Dresden

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by bomber

I think the cold reality is that wars aren't fought to the Queensbury rules... gouging, punching the kidneys, biting the ears and rabbit punching are not banned.

Simon, that is true but there is a limit.
While the slaughter of Hamburg, the Ruhr cities, Coventry and London itself can be considered (*) part of 'cruel war activities in order to achieve a result', Dresden (=the way chosen) was not justified by any military reason.

(*) I don't want to re-open the question if the Douhet/Harris strategy of terror bombing is acceptable or not, let's just assume that is one of the established ways to fight a war

We can't file everything away with a simple 'war is war and is not business for ladies', otherwise we should apply the same reasoning to all episodes and justify everything, the genocide of the Kurds, the Tonton Macoutes, the gas used by Italians in Lybia, the behavior of SS in Russia, the behavior of KGB in Germany, and all the c@#p made by every Nation and terrorist group.
All in all everywhere it was 'war'... but this would be aberrant.

Originally Posted by bomber

We all like to think that in a war (having not been in one) we'd remain civilised to the end... but is that realistic when what is used to sustain us through the dark times and spur us on for one last push is hate and revenge...

Germany having the World Cup in their ocuntry and doing such a fine job of it should be a lesson to us all.... don't forget, but let it go.....

Simon

I agree that episodes of hate and revenge happens in every war and can't be controlled, but it can't be totally generalized.
There is a lot of difference (recognized by every Court, martial or civilian) between a moment of madness and a deliberate crime.

If a psychopath pilot dive to strafe civilians to seek revenge for something is one thing, if a wing commander orders his pilots to strafe civilians is a totally different responsability.
We may discuss to 'forgive' and 'understand the situation' or not for the single pilot, but this commander should definitely be punished.

Sandro

[Erich]

Sandro this thread is going nowhere like always.

Something to consider briefly is that this mission was all part of a much larger operation from both day/night as it was a combined op Thunderclap to shut down as much day/night fighters as possible, destroy industry and destroy the will of the German people, besides open the road lanes for the Soviets to invade from the east. In some ways it was successful and in some ways it was not especially concerning the Ost front. The will of the German landser was strong, and overwhelmed it was still a major pin in the side of the Soviet leadership which caused thousands upon thousands of casulties to the Soviet ground forces taking every mile of the German countryside

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

yes i believe the He-111s bombed london by accident, but obviously the RAF didn't realise it was an accident, and the LW didn't know they'd bombed london, which is why they were outraged when the RAF carried out a raid on Berlin in responce, the LW, thinking this was unprovoked, then carried out further bombings of london...............

Agreed I am pretty sure that is how it went down.

Nice Avatar by the way.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

thanks, it was about time for a change i had several others but only a few people voted, all for this one, check out the siggy test thread..............

[Parmigiano]

Erich, I appreciate your wisdom and your effort to 'cool down'

Just as exercise: you know there are valid points to say that the whole concept of 'operation thunderclap' on dresden was backhanded and built for some reason beyond the declared goals.

in example:
- Destroy the night fighters? It was clear that the war was over for the Luftwaffe. The strategist of the operation knew that there would have been no fighters and no AA for that mission.

- Hit the morale of the German population? in Feb 1945? How could have been lower on Feb 15 than on Feb 12?

- One million refugees and and some disbanded soldiers in dresden being a potential military threat for the Red Army who already was almost in Berlin?
Most likely their problem was to eat something once every 3 days, not marching for the Fuerher.

.. and there we would start all over again!

So said, stop for me on this topic, just one 'off-topic' general reflection:

I agree this discussion goes nowhere, like many others like 'what is the best fighter' and similar.
I don't think it is a limit: we are not supposed to change the world or to find the 'ultimate truth' in our chats.

I think that the value of this forum is to talk about our passions and opinions, to have a confrontation with others, to learn from the know-how and experience of the others, to contribute with our '2 cents' of knowledge, experience and ideas.
Not only sharing technological data, but also to feel confortable in touching personally sensitive topics that we don't feel to discuss with everybody.
Even to disagree, fight and get pissed at each others sometimes.
I would not have fun if all the topics would be harmelss as the conversation in a job dinner, kind of sophisticated 'how are you? - great'

I like to feel like in the old pub, with the advantage to have the opportunity to talk with people and cultures that we never found in our local club and the disadvantage that the discussions cannot end up in drinking a beer together.

The value that we earn as individuals is to have our ideas and pre-concepts challenged, and to reflect about some part of our 'internal reference system'
In other words, to grow a little bit.

Even if we may never 'officially' admit to have changed our mind on something (all in all we are all human beings, stubborn and proud like our biology matrix dictates we have to be...[*])

[*] Note for the women of this Forum: if you add to this sentence '..and you are mostly males' I will start to post jokes about 'blondes' and 'car parking'

[Erich]

sorry to disagree but the German Nachtjagd was very much a viable force in the spring of 1945, problem was lack of fuel and nothing else - the diminsihing of the Reich obviously compressed the night arm to try and find suitable airfields to fly from. RAF command was also getting quite concerned about the numerous sightings of German jets in the night sky with Mosquiots both bomber and night fighters "mysteriously" not coming home. Parm, I have studied the Thunderclap mission both night and day for many years ........... yes there is still much to be gained to understand the Allied point of view when we look at it from arm-chair historians why all the fuss about a doomed Reich and if it needs an extra pounding into the ground.......in a word, yes it did !

[bomber]

Well I like to think that seeing the results of the raid took away the allies appetite for war..

I like to think it went some way to stoping the US and British forces declaring war on the Soviets and embroiling Europe in another decade of war

I like to think that in the long run some good came from it, even if it was to just wake up the Aliied commanders to just how after 5 years of war it's so easy to forget that you're supposed to be the good guys...

As for Harris.... well here a man that for the good part of the war went to bed every night knowing that boys his potential sons age were dieing at 16,000 ft... every night he did this...

Lets not forget he was a man who although in the forces, I suspect would rather have been playng cricket on a Summer Sunday afternoon rather than sanctioning another raid.. A man who'd rather have been bouncing his grandson on his knee than potentialing sending young dads to their deaths... and after 53,000 deaths within bomber command it must get a bit wearing, He didn't ask for the war, he didn't start it, he just had to spend 6 years of his life maintaining the status quo

Have some compassion for the man.

regards

Simon

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Clipper79

I was just reading a review of the book Dresden by Frederick Taylor. Has anyone read this book and if so what did you think?

According to the review of the book there is a certain mythology has grown around the destruction of Dresden.

I myself never realized or gave it much thought that it happened just 3 months before the German surrender. To some it was an act of vengeance, and then there are those who say it was a city that contained many installations of military value (Factories, rail junctions).

From what you know about the air war do you think the mission to destroy Dresden was justified? Or could it have been avoided. I can’t seem to find a reason why they would (the allies) think that it would shorten the war by bombing a city like Dresden at that point in the war.

I hope this is not too controversial for just my second post but it happened. And if a books written about it then there must be some interest out there.

What’s your opinion?

S! Clipper

Not to start the thread (and the argument) again, but for anyone interested, I just finished this book and thought it was exelent, IMHO quite unbiased view and an exelent read.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Hop

So the pattern was - Luftwaffe bomb military targets, cause collateral damage in London - RAF then bomb military targets, cause collateral damage in Berlin. That remained the case until early September (although the Luftwaffe were doing much more bombing, and causing much more collateral damage), when the Luftwaffe began area bombing British cities in an attempt to break civilian morale.

Basically that`s the arguement Hop advances on all forums and discussion boards, though it considerably changed depending over the time. The conclusion/agenda is always the same though, it aims to either claim that

a, RAF BC was really above area bombing ('I didn`t do it')
b, the RAF just reacted ('they started it')
c, everyone was area bombing, usually blending RAF BC night area raids on urban centres in the same place as the USAAF`s daylight attacks on specific targets based on similiarities in bombing techniques ('they did it, too!')

Of course it`s either unreferenced bull, building on widely believed popular myths, like the 'area attacks on civillian morale', or half truths like saying there were X number of civillian casulties in city Y, failing to mention if the specific attack had specific target. This time, it appears to be Tactic B.

It`s still untrue though.

In fact, the Germans themselves classified the following raids only as repraisal raids - an answer to predating and parellel British attacks on German population centres :

- 7 September 1940 (this was conducted as a repraisal of Bomber Commands bombing of Berlin a bit earlier)
- 16/17 April 1941
- 19/20 April 1941
- 10/11 May 1941

Essentially it is correct to note these attacks on the British civilian population were performed in 1941 - as repraisals to specific British attacks.

It's worth notin that 'terror bombing' was explicitely prohibted at the start of the battle, see Directive No. 17 'for the conduct of air and sea warfare aganist England', from 1st August 1940 :

'5. I reserve to myself the right to decide on terror attacks as measures of reprisal.'

Göring's general orders to the Luftwaffe, from 30th June 1940 are even more explicit in this matter :

'(A) The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. ... It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unneccesary loss of life amongst the civillian population.'

Terror bombing was certainly considered in 1940, but it was declined :

Ie. on 14 Sept 1940, Jeschonek suggested Hitler the very thing, 'to bomb population districts in order to provoke mass panic in the English working class', was refused by Hitler, saying that :


'Attack on targets having military value are always top priority, as it destroys assets which are unrecoverable. As long as there are targets of military importance, we should stay with those'. Subsequently, Hitler gave order that 'attacks on London are to be directed, via broadening the attacked areas, against targets of military importance and targets of vital importance to the city, the line being drawn at railroad stations'.


An American, General Henry Arnold, from the USAAF Staff described in his experiences in April 1941 in his book 'Global Mission'(1949) :


'Lord Sinclair [head of the Air Ministry at the time] ... first took me to the Air Raid Precaution Office where there was a map showing the location of all bombs dropped. They were spread out all over London, in most cases close to railroad stations, switching points, power houses, transformers, bridges, docks, warehouses, and factories; but a lot were in the residental areas. Every bomb dropped was accurately plotted.'

Sir Basil Collier, author of the official history of Britain's Air Defenses, 'The Defence of the United Kingdom' (1957) wrote that :


'Altough the plan adopted by the Luftwaffe early September had mentioned attacks on the population of large cities, detailed records of the raids made during the automn and the winter of 1940-41 does not suggest that indiscriminate bombing of the civillians was intended. The points of aim selected were largely factories and docks. Other objectives specifically allotted to bomber-crews included the City [center of business and financial life] of London and the govermental quarter rounds Whitehall.'

So, I am waiting for specific evidence about specific raids in 1940 apart from the three mentioned above for 1940/41 on their 'area bombing' nature, preferably from primary German sources detailed the raid`s targets. Curiously, the Luftwaffe even ceased bombing for the period of Christmas in 1940.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bomber

As for Harris.... well here a man that for the good part of the war went to bed every night knowing that boys his potential sons age were dieing at 16,000 ft... every night he did this...

Lets not forget he was a man who although in the forces, I suspect would rather have been playng cricket on a Summer Sunday afternoon rather than sanctioning another raid.. A man who'd rather have been bouncing his grandson on his knee than potentialing sending young dads to their deaths... and after 53,000 deaths within bomber command it must get a bit wearing, He didn't ask for the war, he didn't start it, he just had to spend 6 years of his life maintaining the status quo

Have some compassion for the man.

regards

Simon

“The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.. the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand.”

- Report of Arthur Harris, a young RAF Squadron commander, after a mission in 1924, during uprisings of the Mesopotamian tribes fighting against British occupation.

"I do not agree with this policy. The moral effect of HE is vast. People can escape from fires, and the casualties on a solely fire raising raid would be as nothing. What we want to do in addition to the horrors of fire is to bring the masonry crashing down on top of the Boche, to kill Boche and to terrify Boche.

- Arthur Harris, upon pressed to use a higher proportion of incendiaries, he argued the case for high explosive.

I`d tend to believe the personality of Harris was rather stable for at least two decades, and, not very likeable.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Parmigiano

C'mon Plan_D, you have too much culture for not knowing that the first bombing on London happened only on Sept. 7 1940, as 'revenge' to the RAF bombing on Berlin that started on 25/26 August 1940 (I recall that Berlin was bombed 6/7 times before Sept. 7)

...And you are too smart to really believe that this 1940 'non strategic' bombings can be compared to the Feb 1945 episode...

The Germans had bombed London with only the tiniest fig leaf of 'going after military targets' since 1917 with a/c, 1915 with airships. Those mostly night raids had little chance of hitting what was supposedly specifically aimed at, they were in fact designed to achieve political gain through terrorizing civilians, why else? And this history definitely factored into British thinking in the second world war.

So the 'who did it first' argument leads nowhere (to go back further, in the German view the WWI British blockade was mainly affecting civilians, increasing death rates of the old, sick, very young etc. though not blowing them up).

However scale also matters, I agree.

No easy answers IMO. I also generally agree with the other poster's statement insofar as the US nuclear bombings of Japan were unavoidable given the situation and attitudes of the time, but I can't agree with putting them in some completely different category of morally unassailable because 'they saved lives'. Maybe every raid on German civliians didn't save lives in a similarly clearcut way, but overall defeating Nazi Germany was a moral necessity and did save lives, and who can say exactly what would happened if German cities had remained inviolate.

Joe

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Either way I do not justify bombing of civilian centers of population by any side Allied or Axis except for the Atomic bombings of Japan which in my opinion saved lives by ending the war.

Originally Posted by JoeB

No easy answers IMO. I also generally agree with the other poster's statement insofar as the US nuclear bombings of Japan were unavoidable given the situation and attitudes of the time, but I can't agree with putting them in some completely different category of morally unassailable because 'they saved lives'. Maybe every raid on German civliians didn't save lives in a similarly clearcut way, but overall defeating Nazi Germany was a moral necessity and did save lives, and who can say exactly what would happened if German cities had remained inviolate.

Joe

Does 'saving lives" justify deliberatly targeting civilians? IMO, NO.

Did the Allies have to drop the bomb on a civilian target to end the war?

I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.

And about the original topic Dresden, it was wrong to target it and I don't agree with Harris's policies.

[Udet]

When referring to the atomic bombing of those 2 japanese cities the best possible argument to explain such course of action should be sending a message to Smiley Dzhugashvili; not forgetting the experimental nature of dropping the very first atomic bomb on civilian targets.

The rest is pure prime hand picked certified Grade A crap.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by freebird

I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.

It took a large emergency effort by the US occupation to ship food into Japan which barely avoided mass famine in the winter of '45-'46 just from the effect of US blockade up to August, and there was still widespread hunger. Had the war dragged on even a few months longer it would have been mass death, potentially far beyond the scale of Japanese civilian deaths in all bombings let alone just the nuclear ones. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the a-bombings didn't save lives, Japanese and Allied. But does that alone make them moral? Good question I think.

To reiterate my position, which I don't think you got, since you put my post up next to one I don't entirely agree with: I'm ambivalent about the Allied area bombings. It seems most people have a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't.

I agree with you from a today's hindsight perspective it's very easy to say civilian deaths in war are undesirable, sure. I just don't think it really answers the question in the context of that war and that time.

And I don't think it's very meaningful to discuss the morality of particular air raids in a vacuum. One's real position is actually illuminated I think by considering how it varies among different cases.

Joe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by freebird

Does 'saving lives" justify deliberatly targeting civilians? IMO, NO.

Did the Allies have to drop the bomb on a civilian target to end the war?

I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.

And about the original topic Dresden, it was wrong to target it and I don't agree with Harris's policies.

In my opinion the A-Bombs were justified. It helped in my opinion ensure that no American soldiers were going to have to step foot onto mailand Japan and fight a battle to the death.

Better them than us...