Dresden- Justified or Not?

[Adler17]

Indeed the reasons behind them. I agree in this point, but not more. First why it was bombed? Taylor sais it was a military target. Okay one wave of bombers. It is questionable why it was not bombed earlier, another hint for a terror bombing, but let it be so. This wave should be enough. But then 3 (THREE) waves of bombers? The first to make a firestorm, the second to make it an inferno and the third to bomb the rest? Three waves were way too much. Also the bomber pilots got the whole city as target, and not special areas. There are also very strong hints that it was bombed for terror.
Now to the other side of the medal. Why could it be a normal target? There was a big railway station and so many troops en route to the front. There was industry. But that´s all. No more facts which could claim Dresden as legitimate target. And they are only small hints in the way.
This isn´t propaganda. I admit the figures of the death toll were propaganda. But not the rest.

Adler

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Adler It was a truly terrible thing to do, but was necessary – a necessary evil if you prefer those words. Taylor says this. He just tries to say it was not as terrible as the Nazis tried to make out.

You complain about the three waves of bombers etc. –Looking at it from a 21st Century point of view it is unacceptable. But this was total war in a very different age and the ‘rules’ were different then.

What Taylor tries to say is that no matter how bad Dresden was (and it was bad) it was nothing like as bad as the Holocaust, Stalingrad, Lenningrad and so many other things the Nazis did. People exaggerating Dresden are misguided. – trying to say the allies were as bad as the Nazis.

 

[Adler17]

As I mentioned before three waves were UNNECCESSARY. They were only sent to DESTROY Dresden and not som target in Dresden but the whole city. Also Dresden can´t be compared or even justified with the Holocaust. Also nobody said, the western allies were as bad as the Nazis. However they also commited war crimes. And you can believe it or not Dresden was one of the worst.

Adler

 

[FriendlyFire]

Adler you should read speers ideas on total war.

Yes dresden was a war-crime
committing 12yr old boys into battle is also a war-crime
Starfing civilians in belgium to sow terror, jamming the roads in order to slow the allied advance is also a war-crime.
targeting neutral merchantmen
Bombing railways and trains

and so the list goes on and on.

As speer said wether it was food stuffs or luxvury goods it all help the war effet. Thats what TOTAL WAR is. WAR itself is a crime

 

[rilnator]

FriendlyFire, I don't think attacking "neutral" vessels is a war crime when they are supply your enemy right under your nose. Attacking railway lines is also legit in my books. Attacking trains with big white crosses on them isn't.

 

[Adler17]

We speak about Dresden! And many of the things you mentioned, firendly fire, is done by the allies, too. I know examples. But indeed we speak about Dresden and nothing else.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

He speaks about them to try to get you to further understand the climate of the times, and by extension the reasons for the raid.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Maybe I am repeating myself here, but Dresden was so terrible because:
1. The weather over Dresden was perfect for bombing (blame God not the Allies)
2. There were no AA guns – they had been sent to Berlin (blame the Nazis not the Allies)
3. There were no underground shelters (blame the Nazis not the Allies)
4. The sirens did not work properly (blame the Nazis not the Allies)

OK, in hindsight they sent too big a stick, not expecting it all to get through. It did get through and there were terrible results. This does not make it inherently wrong. Bombing Dresden was (in total war terms) the right thing to do.
The RAF flew the whole way in 100% cloud (nil visibility). Were they all expected to find their target? Did they expect Dresden itself not to be in cloud and thus an easy target?

The following is a terrible, but true thing to say – The people killed could no longer work on the armaments factories, thereby helping to bring the war to an earlier end (in theory at least).
Taylor maintains “most Dresdeners were employed on war work or in armaments factories”.
Is it fair to bomb people who work in war factories? By today’s standards, no, but 5 years into a total war…….

(Remember, Taylor also maintains there were not that many refugees in the city at any one time – most were moved out as soon as they arrived.)

 

[General Brown]

It's said in many sources that there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city at the time. I can understand both sides to the war, and as much as I think the German's knew they would be made to pay for the Blitz and Holocaust, it is still a war crime, even though there are many others.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@General Brown. These figures are now disputed. Dresden was not a refugee centre, but refugess did pass through the city.

I just found this – a bit poignant I think:

Taylor has written a thickly layered history of Dresden before, during and after Feb. 13-14, 1945. He even brings to light an irony others overlooked. Dresden was settled in the Dark Ages by invaders from northwestern Germany -- Saxons. Another group from the same tribe, at about the same time, gained a toehold in eastern England -- in exactly the area from which the bombers took off.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's true that Crossman is vehemently opposed to any justification for bombing Dresden, but in terms of his understanding of the death toll, he was no more wrong than everyone else at the time, including Churchill. It took time to arrive at the figures we have today.

I intentionally decided not to post his more sensationalist opinions. As I've said, he was personally involved in planning the Allied war effort and I believe it's telling how horrified and disgusted he was concerning Dresden.

During the war, even Churchill was horrified at the thought that the death toll might be as high as the Germans had claimed, if Crossman's article was written in 1945 it would be entirely understandable, but it wasn't written until 1963 when much more accurate figures were available. This kind of damages Crossmans credibility. (1963, coincidently, was the year that David Irving's book on Dresden was published, which claims that far more people were killed in the raid)

@Adler: The American target at Dresden was the railway station.

 

[Zardnaar]

Had a look at the links you posted Adler. Although perhaps not justified I don't know if you could call Dresden a war crime. By your arguement by focusing on Dresden alone we're to ignore some of the other influences that rightly or wrongly lead to the bombing of Dresden (Blitz 1940, various atrocities ie malmedy, V1, V2 etc) at the time and withen the context of total war.

The pictures although sad are just another ruin in WW2 joining a long list of cities- Stalingrad, Berlin, etc. I doubt the bombing of Dresden shortened the war by a single day though and at the time it was done it was obvious Germany was on the verge of defeat. It was a revenge/terror raid made for the wrong reasons perhaps but to call it a war crime you are indirectly comparing it to the Holocaust. Besides at Nuremburg didn't Doenitz get a lighter sentence than he could have because his lawyer pointed out the Kreigsmarine used the same tactics as the Allies? Over here we did get taught about the Allied war crimes as well (German POW's being shot).

 

[Adler17]

We are discussing on another thread the Holocaust deniers. Privatehudson made a very good article there. Nevertheless are here some others who think like me that these deniers are wrong, but don´t hear on facts. Some of these do the very same here, what they attacked on the other thread: Trying to deny a war crime although the FACTS are there. Of course they doubts these facts. And albeit some of them were at first exaggerated, most of them aren´t. You can find excusions for everything happened. But that´s not enough. They must be reasonable. And in Dresden you can´t give any.
So Dresden was a warcrime.
Nevertheless because I doubt I can change the wrong point of view of the others I do sincerly regret that I have to stop now arguing at this thread. It seems to be like fighting against wind mills.
So I finish this discussion how I started here to discuss:

DRESDEN WAS A WAR CRIME!

Adler

 

[FriendlyFire]

DRESDEN WAS A WAR CRIME!

of course it was.

What about the bombing of the major railway marshelling yards at paris (?) prior to d-day ?. The allies knowing it was a civilian target non-the less bombed it causing an estimated 10,000 French dead. They had estimated the dead to be at least 25,000 - 70,000 and took the decision to bomb it anyway. Would u consider this a war crime ?

I'll make my point one more time.
Look today we accept the convention of no first used for nuclear weapons. Should an enemy decide for whatever reason to use nuclear weapons and we retaliate in kind. I would find it hard once an enemy starts using nukes as an option for anyone to hold onto restraint and not used this avenue to retaliate. Of course this would lead to a uncontrollable cycle of escalation.

For five unbroken years there had been an unrelenting bombing campaign across all fronts. By this time Bombing of cities had been accepted as part of total war.

 

[Neomega]

There are no rules in war, and especially no rules when fighting those who brough thte war to the face of the Earth.

Dresden was completely justified. The Germans were lucky we didn't decide to destroy their entire civilization and never accept their surrender.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

But Adler, you are the denier. You refuse to listen to new information, to understand what was going on in the war etc. You have been brought up on Nazi propaganda and deny the fact that they might be wrong.

Dresden was a legitimate military target.

Let me ask you a few questions, Adler – my mother was a nurse in Newcastle in the war. She was bombed by German bombers. Was that a war crime? My father was a soldier and gunner in Dunkirk, North Africa and Italy. He undoubtedly killed some Germans. Was that a war crime? Where do you stop? Should my father (at 86) be tried for war crimes too? He did not choose to go to war, the Nazis did that!

 

[Adler17]

Okay, I will answer for the very last time now. Your father is not a criminal (unless he shot captured Germans or did other things). The fightings at the front are never war crimes. The next is bombing civilians. It is only excused if they are collateral damage. I think there we all agree. The very next point is the bombings of civilians as main target. THIS IS A WAR CRIME. Dresden and most other German cities were bombed because of destroying the German population. That was a war crime. Harris himself said, without Esssen, all cities were bombed to terrorize the population. The industrial targets were only sweets. According to your argumentation, it was total war, all German crimes, except perhaps the Holocaust, were no crimes. It was total war. So Lidice, the shootings on civilians, and so on. All justified.
I said it before, YOU are the denier. YOUR "facts" seems to be near the same level of facts Holocaust deniers bring.
My grandmother was nearly shot by a British pilot when cycling on an open road. He could see that there was driving a young girl, but he shot. Or the school train from Trittau to Ahrensburg in Schleswig- Holstein- bombed. Although it was known that there were mostly pupils in it! The bombing of German hospital ships. And Dresden. The bombing of Dresden was only to terrorize the German population, and even if we assume that it was a legitimate target, with the hundreds of thousands refugees an attack had to be stopped because of humanity reasons.
I know you will find now some "facts" to legitimate that, but you do with that the very same as the Holocaust deniers. Fighting against Hitler doesn´t justify warcrimes.
Ceterum censeo Dresden scelus erat.

Adler

 

[Esckey]

@Alder
There was also the sinking of that german refugee ship late in the war. Over 13,000 civilians died on a clearly marked non-military ship.

 

[privatehudson]

The next is bombing civilians. It is only excused if they are collateral damage. I think there we all agree. The very next point is the bombings of civilians as main target. THIS IS A WAR CRIME.

Actually, I think you will find that some people do not agree with this analysis Don't let that worry you though

According to your argumentation, it was total war, all German crimes, except perhaps the Holocaust, were no crimes. It was total war. So Lidice, the shootings on civilians, and so on. All justified.

Shooting civilians with no intention of ending the war sooner is a ridiculous comparison to the RAF's performances overall in WWII.

and even if we assume that it was a legitimate target, with the hundreds of thousands refugees an attack had to be stopped because of humanity reasons.

I think that the true number of civilians/refugees is still undecided, as is the number of casualties the raids caused. Either way it would be impossible to have a sensible bombing campaign if you had to stop it every time refugees were present.

I know you will find now some "facts" to legitimate that, but you do with that the very same as the Holocaust deniers

Why don't you look at the book, or even the facts with an open mind for a change rather than dismiss them because they happen to contradict your opinion... however, I strongly suspect that you would close your mind to them anyway because you have already made your mind up on this subject. This has never been a discussion, but a repetition of your set in stone stance. Denouncing it with emotional arguments because it happens to not agree with your opinion is just silly

 

[FriendlyFire]

@Alder
There was also the sinking of that german refugee ship late in the war. Over 13,000 civilians died on a clearly marked non-military ship.

No that figure is wrong

The ships name is question "Wilhelm Gustloff"
It was jammed to the decks with refugees fleeing from the Russians and was sunk by a Russian submarine "Soviet sub S-13". Estimates of the dead are 5000-7000. making the incident the largest single naval disaster in history. (5 times more then the Titanic). She went down on the 18th Feb 1945
This ship a civilian liner also mounted a pair of Quadriple AAA guns. Fair enough considering the Russians were butchering refugees/civilians without pause in revenge. Soviet aircarft carried out the most indescribable slaughter.


The "Wilhelm Gustloff" was also the barracks for the 2nd u-boat training division. "918 officers NCOs and men of the 2.Unterseeboot-Lehrdivision, 373 female naval auxiliary helpers, 173 naval armed forces auxiliaries, and 162 heavily wounded soldiers"

Many allied seamens lives were saved since it sent to the sea the skill and trainned u-boat personal who would have been sent into action.



http://www.feldgrau.com/wilhelmgustloff.html
http://www.helikon.dk/frame.cfm/cms/id=442/sprog=1/grp=6/menu=1/