Bombing of Dresden--and for what?

Great points Martin,as with the recent Market Garden debate it seems again that a senior British Commander has taken a hammering,when once again it would appear that the decision wasn't actually his alone to make.

Paul

 

Its odd you say that Martin. I saw the tail end of a documentary the other day, no idea what it was called, but it was about Bomber Command. It clamed that Churchill questioned the need for raids such as Dresden. And it also clamed that Bomber Comand was almost forgotton in the celebrations after the war. As though there roll was smething to be embarresed about.

Found what it was. It was Saturday nights Timewatch-Bombing Germany.

[ 17 July 2002, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Bish OBE ]

 

Didn't see the documentary, Bish - but it sounds like the same old story trotted-out again !

TV docu-producers in particular seem to love being 'selective' about their sources ( bit like David Irving, really ), or just plain lazy about research.

The Dresden episode in fact paints Churchill in a very poor light indeed.

What actually happened ? As per my posting above, Churchill issued the 'baste the Germans' memo. Sinclair, the Secretary of State for air, replied that these Eastern German cities could be left to the Russian Tactical airforces, with Allied attacks 'under consideration'. Churchill fired a furious and sarcastic memo back demanding immediate action.

'With the Prime Minister obviously on the warpath, events moved quickly' says official RAF historian, Denis Richards.

After the raid, an American Associated Press correspondent at SHAEF misrepresented an official comment, with US headlines appearing reading : 'Deliberate Terror-Bombing of German Population Centres As Ruthless Expedient Of Hastening Hitler's Doom'.

Six weeks after the raid, with the end of the war imminent, Churchill sent a minute to the Chiefs of Staff saying : -

'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities for the sake of increasing the terror...should be reviewed....The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing....'

'Coming from one whose eagerness to bomb cities in Eastern Germany had precipitated the attacks, this startled and shocked the Chiefs of Staff' ( Richards ).

Portal persuaded Churchill to withdraw the minute ( no mean feat ! ) and reissue a less contentious note. But the 'original' remained on file and has been exhumed post-war and misused time and again out of context to 'prove' that Dresden was 'nothing to do with Churchill'.

This is now widely recognized as not being Churchill's 'Finest Hour'. But don't forget, he was first and foremost a politician . . . . .

Post war, of course, bombing was not considered 'PC'. Harris was snubbed after the war ( but remained unrepentant to the end ) and the bomber crews, feted as heroes during the war, have been officially shunned ever since.

 

They mentioned this memo, ad its withdrawel. But they said nothing of what went on before. Its really annying that these things cannot get things right. People like us always have others to check things with or set things straight. We know better than to take one programe at face value. But most people who don't take such an interest as we do just except it as fact.

 

I dont think its right for anyone to shun the British pilots that were on that mission--it wasnt their faults or decisions on what happened--they did as they were told. (Sounds familiar does it not?) and I mean no disrespect on them of anykind. I think all of them detested such a mission, being the gentlemen that they were.

 

Agree Carl. This clam of just following orders does apply. There is a difference between someone who users that after being told to shot woman and chilren, and a pilot who is told to bomd this or that target. Its no diferent to an artllery gunner who is told to shell this or that target which happens to have civilians in the area. But the line between actaul murder and the deaths of civilians who are in the wrong place is becoming blured. And while its unfortunate, it happens. Although in some cases, it happens un-nessaceraly, as in Dresden. And here, its those at the top who should be held to account, not the guys on the ground, or in this case in the air.

 

[ 30. October 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

I am not going to get in a slugging match over this, but this thread has been debated for well over 35 plus years. As mentioned by Friedrich, Dresden was an old city full of charm and elegance and had no significant military value as a target whatsoever. In talking with two NJG 5 pilots and one from NJG 6 who were up on the night in February of 45; missed the RAF bomber stream totally, but watched the horror of the burning city / there remarks were ones of soldiers. The RAF struck a German city to put fear into the hearts of the German populace. it was a raid to bring the German people to the brink of crumbling, but it did nothing to effect them except to give the Germans more resolve into fighting for their homeland. With the issuance of the US bombing raid right after and the US fighter groups strafing innocent civilians, it proved to them that this mission would be successful in breaking and tearing down the moral attitude of the people both in the farm and the city, and the Allied air forces could strike anywhere as they pleased........

E

 

Well said bish--there is always a fine line between an act of war and an act of murder.

And I have a surprise for you which ill put to your attention--it has to do with Ribbon bars--and the Freikorps book by Schiffer. Also--I got a surprise today on one of my ribbon bars--I had not known I also had one that once belonged to the Grand Duke of Mecklinburg-Schwerin--ill explain in that topic put to your attention.

 

As I re-started this thread, can I just repeat that my intention was to straighten out the misperception of 'Harris personal vendetta against Dresden' which can be disproven by historical documentation, and NOT to get embroiled in the 'was bombing justified' debate which will go on forever.

( Talking of historic, non-militarily-significant places, anyone been to Bath......? )

 

The bombing of Axis cities to effect civilian casualties was the most shameful side of WWII.
The destruction of Dresden, etc. has to be examined in a post-war context, as it had no effect whatsoever on the military outcome of the war. There are those who argue that the goal was no more than simply the desctruction of the German people, and, in light of the few other possibilities, only this makes any sense.
Re: the A-Bomb, there is always historical misunderstanding. First, the decision to use the bomb was proposed and approved by politicians: there was no military support for it.
The military knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender. Their one condition: that they retain the Emperor and he not be tried for war crimes, never changed. The Allied demand for "unconditional" surrender was not met.

 

Isn't war itself the most shameful side of mankind?

I know this sounds a bit retorical, but I just had to say it. Both sides commit crimes in all wars ever fought. And both sides will always underline the crimes of their opponent. Thats the way it is.

 

Timo:
Agreed, but I am not talking about military conflict. Dresden was an attempt to destroy the German "people." Like Hiroshima, its ends were political. The term "Total War" means that civilians are involved in the conflict, but, it is not an excuse for genocide.

 

HI Guys, Please explain to me why you disapprove of the Dresden bombing.

 

You're kiddin'?

 

Hi Timo: I'm not kidding. I have studied the bombing of Dresden and would like to know why Dresden has been picked out and put under a magnifying glass. It was a legitimite target.

 

In this country, it has a lot to do with David Irving's book, 'The Destruction of Dresden', published in 1963.

It has entered the lexicon of war in the same way that 'Malmedy' has. In terms of damage/size/suffering, it's arguable that the Pforzheim raid was almost as destructive - but who mentions it today ?

 

Steve,
First of all, responsible military leadership does not specifically target civilians.
This becomes more unacceptable when talking about the civilian population of a defeated country.
There WAS a reason for Dresden, as there was a reason for Hiroshima, but, these are political discussions. Trying to legitimate these actions as military decisions is very difficult. Unless you want to argue that crippling Germany's ability to output porcelein figurines was of strategic significance.

 

Dresden was a legitimate military target. "As a primary communications center, Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines. The density, volume and importance of the Dresdon--Saxony railway system within the German geography and economy is seen in the facts that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in the area among major German states, ranked seventh in its railway milage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail." As far as civilians killed it was not at the top of the list, Hamburg has that distinction with 41,800 killed, Dresden had only 25,000. Another area to look at is that after WW1 Germany had suffered little damage to the country itself. By 1945, the attempt on Hitlers life had already taken place and there were rumors of Germany trying to sue for peace. Roosevelt and Churchill had decided early on the Germany would not be able to declare war and then sue for peace without having thier homeland also ravaged by war. It was hoped that after German civilians witnessed firsthand what was being done to other countries they would be less likely to support another war. Now, by no means do I like the idea of civilians dying but dont point to Dresden as some kind of mass murder plot on German civilians.

 

To all Germans posting to this board:
I apologize for the remarks made by my countryman, Steve. It is only because the USA has never had any of its cities firebombed or attacked by 1,000-plane raids that we have people who can talk so glibly about the deaths of 25,000 civilians. There are only a few times when I'm embarassed to be an American--this is one of them.
btw, Steve: By this time of the war, Germany had almost no locomotives and hardly any rolling stock remaining. Discussion of Germany's "railway system" in 1945 is academic at best.