Dresden- Justified or Not?

[Kafka2]

Actually, I think the boat in question here was the "Cap Arcona", which was sunk by British planes.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that more died on the "Goya" than the "Wilhelm Gustloff"

 

[Hitro]

Incidentally, I was under the impression that more died on the "Goya" than the "Wilhelm Gustloff"

That is true. The "Goya" sinking has until now the highest death toll in seafaring history.

Both she and the "Gustloff" were sunk by Soviet submarines.

The "Cap Arcona" was sunk along with several other ships by allied planes in May 1945, killing thousands of concentration camp inmates on bord.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the 13000 death toll on the boats was a total for the above mentioned ships, not per boat.

 

[Adler17]

Also all the mentioned ships were full of German refugees and to international law protected (the Germans didn´t attack these ships or even helped them when this happened accidentally (see Laconia)). So also this is a very good example of allied war crimes. But since there are some here who say it is okay to do if the own side does it and try to justify that with so good arguments that some of the pessengers were soldiers. Perfect. Then even the sinking of German hospital ships is justified. With such a behaviour one side looses many of the big morale advantage it had in the war. I did not mention the sinking of the Goya and other ships because it was a Soviet warcrime. But it is remarkeable that there are some guys here who try to justify even that.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

I don't recall anyone justifying those events, only Dresden, which is another matter entirely

 

[Boleslav]

2 questions:

(1) Why on earth, in a thread about whether or not the Dresden bombing was justified, are people arguing over Lidice and the Wilhelm Gustloff?

(2) Taylor claims Dresden had 120+ war machine factories. Assuming this is true, and also assuming the statistics from the USAF Historical Report are true, and bearing in mind we know the bombing was planned well in advance and was executed on a night with perfect bombing visibility... how come only 25per cent of factories were damaged relative to 80per cent of homes?

 

[Neomega]

The next is bombing civilians. It is only excused if they are collateral damage. I think there we all agree.

You think wrong. In war, civilians are legitimate targets, as they provide the bread for the soldiers, work in the tank factories, and send their sons off to war.

In the case of WWII, they were the ones who cheered for empire, revenge, and war.

 

[Esckey]

No Kafka's right. I got the Gustloff and the Cap mixed up(I watched a program on both of them at like 6am several months ago)

And I was just bring this up as another example of allied war crimes so we have something to compare it too

 

[Uncle Sam]

It's a war. THere is nothing "wrong" with bombing an enemy city. So what if it had very little strategic value? It was important to make the GErmans lsoe their will to fight.

 

[privatehudson]

2 questions:

(1) Why on earth, in a thread about whether or not the Dresden bombing was justified, are people arguing over Lidice and the Wilhelm Gustloff?

(2) Taylor claims Dresden had 120+ war machine factories. Assuming this is true, and also assuming the statistics from the USAF Historical Report are true, and bearing in mind we know the bombing was planned well in advance and was executed on a night with perfect bombing visibility... how come only 25per cent of factories were damaged relative to 80per cent of homes?

At a rough (though weak) geuss, it's harder to hit specific buildings in massed bombing raids, and if part of the main aim of the raid was to generally target the city in order to attack the likes of the large military presence it would increase that problem. It would also depend on the layout of these factories, for example if they were in one "district" or zone, or spread out throughout the city. If the latter, the chances of hitting them would be even lower.

 

[Zardnaar]

Also any bomb landing withen 5 miles of the target was considered a "hit". The RAF bombed Switzerland by mistake and a Luftwaffe Ju88 complete with top secret rader accidently landed in England. Accuracy wasn't a strong point in those days.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Also any bomb landing withen 5 miles of the target was considered a "hit". The RAF bombed Switzerland by mistake and a Luftwaffe Ju88 complete with top secret rader accidently landed in England. Accuracy wasn't a strong point in those days.

The RAF couldn't even hit the airstrip in the Falklands in the 1980s. It's only with the introduction of lasers that bombers have become accurate.

 

[Boleslav]

But on the other hand, they were accurate enough able to plan and execute a deadly and deliberate firestorm.

 

[Adler17]

And this firestorm wasn´t targeting industrial targets, but humans. Only for that a firestorm is good for. IF tey wanted to hit the industrial targets they would have given orders to aim at something. This didn´t happen...

Adler

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Dresde is OK, Killing civilians is OK... I see many Bin Ladens in this forum.

 

[privatehudson]

And this firestorm wasn´t targeting industrial targets, but humans. Only for that a firestorm is good for. IF tey wanted to hit the industrial targets they would have given orders to aim at something. This didn´t happen...

Adler

Obviously the intention was to hit a variety of targets and cause general damage. People have suggested that the reasons for the raid were due to the city having a military and economic value to the Reich, the specifics of how the raid was carried out are regrettable, but hardly unusual either for the time or the RAF overall.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Also all the mentioned ships were full of German refugees and to international law protected (the Germans didn´t attack these ships or even helped them when this happened accidentally (see Laconia)). So also this is a very good example of allied war crimes. But since there are some here who say it is okay to do if the own side does it and try to justify that with so good arguments that some of the pessengers were soldiers. Perfect. Then even the sinking of German hospital ships is justified. With such a behaviour one side looses many of the big morale advantage it had in the war. I did not mention the sinking of the Goya and other ships because it was a Soviet warcrime. But it is remarkeable that there are some guys here who try to justify even that.

Adler

At least your well aware of the conduct in which the war on the Eastern front was fought. I made no attempt to justify why refugee ships were sunk mearly stating the FACTS surrounding the sinking of "Wilhelm Gustloff" (I had not heard of the "Goya")

It shouldnt be to hard to figure out why the Russians carried out the crimes they did once they invaded Germany proper. The Russians came in wanting revenge and justices for all the atrocities carried out on the ost front. It dosnt mean it was justified or even right.

What did you expect ?

 

[Zardnaar]

But on the other hand, they were accurate enough able to plan and execute a deadly and deliberate firestorm.

The whole city was a target. Hitting individual factories etc wasn't really possable.

 

[Boleslav]

The whole city was a target. Hitting individual factories etc wasn't really possable.

I disagree. I think the Allies were very accurate in their bombing of Dresden. The RAF Bomber Command website agrees with me: "The weather was clear and 529 Lancasters dropped more than 1,800 tons of bombs with great accuracy."

 

[Dragonlord]

You think wrong. In war, civilians are legitimate targets, as they provide the bread for the soldiers, work in the tank factories, and send their sons off to war.

In the case of WWII, they were the ones who cheered for empire, revenge, and war.

I can understand people arguing this way about WWII, but about war generally..

So, it's still OK today? Is that what you're saying?

By that reasoning, any massacres of civilians would be excusable - Bosnians by Serbs, Tutsies by Hutus, 9/11... all excusable, because they're 'the enemy', right?