Dresden Memorial

[carlosMM]

@ Carlos

I don't have to kill the sheep. The sheep kill themselves. With mass-suicides like the nazi madness for example.

BTW I never claimed to be perfect or fearless but please realize that not all people are like you, either. Just because you can't imagine that someone would put his ethics over his well-being doesn't mean that other people can't do it. It happend before, quite often actually. You don't have to be superman to do it. I've proven to myself that I can withstand social pressure. I've proven that I can made up my own mind and that my opinion is my own and not the one spread by the mass-media. So, yes I'm quite certain I wouldn't "go along".

Mario, mario, nice rethorics, but your habit of polarizing all i say does get on ym nerves - massively.

Where did I say I can't imagine someone putting his well-being above hir ethics?
Where did I say it didn't happen?
Where did I say one has to be superman to do it?
Where did I say one can't resist social pressure?


Also, jsut because YOU, TODAY, WIHTOUT danger of life and limb and WITHOUT massive propaganda can make up your mind doesn't allow you to demand people under totally different circumstances MUST do so, too - or killing them is acceptable. Your disregard for the lives of all war victims who happened to be German is disgusting to me, but only the logical conclusion of your attitude: YOU have a liberty people back then mostly did NOT have, YOU have a safety most people back the did NOT have, YOU have access to information in a way most people back then did NOT have.
Please keep that in mind before stating that it was totally OK to bomb a few hundred thousand refugees.

 

[Stapel]

I don't plan to. I wouldn't want to be part of the injustice systems in modern Europe that let murderers, rapists and other filth run around freely.

I can imagine....

But, if I follow your logic, when I rape somebody's daughter, justice would be that my daughter gets raped too.

That's what I read from your line:
Destroying the cities of people who destroyed your cities is justice.

Destroying cities means killing innocent children.
Maybe it was considered justice in 1945 (hard to tell today), but it sure as hell is not in 2005.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

If I walk on the street, and beat the hell out of just whomever I meet on the street, I am committing a crime.
If I walk on the street, see that some dude is stealing my radio from my car, and I beat the hell out of him, I'm still committing a crime.

You can hardly compare what the Germans did to us with stealing radios. I would liken it to them killing your wife or children and you then justifiably having a go back at them with the biggest stick you can muster. Maybe not ‘the done thing’ in today’s antiseptic world but 4 years into Total War 60 years ago it was a very correct thing to do. (from the retaliation against an evil aggressor point of view)
Remember, they had done a similar thing to us just 25 years before.

Bombing Dresden was a necessary evil and is as nothing to the unnecessary evils committed by the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe hundreds (if not thousands) of times in the war. (esp in Russia). And I am not even talking about what the Nazis did.

In hindsight, the bombing campaign did not have the desired effect but the allies were not to know this at the time. If an A-bomb was available in Feb 1945 and was dropped on Dresden instead, now that might have had the desired effect and brought an early end to the war (just as it did in Japan later). As horrible as this thought is, it might have saved many, many lives subsequently. (which is effectively what the conventional bombing was trying to do).

Oh and just for the record: “Only” 25 to 30 thousand died (not the 125,000 claimed); it was not “full” of refugees but was full of Nazis (it was a Nazi stronghold); it was an important cross road for railways carrying troops from west to east and vice versa; it had over 100 factories producing war materials. It was hardly an innocent target in a Total War.

 

[Stapel]

You can hardly compare what the Germans did to us with stealing radios. I would liken it to them killing your wife or children and you then justifiably having a go back at them with the biggest stick you can muster. Maybe not ‘the done thing’ in today’s antiseptic world but 4 years into Total War 60 years ago it was a very correct thing to do. (from the retaliation against an evil aggressor point of view).

That is very debatable. Even those who made the dicision at that moment expressed their doubts.
Stating it was a very correct thing to do, is nothing but your opinion.

Remember, they had done a similar thing to us just 25 years before.

What had the Jerries done to you in 1920 ?

 

[carlosMM]

You can hardly compare what the Germans did to us with stealing radios. I would liken it to them killing your wife or children and you then justifiably having a go back at them with the biggest stick you can muster. Maybe not ‘the done thing’ in today’s antiseptic world but 4 years into Total War 60 years ago it was a very correct thing to do. (from the retaliation against an evil aggressor point of view)
Remember, they had done a similar thing to us just 25 years before.

So far I agree in principle.

Bombing Dresden was a necessary evil

Right, it was militarily necessary to kill a few 10,000 civlian refugees. RIght!

and is as nothing to the unnecessary evils committed by the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe hundreds (if not thousands) of times in the war. (esp in Russia). And I am not even talking about what the Nazis did.

Uh, yes, because someone does an unnecessary crime - that makes another crime necessary? Are your eally trying to claim that one crime necessitates another? Justifies it?

In hindsight, the bombing campaign did not have the desired effect but the allies were not to know this at the time.

Oh yes, thatw as known long before Dresden. And, btw, can you tell me why the Brits themselves slpped Bomber harris hands very hard when he submitted his report?

If an A-bomb was available in Feb 1945 and was dropped on Dresden instead, now that might have had the desired effect and brought an early end to the war (just as it did in Japan later).

Yep. but there was no A-bomb, and a lot of other towns had been firestormed, to no real effect on moral.[@uote] As horrible as this thought is, it might have saved many, many lives subsequently. (which is effectively what the conventional bombing was trying to do).[/quote]and was known to FAIL to do.

Oh and just for the record: “Only” 25 to 30 thousand died (not the 125,000 claimed); it was not “full” of refugees but was full of Nazis (it was a Nazi stronghold);

source.

it was an important cross road for railways carrying troops from west to east and vice versa; it had over 100 factories producing war materials. It was hardly an innocent target in a Total War.

Ah, yes, a rail station bombed about 50 times...... my family came through Dresden a few weeks later, btw - the rail was repaired by then, at least to the usualy war standards, my grandma told me.

no, claiming there was a MILITARY objective to the target is just apologetics for mass murder.

 

[nonconformist]

Personally, I consider Dresden a warcrime. There was no sense of proportion there, and tere was no ovveriding readson either.

 

[gene90]

Ehm, most of the bombers were British, not American. IIRC the destruction of Dresden was primarly a British operation.

True. The policy of terror-bombing German cities with incendiary devices was a British idea, executed by the RAF. American aircraft were bombing military targets inside Dresden, such as the railroad complex, but with standard issue concussive bombs. It didn't take long for the higher ups to realize that the terrorbomb policy was atrocious, of mimimal tactical use, and very costly in terms of aircraft and pilots, so it was suspended.

 

[privatehudson]

no, claiming there was a MILITARY objective to the target is just apologetics for mass murder.

Not at all. I point it out because there was, by the standards of the time pleanty of legitimate reasons for bombing Dresden. The fact that the allies were not targetting them too much is what makes it hard justify the raids.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

So far I agree in principle.

Right, it was militarily necessary to kill a few 10,000 civlian refugees. RIght!
Uh, yes, because someone does an unnecessary crime - that makes another crime necessary? Are your eally trying to claim that one crime necessitates another? Justifies it?

The bombing campaign as a whole was a necessary evil. We didn’t want to do it (unlike the bombing of London etc.), we wanted the Germans to surrender and if they did we would stop the bombing instantly.

And, btw, can you tell me why the Brits themselves slpped Bomber harris hands very hard when he submitted his report?

The allies believed the original figures given out by the Natzis (and continued by the Russians after the war btw) as to the number of civilians killed.

Yep. but there was no A-bomb, and a lot of other towns had been firestormed, to no real effect on moral and was known to FAIL to do.

It was not known whether a few more raids would result in the Germans surrendering, so you keep on bombing until they do. (The point I was making was that in hindsight terrible incendiary raids against Japanese cities did not make them surrender either but A-bombs did)

Please bear this in mind too: Usually very few bombs that left England actually reached their intended targets over Germany. Dresden was very much an exception to this – good cloud cover going (few losses) and suddenly the cloud cleared over Dresden as they arrived, most AA had been sent to Berlin and therefore a very larger than normal % of bombs hit the target. A bombing raid that “went too right”.

What had the Jerries done to you in 1920

By ‘we’ I meant “the allies” and by ’25 years ago’ I meant 1939-25= 1914. I don’t believe I have claimed “we bombed them because they bombed us”. I believe we bombed them because we thought it might end the war early.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@carlosMM
Have a read of this, it might help:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1141926,00.html

 

[kronic]

Just out of curiosity: how many British civilians died because of German bombs, V2s etc.?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

no, claiming there was a MILITARY objective to the target is just apologetics for mass murder.

Wrong.

At the time, it was believed that inflicting heavy damage on civilian populations was an effective way to lower public support for a war -- and therefore to hasten the enemy's surrender. Some advocates of air power still believe this today, though I would argue that it is not the case.

But, at the time, it was largely accepted as fact. Attempting to hasten the other side's surrender, I would argue, is a clearly military objective.

 

[privatehudson]

Just out of curiosity: how many British civilians died because of German bombs, V2s etc.?

Roughly 60,000

Some sources state 90,000 usually due to the inclusion of Merchant Navy losses. Make no mistake though, this owed nothing to German intentions to inflict major civilian losses and everything to their lack to do so on the same scale as the allies by the end of the war.

 

[Hitro]

To get back to Stapel's intended point of the thread:

Yes, I think he has a point. Of course it is absolutely true that those who "marched" in Dresden yesterday were in fact Neo-Nazis. It's also true that you don't just march along because you happen to share the same view on the atrocity without being a Neo-Nazi. In that case the Nazi aspect of the demonstration clearly outweighs the alledged intention of it. You simply don't go on Nazi marches if you're not a Nazi.

But, and there he has a point, it is indeed so that you can't express certain opinions because the established political parties as well as the media have branded those as "far-right", which is a factual killer argument for any possible discussion. There simply isn't a discussion, if you have that opinion you're supposed to be a Fascist and thus automatically wrong.
Now while this doesn't apply to calling the bombing of Dresden a war crime (I also do so and wouldn't be called a Fascist for it) it does apply to a wide variety of other things, in particular also the way of saying things. You do always have to relativise such opinions, for example by also pointing at German war crimes in this case. Or by stating that you don't have anything against foreigners in principle if you happen to have a problem with current immigration policies (as this otherwise is supposed to imply you don't like foreigners).

That's political correctness, after all. And of course that sucks.

And yes, I also think it is counter-productive when seen as a means to oppose far-right radicalism. It only feeds the view that the established system would factually oppress the "German people" or whatever term you prefer to use. That the great freedom of the democratic state would only apply to those who follow it blindly. This is after all an important aspect of the Neo-Nazis' propaganda, and one simply has to admit that it is not completely incorrect. At least not from a superficial perspective, which is the perspective the vast majority of people have on politics.

 

[Stapel]

Thanks Hitro!

That's the discussion I wanted!

 

[jst666]

Bombings such as Dresden were widely accepted as a legitimate military action during WW2, and even throughout the Cold War. It would not have been considered a war crime at the time, and to judge the past by the standards of the future is ridiculous.

It would be like posthumously convicting a 16th-century doctor for malpractice. At the time, they simply did not know that attacks on civilians were largely ineffective.

I do disagree on this. Even thou inquisition was considered more or less legimit method of fighting the devil, today we can judge that.

Or perhaps because the institution was evil even by standards of those times...

 

[jst666]

Wrong.

At the time, it was believed that inflicting heavy damage on civilian populations was an effective way to lower public support for a war -- and therefore to hasten the enemy's surrender. Some advocates of air power still believe this today, though I would argue that it is not the case.

But, at the time, it was largely accepted as fact. Attempting to hasten the other side's surrender, I would argue, is a clearly military objective.

I disagree. By the time of Dresden it was known that Hitler was very unlikely to surrender. And he would never ask Germans' opinion.

 

[carlosMM]

Wrong.

At the time, it was believed that inflicting heavy damage on civilian populations was an effective way to lower public support for a war -- and therefore to hasten the enemy's surrender. Some advocates of air power still believe this today, though I would argue that it is not the case.

Wrong - by the time of the Dresden bombing (note: NOT by the time of the Hmaburg bombing!) it was known that these firestorm bombings were militarily useless. And the British Command did express that view later on when they did NOT commend Harris for the later bombings.

But, at the time, it was largely accepted as fact. Attempting to hasten the other side's surrender, I would argue, is a clearly military objective.

One year earlier - yes. Maybe even 6 months earlier. But not by late '44 anymore, and decidedly not by early '45.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

What I would like to know is, why bring it up now, it happened 60 years ago. What are you going to change by gathering in the streets of Dresden, are you going to turn back time and stop the air raid or something?

 

[jst666]

What I would like to know is, why bring it up now, it happened 60 years ago. What are you going to change by gathering in the streets of Dresden, are you going to turn back time and stop the air raid or something?

Why people gather to Auschwitz? Or memorize Hiroshima? I guess it's the same thing. Happened in the past, let us not let it happen again.