Waffen SS foreign volunteers.

One more thing to take into consideration is this:

If Japan would in fact surrender (something with which I still have my doubts about) prior to an Allied invasion of the Japanese mainland, I would consider it quite likely that a situation not unlike that in Germany after WWI would occur. Since Germany was never actually invaded during WWI, and the German progress in 1917 had been quite amazing, many civilians and junior officers alike believed that the gouvernment had sold them out.
Since Bushido culture considers surrender very disgraceful, I would imagine that the population would be very suspecious towards a gouvernment which had allowed a surrender before many Japanese civilians hadn't even seen an Allied soldier (the bombings of the major Japanese cities aside). Therefore, I believe that a surrender, even if allowed to keep the imperor, could have risked both starting a Japanese civil war and alienate them from the western world. This would have destroyed Japan.

Dropping the nuclear bombs made it quite clear to the Japanese population that the Allied forces were far more powerful than the Japanese forces (at least in terms of equipment).

 

Anytime you go to war, civilians always suffer. But the Germans and Japanese really went out of their way to committ incredibly atrocious crimes. While Dresden and Hamburg were undoubtedly civilian/refugee targets, they were not that different than the Luftwaffe's fire-bombing of British cities 3 years earlier.

 

Well I think that apart from the fact that the Hamburg raids killed around 10 or 20 times the amount of people as any British city that got bombed I can see where you are coming from.You are right.

 

There is a new book out, "Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945", by Frederick Taylor. I haven't read it yet (I just found it at the library where I'm writing this post), but the thumbnail sketch on the inner flap of the dust jacket is interesting. According to Mr. Taylor, the horror of Drsden is largely a myth! He does not deny the raid took place, but states that the number dead was exaggerated by Goebbels (about 25,000-40,000 instead of 100,000). Also, he apparently says that tales of Allied pilots strafing German civilians as they fled were false. And that Dresden was a city of considerable military importance, both as a transportation hub and a major producer of armaments and military provisions. Y'all might want to go ahead and read it yourselves, since I have no idea when I'll finish the book (I have two others as well). I reckon that this work will raise some hackles amongst those who study WW2, if nothing else.

 

Corpcasselbury,

I thought the Dresden bombing killed around 30,000 people. I've never heard of a 100,000 figure before. I didn't even know that Goebbels claimed that figure.

I still think the Dresden bombing was unneccessary at that late stage in the war ( the war was already won by then and it was just a matter of time before the Soviets reached Berlin) and Dresden WAS a transportation hub for thousands of refugees fleeing from the advaning Red Army.

I can't see that had the bombing of Dresden NOT happened that it would have made any difference to the situation. It's not as if the Germans were planning a mighty counter attack in that area. I guess that no book will convince me that Dresden had to happen.

 

I'm just telling you what the dust jacket said, Lyndon; I still haven't read it. I may not, either; I seem to be in one of my "read fiction only" moods right now.

 

Ahhh, I sometimes have those modes too! :lol:

 

Post subject

as someone who at the time lived a few miles from coventry, during the Blitz, (had a mate who spent 13 hours under bombing, ruined a potential Royal Navy career by deafness) I can't believe that any of us in England
gave a toss about what happened to Dresden, as a German friend said to me a few years ago "The Blitz Chickens came home to Roost"
Rotterdam, Liverpool, London,Guernica, how many names do you want?
Incidentally we got the spare bombs from Coventry on the village.

 

The idea of war being a disaster for towns and cities isn't a 20th Century idea. For most of history if a army when through your area it was a disaster regardless of which side it was on since it would strip the landscape of food leaving the locals nothing.

 

Re: Post subject

Yeah but Trackpin, what the Germans did to Britain during the bombing raids was nothing compare to vice versa. Around 66,000 died in Britain as a result of bombing during WW2. Well over 600,000 (ten times the amount) died in Germany. Yes....the same women, children and oldies but in greater numbers. Nothing to be proud of.

How many died in Coventry? Compare that to how many died in Hamburg and Dresden. :cry:

Coventry was not on the same level so please lets get this idea straight.

 

post subject

I'm not on about comparisons between Dresdon and Coventry or any where else for that matter, I'm telling you, right or wrong, how we felt at the time.If you had been there I rather feel that you would have felt the same, it was not paint ball and computer games, there was a war on.

 

The Canadians at Dieepe were ordered to blindfold and tie the hands behind the backs of any German prisoners of war, then shoot them in the back of the head.
This was to send a message to the Germans that nothing short of unconditional surrender wouild be accepted.

With al this said one thing is too clear and has never failed history: "Evil will always beget evil". I thought the Allies were fighting the last world war because they wanted to restore civilization, democracy and freedom to the world, accomplishing evil acts says one thing to me, that stands out very clearly, that the powers to be in the 'Free World' were as murderous as the Nazis. Perhaps just not on the same scale, after all these same leaders knew damn well that Stalin was another mass murderer and did nothing militarily to stop it when they had the entire western hemisphere to eliminate him.

 

Re: post subject

Yes, and I have already established that I do not castigate the pilots or whatever and there WAS a war on.I haven't said anything different.Read all my other posts.Things were done on both sides that weren't right but being in a wartime situation those things were done.All I'm saying is that Hamburg and Dresden were the two examples that were not right in my view.If civilians get killed while strategic bombing is taking out factories etc then that's unfortunate but it has to be done for the long term good.The night time bombing of Hamburg was totally different and specifically designed to kill as many civilians as possible while creating a fire storm that spread throughout the civilian part of the city.It had NO strategic purpose or result.Dresden was the same.

You could say the same thing about SS Das Reich massacring all those French civilians at Oradour. In that case it actually acheived a puropse because the resistance hardly bothered SS Das Reich ever again during their time in France so they could well be within their rights to also say "well war is war and it achieved it's purpose". However we all agree that what happened at Oradour was totally wrong and dispicable but no different to Hamburg in my view.


Mutant Poodle,

You are right in what you say about Stalin. He was as evil as Hiler but somehow that was ok as he was on our side.

 

Was not Dresden a major rail hub?

Admittedly it was rather late in war to be overly worried, but apparently the Soviets wanted the marshalling yards destroyed

Edit:- I am neither condoning nor condemning the raids - just checking out the 'why'. The casualty figures (as has been stated) were only as high as they were due to the numbers of refugees that had been moved into the city, and were without air-raid shelters of any kind. One does wonder why the Germans moved them into the city - why not camp them just outside? Surely they are aware that Dresden is a potential target for the bombers? Were they hoping that the presence of refugees would keep us away? Did we know the refugees were there?

Just a few questions to keep us going!

Straight answers please, I know (and we have kinda discussed) the humanitarian (and military) pros & cons of mass raids on cities.
Plus this topic is the Waffen SS!