Dresden- Justified or Not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or perhaps they realised that in the case of whom may suceed Hitler, another more logical and sensible, and yet still evil man like Himmler may take control. Either way assasination is very rarely shown to work and extremely difficult. Witness the attempt against Rommel for example, and Hitler was infinitely better protected than him. Hitler was paranoid and very much trusted certain people. Getting into that circle would have been very hard. Even if it was sucessful, as I said, to take out an entire regime by just assasinating one or two people.

Retaliation is not just about hate, as I said, the Germans to some degree needed to be shown that war is something that can hurt their land, their industry, their homes as well. If you think about 2 other major wars prior to WWII which Germany took part in (WWI and Franco-Prussian) then neither had very extensive fighting over Germany itself, in both cases the dreadful effects of war on the land were visited on her enemies.
 
Dragonlord said:
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.

And I would remind you that 1/3 is not incredibly far away from enough to win a general election if the votes are in key areas, especially under a British system. Voting though is but one way to determine his level of support, which by all counts, when he was sucessful was quite a fair bit. Some of his policies were very popular, but no-one should have voted for him considering he was an extremist nutjob :mischief:
 
privatehudson said:
Retaliation is not just about hate, as I said, the Germans to some degree needed to be shown that war is something that can hurt their land, their industry, their homes as well. If you think about 2 other major wars prior to WWII which Germany took part in (WWI and Franco-Prussian) then neither had very extensive fighting over Germany itself, in both cases the dreadful effects of war on the land were visited on her enemies.

While true, I think this purpose could have been adequately served by 'normal' bombing of military targets - enough civilians get killed as 'collateral damage' w/o going out of one's way specifically to kill some more of them.
 
I agree, which is why I wouldn't have launched the raids... but I understand why they did :p
 
privatehudson said:
Voting though is but one way to determine his level of support, which by all counts, when he was sucessful was quite a fair bit. Some of his policies were very popular, but no-one should have voted for him considering he was an extremist nutjob :mischief:

I fully agree - though almost as many voted Communist, which wasn't much better IMHO.
True enough, he had a high level of support, even fanatical support from many. As you say, 'some of his policies' were very popular, and that probably includes his warmongering... :( ...
I don't believe that support extended to genocide, though, which is why everything that pertained to the Holocaust was kept strictly secret.
 
Detlef Richter said:
I think now i understand it too. They did it because it was the easiest way of doing.

If you wish to look at it that way :rolleyes:

Dragonlord:

I think a combination of circumstance, extremism, fear of communism, desire to restore German might and prestige and some genuine need to have a solution to the problems facing them, and a scapegoat was responsible for his support, so I can understand people being tempted, but they would have had to have either ignored his theories on race etc entirely or supported/not cared about them to have voted for him.
 
privatehudson said:
Dragonlord:

I think a combination of circumstance, extremism, fear of communism, desire to restore German might and prestige and some genuine need to have a solution to the problems facing them, and a scapegoat was responsible for his support, so I can understand people being tempted, but they would have had to have either ignored his theories on race etc entirely or supported/not cared about them to have voted for him.

You are of course correct - most of them did not care about those racist theories! Anti-Semitism was widespread in Germany at the time, no question about it - they were made the scapegoat for all German troubles since defeat in WWI. But that was the case in other countries as well - see Dreyfus in France, pogroms in eastern Europe, and many anti-Semites even in Britain and the US to this day!
There's no question that many Germans of the time were behind Hitler all the way in abusing Jews to some extent - but to what extent? Many Germans were shocked at the Reichskristallnacht in 1938, when Jewish businesses were trashed under the eyes of the Nazi police, which is why Himmler ordered a lower profile from then on.
My contention is simply that those who voted for Hitler weren't voting for Jewish extermination - Hitler didn't make a point of his anti-Semitism while campaigning, BTW, the focus was more on anti-Communism. How many people do you really think had read Mein Kampf at that point - which doesn't actually recommend killing all the Jews in any case, AFAIK?
 
The main topic of this thread is – was ‘Dresden’ justified. I mentioned above about a new book on Dresden by Frederick Taylor based on information obtained out of East Germany since the reunification. I have done a bit more digging about and he maintains the following:

(This is a big post – please, please, please read it all; it might change your whole view on Dresden!)

Taylor maintains Dresden was a legitimate military target because:-

1)It was a Nazi stronghold
On Jan. 1, 1945, unknown to the people of Dresden, their city had been secretly classified (by the Nazis) as a military strongpoint, a 'defensive' area (Verteidigungsbereich). So declared by none other than the Army Chief of Staff, General Heinz Guderian.

2)It had over 120 war machine factories making aircraft engines, bomb sights, fuses, radios and vast quantities of bullets.
As the 1942 Dresdner Jahrbuch (Dresden Yearbook) boasted: Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its immortal architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden... one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich.

3)The Russians knew of its importance as a military target and requested its bombing specifically.

4)It was a communications bottleneck for moving troops from the Western to the Eastern fronts (and vice versa). It had many Wehrmacht troops in it at any one time
The importance of Dresden as a transit point for military traffic can be seen from the figures for October 1944, when the Western Allies' advance from Normandy was starting to slow down, but the fronts in the east and southeast were coming perilously close, and east-west movements of forces were heavy. A total of twenty-eight military trains, altogether carrying almost twenty thousand officers and men, were in transit through Dresden-Neustadt each day.

...After the war, an American former prisoner of war wrote:

The night before the RAF/USAAF raids on February 13.14, we were shunted into the Dresden marshaling yard, where for nearly twelve hours German troops and equipment rolled into and out of Dresden. I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians.


Propaganda by the Nazis
Goebbals immediately put it about that 350,000 to 400,000 people had died. Taylor has determined that the figure is much nearer 25,000 to 40,000.
This is still a lot of course but some of the reasons for this were: a)The Nazis had just moved much of the air defence east to help fight the Russians. b)Virtually no underground shelters had been built for the people (only a few for the Nazis themselves). c)The weather was, unfortunately for Dresden, ‘perfect’ at the time.

The Nazis maintained there were up to 2 million refugees in the city at the time. More bunkum – there was only ‘a few tens of thousands’ says Taylor.

And finally, for those people who insist on making out ‘Dresden’ was so much worse than anything else in the war:
It is rarely mentioned that almost exactly the same number of Soviet citizens died as a result of bombing during the Second World War as Germans: around half a million. Why are there no shelves of books emotively recalling the fate of the forty thousand human beings- many of them women and children and refugees- who died in the Luftwaffe's systematic bombing of Stalingrad, which began with a thousand-bomber raid and lasted over four days in August 1942, even before the siege had begun? Or in the bombing of Minsk, which included the central hospital? Was it morally right for eight hundred thousand Russians, again mostly civilians, to die by bombing, shelling, and starvation in the German siege of Leningrad? The conventions of war allow almost any tactic of destruction against a defended fortress town and the people within it once it has refused to surrender. But is such a thing, on such a scale, more or less moral compared with the bombing of Dresden?
 
In the case of extremism, they should care. I would never claim they voted for the holocaust, but they were voting for a man, and later supporting a man that they knew was anti-semetic, and what's more, they knew was a violent bully in his politics, witness the SA and the Putsch for example. I think the Germans who voted for him, whilst not condoning the holocaust, must have known that racism and extremism would be on the rise under Hitler. Posters under his reign were very racist and anti-semetic, and yet most people suggest his popularity really only fell drastically when the war turned against him, not over the racism and hatred endemic in the regime.

Oh and not many read Mein Kampf, IIRC he had to give it away to all new couples as a wedding gift to make it a best seller :lol:

Which in a way is part of the problem, the Germans were ignorant of what aims Hitler did have for a long time, and when it became obvious, they probably persuaded themselves to not pay as much attention to it as other aspects of his policies. Of course they would not suspect holocaust from Mein Kampf, but I suspect that many were not absolutely against discrimination and the like whilst Hitler's other ideas kept them happy.

Naturally that's not so different from any other electorate to be fair, ignorant of the true aims of a party and willing to ignore some aspects of a party if they'll do good for them....

I guess people are just fickle, but in Germany's case that fickle nature backfired in a massive way :(
 
privatehudson said:
In the case of extremism, they should care. I would never claim they voted for the holocaust, but they were voting for a man, and later supporting a man that they knew was anti-semetic, and what's more, they knew was a violent bully in his politics, witness the SA and the Putsch for example. I think the Germans who voted for him, whilst not condoning the holocaust, must have known that racism and extremism would be on the rise under Hitler. Posters under his reign were very racist and anti-semetic, and yet most people suggest his popularity really only fell drastically when the war turned against him, not over the racism and hatred endemic in the regime.

Oh and not many read Mein Kampf, IIRC he had to give it away to all new couples as a wedding gift to make it a best seller :lol:

Which in a way is part of the problem, the Germans were ignorant of what aims Hitler did have for a long time, and when it became obvious, they probably persuaded themselves to not pay as much attention to it as other aspects of his policies. Of course they would not suspect holocaust from Mein Kampf, but I suspect that many were not absolutely against discrimination and the like whilst Hitler's other ideas kept them happy.

Naturally that's not so different from any other electorate to be fair, ignorant of the true aims of a party and willing to ignore some aspects of a party if they'll do good for them....

I guess people are just fickle, but in Germany's case that fickle nature backfired in a massive way :(


I agree with every word of the above, well put! :goodjob:
 
@ Mega Tsunami

If those facts are correct, they are certainly a powerful argument that a bombing of Dresden may have been militarily justified.

Who is Frederick Taylor? What are his sources?

I'm willing to keep an open mind when faced with new facts - these seem to be directly opposed to those quotes by Boleslav, though.
 
Zardnaar said:
So its OK for you to bomb other countries but not fo them to retaliate in kind. At least I was consistent with the British/Germans bombing each other in WW2.

No, we bombed military/political sites...they could do that in kind. Now do you get me? Once total war status is reached, only then are civilians purposefully bombed (and only after the enemy strikes first).
 
Dragonlord said:
@ Mega Tsunami

If those facts are correct, they are certainly a powerful argument that a bombing of Dresden may have been militarily justified.

Who is Frederick Taylor? What are his sources?

I'm willing to keep an open mind when faced with new facts - these seem to be directly opposed to those quotes by Boleslav, though.

This is the Guardian review of the book:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1142632,00.html

As regards Churchill’s quotes by Boleslav, I presume Churchill was reacting to the Nazi propaganda regarding the attack on Dresden just like the rest of us.
 
I find it hard to believe the average German knew nothing about the holocaust or the atrocities of the Wehrmacht in the east. All those German refugees were fleeing the Red Army. From all contemporary accounts they at least suspected what was going on. It also doesn't take much to classify a city as a military target. If nothing else it was a transport hub which would make it a legitimate target IMHO.
 
Zardnaar said:
I find it hard to believe the average German knew nothing about the holocaust or the atrocities of the Wehrmacht in the east. All those German refugees were fleeing the Red Army. From all contemporary accounts they at least suspected what was going on. It also doesn't take much to classify a city as a military target. If nothing else it was a transport hub which would make it a legitimate target IMHO.

Exactly! Thus total war/bombing of civilian centers makes sense, because these areas also contribute to the war effort.
 
My take on Dresden is - it happened. I'm not proud that it happened.

However, it did teach important lessons - like not bombing Allied cities and don't build houses out of wood. Oh yeah, cramming refugees into potential bomb targets is also a really bad idea...

... the biggest legacy is that most modern tactical weaponry is high precision guided. Things like Daisy cutters and cluster bombs are outside this catergory though.
 
Some quotes from the USAF Historical Division's report on the Dresden bombing.

(1) on the refugee population
In addition to its normal population, the city had experienced a heavy influx of refugees from the east and of evacuees from bombings in other areas, particularly from Berlin.

(2) on the deathcount
Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February.

(3) on theAllied use of force
The forces and means employed by the RAF in the area bombing of Dresden were significantly large.

(4) on the amount of damage done to property. Note the percentage of damage done to industry vs people's homes.
23 per cent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings had been heavily damaged. 80 per cent of domestic buildings were heavily damaged.

(5) the damage to one of the most beautiful cities in Europe
85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed

(6) in conclusion...
Large-scale bombing was almost certainly a major contribution to the final weakening of the will of the German people to resist…the Americans, happily, cannot and would not claim credit for this aspect of the Dresden bombings.
 
Dragonlord said:
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.

Agreed. :goodjob:

Russia was the country that suffered most heavily in the number of casualties in WWII whether they were civilian or military. That's why knowing what they had done, the German Wehrmacht would rather surrender to Allied Forces deployed than to the Russians who doubtless would torture them.

But still, I recall reading how the Russians shelled their very own troops in marshes just as long as they also hit the German soldiers trapped and outflanked...

OFF-TOPIC: I've always wondered why Hitler didn't crush the British at Dunquerque. Perhaps he had the hope that his fellow saxon brothers would sue for peace and leave Europe to him. How little did he know the Brits then....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom