military targets.
Among those who perished in the flames were hundreds of refugees who had fled the horrors of the Eastern front.

In March, an official commission concluded that up to 25,000 people died in the raids, fewer than often estimated.

[Catfish]

Hello,
usually right-wingers speak of 50,000 dead, others of 25,000 - bad enough regardless which numbers exactly. According to some reports the city was full of displaced persons and german civilian fugitives, which may not have been counted. At a certain temperature like in this firestorm, there will not even bones be left.
A theory of the reason of this late bombing is that Churchill had a special hate against Dresden, since this name was one symbol of an audacity as he saw it, when the german cruiser "Dresden" escaped and managed to hide for months - along with the Gallipoli failure and the U-boats underestimated by him this lead to his dismissal as the 1st sealord, in WW1.
Only a theory i know, but apart from generally hating Germany he was a very vengeful fellow, taking lots of things personally :D

Greetings,
Catfish

[Oberon]

Alas, C'est la guerre

[Gerald]

Alas, C'est la guerre "It's the war!"

[Feuer Frei!]

Presumably they decided only to go with the number of corpses they actually pulled out of the rubble and buried/burned. That number has been recorded and is widely available... which means they are ignoring the fact that so many people were burned alive in temperatures reaching about 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. How do you count the mound of ash you find in a cellar? Was it a family of 5 people? Of 10? Maybe even 15?

As for the hundred thousand people registered as missing, we know what missing means because the same person clarified his language in a previous decode about 200 officers missing in the same raid, saying that missing meant that they were most likely now corpses incinerated beyond recognition in the ruins.

British and U.S. bombers pounded the eastern German city of Dresden with 3,900 tons of high explosives and incendiaries.
Germany has been told for too long that it should feel eternal guilt and also accept 100% of the blame.
It is about time that others recognize the true magnitude of THEIR countries' guilt too.
All they have done is parrot the Dresden estimate (25,000) from The Report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/243.html) issued in 1945.

Eyewitness account:
"It is not possible to describe! Explosion after explosion. It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. So many people were horribly burnt and injured. It became more and more difficult to breathe. It was dark and all of us tried to leave this cellar with inconceivable panic. Dead and dying people were trampled upon, luggage was left or snatched up out of our hands by rescuers. The basket with our twins covered with wet cloths was snatched up out of my mother's hands and we were pushed upstairs by the people behind us. We saw the burning street, the falling ruins and the terrible firestorm. My mother covered us with wet blankets and coats she found in a water tub.
We saw terrible things: cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from.

I cannot forget these terrible details. I can never forget them."

—Lothar Metzger, survivor

[Oberon]

It's war, everyone is to blame, war is one big atrocity. They bombed us, we bombed them, and we kept on doing that until it ended. Dresden was a horrible event, so was Tokyo, Hamburg, Geurnica, Coventry, Rotterdam and others, in fact Hamburg was worse, so much worse than Dresden and yet rarely receives as much attention.

[Feuer Frei!]

It's war, everyone is to blame, war is one big atrocity. They bombed us, we bombed them, and we kept on doing that until it ended. Dresden was a horrible event, so was Tokyo, Hamburg, Geurnica, Coventry, Rotterdam and others, in fact Hamburg was worse, so much worse than Dresden and yet rarely receives as much attention.
Indeed, it's war. However, this thread marks Dresden's anniversary. Not to lessen other tragic events, if we can focus on all things Dresden, for the purpose of this thread. :salute:
It is all too easy to compare and ie then lessen or multiply the nature of the event, it's human nature.

[tater]

During the Soviet era, they used Goebel's figures, which were the official German figures contemporary to the bombing with a zero added to the end.

Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 by Frederick Taylor is a good read on the subject.

[Oberon]

Indeed, it's war. However, this thread marks Dresden's anniversary. Not to lessen other tragic events, if we can focus on all things Dresden, for the purpose of this thread. :salute:
It is all too easy to compare and ie then lessen or multiply the nature of the event, it's human nature.

Oh, indeed so and no disrespect to the dead intended, however there was a danger of this turning into less of a homage to those fallen but more an attack on those who conducted the event, which would be rather hypocritical.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I wish the US would give as much concern to the Dresden fire-bombing as it does to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In truth, I wish there was as much concern given to the entire allied bombing campaign. We talk about terror now as though it were some kind of recent and heartless invention by other people, but we and our allies bombed civilian areas for the sole purpose of sowing terror. Even when we didn't bomb civilian areas, we managed to hit them a great deal of the time, which is little better, and we threw thousands of bomber crewmen into the teeth of German interceptors with no support and without regard to strategy.

Militarily speaking, we have learned from those mistakes, though it took us a while and we reformed our approach for the sake of battlefield efficacy, not regret. However, there is very little mention of the allied bombing campaign and the horrors it inflicted upon civilians in the textbooks our children study, other than to portray it as a heroic success. The most valuable lessons are not being learned.

[tater]

The total number of civilians killed by allied bombing adds up to noise just compared to the axis murder of civilians under their direct control.

Given that a good % of civilian bombing deaths are in fact "legitimate" legally, the number of improper deaths is an even smaller % (all japanese males over 15 (and under 65) were conscripted as a "home guard" and women 17-47 as well at the time of the firebombing. That made the bulk of japanese fatalities in the firebombing in fact "troops." The actions of the civilians on Okinawa demonstrate that they were more than willing to die in great numbers (at their own hands), too. Also, many of the targets were in fact fine. Dresden in particular. Contrary to myth, it was not a town of art workshops, virtually all industry there had long since been converted to wartime supplies. The least "military" factory was the cigarette plant (cigs that wen to... the military). Given it's proximity to the Russian Front at the time of the bombing (under 90km as I recall), it was a legitimate target as troops were moving towards the front, even while refugees went the other way. The axis also threw all the "rules" out the window given their wholesale, sometimes mechanized slaughter of civilians who had already capitulated to them.

The axis was in complete control. THEY started the war, it was their choice to wait to surrender as long as they did. Their surrender was long since a foregone conclusion, and they in fact did so, so the poor timing (not quitting before they were bombed into the stone age) is their own fault.

The US bombing campaign (daylight) would have been better had we concentrated on the petroleum supply chain, but other than that, I have little problem with it. High-altitude strategic bombing over Japan was very ineffective due to the jet stream.

[Jimbuna]

It's war, everyone is to blame, war is one big atrocity. They bombed us, we bombed them, and we kept on doing that until it ended. Dresden was a horrible event, so was Tokyo, Hamburg, Geurnica, Coventry, Rotterdam and others, in fact Hamburg was worse, so much worse than Dresden and yet rarely receives as much attention.

Agreed....it was a time of war and many were killed on either side as a result of bombing.

So many could have been saved had Germany had the foresight or common sense to surrender earlier when it was obvious what the eventual outcome would be.

May all the victims regardless of their country of origin RIP.

[Catfish]

The total number of civilians killed by allied bombing adds up to noise just compared to the axis murder of civilians under their direct control.

Up to 5 million civilians killed by german troops in WW2, right. Only a tenth (about 500,000+ civilians) in Iraq, up to now. But then US soldiers call them "sand ******s" - somehow reminds me of people defined as "inferior", by a "superior" ... race ? Nation ?
I really doubt anyone has learned anything from history, other than being self-righteous and hypocritic while only seeing others committing war crimes, or crimes against humanity. What the US did to its own US people of japanese origin in WW2, deserves an own monument of shame.

The axis was in complete control. THEY started the war, it was their choice to wait to surrender as long as they did. Their surrender was long since a foregone conclusion, and they in fact did so, so the poor timing (not quitting before they were bombed into the stone age) is their own fault.

It was without doubt good, that Hitler and this arrogant policy against the "Untermenschen" was stopped. However to say that Hitler started the world war ? He surely did not want it, he had indeed believed England would not join the war after the invasion of Poland, however it did declare war - "Total Germany" - like England had done in 1914 initiating the first world war, after the german invasion of Belgium.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Raptor1]

It was without doubt good, that Hitler and this arrogant policy against the "Untermenschen" was stopped. However to say that Hitler started the world war ? He surely did not want it, he had indeed believed England would not join the war after the invasion of Poland, however it did declare war - "Total Germany" - like England had done in 1914, after the german invasion of Belgium.

Greetings,
Catfish

Because obviously if he was so opposed to a world war the most sensible thing to do was to invade neutral countries like Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union...

[tater]

Every excess death in Europe (and North Africa) during WW2 was Germany's fault. On all sides. There were 6 million killed in the camps alone. More civilians elsewhere. Plus all troops killed on all sides. 25 million is closer to the mark, not 5 million. The total deaths to allied bombing (all theaters) were ~600,000.

The country that starts the war gets credit for all deaths. It's like a robbery. A guy robs a store, and someone in the back room has a heart attack and dies (completely unaware the robbery is going on). The robber is now charged with murder since a death occurred during the commission of a crime.

Japan killed maybe 10 million total.

Regarding Iraq, the war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait (the intervening years were a cease-fire that could have legitimately gone hot the very first time they so much as turned on a radar). Iraq is responsible for the outcome.

[tater]

It was without doubt good, that Hitler and this arrogant policy against the "Untermenschen" was stopped. However to say that Hitler started the world war ? He surely did not want it, he had indeed believed England would not join the war after the invasion of Poland, however it did declare war - "Total Germany" - like England had done in 1914 initiating the first world war, after the german invasion of Belgium.

Wow.

[Catfish]

Because obviously if he was so opposed to a world war the most sensible thing to do was to invade neutral countries like Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union...

You are kidding, right ?
Hitler wanted to go for Russia all the time, this is why Poland had to be overrun - b.t.w. with the help of England's later ally, Mr. Stalin (who was not so shy in killing millions of civilians and jews himself). Since Poland was divided, between Hitler and Stalin, England (and France) declared war to Germany because of this, but not to Russia. Astonishing, isn't it.

So England had declared war to Germany along with France, after the invasion of Poland, because of the treaties undersigned. But France and England did not do anything to help Poland, they were not able to, in this so-called phony war.
FInally, to evade a trench situation like in WW1 Hitler then used the Blitzkrieg tactics to go for France right away - while overrunning Belgium and the Netherlands - strategically right but tactically impossible as his own generals said - but he succeeded. And his own generals were just muzzled, by their Fuehrer's victories.

Norway was invaded because England had exactly this in mind, to get the iron mines and steel factories, only Germany was a tad faster.
England AND Germany had been good trade partners to Norway, but it would not have liked either invasion for sure.

Hitler sure was an unsympathetic lunatic, but i would place Stalin not very far from him.

Greetings,
Catfish

[MH]

This :
Up to 5 million civilians killed by german troops in WW2, right. Only a tenth (about 500,000+ civilians) in Iraq, up to now. But then US soldiers call them "sand ******s" - somehow reminds me of people defined as "inferior", by a "superior" ... race ? Nation ?
I really doubt anyone has learned anything from history, other than being self-righteous and hypocritic while only seeing others committing war crimes, or crimes against humanity. What the US did to its own US people of japanese origin in WW2, deserves an own monument of shame.


vs that:


It was without doubt good, that Hitler and this arrogant policy against the "Untermenschen" was stopped. However to say that Hitler started the world war ? He surely did not want it, he had indeed believed England would not join the war after the invasion of Poland, however it did declare war - "Total Germany" - like England had done in 1914 initiating the first world war, after the german invasion of Belgium.

Greetings,
Catfish
Hitler wasnt so bad.
World domination of master race slavery concentration camps mass murder on industrial scale-yes Hitler was just another guy that did not win:-?.
Damn the English who started ww2.:damn:

[Tribesman]

Regarding Iraq, the war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait (the intervening years were a cease-fire that could have legitimately gone hot the very first time they so much as turned on a radar).
Wow:doh:

[Randomizer]

Caution Long Post Ahead...

It helps to put the Dresden raid into context since it was the logical culmination of 25-years of airpower theories as applied to total war. Remember that the three greatest inter-war bomber theorists were all Allied in WW1, Britain's Hugh Trenchard, Italy's Guilo Douhet and America's William Mitchell. All advocated bombing civilian targets and the use of terror as a legitimate weapon.

As early as 1920 British Secretary of State for War, one Winston Churchill advocated the RAF dropping mustard gas bombs on Iraqi towns during the Iraqi Revolt 1920-22. The only reason why it didn't happen (see Ferguson The War of the World) was that the bombs were not available in quantity so high explosive was subtituted with great effect. Later the Italians would successfully use chemicals and high explosive bombs in Abyssinia both during the war and the resistance after.

Ironically only the Allies entered the war with effective bombers specifically designed to bomb urban targets, the B-17 first flew in 1936 and the RAF's Short Stirling in 1939. The Allies were already pumped to bomb Axis cities long before the Luftwaffe hit urban London for the first time. Bomber Command had exercised massed night bombing techniques starting as early as 1934 so the oft-repeated canard that they were "forced" into doing so by losses in 1940 is probably a bit of after the fact hyperbole.

Nevertheless, Dresden was a watershed event. As noted above the city did meet all the criteria of a legitimate military target as such things were understood in 1945. There was no reason to slack off even with the end in sight although undamaged urban areas in unoccupied Germany were at a premium by February 1945. Who on the Allied side could forget how Hitler manipulated the German public to achieve power with his "stab in the back" propaganda effectively hiding the defeat of the German armed forces in 1918? In 1945 and with vast urban areas in ruins, there could be no repeat of such lies, everybody in Germany, Nazi or not, knew that they were beaten; completely, decisively and totally at the mercy of the victors. In 1919 it was possible to spin defeat into some sort of victory but the bomber took that option off the table in post-war Germany, East or West.

For all of that it is possible that the bomber theorists were correct and the defeat of a nation by destruction of its infrastucture and terrorizing its citizens could be achieved by the bomber alone. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that the a solution had been developed to the biggest operational problem of strategic bombing, the need to revist the target time and again. So complete was the destruction caused by the atomic bomb that there was nothing to repair, huge swaths of cities could simply disappear in an instant.

Fortunately one of the lessons learned after Dresden was that destruction on this scale had a political cost and after Japan surrendered, paying that cost ceased to have relevance in the limited wars during and after the Cold War. When, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, USAF Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay told President Kennedy that the nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union would probably cost the lives of only 20-30 Million Americans, the latter very sensibly looked for another solution. The political and moral lessons of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been well learned.

In 1939-45, targeting of civilians and their infrastructure were reasonable responses on the rocky road to defeat Nazism and Japanese militarism. In the limited wars of today the opposite is true and Dresden was one of those seminal events that proved it to be so.

[August]

Only a theory i know, but apart from generally hating Germany he was a very vengeful fellow, taking lots of things personally

I know you're looking for someone to blame here but Dresden was just the next thing the allies could attack in a long series of attacks. You say Germany was already defeated but the truth is they had already been defeated for months if not years. but that didn't stop them from fighting. Just a couple months before the Dresden attack the supposedly defeated Germans mounted a huge offensive in the Ardenne.

In a fight to the finish you just keep punching until your opponent goes down. No fighter can tell you what the 2nd or 3rd to last punch in a fight is going to be before he throws it. Dresden was just one of those last punches in a fight that is now over.

[Raptor1]

You are kidding, right ?
Hitler wanted to go for Russia all the time, this is why Poland had to be overrun - b.t.w. with the help of England's later ally, Mr. Stalin (who was not so shy in killing millions of civilians and jews himself). Since Poland was divided, between Hitler and Stalin, England (and France) declared war to Germany because of this, but not to Russia. Astonishing, isn't it.

That may be so, but if Hitler had wanted to invade the Soviet Union from the start, he must've been willing to start a world war, which he did. Britain's declaration of war has little to do with the global nature of the war.


So England had declared war to Germany along with France, after the invasion of Poland, because of the treaties undersigned. But France and England did not do anything to help Poland, they were not able to, in this so-called phony war.
FInally, to evade a trench situation like in WW1 Hitler then used the Blitzkrieg tactics to go for France right away - while overrunning Belgium and the Netherlands - strategically right but tactically impossible as his own generals said - but he succeeded. And his own generals were just muzzled, by their Fuehrer's victories.

I'm aware of the history of the start of the war. You are both grossly overestimating the effect of the Blitzkrieg itself and Hitler's involvement in it. While the Blitzkrieg was very important to the outcome of the campaign, it was France's highly dubious operational decisions that left them completely exposed that were the most decisive factor in the success of the German invasion. As for Hitler, he had very little to do with the development of the doctrine associated with Blitzkrieg or with the success of the invasion. Hell, there were times when the German field commanders had to deviate from the plan and circumvent or even disobey orders because they had been told to halt, largely because of Hitler's meddling, when the French lines were collapsing.

Now, when Hitler did take direct command of the German army's operational planning, then you get disasters such as Fall Blau, Operation Citadel, Normandy and Operation Bagration.


Norway was invaded because England had exactly this in mind, to get the iron mines and steel factories, only Germany was a tad faster.
England AND Germany had been good trade partners to Norway, but it would not have liked either invasion for sure.

That's a really long debate which I will not get into at the moment. Regardless of Norway, Hitler did a very poor job at preventing the European war from expanding massively.

[Oberon]

To be fair Raptor, Catfish is partially correct, Hitlers biggest gamble was that Britain would want to get out of the war early, I believe one of his quotes was something like "Britain is not our natural enemy", in fact IIRC he even expressed his respect for Britain and the British Empire, but once the war had begun and France and Britain declared war, then he wanted to knock France out ASAP so he could get to work on his primary target which was Russia, going through the Maginot line would be suicide, so the only other real choice was through neutral Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. I mean, I guess he could have gone through Belgium and left Holland but then what if Holland flipped to Allied control and they broke through the advance before the Ardennes thrust? Norway was because of resources and I think Yugoslavia would have been strategic in terms of preventing troop movement bottlenecks.

Not condoning the Nazis here, but writing off Hitler as nothing more than a lunatic is underestimating him a bit, and that's a dangerous thing to do to any person, dead or alive. :hmmm:

EDIT: And in terms of invading the Soviet Union...well...I don't really know if Germany had invaded the Soviet Union without having to go through Poland whether Britain would have declared war immediately...nor France. IIRC, Communists were seen as a great threat in the 1930s due to the various uprisings and strikes throughout Europe, so there probably would have been a bit of "Well, let the two idiots fight it out and destroy each other". With the short-sightedness that if one or the other would have won they would have greated a powerhouse.

[Catfish]

Hitler wasnt so bad.
World domination of master race slavery concentration camps mass murder on industrial scale-yes Hitler was just another guy that did not win:-?.
Damn the English who started ww2.:damn:


Certainly Hitler was a mass murderer in an industrial scale, having queer dreams about a master race etc. etc. we know all that.

But he did not want world domination, he wanted Russia. It was good that England declared war, and France - so why damn them ? - but they did, not Hitler. Just a correction. It was necessary, no doubt.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm never quite sure how to reply to a thread like this. The Second World War was a watershed moment for the world, and changed our collective perception of right and wrong, good and bad, forever. That being said, I think that the best way to address an anniversary such as this is with regret. I regret that, in the past days before most of our births, your government and our's decided to make themselves into enemies. I have met a countless number of Germans on this forum whom I respect deeply and condsider to be my friends. I have learned much from you, and mourn the loss of life that is shared in our common past.

[Oberon]

I'm never quite sure how to reply to a thread like this. The Second World War was a watershed moment for the world, and changed our collective perception of right and wrong, good and bad, forever. That being said, I think that the best way to address an anniversary such as this is with regret. I regret that, in the past days before most of our births, your government and our's decided to make themselves into enemies. I have met a countless number of Germans on this forum whom I respect deeply and condsider to be my friends. I have learned much from you, and mourn the loss of life that is shared in our common past.

This...so very much this. To be honest to go into discussions of what when why and who, whilst entertaining, does deviate from the point of this topic which is to regret what happened...and one would hope learn from it...

[Catfish]

... You say Germany was already defeated but the truth is they had already been defeated for months if not years. but that didn't stop them from fighting. Just a couple months before the Dresden attack the supposedly defeated Germans mounted a huge offensive in the Ardenne.
In a fight to the finish you just keep punching until your opponent goes down. No fighter can tell you what the 2nd or 3rd to last punch in a fight is going to be before he throws it. Dresden was just one of those last punches in a fight that is now over.

Yes, i agree - but then i did not say anything else. I am not looking for someone to blame - we both know who the one to blame (or the country)initially is.

The thing with Churchill and Dresden came up recently, when the fight at the Falklands (former Malvinas) in WW1 was thoroughly researched, with the "Dresden" running and hiding in South America - which had made Churchill really furious - he did take this personally after it had escaped the second battle at the Falkland isles.

When the "Dresden" was detected again, it was able to outrun the british again, and finally reached an island in the Pacific (forgot the name), where the crew decided to surrender.
Its engines (turbines, thus the speed) lacking any maintenance, outworn and spent, no coal in the bunkers and half of the british fleet on their back there was no way out. Some of the crew was on the beach, and some were aboard under the white flag, when the british task force came in sight and blew the "Dresden" to smithereens.

This had been directly ordered by Churchill, " ... accept no surrender, and after the sinking kill them or take prisoners as you see fit."

Interesting enough, one of the survivors was the later chief of the german SD, a Mr. Canaris. He was involved in several tries to assassinate Hitler, and it it appears likely that MI6 maintained contact with Canaris even after the Munich agreement signed on 30 September 1938. When Winston Churchill came to power after the resignation of Chamberlain in May 1940, Canaris' hopes were high, given the new Prime Minister's strong position against Hitler.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Catfish]

... The Second World War was a watershed moment for the world, and changed our collective perception of right and wrong, good and bad, forever. That being said, I think that the best way to address an anniversary such as this is with regret. I regret that, in the past days before most of our births, your government and our's decided to make themselves into enemies. I have met a countless number of Germans on this forum whom I respect deeply and condsider to be my friends. I have learned much from you, and mourn the loss of life that is shared in our common past.

Wow this was ... touching :o
Great post, thanks.

[MH]

Bombing Dresden was one of many ways that Allies wanted to bring war to an end as quick as possible.
Strategic bombing was part of it and definitely contributed to shortening the war and saving Allies lives while not being entarily decisive factor.
Remember that A bomb was actually meant for Germany first but dropped on Japan ending the war without the need to attack mainland.
Bombing of Dresden is one of those sad events of WW2 that that is pointless to argue about in retrospect.
Could the war be won without bombing of Dresden -properly yes.
Could it be won without strategic bombing so "quickly" or at all without loss of many more Allies lives?

[Randomizer]

The thing with Churchill and Dresden came up recently, when the fight at the Falklands (former Malvinas) in WW1 was thoroughly researched, with the "Dresden" running and hiding in South America - which had made Churchill really furious - he did take this personally after it had escaped the second battle at the Falkland isles.

When the "Dresden" was detected again, it was able to outrun the british again, and finally reached an island in the Pacific (forgot the name), where the crew decided to surrender.
Its engines (turbines, thus the speed) lacking any maintenance, outworn and spent, no coal in the bunkers and half of the british fleet on their back there was no way out. Some of the crew was on the beach, and some were aboard under the white flag, when the british task force came in sight and blew the "Dresden" to smithereens.

This had been directly ordered by Churchill, " ... accept no surrender, and after the sinking kill them or take prisoners as you see fit."...

Greetings,
Catfish
As with many things there is both more and less here than meets the eye.

Churchill's orders regarding SMS Dresden in 1914 had nothing whatsoever to do with the cruiser's name and everything to do with him trying to embarrass Vice Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee, victor of the Battle of the Falkland Islands fought on 8 December 1914.

First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill personally loathed Sturdee who was pre-war naval Chief of Staff and who had weakly advocated for the creation of a formalized staff at the Admiralty. Churchill was entirely against the pre-war creation of a Naval Staff as he felt it would dilute the powers of the First Lord. In the wake of the defeat of Craddock's squadron at Coronel on 1 November 1914, the RN had to look closely at how it was being run and to deflect the responsibility from himself he tried to blame the disaster on Chief of Staff Sturdee. This backfired however when, owing to his availability and senority Sturdee was given command of the reinforcements to the South Atlantic including the battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible and charged with destroying von Spee's East Asia squadron.

In the event, Sturdee proved perfect for the task and provided the Royal Navy with as neat a victory as it has ever achieved. Five of six German crusiers were sunk at trifling losses to the British, mostly on HMS Kent which closed to effective range of the much lighter German 10.5 cm guns and suffered accordingly. Churchill attempted to slur Sturdee after the action and severely criticized him in the press for fighting the action at long range, expending too much ammunition and dividing his forces. Sturdee was a great decentralizer, practically his only squadron order was "General Chase", correctly trusting that his captains would win the fight. This was against the current Royal Navy doctrine of closely centralized command and intolerable to a micro-manager like Churchill and the unguarded malice towards Sturdee is very evident in his books. Sturdee's greatest error was winning big using his own rules, something that was unforgivable.

In an attempt to embarrass Sturdee, Churchill ordered the two battlecruisers home without him and sent his South Atlantic commander the orders that included your quote above. The aim was to delay Sturdee's return and diminish the Admiral and his victory, a huge event that Churchill had no part in although he would later claim much credit. It didn't work, Sturdee sailed home in his flagship to a hero's welcome, the thanks of Parliament and a squadron command in the Grand Fleet. When Churchill wrote his account of WW1, The World Crisis, he successfully tarnished Sturdee's reputation for future generations. Sturdee remained loyally silent throughout and never offered any public defence against Churchill's slanders which are accepted as the "Truth" even today.

SMS Dresden would attempt cruiser warfare but she sank nothing and surrendered, scutttling herself in Cumberland Bay at the Chilean island of Juan Fernandez on 14 March 1915. She was the last regular German cruiser on the high seas and after Coronel she accomplished exactly nothing.

It's s big leap from there to the idea that Churchill used the escape of SMS Dresden to order the firebombing of Dresden almost two decades later. As mentioned, his quarrel was with Sturdee not the city.

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm having second doubts about having posted this thread, as when there is anything posted about WW2, it invariably falls back onto the old Hitler killed this many people and he was the man who killed the most people in WW2 so therefore Germany was the rotten to the core country in WW2 and ie also the Allied powers were largely blameless and shall not be held accountable for any of their attrocities. Or indeed even highlight these attrocities.
Some of you are indicating how many people Hitler killed, what in the world has that got to do with the title of this thread?
If we want to talk about how many people he killed and how much of a madman he was and that he 'supposedly' killed more people than anyone else during WW2 then that is wrong, certainly in the context of this thread and certainly in the context of WW2 history.
Of course the Allied powers are untouchable, especially the Big 4, nothing new there.
That discussion has been going on for too long.
I say again:
Germany has been told for too long that it should feel eternal guilt and also accept 100% of the blame.
It is about time that others recognize the true magnitude of THEIR countries' guilt too so we get a true picture.
Now back ontopic,

The more information you dig up about the Allied firestorm bombing of Dresden, the more obvious an atrocity it is. By February 1945, Germany was only a few weeks away from total defeat. Dresden produced mainly soap, china and cameras. It’s value as a military target was dismissed by Allied strategists. One source reported “January 25 was the day when the decision was taken that resulted in the blotting out of Dresden. Until then, the capital of Saxony (Dresden) had been considered so famous a cultural monument and so futile a military target that even the Commander in Chief of Bombing Command, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, had given it hardly a thought…”
One British pilot reported “On 13th February 1945 I was a navigator on one of the Lancaster bombers which devastated Dresden. I well remember the briefing by our Group Captain. We were told that the Red Army was thrusting towards Dresden and that the town would be crowded with refugees and that the center of the town would be full of women and children. Our aiming point would be the market place. I recall that we were somewhat uneasy, but we did as we were told… The penny didn’t drop until a few weeks later when my squadron received a visit from the Crown Film Unit who were making the wartime propaganda films. There was a mock briefing, with one notable difference. The same Group Captain now said, ‘as the market place would be filled with women and children on no account would we bomb the center of the town. Instead, our aiming point would be a vital railway junction to the east. I can categorically confirm that the Dresden raid was a black mark on Britain’s war record. The aircrews on my squadron were convinced that this wicked act was not instigated by our much-respected guvnor ‘Butch’ Harris but by Churchill. I have waited 29 years to say this, and it still worries me.”
Even Putin agrees:
Russian President Vladimir Putin told a German newspaper that Allied forces can’t be absolved of blame for horrors during World War II, and he noted in particular the massive bombing of Dresden in the final months.
“The Western allies didn’t abound with any special humanity,” the Russian leader said. “It’s incomprehensible to me to this day why Dresden was destroyed. There was no military reason for it.”
Within weeks, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill distanced himself from the tactic of blanket-bombing German cities. (That wouldn't surprise me).
SOURCE OF THE PUTIN ARTICLE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749312/)

I leave you with this quote, by Gerhart Hauptman:
"Wer das Weinen verlernt hatte, der lernte es wieder beim Untergang Dresdens" (They who had lost the ability to weep, learned it again at the destruction of Dresden)
Note: If we want to discuss the 'nature' of Hitler, or how many people he killed, or if Germany started the war, or if he killed more people than anyone else in WW2, then i'm happy to open up another thread, however, does that really belong in this thread?
I started this thread because it was the 66th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden, and also to remember the poor souls who lost their lives.
Not to invite discussions about Hitler and his 'ways'.
I know it seems hard not to fall into that usual diatribe.

[Raptor1]

By February 1945, Germany was only a few weeks away from total defeat. Dresden produced mainly soap, china and cameras. It’s value as a military target was dismissed by Allied strategists.

This is not quite true. First of all, almost three months passed between the bombing of Dresden and the end of the war in Europe, which is not an insignificant amount of time. The industry and activity in Dresden was most certainly not as innocent as you make it out to be, there were dozens of factories in the city which were producing materials for the German military, including aircraft parts and anti-aircraft guns. Dresden was also a major railway hub, and many units and supplies were transferred through it en route to the Eastern Front.

[DarkFish]

there were dozens of factories in the city which were producing materials for the German militaryLet me fix that for you:

"there were dozens of factories outside of the city which were producing materials for the German military"

[August]

Let me fix that for you:

"there were dozens of factories outside of the city which were producing materials for the German military"


So did you supply this vital intel to Allied planners in time for the raid or is this just another case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

[DarkFish]

So did you supply this vital intel to Allied planners in time for the raid or is this just another case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking?Oh, I always thought it wasn't too hard to see the difference between factories and houses on recon photos. But apparently I'm completely wrong, after all you say so...

[Dowly]

So did you supply this vital intel to Allied planners in time for the raid or is this just another case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

IIRC, the intel was pretty clear on where and what kind of factories there were in and around Dresden.

[August]

Oh, I always thought it wasn't too hard to see the difference between factories and houses on recon photos. But apparently I'm completely wrong, after all you say so...

No I didn't say so. You seem to have imagined it.

Now you're the one who says you know where these factories were located and apparently also what they look like from the air, so you must be referencing something in particular. I'm just wondering what it is.

You wouldn't make something like that up would you?

[August]

IIRC, the intel was pretty clear on where and what kind of factories there were in and around Dresden.

All supported and tied together by the rail and communications centers in the middle of the city. I know that Dresden is a cause célèbre among certain groups these days but just I don't see it as something we should be ashamed about.

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

[Oberon]

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"

As said by Bomber Harris as he watched the bombing of London in 1940.

[August]

As said by Bomber Harris as he watched the bombing of London in 1940.

Well actually he was quoting the Hebrew Bible but, Yep.

[Randomizer]

... The more information you dig up about the Allied firestorm bombing of Dresden, the more obvious an atrocity it is... “It’s incomprehensible to me to this day why Dresden was destroyed. There was no military reason for it.”...

This entire post with its oft repeated arguments strikes me as both intellectually superficial and hypocritical. There is no condemnation of strategic bombing as a whole, something that would place the dead of Dresden on the same ground as those of Rotterdam, Coventry, Hamburg, Naples, Tokyo, Hiroshima or any of the other cities that were visited by the strategic bomber. Even if the bombing of urban centers was ex post facto irrelevant to final victory for the Allies (or defeat of the Axis depending upon your point of view) it had been forecast and prepared for long before hostilities begin. Nobody's hand were or are clean and few are suggesting that the Allied campaign gets a free pass just because we were the good guys and Nazi's were evil.

The issue is actually quite simple if you look at the argument in the context of the bomber theories that were accepted by all the principles through to the 9th of August 1945.

If killing one enemy civilian using an area weapon the might prove decisive is acceptable is it equally acceptable to kill all enemy civilians?

The answer should of course be a resounding and unqualified NO.

The question now becomes How many civilian deaths might be acceptable?: a number that cannot be calculated and will change with the fortunes of war, political war aims and the perception of impending victory or defeat.

Philosophy has no place in military operations anymore than military pragmatism belongs in discussions of social interactions. The essence of the Bomber is that it was entirely wrong, in which case ALL its victims are equally murdered or that it was a necessary evil in which case it becomes impossible to seperate those victims who died intentionally from those who were just "collateral damage". The mythical Valkieries might choose the slain but I suggest that nobody here is qualified to so.

For what it's worth Dresden was my Father's last op, he was an RCAF navigator with 101 RAF so perhaps I am somewhat biased. On the other hand, on the only occasion that we discussed that night, he told a story strangely similar to the account of your nameless pilot.

In the context of WW2, bombing cites was wrong or it was not, you cannot retropectively choose which raids were righteous and which were crimes.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't much like the direction this conversation is taking. It has become more of a debate over who was more right/wrong in the Second World War. I think I inadvertently contributed to that with my first post, so you have my apologies for that.

However, I would like to reinforce the point that WW2 was by no means a clear-cut case of good vs evil. It was a terrible and very uneccessary conflict, and the formerly allied nations need to buck up and take responsibility for what they did, rather than just pawn off all the responsibility on Germany or the Nazis. There is entirely too much parroting of ancient BS propaganda going on here. I think I even saw someone mention something about The Axis trying to take over the world. As if.

As far as the European theatre is concerned, people tend to forget that Germany didn't actually do anything wrong in the years leading up to WW2 (jew-hatings aside). They simply reoccupied what was rightfully theirs anyway. The Sudetenland was historically German territory and full of Germans. Czecheslovakia was the same bastard nation that had no desire to be a nation as it was when the allies first threw it together at Versailles. It is telling that once the Republic was dismantled, it allied itself with Germany.

Similarly, Poland got a lot of German territory after WW1, not that it had any right to it whatsoever. The whole nation was only created as a buffer state. It was more of a joke than anything. Given what a mockery that which we generously refer to as the "Treaty" of Versailles made of the German people and the supposedly noble intentions of the Entente, Germany was actually being incredibly reasonable by asking for the return of Danzig and a small strip of land to connect it to the rest of nation. Doubly so when one considers that Danzig was primarily German and actually agitated for reunion.

Poor Poland's importance to the allied cause can be easily seen by the way the allies treated it. It was a dictatorship at the time, just like Hitler's Germany, and nobody bothered them about that, so it's pretty clear that the allies had little interest in defending democracy. This is especially obvious when one considers the way the allies treated their colonies.

If any doubt remains, there is the fact that the "War Guarantee" provided to Poland was just an excuse to go to war with Germany to prevent it from threatning Britain and France economically. The idea that Britain, with no deployable army to speak of, or France, which was understandably hesitant to got to war again after the drubbing they took in WW1, in an attempt to preserve the dictatorship of a bastard-state was so ludicrous that Hitler probably ended up assuming it was just posturing. Of course, the Poles ended up paying for their faith in the war guarantee when their "friends" abandoned them to Stalin's Soviets before the war was even over. No attempt was ever made to secure sovereignty for Poland. Again, the allied actions are indicitave of their motives, just as they were in the first war, when they heartlessly turned what was supposed to be an armstice into a power grab and a beat-down and then left millions of Germans to starve after the conclusion of hostilities.

From a US standpoint, this is not a case of "Monday-morning quarterbacking" to borrow from August. In both WW1 and WW2 the US public was very hesitant to get involved with what they rightly saw as an unecessary war. It took a lot of effort and lying by Wilson, and then FDR, both acknowledged anglophiles, to cajole them into action. A brief glance at the propaganda should be enough to for one to see that something was amiss, but in the event that it isn't, do a little reading on US opinions in the antebellum periods and juxtaposition what you find with the ferocious vitriol against Axis combatants and civilians (or even Americanized citizens descended from Axis nations).

Beyond that, there was a lot of sabotage by the British. In both wars, one of the first things they did was to sever our hardline communications with the European mainalnd. I wonder what noble goal that served. Then there was the US insistence, in both wars, that diplomatic offers from the opposing powers be rejected. In WW2, there was a sudden shift from Soviet-bashing to unconditional love of Stalin's brutal regime. The facts are there, and patently obvious to those who don't buy ridiculous stories of "the Hun" and his plans for world domination. They aren't even concealed, for the most part, just obscure.


What we are missing here is the most important lesson. There is no just war. There is no good fight. There are no good guys where interventionism is concerned, only casualties.

[Tribesman]

Our aiming point would be the market place.
Have you got a reliable source for that Feuer Frei?
Everything I have read gives the aimimg point as the sports ground as it was easy to identify and was between the two transport hubs.

What I do find incredible though is that you use a statement from the butcher of grozny where he has the front to talk about human rights:nope:

[Randomizer]

What we are missing here is the most important lesson. There is no just war. There is no good fight. There are no good guys where interventionism is concerned, only casualties.

Cheers

Man-made disasters like Dresden happen because somebody decides to use high explosive violence to solve political issues. This might at times be percieved as necessary but it is never pretty or fair.

[Feuer Frei!]

This is not quite true. First of all, almost three months passed between the bombing of Dresden and the end of the war in Europe, which is not an insignificant amount of time.
So then 3 months btw the bombing and the end of WW2.
IF that's the case, i'm betting at that time both the Allies and Axis knew well and truly that the war was coming to an end.
In fact Germany was losing the war much much earlier than that. So the 'hope' that we can cling to in relation to the arguement that it was still 3 months away from the end of the War is a little moot.

This entire post with its oft repeated arguments strikes me as both intellectually superficial and hypocritical. On my part? Hypocritical? There is no condemnation of strategic bombing as a whole Yes, Dresden was a very strategic bombing indeed.Nobody's hand were or are clean and few are suggesting that the Allied campaign gets a free pass just because we were the good guys and Nazi's were evil.
True enough, no-one is suggesting that at all, that the Allies are getting a clean pass, as you put it, however some acknowledgment goes a long way.

In the context of WW2, bombing cites was wrong or it was not, you cannot retropectively choose which raids were righteous and which were crimes.
I 'chose' Dresden as it was the anniversary of this event, and all discussion points i have posted have been to do with this city, none other.

It has become more of a debate over who was more right/wrong in the Second World War. Certainly not on my behalf, i am aiming to focus on Dresden, and the issues that arose out of the bombings.

What we are missing here is the most important lesson. There is no just war. There is no good fight. There are no good guys where interventionism is concerned, only casualties.
I'm not missing that point at all, i'm hoping you are not pointing at me, sir. ofc what you have said is true, however that is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the event of the Dresden bombings, and to a lesser extent if it was justified or not. Unfortunately the topic will get derailed and all manner of 'facts' and 'fiction' will be put on the table, invariably this will then pose all sorts of O.P. subjects which really don't belong here in this thread.


What I do find incredible though is that you use a statement from the butcher of grozny where he has the front to talk about human rights:nope:
Why? Well it's good to actually get 'another side' to this, and not just a whole lot of 'well, that's war, it happens, people will lose their lives but what can you do' attitudes.

[Tribesman]

Why? Well it's good to actually get 'another side' to this, and not just a whole lot of 'well, that's war, it happens, people will lose their lives but what can you do' attitudes.
But it is like getting Ian Huntley to criticise Ian Brady

[Oberon]

This thread does seem to have started from the outset as an attack on the Allied forces and their leadership as opposed to a commemoration of the lives lost on that terrible day.
I understand the desire to highlight that the Allies were not exactly above all blame for civilian casualties in the Second World War, but I think that doing this without also acknowledging and highlighting that the Allies were not alone in their strategic and terror bombing campaign (after all, my town was bombed and three people killed by a stick of bombs dropped by a lone Dornier for absolutely no reason at all other than the fact that we were at war with Germany - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuKcd6vrkiM ).
I know that as a German, Feuer Frei, you feel quite strongly about Dresden, as I feel about the Blitz and the Luftwaffe campaign against the UK, but I will hold my hands up and admit that both sides committed terrible acts, in the First and Second World War, just as has done in all wars before and after it, this thread is about Dresden, I know that and acknowledge that, and as such should be about the people of Dresden and not the bombers, bomber crews, bomber command or Churchill.

[Feuer Frei!]

This thread does seem to have started from the outset as an attack on the Allied forces and their leadership as opposed to a commemoration of the lives lost on that terrible day.
It was never my intention to post this thread as a attack on the Allies or to incite anti-Ally feelings or otherwise.
My intention was always to bring to light the comemoration of Event, if you will, and to otherwise inform people that it marks a time in history which will never be forgotten. Nor will the souls that lost their lives in the city due to the bombings. As i mentioned earlier in this thread, i should have known better to post this, as indeed you are right, i do have strong feelings about this, due to my heritage and also because the thread was bound to be derailed by the non-relative information which always seems to come up if it's anything to do with WW2 or Germany and it's part in WW2.
And i'm not just talking about in this thread but anywhere, in real life, other forums, etc.

[Oberon]

I understand, alas there is a tendency due to the nature of Hitlers regime to think of things in black and white, I know of one person on these forums that thinks that ALL Germans in World War Two were Nazis. I do not think that way but I know that there are many out there who do, and that is sad. Tak is right in that the Second World War was very much a watershed for this world and because of it there are still very strong feelings about it some sixty years later, and but for several changes of fate it could be that half of the forum would be saying how disgusting the actions of the Allies were against the righteous Nazis, that is how close it came in some instances. However as they say, history is written by the victors, and Germany has spent the past sixty years being constantly reminded that it was the loser, and again, that is sad.
At least there is a growing amount of people who realise the costs of war and that no side is truly innocent in war, no matter how just the cause, and that each civilian (and non-civilian for that matter) death is a tragedy. This will not stop war though, because there are always those who think that the benefits of armed conflict outweigh the costs, and in some instances perhaps they are right, after all, stopping the Nazis and stopping the slaughter of the Jews was a just cause, however it does not change the fact that many people die in a just cause...it is just a shame that those who do not die, do not learn from the lessons taught by those who did, that we are all equal on this little ball of dirt and should consider each other as so, and that all thoughts of grandeur and superiority are self-delusions brought on by social and technological status, we all come into this world the same way, and we will all leave it at some point, be we German, English, American, Korean, Chinese, Iraqi or Somalian.
Alas though, that is human nature, and so it shall continue...but, as individuals, you and I, Feuer Frei, can acknowledge the lessons learnt from the Second World War, and in our own ways, by recognising each other as equal, we can make sure that the sacrifices of the people of Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry, and London and all the others who died in the war, was not in vain.

[DarkFish]

Now you're the one who says you know where these factories were located and apparently also what they look like from the air, so you must be referencing something in particular. I'm just wondering what it is.What I'm referencing to is the fact Dowly mentioned, that the Allies knew pretty well what factories there were in Dresden, and more importantly where they were located. Therefore I'll address your reply to his post.
All supported and tied together by the rail and communications centers in the middle of the city. I know that Dresden is a cause célèbre among certain groups these days but just I don't see it as something we should be ashamed about.- Was the bombing of Dresden necessary?
- Was the bombing of Dresden justified?
If the answer on either one of these questions is "no", it is something the US should be ashamed about.

IMO the answer on both questions is "no".

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind" And two wrongs don't make one right.

Many things the Germans did were wrong. But if you count the bombings of for example Rotterdam and London as wrong, you must also see the bombing of Dresden as such.

[Tribesman]

Darkfish.
Rotterdam, London, Dresden.
One of those is different in many ways and shouldn't be used in your count

[August]

- Was the bombing of Dresden necessary?
- Was the bombing of Dresden justified?
If the answer on either one of these questions is "no", it is something the US should be ashamed about.

IMO the answer on both questions is "no".

Only because you're looking at it with hindsight. Wonderful thing that hindsight. It allows you to make all sorts of moral judgments from the comfort of your living room without recognizing that things weren't all that clear at the time they were happening.

The answers to those questions in the beginning of 1945 with an UNdefeated Germany still months away from surrender is an unequivocal yes, just it would be for any other military action that might end the war sooner.

Like I said before. In a fight to the finish you keep punching until your opponent goes down. You don't ease up just because he's on the ropes.

[Feuer Frei!]

Only because you're looking at it with hindsight. Wonderful thing that hindsight. It allows you to make all sorts of moral judgments from the comfort of your living room without recognizing that things weren't all that clear at the time they were happening
I have to jump in here, but what is wrong with the 'other side' wondering, or questioning the events as they happened, or to offer some more thought to the subject?
I think that this sort of thing seems to happen quiet regularly, and i'm not picking on you August, but i have had many a discussion about WW2, as i am sure a lot of you have had too, but it seems to me that us Germans, and non-Germans who some like to call "sympathizers",
when we question history, or to offer our point of view are advised very diplomatically, or indirectly, or more extremely in other cases to cease questioning history, to accept all the accounts and just deal with it, well then, i have an issue with that.
I am certain that that is not what you are intending to do here August, i may have taken your post wrongly, or read it in a different context but it is not hard to do so.
I understand that in your post which i quoted you close in saying that things weren't all that clear at the time that they were happening, which seems to take a lot of the 'sting' if you will out of the quote.
Correct me if i'm wrong but is one not able to offer some free speech to the discussion of Dresden's Events, or to offer one's notions or feelings toward the subject?
Or is it wrong and forbidden to offer one's personal views, (within reason ofc) on the Dresden subject, without getting the feeling that it is wrong because us Germans or those that side with some of our feelings towards some of these discussions are unequivably wrong and how dare they question anything that the Mighty Allies have written.
Sorry August i am not taking you to task personally, maybe i took your post wrongly, it's just that i have seen this all too often before, attempting to have mature and open-sided discussions about things like this and then getting sarcastic or close-minded replies, or being made to feel bad because i or anyone else has questioned anything that may be construed as questioning the history of WW2 and in particular the German side of things.
I hope i haven't put you off, but this is how i feel.

[August]

I have to jump in here, but what is wrong with the 'other side' wondering, or questioning the events as they happened, or to offer some more thought to the subject?
I think that this sort of thing seems to happen quiet regularly, and i'm not picking on you August, but i have had many a discussion about WW2, as i am sure a lot of you have had too, but it seems to me that us Germans, and non-Germans who some like to call "sympathizers",
when we question history, or to offer our point of view are advised very diplomatically, or indirectly, or more extremely in other cases to cease questioning history, to accept all the accounts and just deal with it, well then, i have an issue with that.
I am certain that that is not what you are intending to do here August, i may have taken your post wrongly, or read it in a different context but it is not hard to do so.
I understand that in your post which i quoted you close in saying that things weren't all that clear at the time that they were happening, which seems to take a lot of the 'sting' if you will out of the quote.
Correct me if i'm wrong but is one not able to offer some free speech to the discussion of Dresden's Events, or to offer one's notions or feelings toward the subject?
Or is it wrong and forbidden to offer one's personal views, (within reason ofc) on the Dresden subject, without getting the feeling that it is wrong because us Germans or those that side with some of our feelings towards some of these discussions are unequivably wrong and how dare they question anything that the Mighty Allies have written.
Sorry August i am not taking you to task personally, maybe i took your post wrongly, it's just that i have seen this all too often before, attempting to have mature and open-sided discussions about things like this and then getting sarcastic or close-minded replies, or being made to feel bad because i or anyone else has questioned anything that may be construed as questioning the history of WW2 and in particular the German side of things.
I hope i haven't put you off, but this is how i feel.

You haven't put me off my friend. My comments were aimed more at those who want to politicize that tragedy and others for contemporary purposes.

[Feuer Frei!]

You haven't put me off my friend. My comments were aimed more at those who want to politicize that tragedy and others for contemporary purposes.
Understand, :up: thank you for clarifying that, it is very hard to understand the 'context' of online conversations :03:

[August]

Understand, :up: thank you for clarifying that, it is very hard to understand the 'context' of online conversations :03:

:yep: It is.

FWIW though I sympathize with the German POV more than you may think. I'm half German myself and could very easily have had relatives in Dresden when that tragedy unfolded.

[Randomizer]

Between 1936 and 1945 well over 200 urban centres worldwide were immolated from the air, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of homeless civilians.

Had this thread used the anniversary of the controversial raid on Dresden to commemorate all the victims of the strategic bomber everywhere, there would have been little to add but 'thumbs up'.

It can always be disputed whether the Dresden raid was necessary or not but I would submit that in that place and time, the level of violence engendered by six-years of total war had assumed a momentum of its own and so it was probably inevitable. At this scale of disaster and distance in time concepts like right and wrong tend to become so blurred as to be meaningless as we apply our emotions to what we think we know.

It is worth noting that on the night of the Dresden firestorm, Bomber Command also sent almost 400 bombers against the town of Bohlen, near Leipzig. Bombing through 100% undercast, the attack missed the synthetic oil refinery that was its intended target and the bombing was widely scattered and largely ineffective. Since it is in-conceivable that there were no civilian casualties at Bohlen, so they too share this anniversery and yet are forgotten since Dresden gets all the press coverage. Are not the victims of Bohlen deserving of the same rememberance as the dead of Dresden?

We should well remember all those who died as a result of the strategic bomber whether in the air or on the ground and 13 February is as good a day as any and better than most. However we should also beware of hyperbole, arbitrary value judgements and 20/20 hindsight as discussion points for this very sensitive topic, they add nothing to the dialog.

Cheers

[goldorak]

Only because you're looking at it with hindsight. Wonderful thing that hindsight. It allows you to make all sorts of moral judgments from the comfort of your living room without recognizing that things weren't all that clear at the time they were happening.

The answers to those questions in the beginning of 1945 with an UNdefeated Germany still months away from surrender is an unequivocal yes, just it would be for any other military action that might end the war sooner.

Like I said before. In a fight to the finish you keep punching until your opponent goes down. You don't ease up just because he's on the ropes.

No no no. Hindsight has nothing to do with it. In the pacific theater for instance , General LeMay knew perfectly well what he was doing when he ordered the strategic bombing raids against japanese cities. And when high altitude bombing raids didn't bring enough devastation he ordered low level flights during the night. The tokyo raid make 100 000 dead. Civilian dead. This is not war, this is massacre. He was so aware of this that he publicly stated that should the US lose the war he would have been convicted of war crimes.
The whole strategic bombing doctrine was born and developed in England and the US. Other countries used it with more or less success but the art of SB was taken to its extreme with the british and americans. Germany didn't even have a long range bomber force when it entered the war. All medium and light bombers. So yes Germany has it reponsabilities, but so do the Allies.
And winning the war is no excuse to put under the rug many "questionable" actions. Its as if after 60 years we still have this image of Germany as the empire of evil, and the Allies were the knights in shining armor fighting the dragon for truth and justice. Go beyond the propaganda and you see that the allies were every bit as ruthless and oportunistic as the germans.
And what about the japanese ? Eh they lost the war also, and yet even in 2010 they still don't aknowledge their responsabilities in the war. They negate everything, and lets not even go into the japanese occupation of china.

[Tribesman]

No no no. Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
Mainly correct, but hindsight also is a factor.

[Sailor Steve]

What I'm referencing to is the fact Dowly mentioned, that the Allies knew pretty well what factories there were in Dresden, and more importantly where they were located. Therefore I'll address your reply to his post.
I'm not going to get into this argument, other than to say this:

August is correct about hindsight, but you are also correct with the "should be ashamed" comment. We should all have the grace to realize that yes, horrible things happen in war, and mistakes are made, but we should also determine not to use that as an excuse.

But you need to remember that part of the climate on a website like this is the occasional poster whose intent is not "we all have our bad side" but rather "no, you're the bad one, worse than I am". Sometimes a reply is made with that in mind, when the person replied to didn't mean that at all.

Sometimes we get defensive when we don't need to. And other times we need to.

[August]

No no no. Hindsight has nothing to do with it. In the pacific theater for instance , General LeMay knew perfectly well what he was doing when he ordered the strategic bombing raids against japanese cities. And when high altitude bombing raids didn't bring enough devastation he ordered low level flights during the night. The tokyo raid make 100 000 dead. Civilian dead. This is not war, this is massacre. He was so aware of this that he publicly stated that should the US lose the war he would have been convicted of war crimes.
The whole strategic bombing doctrine was born and developed in England and the US. Other countries used it with more or less success but the art of SB was taken to its extreme with the british and americans. Germany didn't even have a long range bomber force when it entered the war. All medium and light bombers. So yes Germany has it reponsabilities, but so do the Allies.
And winning the war is no excuse to put under the rug many "questionable" actions. Its as if after 60 years we still have this image of Germany as the empire of evil, and the Allies were the knights in shining armor fighting the dragon for truth and justice. Go beyond the propaganda and you see that the allies were every bit as ruthless and oportunistic as the germans.
And what about the japanese ? Eh they lost the war also, and yet even in 2010 they still don't aknowledge their responsabilities in the war. They negate everything, and lets not even go into the japanese occupation of china.


Now you're just swinging wildly hoping to connect with something. We're talking about Dresden, not Tokyo.

But yeah Curtis LeMay would certainly have been convicted of war crimes had we lost. So would have FDR, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Harris, Montgomery, Nimitz, Halsey and every other leader on the allied side and it wouldn't have stopped there either. The Germans and Japanese designated all kinds of people as war criminals including Privates and Corporals. I'm sure the show trials in the event of an Axis victory would have gone on for years. Does that fact make them actual war criminals? No it wouldn't.

[goldorak]

Now you're just swinging wildly hoping to connect with something. We're talking about Dresden, not Tokyo.

But yeah Curtis LeMay would certainly have been convicted of war crimes had we lost. So would have FDR, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Harris, Montgomery, Nimitz, Halsey and every other leader on the allied side and it wouldn't have stopped there either. The Germans and Japanese designated all kinds of people as war criminals including Privates and Corporals. I'm sure the show trials in the event of an Axis victory would have gone on for years. Does that fact make them actual war criminals? No it wouldn't.

Actually Dresden is but a case of Strategic Bombing. We can express regret for the bombing of Dresden, as that for any other city that was leveled between 1918 and 1945. I don't remeber who it was in this thread that correctly framed the issue. Its not about Dresden, or Tokyo or Guernica.
Its about the doctrine of strategic bombing and wether its use was justified or not. Doesn't matter if used in the pacific theater, the european theater or the spanish civil war. The act in itself has to be condemed, wether it was carried out by Allies or the Axis. The people in command, knew perfectly well the atrocities they were commiting. All justified in the name of war, and atrocities nonetheless. And the difference between a war criminal and a hero ? One belongs to the losing side, the other to the winning side.

[August]

And the difference between a war criminal and a hero ? One belongs to the losing side, the other to the winning side.

Oversimplification is the weakness in your argument. You can't compare the Allies (well maybe the USSR) with what the Axis did. What is the Allies equivalent to the rape of Nanking? What is the Allies equivalent to Auschwitz? Who started the deliberate bombing of civilians?

Who...Started...The...War?

I'm sorry but I just disagree with your attempt at making the Allies look as bad as the evil empires they fought and died defending themselves against. There is just no comparison.

[MH]

Actually Dresden is but a case of Strategic Bombing. We can express regret for the bombing of Dresden, as that for any other city that was leveled between 1918 and 1945. I don't remeber who it was in this thread that correctly framed the issue. Its not about Dresden, or Tokyo or Guernica.
Its about the doctrine of strategic bombing and wether its use was justified or not. Doesn't matter if used in the pacific theater, the european theater or the spanish civil war. The act in itself has to be condemed, wether it was carried out by Allies or the Axis. The people in command, knew perfectly well the atrocities they were commiting. All justified in the name of war, and atrocities nonetheless. And the difference between a war criminal and a hero ? One belongs to the losing side, the other to the winning side.
Strategic bombing of cities may be seen as ineffective today but you have to think in terms of ww2.
You have to consider the scope of the war and what was at stake.
It wasn't just a skirmish like Iraqi war or Vietnam it was a total conflict.

From Alias point of view it was real fight between good and evil on world scale where you had to use all means necessary to win or disappear from the map.
Strategic bombing was one of those many things that was belived and in fact did contribute to winning the war and made life easer for average allied solder as well.
I'm trying to justify it but you must think in terms of ww2.

I'm sure that in case of next global conflict when existence and resources of many couturiers would be at stake all the collateral damage thing would fly for most part out the window.
There is no such a thing as moral war especially world war.
We can sit now and debate all this in a part because of strategic bombing that was undertaken and sometime ruthless decision of allied generals.
At list they had not been engeged in mass destruction and enslaving of whole nations.
Look at Europe now and think what it might look if axis won before you say that US England and Rusia are just the powers which turned out to be victorious..

[Tribesman]

And the difference between a war criminal and a hero ? One belongs to the losing side, the other to the winning side.
For someone to be a criminal it has to be against the law.
Since the topic is WW2 and bombing then crimes are a difficult subject. Under a rough application of the other laws which could be sort of utilised then Dresden ticks all the boxes as a legitimate target.
The laws which should have applied were never drawn up and agreed and the provisional agreements went out the window in the invasion of Poland, that provisional agreement and any attempts to reintroduce any form of new agreement was killed outright with the bombing of Rotterdam.


As for the anniversary itself wasn't it good to see the people again turning the neo nazi nuts efforts in the city into a pathetic little side show.:up:

[Catfish]

For someone to be a criminal it has to be against the law.

Well, in the Nuremburg trials the element of crime of "leading an aggressive war" was not yet invented, in a worldwide court. In all previous centuries Kings and Empires had done what they wanted, under the "right" of the strongest. The end of WW2 sees the first worldwide court to judge the action of a nation or its leaders, and to condemn such action.
Strange enough in the UN who should be just of all an internation organisation and also court, one veto is enough to not condemn the action of e.g. Mr. Mugabe, oder Idi-Amin back then.
Or anyone else.


As for the anniversary itself wasn't it good to see the people again turning the neo nazi nuts efforts in the city into a pathetic little side show.:up:

:up:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Bilge_Rat]

To correct a misunderstanding, the object of strategic bombing in WW2 was not just to strike military targets, but also to break the morale of the population. So yes, factories were targeted, but also civilian population centers.

This was acknowledged policy by RAF Bomber Command, but even generals in the USAAF recognized this fact. The Tokyo firebombing raid in february 1945 was planned by general Lemay specifically to kill as many japanese civilians as possible.

Dresden was targeted, not because of a nefarious plot, but simply because the Allies were running out of targets! By early 45, the RAF/USAAF could put up 1,000 plane heavy bombing raids every day and had pretty much bombed out every city in Germany. Dresden was just unlucky to be next on the list.

Let us not forget that WW2 was the summum of the total war concept where civilians were considered legitimate military targets. German U-Boats and U.S. submarines sank thousands of civilian ships and killed tens of thousands of men, women and children.

Its unfortunate what happened to Dresden, but within the context of WW2, it was a legitimate military target.

[Tribesman]

Well, in the Nuremburg trials the element of crime of "leading an aggressive war" was not yet invented, in a worldwide court
Try again, think of cornflakes and then see the flaw in the packet.
Funnily enough that document is still US law.

[Freiwillige]

Dresden marks the first time that even Churchill himself questioned the effect of terror bombing as it did more damage to the Allies at this stage of the war than it did to the Germans.

What is unique about Dresden that keeps it at the forefront of German cities lost.

1. Timing of the attack (When the war was a forgone conclusion)
2. Method of attack (intentionally creating a firestorm)
3. length of attack (a continuous coordinated night day attack)
4. Target of attack (City center, as opposed to industrial, bridges etc)

All of those reasons alone could raise an eyebrow but combined had the effect of making even the allies second guess after the fact.

I think allot of the real root of Dresden was to show the Russians what allied air power could do, while not the sole reason it was definitely an influence, Much like the Atomic bombs in Japan.

[DarkFish]

Darkfish.
Rotterdam, London, Dresden.
One of those is different in many ways and shouldn't be used in your countRotterdam: bombing of civilians in order to force the Dutch government to surrender (not that we had any chance anyway).
London: bombing of civilians for whatever reason Hitler deemed necessary (both demoralizing the British and revenge)
Dresden: bombing of civilians supposedly targeting the German infrastructure and industry, even though not all of the infrastructure and almost no industry was targeted.

My list shows bombings of civilians for very weak and unmoral reasons. I think they all fit that list, but if you know some reason why one of them should be excluded, please tell.

Only because you're looking at it with hindsight. Wonderful thing that hindsight. It allows you to make all sorts of moral judgments from the comfort of your living room without recognizing that things weren't all that clear at the time they were happening.

The answers to those questions in the beginning of 1945 with an UNdefeated Germany still months away from surrender is an unequivocal yes, just it would be for any other military action that might end the war sooner.

Like I said before. In a fight to the finish you keep punching until your opponent goes down. You don't ease up just because he's on the ropes.I think anyone looking at it at the time should have come to the same conclusion, but in the end that doesn't matter. Even if there was a reason to bomb Dresden, I don't think killing this much civilians was justified. They could have instead easily targeted the industrial areas outside of town, killing less people and giving a possibly bigger blow to the local industry.

And to continue your analogy, in a fight, if the opponent is only one hit away from going KO, you don't grab your sword and slash his throat.

I'm not going to get into this argument, other than to say this:

August is correct about hindsight, but you are also correct with the "should be ashamed" comment. We should all have the grace to realize that yes, horrible things happen in war, and mistakes are made, but we should also determine not to use that as an excuse.

But you need to remember that part of the climate on a website like this is the occasional poster whose intent is not "we all have our bad side" but rather "no, you're the bad one, worse than I am". Sometimes a reply is made with that in mind, when the person replied to didn't mean that at all.

Sometimes we get defensive when we don't need to. And other times we need to.The Germans did terrible things in the war. But we shouldn't forget that the Allies have done so as well. Denying either of them is just not in line with history. There is no such thing as a "universally good" side or a "universally bad" side. The Germans have done good things, and the Allies have done their share of war crimes. It's all too easy to say "the Germans were the bad guys so whatever we did they deserved it".

[Catfish]

Try again, think of cornflakes and then see the flaw in the packet.
Funnily enough that document is still US law.


You think of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 27 August 1928 ? ;)

[Tribesman]

What is unique about Dresden that keeps it at the forefront of German cities lost.


Sorry but none of the 4 things you list was unique to Dresden.

Rotterdam: bombing of civilians in order to force the Dutch government to surrender (not that we had any chance anyway).
London: bombing of civilians for whatever reason Hitler deemed necessary (both demoralizing the British and revenge)
Dresden: bombing of civilians supposedly targeting the German infrastructure and industry, even though not all of the infrastructure and almost no industry was targeted.


which is the odd one out darkfish?

You think of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 27 August 1928 ?
Exactly, it screwed up on definitions though didn't it.

[August]

And to continue your analogy, in a fight, if the opponent is only one hit away from going KO, you don't grab your sword and slash his throat.


I don't think any fighter in the history of human conflict has ever known for sure that his opponent is one punch away from being knocked out, but be that as it may, in a fight to the finish if slashing your opponents throat has a chance of ending the war more quickly then you have a moral responsibility to your own people to try it.

[Freiwillige]

Sorry but none of the 4 things you list was unique to Dresden.

True but the culmination of the four are, that was my point.

[Catfish]

Rotterdam: bombing of civilians in order to force the Dutch government to surrender (not that we had any chance anyway).
London: bombing of civilians for whatever reason Hitler deemed necessary (both demoralizing the British and revenge)
Dresden: bombing of civilians supposedly targeting the German infrastructure and industry, even though not all of the infrastructure and almost no industry was targeted.

Rotterdam was terrible, and there had been Warsaw before. Obviously the german Stukas and two-engined bombers were enough, not that Germany would not have used four-engined bombers maybe, but it did not have any. The idea of carpet-bombing civilian targets however was not developed by Germany.

Regarding London, it was not initially planned to bomb civilian targets, but it happened when a Heinkel crew accidentally dropped its bombs outside the target area (initial targets were the harbour and dock area). Udet even apologized, but next there was a bunch of Wellington bombers bombing civilian homes at Hamburg.
The governments did not speak to each other, and it is most unlikely that such a thing would not have happened anyway, sooner or later.
I guess with those new concepts of "total wars" getting the civilian population to its knees it was only a matter of time.

Greetings,
Catfish

[August]

The idea of carpet-bombing civilian targets however was not developed by Germany.


What about the Zeppelin raids on London and Paris during WW1? I know they occurred with some frequency but i'm not familiar with what their intended targets were.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oversimplification is the weakness in your argument. You can't compare the Allies (well maybe the USSR) with what the Axis did.
Yes, you can, and you can't just toss the USSR out of the equation. We allied with those monsters for no reason other than that Britain did not want to compete with a strong Germany.

What is the Allies equivalent to the rape of Nanking?
I'll see that and raise you a half-century of brutality and millions more victims in the form of the Iron Curtain that we allowed to descend on 13 eastern Eurpean states, including the one state whose sovereignty was presumably the justification for intervention in the first place.


What is the Allies equivalent to Auschwitz?

The gulags. Or how about the allied decision to turn hundreds of thousands of civilians, soldiers, and Russian prisoners over to the Soviets with the full knowledge that they would be shot, or worse?

Who started the deliberate bombing of civilians?

The British. The first German "bombing" of civilians was by a flight of Heinkel HE-111s conducting a night attack that had lost their way due to the British jamming their navigational signals. The bombers unintentionally dumped their payloads on a blacked-out section of London and turned around to try to find their way home.
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/blitz.htm

It should also be noted that the British were not above attacking their own people, crowded onto the decks of U-boats, while the Germans were trying to rescue them.*


Who...Started...The...War?

The British and the French, by supposedly acting on behalf of a nation(Poland) that their subsequent actions proved was not even a concern for them.



I'm sorry but I just disagree with your attempt at making the Allies look as bad as the evil empires they fought and died defending themselves against. There is just no comparison.


Yes, August, there is. Notwithstanding the fact that we knowingly allied with what was easily the greatest "evil empire" the world has ever seen and then allowed it to rape a good portion of Europe for decades, the Allies committed several atrocities all by themselves. Even the US turned against its own people and treated them like criminals, in both world wars.

[Bilge_Rat]

What is unique about Dresden that keeps it at the forefront of German cities lost.

1. Timing of the attack (When the war was a forgone conclusion)

Most of the Heavy Bombing damage to Germany and Japan was done after october 1, 1944. The Heavy Bombing groups reached peak strength in early 1945 and because of the shrinkage in Axis territory, they could concentrate on Germany and Japan alone.

2. Method of attack (intentionally creating a firestorm)

That was actually pretty standard by 1945. A firestorm would cause more damage than the actual bombs. An estimated 100,000 Tokyo residents died in the march 9-10 raid alone.

3. length of attack (a continuous coordinated night day attack)

again, fairly typical for Germany, 1945. Multiple raids over 1-2 days, partly to overload the civil defense networks and fire department, partly to avoid having too many bombers over the target at the same time.

4. Target of attack (City center, as opposed to industrial, bridges etc)

standard RAF Bomber Command practice since 1941.

Dresden was actually a fairly typical attack for 1945. What was abnormal was that it worked so well. The civil defense network collapsed, allowing the fires to grow unchecked.

[August]

Yes, August, there is. Notwithstanding the fact that we knowingly allied with what was easily the greatest "evil empire" the world has ever seen and then allowed it to rape a good portion of Europe for decades, the Allies committed several atrocities all by themselves. Even the US turned against its own people and treated them like criminals, in both world wars.

I disagree. You can revise history all you want but whatever the allies did during the war just does not compare with Auschwitz or Nanking or Manila, sorry.

[MH]

I guess with those new concepts of "total wars" getting the civilian population to its knees it was only a matter of time.

Greetings,
Catfish

Not really new....
It was a concept that was originated by Germany in ww1.
Germans where first to use it against London.
English learned a very traumatic lesson from that as a result they developed capable fighter force between the wars while further refining the concept of strategic bombing.

[Dowly]

I disagree. You can revise history all you want but whatever the allies did during the war just does not compare with Auschwitz or Nanking or Manila, sorry.

The "But they were worse than us" argument doesn't make it right, either. ;)

[Catfish]

What about the Zeppelin raids on London and Paris during WW1? I know they occurred with some frequency but i'm not familiar with what their intended targets were.

I could write books on this theme, indeed i am just in the process of writing one, (but about a special Zeppelin in WW1, not about bombing London).

The short version:

The FdL Strasser had promised to the Kaiser that his airships (it was foremost naval german airships that bombed England, not the army ones - there were few army airships though for a combined effect at a time) would be able to reach England and bomb naval military installations, camps and special targets in London. He promised they would be able to exactly bomb those installations, without hitting civilian targets.

The latter was what Kaiser William 2nd had demanded, for such raids, since he was closely related to the Queen and Royal House and had no special hate against England (something that cannot be said of Churchill, towards Germany - but then England had declared war to Germany, because of Belgium). He had demanded to spare the eastern areas where poor people lived, and explicitely forbidden to drop bombs on homes, landmarks, public places like theaters and the Houses of Parliamant, Tower bridge etc.. with the exception of the british mint.
Little did he know that the bombsights were not even developed in a way to make promises on such accurate bombing, let alone in mist and clouds and navigational errors.

Even the later Gotha raids (which replaced the airships) were intended to bomb military installations, but at that time "collateral damage" was accepted. French and british bombers had regularly "visited" the cities of Cologne, Freiburg and in the Ruhr area. One of the Entente cunning ruses was to fly over the neutral Switzerland, and bomb cities like Friedrichshafen.
When phosphorous bombs were invented, and already mounted to 30 Gotha bombers that should turn London into a fiery mess, their start and the dropping was forbidden by direct order of William 2nd, and the bombs stored away.
Not that the allied propaganda bureaus did not leave anything out to demonize the germans by the U.S CPI, and the british WPB. It is indeed just this propaganda, that is still believed in today regarding WW1. From bayonnetting babies, crucifying canadian soldiers, killing monks or sinking hospital ships (which happened, but on all sides. Hospital ships were abused as troop transports, but not only by England):
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/propaganda/
http://www.greatwar.nl/students/papers/collins/propaganda.html
http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050824i/ponsonby.html#23
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/kriegsrecht/lazarett.htm
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=1469235

This is especially interesting, since it describes the invasion of Belgium in letters, between the belgian authorities, and Germany:
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_German_Occupation_of_Luxembourg

I did not even mention the Bryce report.

O.T. i know:
(the british royal house changed their name from "Sachsen Coburg-Gotha" to "Windsor" at this time, to divert from their close relationship and evade a "démontage" of the Royal House because of the "Gotha" attacks.
When William heard about that he joked and threatened to rename and play a Shakespeares masterpiece in Germany under a new name like "The Lucky Wives of Sachsen Coburg-Gotha")

Greetings,
Catfish

[Bilge_Rat]

The idea of carpet-bombing civilian targets however was not developed by Germany.



oh really..

Guernica:

For over three hours, twenty-five or more of Germany's best-equipped bombers, accompanied by at least twenty more Messerschmitt and Fiat Fighters, dumped one hundred thousand pounds of high-explosive and incendiary bombs on the village, slowly and systematically pounding it to rubble.


Warsaw:


About 1,150 bombing sorties by German aircraft were flown against Warsaw on September 25, 1939, in an effort to terrorize the defenders into surrendering. 500 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bomb were dropped on the city.





Rotterdam:


54 He 111s dropped low to release 97 tonnes (213,848 lbs) of bombs, mostly in the heart of the city.

(...)

In total, 1,150 x 50 kg (110 lb) and 158 x 250 kg (550 lb) bombs were dropped. Many of these hit and ignited homes, churches, stores, warehouses and schools resulting in uncontrollable fires in the city centre.Hooton states that bombs ignited vegetable oil tanks on the dockside, which caused fires that spread into the city centre, causing massive devastation.Although exact numbers are not known, nearly 1000 people were killed and 85,000 made homeless.


London:

The Blitz was the sustained bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941,during the Second World War. The Blitz hit many towns and cities across the country, but it began with the bombing of London for 76 consecutive nights.By the end of May 1941, over 43,000 civilians, half of them in London, had been killed by bombing and more than a million houses were destroyed or damaged in London alone



Belgrade:



Operation Punishment was the code name for the German bombing of Belgrade during the invasion of Yugoslavia. The Luftwaffe bombed the city on April 6 (Palm Sunday) without a declaration of war, continuing bombing until April 10. More than 500 bombing sorties were flown against Belgrade in three waves coming from Romania where German forces were assembled for the attack on the Soviet Union. Most of the government officials fled, and the Yugoslav army began to collapse.


In the survey prepared by the Luftwaffe ten days after the attack to assess the results obtained by the 218.5 tons dropped, the following targets are mentioned: the royal palace, the ministry of defence, military colleges, the main post office, the telegraph office, railway stations, powerplants and barracks.

Waves of Luftwaffe bombers and Stuka dive bombers bombed Belgrade, killing an estimated 2,274 civilians during the initial April 6–7 bombardment - though some estimates put the figure as high as 5,000 to 17,000 civilians killed - and thousands of buildings were destroyed. According to William Stevenson, in his biography of Sir William Stevenson: "After four days of what the Germans code-named Operation Punishment, some 24,000 corpses were recovered from the ruins. Untold numbers were never found."

German Field Marshal von Kleistl said during his trial after the war: "The air raid on Belgrade in 1941 had a primarily political-terrorist character and had nothing to do with the war. That air bombing was a matter of Hitler's vanity, his personal revenge.

[DarkFish]

I don't think any fighter in the history of human conflict has ever known for sure that his opponent is one punch away from being knocked out, but be that as it may, in a fight to the finish if slashing your opponents throat has a chance of ending the war more quickly then you have a moral responsibility to your own people to try it.And you have a moral responsibility to the enemy's people not to try it, if the expected outcome costs more lives than it's expected to save. Killing the enemy's soldiers, great, I'm all for it. But civilians are civilians and you shouldn't touch them. Even if killing them may prove advantageous to you, and I severely doubt the bombing of Dresden had any military significance, you shouldn't kill civilians. Cause you know, not everything in war is about victory (or at least, it shouldn't be). There is also something called chivalry. And purposely killing civilians, whatever the reasons, whatever the gain, is definitely not chivalrous. Never.

which is the odd one out darkfish?As I said, this (way too small) list shows bombings of civilians for IMO very weak and immoral reasons. I didn't compile this small list based on anything else. If you feel one of them should be excluded, say which one and give a reason for it.


@ Bilge_Rat
Catfish is talking about the development of carpet bombing, not about the actual usage;)

[Hakahura]

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Marshall of The Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris GCB OBE AFC



Rather sums up my sentiments on the issue.

[Catfish]

There have already been better links, but at least i have not to translate anything:

From the bombing of Guernica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica)

[...]
Luftwaffe doctrine, 1933-42
James Corum (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/James_Corum) states that a prevalent view about the Luftwaffe and its Blitzkrieg operations was that it had a doctrine of terror bombing (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Terror_bombing), in which civilians were deliberately targeted in order to break the will or aid the collapse of an enemy. After the bombing of Guernica in 1937 and of Rotterdam (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Rotterdam) in 1940, it was commonly assumed that terror bombing was a part of Luftwaffe doctrine.

During the interwar period the Luftwaffe leadership officially rejected the concept of terror bombing, and confined the air arms use to battlefield support of interdiction (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Interdiction) operations. The Luftwaffe did not practice "terror bombing" until 1942.[5] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-4)
The vital industries and transportation centers that would be targeted for shutdown were valid military targets. It could be claimed civilians were not to be targeted directly, but the breakdown of production would affect their morale and will to fight. German legal scholars of the 1930s carefully worked out guidelines for what type of bombing was permissible under international law. While direct attacks against civilians were ruled out as "terror bombing", the concept of attacking vital war industries-and probable heavy civilian casualties and breakdown of civilian morale-was ruled as acceptable.[6] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-5)
General (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/General)Walther Wever (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Walther_Wever_(general)) compiled a doctrine known as The Conduct of the Aerial War in 1935. In this document, which the Luftwaffe adopted, the Luftwaffe rejected Giulio Douhet (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Giulio_Douhet)'s theory of terror bombing. Terror bombing was deemed to be "counter-productive", increasing rather than destroying the enemy's will to resist.[7] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-6)
Such bombing campaigns were regarded as diversion from the Luftwaffe's main operations, destruction of the enemy armed forces.[8] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-7) According to Corum, the bombings of Guernica, Rotterdam and Warsaw were tactical missions in support of military operations and were not intended as strategic terror attacks.
[...] "

No doubt the bombing of civilian targets had been considered as a means for "wars of the future" during the 1920ies, and 30ies, especially by Italy and England, who had developed the theoretical ideas of strategical bombing; the latter had already used it in its colonies, which is seldomly mentioned.

About the italian doctrine, which Mr. Harris obviously had in mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/eula.html

" .... Douhet believed in the morale (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Morale) effects of bombing. Air power could break a people's will by destroying a country's "vital centers". Armies became superfluous because aircraft could overfly them and attack these centers of the government, military and industry with impunity, a principle later called "The bomber will always get through (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through)". Targeting was central to this strategy and he believed that air commanders would prove themselves by their choice of targets. These would vary from situation to situation, but Douhet identified the five basic target types as: industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "the will of the people".
The last category was particularly important to Douhet, who believed in the principle of Total War (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Total_war). ..."

Greetings,
Catfish

[UnderseaLcpl]

I disagree. You can revise history all you want but whatever the allies did during the war just does not compare with Auschwitz or Nanking or Manila, sorry.

Are you sure about that? Ask one of our Eastern European members how they feel about being left at the mercy of the Soviets for so long. Ask them what it was like to live in the shadow of brutality and fear for most of their lives. We condoned their fate as early as the Tehran conference.
I am not revising history, August, I'm just pointing out facts and suggesting a little caution and discretion the next time we wage a "just" war against the "Huns" or whatever subhuman title we bestow upon our enemies.

I don't think there is any need for us to disagree on this subject. We're both former front-line soldiers, so our commitment to our nation and its ideals are not in question. We are, both of us, fairly conservative in nature. Admittedly, I'm more socially liberal, but I am only so because I have faith in the ability of the conservative agenda to compete successfully. Presumably, we both agree upon the ideals of self-determination and expect a reasonable degree of accountability from our government.

If that is the case, you are not helping our cause by blindly accepting the popular rationale behind our intervention in two global conflicts in which our intervention was engineered by two astonishingly socialist Democrats, both of whom did a great deal of lying and propagandizing to get us into wars for reasons that are entirely contrary to what I suspect are our shared ideals. Patriotism is not helping your case in any sense here, or mine, for that matter. You would be better served by examining the reasons behind the reluctance of the US populace to go to war and the measures that were taken to incite them to war, if you care so much about conservative ideals.

[goldorak]

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Marshall of The Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris GCB OBE AFC
Rather sums up my sentiments on the issue.

Why bother bombing military installations at all ? Break the enemy's morale simply by leveling cities. Why don't you consider this acceptable if it gives you the victory in the end.

[August]

And you have a moral responsibility to the enemy's people not to try it, if the expected outcome costs more lives than it's expected to save. Killing the enemy's soldiers, great, I'm all for it. But civilians are civilians and you shouldn't touch them

How 21st century of you. That's what I mean about applying today's morals to decisions made in the past.

I severely doubt the bombing of Dresden had any military significanceWhy do you doubt it? Have you totally ignored the many posts which mentioned the rail junction or the communications hubs within that city?

Cause you know, not everything in war is about victory (or at least, it shouldn't be).In a war for survival everything is about victory because defeat means oblivion and death. Your forefathers understood that, which is why they risked their lives to fight the invader. Even if it meant building road-blocks with their dead. They earned their freedom. You can sit in the world they built and critique their efforts. Lucky you.

Let me ask you something Darkfish. If bombing a town filled with civilians was necessary to save your friends and family from torture and death would you do it?

[Bilge_Rat]

And you have a moral responsibility to the enemy's people not to try it, if the expected outcome costs more lives than it's expected to save. Killing the enemy's soldiers, great, I'm all for it. But civilians are civilians and you shouldn't touch them. Even if killing them may prove advantageous to you, and I severely doubt the bombing of Dresden had any military significance, you shouldn't kill civilians. Cause you know, not everything in war is about victory (or at least, it shouldn't be). There is also something called chivalry. And purposely killing civilians, whatever the reasons, whatever the gain, is definitely not chivalrous. Never.



Agreed, but you are trying to impose 2011 law of war standards to WW2. In WW2, wholesale killing of civilians by air bombing was perfectly acceptable to all sides. By WW2 standards, the bombing of Dresden was entirely justified.

In fact, during WW2, Dresden was a minor news story. By 1945, the time for chivalry was long gone, everyone knew it was just a question of killing enough Germans and Japanese until they finally surrendered. The Soviets lost 80,000 killed and 250,000 wounded just taking Berlin.

Standards have evolved since then. I always laugh when people say they like WW2 because it was a "clean war"... between 40 and 50 million civilians died as a direct result of that "clean war".

[Tribesman]

If you feel one of them should be excluded, say which one and give a reason for it.


Rotterdam for two reasons, its status at the time of the bombing and the provisional agreement that Germany had said it would again honour after the bombing of warsaw.
They put the bombing of Rotterdam in a completely different category.


How 21st century of you. That's what I mean about applying today's morals to decisions made in the past.
The moral issues are as old as recorded history, the issues darkfish raises were raised long before the raid on Dresden and were widely discussed during that particular 20th century conflict, so August seems to be rewriting history to fit his arguement

[Hakahura]

Why bother bombing military installations at all ? Break the enemy's morale simply by leveling cities. Why don't you consider this acceptable if it gives you the victory in the end.

Because it does not work.

You have to view these events, as with all history by the standards of the time. Try to remember that those who made the decisions did so with much less knowledge and information than we are now privy to 60 plus years later.

At the time without the certain knowledge that Germany would lose the war IMHO Harris's decision to Area and Firebomb German cities was justified.

Even at this point in 1945 Germany was putting up credible resistance. Operational Jet and Rocket fighters were in the skys and the Allies were on the recieving end of Cruise missiles, PGM's and Ballistic Missiles hurtling towards them from the edge of space. What next? Faced with that what else by the standards of the time should have been done? And please try to remember what precision bombing meant for most aircraft of the time.

[DarkFish]

How 21st century of you. That's what I mean about applying today's morals to decisions made in the past. Even people at the time doubted the attack was morally justified. Ever heard about Churchills remarks?

Oh and BTW, I'm pretty sure that if you asked a random Londoner at the time if the German bombings were morally okay, he'd curse me to hell for even daring to ask. I'm sure not many inhabitants of Warsaw or Rotterdam shared your views about morality. I'm sure the inhabitants of Dresden didn't.

Why do you doubt it? Have you totally ignored the many posts which mentioned the rail junction or the communications hubs within that city? Have you totally ignored the numerous posts saying that
- the war was nearly over
- many communication infrastructures were not targeted
- the local industry was not targeted

In a war for survival everything is about victory because defeat means oblivion and death. Your forefathers understood that, which is why they risked their lives to fight the invader. Even if it meant building road-blocks with their dead. They earned their freedom. You can sit in the world they built and critique their efforts. Lucky you.What a black-and-white views do you have. I wish mine were so simplistic.
If everything's about victory, I take it you're in favor of simply nuking Iraq flat. The more people killed, the better. After all, if all enemies are dead you're victorious.

Nope, the US doesn't throw nukes on Iraq. Because there are many more factors than just victory. Morality being one of them. And speaking of this morality, killing civilians is just wrong. No matter how you twist it.


What exactly did my forefathers understand? That losing a war means oblivion and death? Yeah, I guess that's why none of my grandparents (one of them fought at the Battle of the Grebbeberg) died during WW2:roll:
Actually, I can think of only one family member that died during the war. And guess by which side she was killed? The Allies. Oh the irony.

Also, building road blocks with our dead? Sorry to tell you August but you know absolutely nothing about how war was around here.

Let me ask you something Darkfish. If bombing a town filled with civilians was necessary to save your friends and family from torture and death would you do it?So can you tell me how many American and British civilians the Germans tortured during the war? Can you tell me how many American and British civilians they killed in 1944/45? Next can you tell me if you made a realistic comparison?


Rotterdam for two reasons, its status at the time of the bombing and the provisional agreement that Germany had said it would again honour after the bombing of warsaw.
They put the bombing of Rotterdam in a completely different category.While I can agree with you the bombing of Rotterdam is very different from the other two, I think it definitely qualifies as bombing a large civilian populated town for immoral reasons. That's what it's got in common with the other two IMHO.

[tater]

The day after Dresden was bombed was supposed to be the day ALL the remaining jews in Dresden were sent to be exterminated by their peace-loving, artist neighbors (that's who lived in Dresden, right?).

Flattening the city would be justified for no other reason than to mitigate the number sent to extermination alone.

I don't claim that the German bombing of the UK was immoral. It was what they decided to do. Sow the storm, reap the whirlwind.

On a historical note, all sides in WW2 spent the interwar years under the assumption that "the bombers would always get through" and that the next war would include area bombing. Before the BoB the UK was sending children away because they assumed the casualties would be far worse than they actually were.

I have no problem with the Allied bombing campaign morally, my only issue revolves around how effective it was. The 2 nukes used on Japan are the only example of bombing to break the will to fight actually working for the Allies. It also worked for the nazis, early on (the fear of total destruction resulted in capitulation). So since the very beginning of the war showed real examples of such bombing ending hostilities with FEWER deaths, it is also worth looking at it in that contemporary context.

Note that ALL nuclear powers on Earth have a standing policy to murder civilians in wholesale millions. No one living in the US, UK, France, Russia, or any other nuclear power (or ally, so that includes the entire EU) can complain about bombing civilians. Their missiles are already pointed at cities, and only to kill people after the war is in effect already over for revenge.

[MH]

Bla BLAH............So can you tell me how many American and British civilians the Germans tortured during the war? Can you tell me how many American and British civilians they killed in 1944/45? Next can you tell me if you made a realistic comparison?.........Bla... blah.

Stop insulting yourself.
Thats ridiculous.
Are books censured in neverland.

[August]

What exactly did my forefathers understand? That losing a war means oblivion and death? Yeah, I guess that's why none of my grandparents (one of them fought at the Battle of the Grebbeberg) died during WW2

So just because your family came out ok that validates your ridiculous ideas? What about Anne Franks family? I guess they or the other hundred thousand Jewish Dutch that were murdered don't count since they aren't related. :roll:

Also, building road blocks with our dead? Sorry to tell you August but you know absolutely nothing about how war was around here.Yeah that was a bit of hyperbole sorry. Still the Dutch were happy to fight alongside the Allies at Eindoven, Nigmegen and Arnhem. You seem to prefer the Germans. Why is that?

So can you tell me how many American and British civilians the Germans tortured during the war? Can you tell me how many American and British civilians they killed in 1944/45? Next can you tell me if you made a realistic comparison?You first. Don't dodge the question. Either you would or you wouldn't.

[DarkFish]

So just because your family came out ok that validates your ridiculous ideas? What about Anne Franks family? I guess they or the other hundred thousand Jewish Dutch that were murdered don't count since they aren't related. :roll:Of course they matter. And of course the Holocaust was a horrible act. But the acts of the Nazis don't make Dresden any more or less justified. An evil is still an evil, no matter to whom it is directed.

Yeah that was a bit of hyperbole sorry. Still the Dutch were happy to fight alongside the Allies at Eindoven, Nigmegen and Arnhem. You seem to prefer the Germans. Why is that?I don't. I prefer the Allies by far. I'm glad and thankful the Allies interfered and liberated my country. All I want to do is stress that the war wasn't as black and white as some people here believe. There were good Germans, and there were bad Allies. The Germans have done great acts, and the Allies have committed atrocities. Both of which many people here seem to forget all too often. (I'm not saying you're one of them, but I know many people here on subsim for whom the word "German" automatically means "Holocaust" and "Nazi")

You first. Don't dodge the question. Either you would or you wouldn't.August, I don't answer the question because it has nothing to do with the bombings. The officers who ordered the bombing of Dresden weren't in any danger of getting their family killed or tortured. If you come up with some analogy that actually has some resemblance to the real situation, I might answer it. But this is just way too far off, sorry.


Stop insulting yourself.
Thats ridiculous.
Are books censured in neverland.Every time someone says the Germans are not the evil people you think they are, you come up to claim the Germans are some kind of evil universally villain people. When will you finally come to accept the fact that not all Germans were Nazis?

When will you finally see the Germans as other human beings who've got family and loved ones as well, just like Jews? The death of a Jewish family isn't automatically more tragic than the death of a German family, simply because the former is Jewish and the latter German. The killing of Jewish civilians in the holocaust is awful, but the killing of German civilians in Dresden is awful as well.

I understand you hold a deep grudge against the Germans for what they've done to your people (quite possibly even your family). But how long do you plan on keeping this grudge? I know you will never forgive the Nazis, and you shouldn't, but when will you find forgiveness for the average German civilian?


The day after Dresden was bombed was supposed to be the day ALL the remaining jews in Dresden were sent to be exterminated by their peace-loving, artist neighbors (that's who lived in Dresden, right?).

Flattening the city would be justified for no other reason than to mitigate the number sent to extermination alone.Flattening a city including all Jews residing in it isn't exactly my idea of saving people but well...
And even if all Jews in Dresden would have survived, is the killing of many justified to save the few?

[August]

August, I don't answer the question because it has nothing to do with the bombings. The officers who ordered the bombing of Dresden weren't in any danger of getting their family killed or tortured. If you come up with some analogy that actually has some resemblance to the real situation, I might answer it. But this is just way too far off, sorry.

Then we have nothing further to discuss. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

[papa_smurf]

Was listening to Radio 2 yesterday, and they had a 91 year old British veteran who was a POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. You can listen to it here (its 1:12 into the broadcast):http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00yj1gg/Jeremy_Vine_14_02_2011

[Bilge_Rat]

Even people at the time doubted the attack was morally justified. Ever heard about Churchills remarks?



postwar PC rationalisations by ivory tower intellectuals who could not change a flat tire if their lives depended on it.

Churchill felt uneasy about many decisions he took during the war. He was, after all, a normal human being, unlike Hitler and the other murderers, psychopaths and sociopaths in the Nazi leadership. He took the hard decisions he did because he had to, not because he liked it.

[Tribesman]

postwar PC rationalisations by ivory tower intellectuals
How can arguementss made at the time be postwar PC rationalisations?

[Bilge_Rat]

How can arguementss made at the time be postwar PC rationalisations?

give me a reference to one wartime discussion within the Allied High command on the "morality" of the Dresden bombing.

[Tribesman]

give me a reference to one wartime discussion within the Allied High command on the "morality" of the Dresden bombing.
cross purposes.
The discussions at all levels throughout the war were about area bombing, Dresden was one of those bombing raids so it was covered by those discussions.

[Randomizer]

cross purposes.
The discussions at all levels throughout the war were about area bombing, Dresden was one of those bombing raids so it was covered by those discussions.
That something was discussed at the time means absolutely nothing, strategic and policy discussions are virtually constant in wartime and the fact that some members of the leadership might oppose anything in particular is only relevant with good ol' 20/20 hindsight since crystal balls are notoriously lacking in the here and now.

In 1945 the Commandant of Marines discussed to dropping 2000 tons of mustard gas on Iwo Jima before the invasion, it was vetoed at the White House.

In 1942 the American's discussed invading Brazil but cooler heads prevailed.

In 1939 the British cabinet seriously discussed bombing the Soviet oil fields in Baku to support the Finns in the Winter War.

The chief advocates of strategic bombing, Trenchard, Mitchell and Douhet had done there work very well: the Bomber would always get through and the destruction of infrastructure with the attending slaughter of civilians would be decisive. So firmly was this believed that the Home Office cranked out some one-million death certificates in the first months of the war and provided free gas masks to every urban dweller in Britian. Seventy years on it's difficult for some to fathom just how the population, particularly in the UK were primed for mass bombing so no surprise that when hostilities started it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As for Churchill's supposed volte-face it is well to remember that above all things he was a connsumate politician and facing an election in 1945 to boot (one that he would lose to Clement Atlee). The British public was exhausted with war wearyness, rationing and they knew that the seemingly endless combat in Western Europe would be followed by more of the same in the Pacific, or so it seemed at the time. Audiances in the summer of 1943 had cheered when the newsreels showed footage of the immolation of Hamburg but by the winter of 1945 a more common sentiment was probably along the lines of "oh, those poor bas--rds". With an eye to the voters it would be a shock had Churchill not attempted to dis-associate himself from Dresden.

The Bomber Barons were proved wrong, at least until the advent of nuclear weapons made it economical to wipe out entire cities in an instant. By that time though, polticians knew that the fallout from doing so (radioactive and political) would be unacceptable.

Every belligerent that had the technology and wealth to do so bought into the Strategic Bomber theories and only after hundreds of urban centres had been flattened and millions had become casualties was it seen by the policy makers to be largely (but not entirely) counter-productive, even in the context of total war.

[MH]

Every time someone says the Germans are not the evil people you think they are, you come up to claim the Germans are some kind of evil universally villain people. When will you finally come to accept the fact that not all Germans were Nazis?

When will you finally see the Germans as other human beings who've got family and loved ones as well, just like Jews? The death of a Jewish family isn't automatically more tragic than the death of a German family, simply because the former is Jewish and the latter German. The killing of Jewish civilians in the holocaust is awful, but the killing of German civilians in Dresden is awful as well.

?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said that all Germans are or had been evil.
I just try contradict the white washing of Nazi Germany thats all.
I try to contradict people who do exactly the opposite of what you think i try to do.
I'm quite capable of seeing the gray side of the issue.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Like Fatman and Little Boy, the United States and Great Britain can do GREAT things when we work together!!!

[Freiwillige]

Like Fatman and Little Boy, the United States and Great Britain can do GREAT things when we work together!!!

If I am taking that in the context that I believe it was meant, then I must say that is tasteless. :nope:

[Tribesman]

That something was discussed at the time means absolutely nothing, strategic and policy discussions are virtually constant in wartime and the fact that some members of the leadership might oppose anything in particular is only relevant with good ol' 20/20 hindsight since crystal balls are notoriously lacking in the here and now.


The fact that they discussed them at the time means your claim of hindsight is as irrelevant as the claim that they didn't discuss them.

[August]

If I am taking that in the context that I believe it was meant, then I must say that is tasteless. :nope:

I'd bet it'd be difficult to find someone who was slated to participate in Operation Downfall that would see it that way.

[Sailor Steve]

Like Fatman and Little Boy, the United States and Great Britain can do GREAT things when we work together!!!
Ah, he came out from under the bridge for a quick lash.

[Freiwillige]

I'd bet it'd be difficult to find someone who was slated to participate in Operation Downfall that would see it that way.

Yes this is true but this specific comment was made 67 years after the fact which is why it is in fact tasteless.

I recommend you all look at this photo and realize that while the raid may have been a necessity its still not morally viable in the modern context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fotothek_df_ps_0000047_Eine_Mutter_%C3%BCber_ dem_Kinderwagen_ihrer_Zwillinge_im_Tode_.jpg

[August]

Yes this is true but this specific comment was made 67 years after the fact which is why it is in fact tasteless.

You're completely right and the intentions behind the comment are equally so.

[Freiwillige]

You're completely right and the intentions behind the comment are equally so.

Though we may not always agree, Your one of the good ones.:()1: