Bombing of Dresden--and for what?

Some people here seem to forget that german crimes have been punished already and the fact that there was no condemnation of members of the allied forces doesn't automatically mean that they were completely innocent. Who should have called them to account, there was nobody.
If Bomber Harris was a german he would be one of the first defendants in Nürnberg. Phosphor-boms (napalm) are a very cruel weapon used against friendly citizens. Every nation has to face its crimes not only the Germans.

By the way, I find it quite funny, that some of you give me a bad rate, only because they cannot stand the truth.

I don't whant that you think I'm a nazi or something like that. I'm just fed up with the one-sided view of our all dark history.

 

Napalm and phosphorus incendiary bombs are very different, napalm is a deforesting agent, mixture of naptha and palmoil, essentially a sticky goo that burns feircely. Phosphorus in bombs burns on contact with air and has decidedly different properties.

Incidentally, they were not friendly citizens, they were the enemy.

 

Women, children and old people - these were the enemy? You have to explain that to me.

 

By 1945 standards? YES, THEY WERE.

Again, there were women, children and old people in Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London and other cities…

In WWII enemy civilians were a legitimate target.

And by 1945 the German armies kept killing many civilians in the fighting, Budapest for example.

 

Don't forget Mannheim if you remind me of Guernica. Mannheim is the only german town with symmetrical streets and thus an excellent training-object to study the damage radius of bombs. Many civilians had to die only for an experiment. Also not to forget:
The big german towns were 90% destroyed, how can you compare it to English towns.

Civilian victims:

USA: 0
England: 60.000
Germany: 3.000.000
Poland: 5.300.000 (incl. jews)
Russia: 7.500.000 (incl. jews)
Japan: 360.000
China: 10.000.000

Civilians are never a legitimate target in no war!
So don't play the german civilian victims down.

Time to admit the allied war crimes as well.

Friedrich, I hope your grandpa doesn't know what you write here.

 

Quote; Civilians are never a legitimate target in no war. Do the millions burned and gased count? Do the V-rocket victims count? What is your point? If the 'Allies' did'nt destroy those cities, Hitler's famous "fortress orders" would have doomed them anyway.

 

No! Because there was no precedent with Guernica. Germany started the war and started terror bombings. In fact, Germany was the first nation ever to drop bombs from the air onto an enemy city (full with civilians): Zeppelins in WWI, remember?

And WHO killed THESE?

From 1914 to 1945 they were because they were behind the political forces that caused wars, were the living blood of war economies and provided the men who were to do the fighting.

If you kill enemy civilians, you kill workers, future soldiers or people who supports the government who provoked the war. To our XXI century eyes it may sound horrible, but it was the common thing to do in the 1940s, when TOTAL wars were fought.

I don't care if he does. He fought for Nazi Germany, he killed many enemy soldiers, and he killed civilians and unarmed POWs as was the fashion in the eastern front. His family in Dresden was killed to stop him and his mates. And I'm glad they succeeded.

 

"Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."
-- Arthur Harris

Short and to the point.

 

and the british and americans were the first and only bombing with phosphor,napalm and atomic-bombs

So your opinion is, if someone starts a war commiting war crimes, like Germany did and I don't deny it, then the other can answer with the same brutality or even worse? But then the other is not better than the one who started.
Imagine Japan would have dropped an atomic-bomb on US-cities after the US did. Who of the two would be better?

Again I don't deny the german war crimes, and that is why I also wanted to show you the victims killed by Germans.

That's no justification for me.

Aha, so only because your grandpa was a nazi, the annihilation of his family and of the Dresden civilians is justified?

Did he tell you that, or do you only assume that?

To quote Mr. Arthur "Bomber" Harris (the criminal) is without conclusiveness. The are many controversial discussions about this. And as C.Evans, who started this thread said:

and I agree with him.

For me the discussion is over, because I believe non of you, who legitimate the bombing on Dresden, will change his point of view.

[ 16. February 2005, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Stauffenberg ]

 

Well the Germans dropped plenty of incendries on London...

So it was ok for Germany to bomb civilian targets in the 'Blitz' but the Allies were not supposed to? That at the end of the day is the key. You dont seem to be that bothered over the casualties caused by Germany to civilians but rant over German casualties... A slightly hypocritical stance that undermines your arguement. Now you wish to end the discussion? Why?

Whether or not it was morally right is a moot point given the precendence set by German and the limited technological level of the 1940s. Whether we think it was right or not matters little. It was attacks that were deemed to be directed against the industrial capability of Germany. Whether this means targeting the facilities or the workers accounts to the same result in a strategic bombing programme.

At the end of day... "You reap what you sow..."

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Germans used incendiary bombs which contained phosphorus, just thought you may wish to know that.

Bombing Dresden was justified, there were enough military targets to make it worthwhile. I do not believe the method of bombing was appropriate but it was the only way to hit a target at that range.

As for bombing civilians, whether it is justified etc. Explain this to me, civilians in Dresden were helping the German war effort, they were keeping Germany in the war. By killing these people you are helping to bring the war to a close. How is killing a civilian who works in an arms factory different to killing the driver of a train delivering ammunition to the front (a valid militart tactic)? And how is that different to killing the conscript who fires the ammunition when it gets to him? All three are civilians who have been forced to join the war efford.

I have to wonder if it is just Dresden you object to? How about bombing other cities?

One final issue, you comment on one side committing war crimes and that as justification for brutality on the other side. Germany began the war by bombing civilians, they raped and pillaged the east and partook of mass genocide. The longer Nazi Germany continued the more innocent people would be killed (note, the German population were definatly not entirely innocent, they kept Germany going), the more evil would be done. I think the Sapper has about summed it up, it was the greatest evil man kind has ever seen and when faced with that sometimes one has to be brutal.

 

If you were a German, living here and hearing all the time: Shame on you, worst crime in history, you should never forget the crimes of your ancestors... You would perhaps understand me.

Once again: I'm fed up with the one-sided view of the history. I'm now talking about german victims, because in the past it allways seemed to be forbidden to talk about them.

It makes a difference whether to bomb industial facilities, railroads or residential quarters.


Summary:

Against one-sided view

Bombing, massacre of civilians is a war crime, no matter who it does

We should remember all victims of WW2 incl. Germans

 

I do unserstand you sentiments but not the way in which you express them.

My Grandmother, Great-Aunt, their 4 sisters and my Grandfather all lived in London through the whole war. Their uncle died when a German HE bomb hit the garage in which he worked. My Great-Aunt missed her tram home from work and the tram was hit by a doodle-bug, a very lucky escape that still haunts her to this day. My Grandfather was injured by a doodle-bug explosion.

So dont even try to presume that I dont understand. My direct relatives lived through the bombing, spent countless nights sheltering from German bombs and still remember the horrors that they witnessed.

Bombing and massacre of civilians is not the same thing...

To say that the concentration camps and the bombing of Dresden is the same thing is obscene.

One is the systematic purging of a people. The other is the unfortunate result of war. In war civilians die. But to round them up and gas them is a massacre...

Perhaps you are looking for a scapegoat in Allied form to divert your attentions from the acts that were purposely carried out by the Nazis?

It is terrible that civilians die at anytime, but it is an unavoidable consequence of war. Perhaps the person truly responsible for the deaths of German citizens is not the Allied pilots or even Bomber Harris... But Adolf Hitler. After all if he had not started the war then German cities would not have been bombed...

 

I'll note that Germany began dropping incendiaries on London in 1915, as far as I know. In the early part of WWII they prefered thermite incendiaries, but eventually developed phosphorous versions as well.

"Two other types of large incendiary bomb were introduced later in the War and were first deployed against local targets during the Baby Blitz of 1944. The most widely used of these were the two variants of the PHOSPHORBRANDBOMBE or Phosphorus Incendiary Bomb which were the same shape and size as 50 and 250 kg high explosive types, and therefore designated Brand C 50 and Brand C 250. Both contained a liquid filling consisting of Phosphorus, Oil and Rubber Solution, the Phosphorus being carried in glass bottles that were designed to break on impact and mix with the main filling. The bomb then split open scattering the contents, which ignited spontaneously, over an area of some metres.

The second type was the SPRENGBRANDBOMBE or Explosive Incendiary Bomb which was designated Spreng-Brand C 50, being were the same shape and size as a 50 kg H.E. These complex weapons used a Black Powder charge to expel and ignite the 6 large magnesium-elektron Fire Pots and 67 smaller magnesium incendiary elements which they dispersed over a radius of about 100 yards. The nose of the bomb also contained 20 lbs of TNT which exploded after a time delay."

http://www.fishponds.freeuk.com/nluftbri5.htm

 

I understand you TheRedBaron, so you can surely imagine that in many other cities in Germany there was a similar situation. I also lost relatives in the war, most of them in Russia. I have german and russian relatives, so I heard about the fate of both sides.
I never said, that bombing is comparable with massacres in concentration camps. You can replace the comma with "and". And also I do not use the word massacre as a synonym for concentration camps. There were also massacres outside the camps.

And don't even try to put me into the far right corner. I don't detract from the Nazi crimes and I won't repeat it any more.

That's typical, if you start to talk about german casualties you are supposed to be a Nazi, ignorant or a revisionist.

The truth is that people like you ignore the facts which they don't whant to see.

 

What fact am I ignoring?

 

That allied forces (US, British, Russian) commited war crimes as well.

 

Not the only ones. And please do not mention those two Atomic bombs which saved the lives of millions of people.

Germany introduced the concept that enemy civilians were part of the war effort and, therefore, could be subjected to hostilities as well. The other nations accepted this concept and DO NOT consider that Germany committed any war crimes by doing so (at least in the case of strategic bombing).

Now, why are the people of Dresden different than the people of Warsaw or London? They were more, yes. But if Germany could have possessed a strategic bomber force like that of the RAF Bomber Command then I bet there would have been 60.000 people killed in London one night and not in Dresden.

Why is Dresden a war crime and Guernica, Rotterdam or Stalingrad are not?

Alright, let's see:

Germany starts a genocidal total war unprovokedly. Its main aim is not to impose German hegæmony in the continent, but the physical extermination of entire races, the enslavement of others and the destruction of western civilization.

Just in this aspect, you can say that one side was indeed worse than the other, morally and humanly worse, far worse.

In my view, the destruction of the above, the greatest evil ever, was worth almost anything. To destroy utter evil you can use utter evil. All means available and every possible way could be used. Churchill knew it. Stalin knew it.

However, the Western Allies didn't go down to the German's level and they did not use utter evil to destroy utter evil. They used legitimate war strategies and respected international law. Of course, not all these actions and measures were as clean or morally correct for 'the perfect world's standards', but they helped to achieve the end: the destruction of the Nazi Plague.

The Western Allies did commit war crimes, as all nations do when they involved in the worst thing mankind can do (war), but when one compares their general behaviour during war with that of their enemies, then THERE'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. Specially, there's a difference when the Allies' and the Axis' war objectives are put on the table.

The Allies were fighting for:

1) Destroy a direct threat to their nation's existance.
2) Give back national sovereignity and freedom to countries which had been unprovokedly invaded and sistematically raped.

I already listed what the Axis was fighting for.

Now, there's a very big difference between one side's reasons to fight the war and the other. And there's a very big difference in the way both sides fought the war.

Let's compare the Western Allies' occupation of Germany and Germany's occupation of other countries:

Most of Germany's attrocious crimes were lightly punished or ignored and she was welcomed into the community of great nations soon after WWII. She was helped in re-construction, her economy was started with her former enemies' capital and she was helped to develop a new and efficient political (DEMOCRATIC) system. She was given back her sovereignity and even allowed to re-build her armed forces!

Do I need to say what Germany did to occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland or Yugoslavia?

Considering that Germany STARTED THE WAR and the way she carried it out, she was treated more than mercifully by the victors, undeservedly. Even if Germany paid a huge price for the destruction and death she caused. But that was the huge price and the punishment for WWII, one more German contribution to European History.

Let's analyse a practical case which involves all these things:

May 1945, US foot soldiers shot 146 German unarmed POWs at the concentration camp at Dachau.

Technically, it is a war crime, because these people were unarmed and were oficially prissoners of war protected by the Geneva convention.

But:

1) Were the US 'war-criminals' invading unprovokedly the sovereign state of Dachau or liberating a concentration camp where 100.000+ had been killed since 1933?

2) Were those German prisoners combat soldiers or the camp's guards who had stopped torturing and killing people just hours before?

3) Did these POWs deserved some better treatment, when they had been denying the slightiest human mercy to thousands of people for years? No. These 146 paid the price for their crimes at the hands of foot soldiers severely affected by the circumstance, but they were the exception, not the rule. Most German SS POWs were treated well, not starved or beaten to death, or gassed or shot in the head.

Yes, the Western Allies commit 'war crimes'…

Nor it is justification for ME, FRIEDRICH, in 2005. But I bet it was a justification for Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Hermann Göring or 'Bomber' Harris.

I want to let you know that I don't think you're either a Nazi simpathizer or a revisionist. Nor I am a resented half-German invaded with self-hatred.

My grandfather was not a nazi. He was no member of the government nor a member of the NSDAP, but an average German citizen who supported the German government and served in the German armed forces. He was a Nazi German who lived in Nazi Germany and who fought to defend it.

I know it for sure. Let's leave it that way.

I am half-German. I was born and raised in Germany and I do know what you mean. That is precisely why, once I deeply know what Germany DID and WHAT WAS DONE to Germany, that I not only say 'We earnt it', but 'we paid a very cheap price'.

 

Staffenburg,

When did I ignore Allied war crimes?

I dont consider the bombing of Dresden to be a war crime.

If it was, why did the Allies not prosecute the Germans who bombed Rotterdam, London, Warsaw... etc...

No response to the rest of my post so I assume you agree that the responsibility lies with Adolf Hitler for starting the war in the first place...

 

Red Baron is bang on, we do not ignore allied war crimes, however Dresden was not a war crime because it didn't break any rules of war.

As for your previous post I think you will find that EVERYONE on this board appreciates and remembers German war dead. It is always a tragedy that civilians die in war. This does not however mean it is a war crime, killing millions of innocents who play no part in your enemies war effort is a crime, killing civilians who actively support it however is not.