Bombing of Dresden--and for what?

Hi E, Wotnochad, Redcoat,uksubs,

E, I never said that Dresden did not have any defenses. I was saying that what that History Channel Documentary - that which was hosted by Arthur Kent, had tried to imply that the City had no Flak or Fighter defenses = meaning that supposedly everything they had, was sent here or there as replacements and such.

Wotnochad, im not really sure how to answer you on this? Like I said, that documentary implied that the City of Dresden was without protection.

The only thing in my last post was an opinion in that the reason why the 2nd raid was timed so shortly after the first, was because it was meant nothing more than to terrorize and kill as many civilians as they could.

Redcoat, like I said above, IM not the one saying the city had no defenses, that documentary hosted by Arthur Kent of The History Channel-was the source that said that-not me ;-))

Uksubs, the fire-bombing of Tokyo was a different story and cannot be compared with the fire-bombing of Dresden. Now, the fire-bombing of Dresden can be compared with the bombing of Coventry. Other than that, im not sure how to reply to you either ;-))

No ruffeled feathers, chads, coat-tails or subs? good ;-)) And just to make sure that you know it-the only thing that is my opinion that is from my posting from yesterday, was that the 2nd raid was nothing but a terror/murder raid. Also, to make sure there is no possibility of any confusion about yesterdays posting is that I was not the one who claimed that Dresden had nothing to defend it with, that was only something that I saw and heard that was on that History Channel Documentary about the bombing of Dresden; that was hosted by Arthur Kent.

Geeze guys, ease up a bit on this ol geezer. You always want me to make extremely long postings just to insure that I am understood properly ;-))

 

For once, I agree 100% - Tokyo cannot be compared with Dresden.

' No other air attack of the war, either in Japan or Europe, was so destructive of life or property.....No matter how you slice it, you're going to kill an awful lot of civilians. Thousands and thousands......Ninety percent of the structures are built of wood. Very flimsy construction. ....use both Napalm and phosphorous.....Those Napalm M-47s...napalm will splatter further, cover a greater area....magnesium makes the hotter fire, gets things going where probably the Napalm might not...we don't think that their night fighters amount to anything....

.....the situation was out of control within thirty minutes...it was like an explosive forest fire in dry pine woods. The racing flames engulfed ninety-five fire engines....burning up nearly sixteen square miles of the city...more than two hundred and sixty-seven thousand buildings....all the people living around that factory where where they make shell fuses..that's the way they disperse their industry, little kids helping out, little bits of kids.....'

Old Harris was really bloodthirsty, wasn't he ? Except that this refers not to Dresden, but to Tokyo, where a minimum of 83,000 died in one raid.

( I've extracted all the above from 'Mission With LeMay' by General Curtis E LeMay with McKinlay Kantor, New York 1965 ).

 

This reminds me of a quote from WW1 British officer that he hasn't seen too many German prisoners kept alive, and that only good German is a dead one. So really where does it lead us? War and war crimes going together since beginning of times to this day perhaps. It is convenient to label one side as good, the other as bad.

 

I read somewhere that "War doesn't affect the players, it affects the spectators as well." Still, Tokyo was the captial of Japan, and probably had a lot of industry flowing in it, whereas Dresden had little or no military/strategic value whatsoever. Neither attacks can truely be justified, but by saying this, it would be like saying all bombings are unjustified, and that all invasions on popuulated areas are unjustified. Dresden and Tokyo is just what stands out in terms of horror. I read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse V, which deals with the Dresden bombings. The character, Billy, miracuously survives the fire bombing as a POW in a bunker. He says, "There is no Dresden." Very good book; I would recommend it to anyone.

 

Otto think this thing has blown itself out ............... time to close

 

Why ?????
There has been no offensive, or insulting remarks by any of the recent posters, so why does it need to close ?

 

ah but and it's a BIG BUTT redc

it appears to me this will take it's usual nasty course in time someone will read another posts wrongly and then........... whatever

 

Well then I will add one thing to this quick Erich! I agree Slip, but I think we're beating a dead horse here!

 

So people get mad about dresden what about nazi death squad's killing allied troops in barn's and orchard's ??

 

No insults intended from my direction but, my one final posting about this-unless someone posts something intelligent about this.

Anyway, did you NOT read my lengthy posting located somewhere above?

And have a nice day ;-))

PS, I forgot to mention but, thank you Redcoat for the extra information.

 

I have read the first couple of pages and the last of this post. I am sorry for the personal losses posted in the first couple of pages of this thread. I cannot remember anyone mentioning how armies are made. Armies are made by civilians. The way to stop armies from remanning is to eliminate the source of men. Look at all the fighting and relentless bombing in Germany and Japan and still the enemy had the will and ability to fight. To put an end to this madness we dropped the bomb on Tokyo(sorry not Tokyo but 2 bombs on Japan, you know where) and bombed Dresden and any other large cities. As a country you don't fight to see how long you can drag it out, you fight with overwhelming force and may I say the most barbaric tactics you can to lessen your own losses. Hitler himself was recruting children in the latter stages of the war. This madness and allied losses would have continued for ever. We, the allies, did what was needed to cut the head off of the snake. Are the dead in Berlin any less tragic, because it was Hitler's headquarters and heavily defended? I think not. War is hell gentlemen and I hope we would do the same again if we ever go into another World War. The fact, even though I am not totally sure, we timed our attacks to kill and prevent the rescue workers from helping, maximizes the total destruction of the enemy. So, I quess, even though Dresden was not known for it military factories it was in fact a source of military men, women and Hitler's children. So in my book it is in fact a military target. My Dad flew 56 missions, was shot down and gave up 13 months of his life as a POW, for this country. I guess I am a little offended that some on this thread would paint a picture of a less than honorable light on his or anyone else's efforts. We were fighting a country sworn to Hitler and total destruction was the goal.
Good day

 

..well said, very well put !

" Does a state of war really justify the killing of defenseless civilians?" to paraphrase Mr Evans original post.....well, yes , in the case of Nazi Germany, yes it does ..even if admittedly there was an element of retribution in the punishment meted out to the German civilian population at the end it frankly beggars belief that people still believe there could possibly have been any other response ...we were fighting a regime that was slaughtering millions of civilians in death factories - a regime supported and sustained - as just pointed out - by those millions of civilians living in those German cities .....I'm reminded of a Polish officer's comments at Falaise ....' Falaise was revenge for Poland...and revenge was good..!'

Agonising over the wholesale slaughter of German civilians specifically was/is a moral viewpoint, the luxury of which was denied the British throughout the war....
Our American friends sometimes forget that the British were on their own against the might of Nazi Germany for nearly two years between the fall of France and Pearl Harbor....'terror' bombing was the only avenue available to Bomber Command. The USAAF hid behind a pretense that collateral casualties were a regrettable but unavoidable tragedy of war. The British also tried surgical strikes with their cadre of highly capable precision bombing units, such as 617 Squadron's Dambusters.. ironically, destroying the dams was ultimately an object in laying waste to an entire region. Quite simply the technology to do anything else was not available..

While the bombing of Dresden ultimately made no difference to the outcome or even pace of the war, the moral repugnance that is attached, almost wholly, to RAF Bomber Command serves unfairly to exonerate the Americans who continue to protest that theirs was a precision campaign; ...as already demonstrated in this thread the Americans went on to unleash the "area-bomb" par excellence - Tokyo fire-bombing & nuclear weapons that devastated entire cities. Significantly for the critics of area bombing these raids of course brought about the Japanese capitulation........

 

While awful, from my understanding Dresden was an accident? It was considered a military target but turned out to be far less important then originally thought.

While a tragedy and a military blunder it is far from a war crime. Dresden was not bombed with the intension of killing the population but to destroy German war capablity. The Nazi death camps were exactly that!

Afterall Stalingrad was bombed by the luftwaffe and 40,000 civillians lost their lives in that raid.

 

It certainly was not an accident, any more than Lubeck, Hamburg, Pforzheim and any of the others were. I'm not getting into rights and wrongs but let's not deceive ourselves : WWII was a very nasty business and Bomber Command knew exactly what they were doing.

 

I agree with what the last several posters have said about this. Im also hoping that some above have also read that what that documentary that I saw said, if not my opinion or belief on the bombing of Dresden. However, when a raid was timed just to kill rescue workers, that is not something that should be said as being for "the war effort."

Same thing can be said about when the Luftwaffe started bombing London. They did not start the blitz for their war effort-as far as I know, the first bombing was a total mistake. However, on that, the Brits had a valid reason for bombing Berlin. Whether any of these bombings is totally right or wrong-I don't know? All I know is what I have seen, read, heard and believe. You can stick a fork into my eye, but you will no be able to change my opinion.

Also, as one poster said bout not reading every post in this topic, you might want to go back and do so. You will see that my opinion is mine like yours is yours and, that I do not, not once, ever say that I fully believe everything I heard about this subject; that is portrayed on the History Channel.

 

Well said Jeff!! well said.

I want to make a kind of comparison here. How come I never hear anyone talk about the Russian Kapitan of a Sub, that sank the Wilhelm Gustloff-and not talk about that being an act of pure unsolicited murder. That had absolutely ZERO to do with the war effort. If I remember correctly, I think the Kapitan of that Russian sub, was sacked by the Soviet higher command.

And directing this back to the Gent who said (in other wording of course) that said the carefully timed 2nd bombing of Dresden was not a murder raid. I'd like to know what you think about Wilhelm Gustloff matter? Also, I too had relations serfving in the war.

My Grandfather-who originally came here from Norway and fought as a Doughboy in the trenches in WWI to get his American citizenship. In WWII, he was in the Merchant Marines and had a ship torpedoed out from under him by U 181. The ship in question was the SS Fort Lee-Nov 2 1944.

My Father was in the 8th Airforce and was a Ball Turret Gunner. My Father participated in several raids-I can't remember all the names except that I know he flew over Schweinfurt, Friedrichshafen and Wilhelmshaven. My Dad was also a Korean War Vet.

My Dad's Brother (my Uncle) was in the 80th Inf Div under the command of Simon Bolivar Buckner. He fought among other places-on Okinawa.

My Mother's Brother (another Uncle) was a Captain in the US Navy-and served in the Pacific. In what capacity, I do not know?

Another Uncle-the Gent who married my Mother's Sister, was in the 101st Airborne Div and was also at Bastogne.

My roommates Father was in a Cav Recon unit riding one of those 6 wheeled armored cars in some unit in Patton's command.

My roommates uncle was killed on Christmas Day as a member of the 101st @ Bastogne.

I remember my Father being against the 2nd Dresden raid-even though he too fought against the Germans.

Mass murder was not the Allies goal.

 

Oh absoluetly, I guess I was pointing out the fact that it was primarily bombed for its military and industrial contribution to the German war effort.

Had the allies known that Dresden was not as significant as the info claimed, would it have still been bombed?

Afterall, the targets were the military installations not civilians?