The Dresden Bombing

[Error in 0]

Ah well, I dont know if this topic, which has been transferred from the thread "Who was better: Rommel or Patton", is all done, but there were some wishes for the topic to be a thread on its own. So here it is. Read up on the views from the other thread, and enjoy the discussion which I hope will continue here.


JT

[Hertston]

In retrospect (and probably when considered rationally at the time), Dresden was unecessary. I certainly wouldn't dispute that it's the winners who define the "war crimes" either.

All you can really do, though, is consider the matter as it would have been viewed at the time. Although many expressed reservations, as you have demonstrated, the vast majority would have disagreed. Bluntly, by 1945 very few would have cared. Memories of London and Coventry would have washed away most thoughts of compassion and replaced them with a desire for revenge... and any "trial" would have been viewed as ludicrous. History will make it's own judgment, of course... but with the wonderful thing that is 20/20 hindsight.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

In retrospect (and probably when considered rationally at the time), Dresden was unecessary. I certainly wouldn't dispute that it's the winners who define the "war crimes" either.

All you can really do, though, is consider the matter as it would have been viewed at the time. Although many expressed reservations, as you have demonstrated, the vast majority would have disagreed. Bluntly, by 1945 very few would have cared. Memories of London and Coventry would have washed away most thoughts of compassion and replaced them with a desire for revenge... and any "trial" would have been viewed as ludicrous. History will make it's own judgment, of course... but with the wonderful thing that is 20/20 hindsight.

This embodies my feelings very well! However, hindsight or not, EricGuitarJames felt it was not a war crime. And in hindsight, justifying an incident like this with "as it would have been viewed at the time" is a dangerous path. It certainly is valid for the German atrocities as well as Allied. It has (among other things) to do with doctrine, and I hope someone will jump at my bait regarding Bosnia!

To those lazy enough not reading the previous thread, I did imply that the modern US doctrine was alittle void of common sense and reflection. [:D]

POP?



JT

[Pippin]

Ok I will set something straight. It seems what started this, was a message I asked another individual (I will not state his name here), if he thought it was ok to kill civilians depending on who is on what side of the war. I was immediately responded with the answere that ‘this is off topic’. In any case, it seemed to be dead on topic from the other replies, though perhaps someone wanted to beat around the bush, I don’t know. In any case, I am sorry then if anyone else thought it was off topic, it was just a simple question. As for my own viewpoints, let it be clear that I do not promote killing of civilians, and would have liked to see certain allies up on charges as well. Unfortunately, we happen to live in a world where the winners dictate what happens and how history is to be written. (As mentioned numerous times already.)

All you can do is try to use common sense and study both sides of something to determine for yourself what really was the story.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Ok I will set something straight. It seems what started this, was a message I asked another individual (I will not state his name here), if he thought it was ok to kill civilians depending on who is on what side of the war. I was immediately responded with the answere that ‘this is off topic’. In any case, it seemed to be dead on topic from the other replies, though perhaps someone wanted to beat around the bush, I don’t know. In any case, I am sorry then if anyone else thought it was off topic, it was just a simple question. As for my own viewpoints, let it be clear that I do not promote killing of civilians, and would have liked to see certain allies up on charges as well. Unfortunately, we happen to live in a world where the winners dictate what happens and how history is to be written. (As mentioned numerous times already.)

All you can do is try to use common sense and study both sides of something to determine for yourself what really was the story.

Your question is valid and important, and no one must apologize for bringing that up. It touches upon a difficult arena: the morality of war. I wish I had read some good books on that subject, so If anyone has any suggestions, I would appreciate it.


JT

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Ok I will set something straight. It seems what started this, was a message I asked another individual (I will not state his name here), if he thought it was ok to kill civilians depending on who is on what side of the war. I was immediately responded with the answere that ‘this is off topic’. In any case, it seemed to be dead on topic from the other replies, though perhaps someone wanted to beat around the bush, I don’t know. In any case, I am sorry then if anyone else thought it was off topic, it was just a simple question. As for my own viewpoints, let it be clear that I do not promote killing of civilians, and would have liked to see certain allies up on charges as well. Unfortunately, we happen to live in a world where the winners dictate what happens and how history is to be written. (As mentioned numerous times already.)

All you can do is try to use common sense and study both sides of something to determine for yourself what really was the story.

This, sir, is completely off topic![;)]

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

However, hindsight or not, EricGuitarJames felt it was not a war crime. And in hindsight, justifying an incident like this with "as it would have been viewed at the time" is a dangerous path. It certainly is valid for the German atrocities as well as Allied.

JT

Since my name was being taken in vain[;)] I thought I'd clarify my position. My comment on the bombing of Dresden was specific to that incident. But to take a wider perspective, if it is to be taken as a 'war crime' then any killing of civilians in the process of war has also to be seen as a 'war crime' whether such an act is pre-meditated, incidental or just plain accidental.

However I reject

And in hindsight, justifying an incident like this with "as it would have been viewed at the time" is a dangerous path.

since without applying the proper perspective one cannot make judgements. Since pinpoint bombing was practically impossible, area bombing was an appropriate strategy for reducing enemy industrial capacity, wearing down enemy morale and tying up resources that could have been employed elsewhere. The strategic bombing campaign largeley succeeded in these objectives. Dresden was nothing more than a step upon this path, a path which was first taken by the Germans incidentally.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Ok I will set something straight. It seems what started this, was a message I asked another individual (I will not state his name here), if he thought it was ok to kill civilians depending on who is on what side of the war. I was immediately responded with the answere that ‘this is off topic’. In any case, it seemed to be dead on topic from the other replies, though perhaps someone wanted to beat around the bush, I don’t know. In any case, I am sorry then if anyone else thought it was off topic, it was just a simple question. As for my own viewpoints, let it be clear that I do not promote killing of civilians, and would have liked to see certain allies up on charges as well. Unfortunately, we happen to live in a world where the winners dictate what happens and how history is to be written. (As mentioned numerous times already.)

All you can do is try to use common sense and study both sides of something to determine for yourself what really was the story.

OK, so you are you referring to me.

Let's clarify something first:

I do not believe in killing civilians.

However, Germany and Japan started something called - WWII - which they escalated into Total War. They brought the war to civilians, and they weren't shy about it either.

The Nazis murdered millions in the concentration camps.

The Soviets lost 20 million people. . .

The Nazis used systematic mass murder against Soviet citizens through starvation.

Germany engaged in city bombing long before the Allies got invloved: Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Belgrade, Leningrad, etc, etc. . .

The Nazis used V-1 and V-2 terror bombs against innocent civilians in London and elsewhere. . .

The Nazis engaged in unrestricted U-boat warfare that sank thousands of ships and cost tens of thousands of sailors' lives. . .

Plus, the Allies were suffering tens of thousands of casualties for every month the war dragged on. . .

All Germany had to do was to surrender to avoid further bombing.

Instead, what did the Nazis do when 1945 rolled around?

Why, they proceeded to send even more Jews to the gas chambers, even using trains to carry those poor men, women and children to their deaths, rather than to transport troops to the front.

The Allies knew what was happening in the concentration camps, so they applied even more pressure to get Germany to submit.

While 35,000 people died at Dresden, how many people do you think died in the concentration camps during that month, hmmm? And how many Allied soldiers were killed in that month?

As I mentioned elsewhere, Germany REAPED what it SOWED.

[LarkinVB]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

The Allies knew what was happening in the concentration camps, so they applied even more pressure to get Germany to submit.

While 35,000 people died at Dresden, how many people do you think died in the concentration camps during that month, hmmm? And how many Allied soldiers were killed in that month?

As I mentioned elsewhere, Germany REAPED what it SOWED.

I think that this comparison is invalid. Dresden did not made the germans surrender one day earlier. I'm german and I'm deeply ashamed of what happened but our murderous crimes do not justify killing civilians without saving a life while doing it. The allies should have known better.

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

The Allies knew what was happening in the concentration camps, so they applied even more pressure to get Germany to submit.

While 35,000 people died at Dresden, how many people do you think died in the concentration camps during that month, hmmm? And how many Allied soldiers were killed in that month?

As I mentioned elsewhere, Germany REAPED what it SOWED.

I think that this comparison is invalid. Dresden did not made the germans surrender one day earlier. I'm german and I'm deeply ashamed of what happened but our murderous crimes do not justify killing civilians without saving a life while doing it. The allies should have known better.

Oh and I suppose you think they should have bombed some other city, or maybe not bombed Germany at all! Understand that Dresden was just part of a campaign, cities were bombed before, they were bombed afterwards. It was a city populated by a people the Allies were at war with.

[Fallschirmjager]

Not this shit again. We disscussed this to no end in the old AOW.

Germany was perfectly ok bombing civilians when they were good at it at the begining of the war. But then the British became much more proficient at it and 60 years later the Germans whine [8|].

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

However, hindsight or not, EricGuitarJames felt it was not a war crime. And in hindsight, justifying an incident like this with "as it would have been viewed at the time" is a dangerous path. It certainly is valid for the German atrocities as well as Allied.

JT

Since my name was being taken in vain[;)] I thought I'd clarify my position. My comment on the bombing of Dresden was specific to that incident.

So was my comment in this thread.

But to take a wider perspective, if it is to be taken as a 'war crime' then any killing of civilians in the process of war has also to be seen as a 'war crime' whether such an act is pre-meditated, incidental or just plain accidental.

This is what u already said. You regard the Dresden bombing no differently that any innocent bystanders getting killed. As you know by now, I disagree.

However I reject

And in hindsight, justifying an incident like this with "as it would have been viewed at the time" is a dangerous path.

since without applying the proper perspective one cannot make judgements. Since pinpoint bombing was practically impossible, area bombing was an appropriate strategy for reducing enemy industrial capacity, wearing down enemy morale and tying up resources that could have been employed elsewhere. The strategic bombing campaign largeley succeeded in these objectives. Dresden was nothing more than a step upon this path, a path which was first taken by the Germans incidentally.

This is already covered, Eric. We disagree on wether Dresden was a military viable target at that price. We disagree upon your statement that it was a valid reason since they "needed to win fast, at any cost". This comment of my was merely a reminder that if one in hindsight find it was an error, then it was an error. I cannot accept that history view atrocities with understanding and acceptance just because one in hindsight can visualize how tempting it was, how many at that time tought it to be a good reason. This I feel represent you, Eric.



JT

[EricGuitarJames]

I know those who read the 'Patton vs. Rommel' thread know that. But others may not! Hence my re-iteration[:)]

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

The Allies knew what was happening in the concentration camps, so they applied even more pressure to get Germany to submit.

While 35,000 people died at Dresden, how many people do you think died in the concentration camps during that month, hmmm? And how many Allied soldiers were killed in that month?

As I mentioned elsewhere, Germany REAPED what it SOWED.

I think that this comparison is invalid. Dresden did not made the germans surrender one day earlier. I'm german and I'm deeply ashamed of what happened but our murderous crimes do not justify killing civilians without saving a life while doing it. The allies should have known better.

Oh and I suppose you think they should have bombed some other city, or maybe not bombed Germany at all! Understand that Dresden was just part of a campaign, cities were bombed before, they were bombed afterwards. It was a city populated by a people the Allies were at war with.

Let us indulge ourself in a thought experiment. Assume Germany firebombed London. Nothing left. Zero. Maybe some dead bodies, but most of them was burned without trace. Let us say they justified this with "breaking the allies moral", an easily justifiable reason at the time. Do you honestly believe we, in the hindsight, could ever justify this as a legal military operation?


JT

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne



Let us indulge ourself in a thought experiment. Assume Germany firebombed London. Nothing left. Zero. Maybe some dead bodies, but most of them was burned without trace. Let us say they justified this with "breaking the allies moral", an easily justifiable reason at the time. Do you honestly believe we, in the hindsight, could ever justify this as a legal military operation?


JT

Yes, I think we could.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Not this shit again. We disscussed this to no end in the old AOW.

Germany was perfectly ok bombing civilians when they were good at it at the begining of the war. But then the British became much more proficient at it and 60 years later the Germans whine [8|].

I get the feeling that in order to justify any critism of the allied, the Axix powers must be 'clean' on that matter. Why cannot I argue that "ruthless morons" were on both sides, without having to read about the well known horrible things the germans did? I must take it that you as well think the Dresden incident was nothing more than just another military operation.


JT

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne



Let us indulge ourself in a thought experiment. Assume Germany firebombed London. Nothing left. Zero. Maybe some dead bodies, but most of them was burned without trace. Let us say they justified this with "breaking the allies moral", an easily justifiable reason at the time. Do you honestly believe we, in the hindsight, could ever justify this as a legal military operation?


JT

Yes, I think we could.

Ok. I feel sorry for you tough, you obviously have little respect for life. Others, that do, have spend generations trying to fing rules for conduict of war, and this kind of action fall under atrocity. Since you today can say such an action is acceptable, you must believe this could have been accepted today. You would seem to forget that the US invasion of Iraq, however void of atrocities, has been condemned by most of the world. I truly feel your lack of respect for humans and life worriyng.


JT

[EricGuitarJames]

JT, I thank you for your concern. In war, the enemy must be eliminated, they are no longer 'human beings' therefore I refuse to concern myself with them.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

JT, I thank you for your concern. In war, the enemy must be eliminated, they are no longer 'human beings' therefore I refuse to concern myself with them.

This is the weak mans defence. The man who has no inclinatin of finding alternative solutions to problems. This is one basis for the Nazi indoctrination. From a humanistic point of view you simply have no right to think like that. With it, you openly accept the holocaust and all other atrocities towards humans. There are no laws, no moral and no respect for life left. I wonder how long humans will survive under such a system. There would have been A-bombs used in every conflict, no matter how small. It all depends on how you define enemy. Anyone can be defined as an enemy. It is a subject matter.

Anyone who feel some responsibility would try to solve any conflict using the means that are moraly accepted. If they get to choose between 'killing alot of people' and 'not killing alot of people', they choose the latter one. Under your philosophy there is really no difference.

Dont you think it is sad that you would be a perfect nazi? What drove much of their killings were based upon the notion of ubermensh and subhumans. You take it even further: they are not even humans.

[X(] That is scary indeed!



JT

[EricGuitarJames]

Is there a difference between 'killing a lot' and 'not killing a lot' of people? If so, who makes that definition? How do we define 'The enemy'? I would demand a strong moral case before I could accept that some person (or persons) were my enemy, once proven then, and only then, would I support whatever methods were necessary to secure their defeat at a minimum cost to 'my side'.