Dresden- Justified or Not?

[privatehudson]

In such a war no nation kept a white west. But ot accept the fact there was crimes commited by each side and to regret them is the first step to avoid these in future.

I'd say the first step to avoiding these problems in future is to make sure that we do not elect or place in power another right wing lunatic, especially not one who promoted his ideals before gaining power, therefore removing the need for the other countries to go to such extreme measures to defeat said right wing lunatic.

I haven't seen one word by any German on this thread which in any way attempted to justify Nazi war crimes or lessen them by comparing them to Allied war crimes!

Really? I have

Adler has often referred to it as one of the most shameful events in history, which insinuates that it is up there with the Holocaust or Stalin's purges. He may not be using that to lessen Nazi warcrimes, but he is blowing out of all proportion the level of crime that Dresden was.

He wasn't elected democratically in the first place - he only got 30something percent of the popular vote in 1933, remember, which means two thirds of the German populace DID NOT elect him - and after he was APPOINTED to be head of state by the Reichspresident, he turned Germany into a totalitarian state with no chance to remove him democratically.

One thing to consider, but modern political parties in Britain rarely get more than 40 something percent when they win general elections. Hitler may not have been elected by most people, but that does not mean he was not popular, or close to winning. Being elected by everyone has never been important in a democracy. Though I do agree he was hardly democratic, there are still a lot of Germans who did vote for him.

! Hitler was not given a mandate by the German people to kill Jews or other 'undesirables' (so-called by the Nazis, not me). In fact, the Nazis did everything they could to keep their murders secret, exactly because they knew they wouldn't have popular support for them!

With respect though, they made absolutely no secret of their hatred of the Jewish race in general, and Slavs. Hitler's work, which I'm sure you're familiar with was full of such venom about both and creating space in the east. Nazi propaganda was full of hatred of Jews and others, through posters and speeches and the actions of Kristalnacht (sp?) and other such events. That doesn't mean I believe them to have been willing to see 6 million plus people gassed, or that these events were 100% popular, but Hitler was telegraphing his intentions to be pretty unkind to these people...

I didn't mean you specifically with those rather sick arguments I pointed out, but if you look through some of the other posts I'm sure you'll see what I mean!

Good I also feel some opinions here are a little extreme

I just believe that it's vital that we consider the following:

1) WWII was an extreme example of warfare in which the allies were driven to extreme measures to defeat a truly evil enemy.
2) The allied air campaign, rightly or wrongly believed that the best way to defeat Germany was to strike at both her military and civilian capacity to wage war. Part of this decision was down to her abilities and failings of the planes etc. This was not an uncommon belief during WWII to be frank, many in other airforces agreed, some even before WWII.
3) Because the allies considered defeating Germany and specifically Nazism to be vital, normal restraints were lessened to achieve this, it is not normal for the RAF to specifically target civilians and aim to kill them in massive numbers either before or since WWII.
4) The British had suffered long and hard under similar attacks on their own civilians, though on a lesser scale, but this would have lessened their will to worry about doing the same back.
5) There was a very strong feeling during WWII that the Germans should be made to realise that war was not simply something that affected other countries territories*. The belief was that Germany had not suffered invasion and bombing during WWI, therefore the people were still unaware of the true horrors and consequences of war. Rightly or wrongly, the allies determined not to make that mistake again.
6) Contary to belief, the allies almost certainly would not have believed that Germany was on her last legs. The allies had believed this after Falaise, they were wrong. They believed it after Arnhem, and they were wrong. In hindsight we now know that Germany was close to defeat, but in January 1945, it would have been a brave man that believed the Germans incapable of pulling off another miracle.
7) The nature of the war did, like it or not, mean that civilians, due to their capacity to produce the weapons your enemy uses to fight you with were the enemy. If Dresden, or indeed anywhere with factories existed, it was a target. As deeply regrettable as the nature of the raids were, we should not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that a war like that would be fought with one hand behind our backs by not bombing cities.

This is not simply a case of revenge, but beyond this. We at this time cannot really comprehend the magnitude of decisions such as this, or the pressure on people who were fighting for the freedom of europe and beyond. Make no mistake, IMO Dresden was regrettable and a mistake because of it's nature. I don't believe it possible to judge it as justified or not, but I certainly understand why it was done in the climate of that time. Unless you put yourself in the shoes of the allied commanders and think the way they had to, you will never really answer the question posed here. Which is why arbitary remarks about never targetting civilians, no matter how morally right at this time, have no real bearing on the core discussion.

*In a small degree, this mirrors 9/11 and the thinking behind it's launchers

 

[Drakan]

@privatehudson.

points 4 and 5 are excellent.

British had suffered FIRST indiscriminate bombing of their civilians by the Luftwaffe. The Germans were led to believe by Goebbels and Sky Marshall Goering that their cities couldn't be bombed by the Allies, they were proved wrong.

What the British did in Dresden was wrong ALBEIT it was in direct retaliation for what the Nazis had done in Coventry shortly before, butchering thousands of British civilians.

I also agree with Privatehudson that Adler is somewhat blowing out of proportion what hapenned in Dresden. With Stalin and the Holocaust millions perished, not so at Dresden. It was wrong, fair enough, but one could hardly contend it is one of the most shameful acts in History of Humankind, no way. It was done in the context of a War, where innocent British civilians had been murdered indiscriminately by the Luftwaffe shortly before, so it just didn't come out of the blue, it was done in direct retaliation, however bad it was.

 

[Stapel]

Well, but look at those quotes Boleslav posted - they definitely point in that direction for me!

The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance,

It still doesn't justify the bombing, but it does have some military purposes.

 

[Drakan]

I believe it served no military pupose whatsoever. It wasn't the factories being targeted, it was the German civilians and the city itself as well as the massive influx of refugees.

You cannot justify Dresden's bombing, but on the other hand you cannot contend it was one of the worsest crimes against Humanity ever, no way.....Pol-Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Hitler's Holocaust, Ruanda's tutsis, what Spain did to the Indians during the Conquest of the New World, Balcan's War, those are REALLY crimes against Humanity.

Dresden plays a third role in comparison no matter how wrong it was.

 

[Dragonlord]

@privatehudson: The subject of this thread was whether or not the attack on Dresden was justified, that IS the core discussion. For me, that means do WE feel it was justified.
I grant you that the Allies had many reasons to believe it justified at the time, but that wasn't the aim of my argument.

Regarding the intentions of Hitler towards the Jews: there have been, and still are, many politicians who made and make attacks on specific groups; nowadays for instance immigrants from the 3rd world come to mind. Would you suspect them all of having actual homicidal intent?
I feel it's somewhat unfair to say ordinary Germans - voters - should somehow have divined Hitlers mass murders 10 years in advance... especially since the Nazis themselves only decided on their 'final solution' (systematic eradication of the Jews) at the Wannsee-Conference in 1942 (43? forget the date). Before that the Nazis themselves were undecided on what to do with the Jews, with solutions like mass resettlement to Madagascar or the newly conquered Eastern territories being discussed.
That there was widespread support for Anti-Semitism at the time isn't in doubt, though that wasn't unique to Germany, and persists with racists all over the world to this day - but it's a long, looooong step from that to mass murder!

Remember please that many among the Allies didn't believe their own intelligence about the murder camps - and never did a thing about them, either - right until they were overrun and the evidence could no longer be denied. If the enemies of the Germans couldn't believe it was true, how could you expect ordinary Germans to believe the rumours that I'm sure circulated to a certain extent?
If your Jewish neighbor and his family was transported off with a suitcase apiece, would you believe they were being sent to the slaughter, or would you believe the lie that they were being resettled in the East? How could you possibly believe they were being sent to a death camp, when such a thing had never been known before?
Even if someone had told you as much, you would rather have believed that someone was spreading allied propaganda than that it could actually be the truth... who could actually believe that civilized Germans would do such a thing?

So I find the argument that 'everyone must have known' that is often put forward unconvincing. In a totalitarian regime, with total control of all official news channels, and doing all it can to spread plausible misinformation about what they were actually doing, it's quite likely that most people didn't 'know' - some might have suspected, but even they would have hoped they were wrong.

 

[Stapel]

I believe it served no military pupose whatsoever. It wasn't the factories being targeted, it was the German civilians and the city itself as well as the massive influx of refugees.

That is what we know now. In early 1945 many people were thinking bombing civilians was a military purpose. In a total war, that could make sense.

 

[Dragonlord]

I believe it served no military pupose whatsoever. It wasn't the factories being targeted, it was the German civilians and the city itself as well as the massive influx of refugees.

You cannot justify Dresden's bombing, but on the other hand you cannot contend it was one of the worsest crimes against Humanity ever, no way.....Pol-Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Hitler's Holocaust, Ruanda's tutsis, what Spain did to the Indians during the Conquest of the New World, Balcan's War, those are REALLY crimes against Humanity.

Dresden plays a third role in comparison no matter how wrong it was.

I don't think it's a good idea to rank war crimes or crimes against humanity by degree of evil or whatever.
That's making the same mistake the Nazi apologists make, like saying the Nazi crimes weren't all that bad because 'Stalin killed more people than the Nazis', for instance.
A crime isn't somehow less evil because others have commited crimes as well, or have committed 'worse' crimes.

 

[Drakan]

Right on Dragonlord, but Dresden was committed in the context of a War as an act of retaliation as I've already pointed out numerous times. So this tarnishes it to some degree making it less of a crime and certainly not comparable to those I've already mentioned.

I'm not saying it's less of a crime because less were killed, which is true anyway. I'm saying it's less of a crime because it was a reaction to a similar thing the Germans had done shortly previously although to a much lesser extent, fair enough.

 

[privatehudson]

British had suffered FIRST indiscriminate bombing of their civilians by the Luftwaffe. The Germans were led to believe by Goebbels and Sky Marshall Goering that their cities couldn't be bombed by the Allies, they were proved wrong.

I believe I agreed with this earlier The difference I noted was the scale, British attacks were much more deliberate and on a massive level.

The subject of this thread was whether or not the attack on Dresden was justified, that IS the core discussion. For me, that means do WE feel it was justified.

Fair enough, but I reserve the right to contend that the way in which many are going about their arguments re justification are not paying any heed to the reasons it was launched, which are important. In my opinion, you cannot determine justification or otherwise from a perspective which is alien to that which the decision makers faced.

Regarding the intentions of Hitler towards the Jews: there have been, and still are, many politicians who made and make attacks on specific groups; nowadays for instance immigrants from the 3rd world come to mind. Would you suspect them all of having actual homicidal intent?

I feel it's somewhat unfair to say ordinary Germans - voters - should somehow have divined Hitlers mass murders 10 years in advance... especially since the Nazis themselves only decided on their 'final solution' (systematic eradication of the Jews) at the Wannsee-Conference in 1942 (43? forget the date). Before that the Nazis themselves were undecided on what to do with the Jews, with solutions like mass resettlement to Madagascar or the newly conquered Eastern territories being discussed.

Not my point at all. My point was voting for a man who sets out his stall to be extremely anti-semetic to the point of blaming them for every ill Germany suffered to that point is not someone I would expect rational and well informed people people to vote for. Maybe you could argue that the Germans were, by circumstance driven from rationalism towards him, however, arguing that the Holocaust was totally out of the blue when it was more of an extension (by warped logic) of what was already happening isn't very convincing. My point would be that people should not elect a man who thrives on Hatred, violence and muscle for power and so on in the first place. Moseley and others were around it's true, but to my knowledge the Facists here were very much not likely to be elected, Hitler on the other hand, with that percentage in a UK election would stand a very good chance of being elected. I never said that voting for him meant voting for the holocaust, that is your extension which does not fit my argument. I did criticise voting for him at all, because voting for such a man can only lead to problems such as dictatorial power and extreme attitudes.

If you vote for an extremist, don't be suprised if he commits one extreme action after another is all I would say. Expect the holocaust? No, but they really shouldn't have been so nieve as to expect someone who's stated aims and actions were so extreme to be anything but extreme when given power.

So I find the argument that 'everyone must have known' that is often put forward unconvincing. In a totalitarian regime, with total control of all official news channels, and doing all it can to spread plausible misinformation about what they were actually doing, it's quite likely that most people didn't 'know' - some might have suspected, but even they would have hoped they were wrong.

So do I funnily enough to some degree, which is why I never used that argument

I don't think it's a good idea to rank war crimes or crimes against humanity by degree of evil or whatever.

No it is not wise, however it's also unwise to start comparing them or talking about them in the way Adler did is equally unwise.

 

[Detlef Richter]

Hmmm, at this thread you can see the whole problem of the world. If someone hurts me, i hurt him back. If this wasn't so bad, it's something i could lough about. OK, it's no question that the Hitler regime was one of the evils of this war period. But why have the allied killed the people who was presse down by this regime and not the regime by itself???? I say this crime was also a crime like the holocaust and the people who could not do anything against it, must pay for it. All those who legitimate this are on the same step like hitler.

 

[privatehudson]

Well bang goes the theory of not comparing it to the holocaust

 

[Drakan]

Hmmm, at this thread you can see the whole problem of the world. If someone hurts me, i hurt him back. If this wasn't so bad, it's something i could lough about. OK, it's no question that the Hitler regime was one of the evils of this war period. But why have the allied killed the people who was presse down by this regime and not the regime by itself???? I say this crime was also a crime like the holocaust and the people who could not do anything against it, must pay for it. All those who legitimate this are on the same step like hitler.

No way.

Dresden was committed out of retaliation for Coventry. Wrong ? Yes. Not justifiable ? No to some degree.

The holocaust was sistematically and coldly designed by a bunch of military Lawyers mostly. The Holocaust took place in a wide scope of time and was specifically designed out of hatred to clense ethnically the Aryan race. British never had this in mind when bombing Dresden. They did it for many purposes (i.e. russians) but mainly 'cause of Coventry. Unlike Dresden which lasted barely a day the holocuast went on for years on. Plus i'm not going to enter in sordid detalis such as what soap's were made out of and finger nails and hairs, and pulling out golden teeth in Auschwitz's and the likes. Let's be reasonable, please.

To try to put the British at the same level of Nazis infuriates me and is a gross misinterpretation of historical facts. They made a mistake and it was a War Crime, but you cannot possibly compare it to the Holocaust under no circumstances whatsoever.

If it weren't for the Brits and the Americans we wouldn't have been saved from Hitler's clutches.

 

[Stapel]

Right on Dragonlord, but Dresden was committed in the context of a War as an act of retaliation as I've already pointed out numerous times.

I don't think it was pure retaliation.

 

[Drakan]

True Stapel, it was also a noticeboard for the U.S.S.R.. the same as Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I've posted in this same thread before.

Anyway on the post right above you I've posted it was done for numerous reasons but mainly for retaliation for what had hapenned previously at Coventry. Why doesn't anybody speak or write about Coventry ? That was also a massacre, come on lads, somebody please dig up the facts on that specific German air raid that wiped a great deal of innocent British civilians for no strategical purpose whatsoever.

http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/blitz/

And to remind a few that although Dresden was certainly the Florence or the Venice of North of Europe, Coventry was also one of the most beautiful and well-preserved medieval cities at the time as well, although to a minor extent than Dresden.

By mistake I wrote that the bombing of Coventry was shortly before Dresden's, my mistake, in fact it was five years earlier. The Brits in 1940 couldn't, yet, bombard German cities at the time as they later on did.

 

[Detlef Richter]

If i understand you right Drakan, than you say killing people is not the same as killing people? Wow, thats crazy. But i think you didn't understand me. I asked why the allies killed millions of people instead of killing the regime who has done this evils.

 

[Drakan]

I don't like Nazis bombing civilians.
I don't like Brits or Americans bombing civilians either.

Dresden was awfully wrong, but, please you cannot compare it with the Holocaust Detlef Richter.

And millions weren't killed at Dresden if that is what you are implying, perhaps I've understood you wrong and you mean during the course of WWII in general...?

I believe Allies did what was right, and, yes it's inevitable to take up the toll of civilian casualties.

As I've posted before, the bombs at the time were very little precise and I believe, If I'm not mistaken, less than 10% actually hit their mark.

Besides, it wasn't as easy to kill off that regime. That's why in Germany Von Stauffenberg is widely regarded as a hero.

 

[privatehudson]

If i understand you right Drakan, than you say killing people is not the same as killing people? Wow, thats crazy. But i think you didn't understand me. I asked why the allies killed millions of people instead of killing the regime who has done this evils.

Assasination is a very difficult thing to pull off, especially against someone like Hitler. Attacking a regime is extremely difficult in other ways too, especially when the regime is by and large supported by the millitary, and no such things like Cruise missiles exist

 

[Detlef Richter]

Yes, i mean during the whole period of war.

You say it wasn't easy to kill the regime, i don't know only one try of the allied to do so. Our heros like Stauffenberg (and he was not the only german who tried it) was badly unlucky (he didn't payed his RNG god). Because of the regime, they hadn't any chance to organise a well sorted recondition. But at this time, the allied outside where able to do so. So, why not?? Perhaps because they are filled with hate and they only want 'retaliation', like many others at our modern times. But this is not the right way of doing. The only who have to pay are those who couldn't do anything against it.

 

[Dragonlord]

My point would be that people should not elect a man who thrives on Hatred, violence and muscle for power and so on in the first place. .. I did criticise voting for him at all, because voting for such a man can only lead to problems such as dictatorial power and extreme attitudes..

Quite right, you'll get no argument on that from me.. .. just once again to remind you that 2/3 of the German people DID NOT vote for Hitler.

So do I funnily enough to some degree, which is why I never used that argument

I know you didn't - some of the other posters did, though.

Please don't think all I said was aimed at you, privathudson, it was some of the other posters who got my goat...

 

[Dragonlord]

To try to put the British at the same level of Nazis infuriates me and is a gross misinterpretation of historical facts. They made a mistake and it was a War Crime, but you cannot possibly compare it to the Holocaust under no circumstances whatsoever.

If it weren't for the Brits and the Americans we wouldn't have been saved from Hitler's clutches.

Please - this is exactly my point! DON'T compare them! The one has nothing at all to do with the other!

The Holocaust was a horrible crime. Full stop.

Dresden was IMO a war crime. Full stop.

Neither of the two has anything to do with the other and neither justifies the other.