Dresden marks anniversary of WWII bombings

[tater]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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 :

Originally Posted by Catfish

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:

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

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]

Originally Posted by MH

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

... 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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

... 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
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?

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.