Allied Terror bombing of Germany

Thank you for clearing that up. Gordon Duffs website is very anti-semitic. If you scroll down the article you posted on his website, his followers who post their comments of adulation for the man are of hate filled antisemitic propaganda.

And to answer your question whether those who believe that the allies terror bombed German cities are Holocaust deniers, no. I happen to see much of the argument. I have given sources to support my claim that the Holocaust and complete capitulation of Germany was the foremost thought, and possibly reason, for the heightened growth of Allied bombing runs on military installations including Dresden. Your source claims that 400,000 perished in Dresden in one day.

 

Well there was not much to look on, tbh from others views, one guy even gave a Nato link who is hardly neutral on the issue).. I had/have supplied severall links and severalls videos (at least 20-25 in all the threads). People said it is not valid. So it doesn´t matter which links I give it will be not researched anyway.....(probably because said people have already formed their opinion on this topic and won´t consider stuff that is contrary to their views. Which I understand btw. I don´t know the English word, but we say Indoktrination for that) OT off.

On topic:

Well if (some) people constantly defend killing of civilians on here, I came to above conclusion. I say some people, not all. Maybe I am wrong...let´s see how it develops. Thanks for your input, I admit I am not perfect, too in this regard

@
KJ Jr: Will delete link .. However I glanzed over the comments and none of them denies holocaust.....just for the record. As well what you write "military installations" in Dresden, this isn´t true, it is also not true for Hamburg or 100 other cities. We had already severall people here that supplied info on the RAF doctrine, maybe you should re-read it.

 

The "guy" is the author of the article that you have used to support your argument.

 

"Thank you Gordon for reminding your readers about the Holocaust that actually happened. Isn’t it interesting not 1 major politician attended a memorial for the Holocaust that happened, but dozens of politicians attended memorials for the one that didn’t? This speaks volumes as to who actually controls the western world."

Direct quote from comments section. Seems like denial to me.

 

@
kamakiri: I see you quoted my post, but I don´t understand what you are saying, if you mean me, can you clarify? Thanks. Or do you mean the person who wrote that list I linked is also a holocaust denier ? I am at a loss now. Guess I better do not link anything here anymore. So I delete this link too. Can someone advise which sources and/or links are ALLOWED at all here ????

@
KJ Jr: Haven´t found this under the Dresden article, but already deleted the link.....thanks again.

 

And yet you would have us believe that your videos of commentator's opinions from RT are neutral on the issue? Opinion is not fact. RT is not neutral. How is it, you hold others to a higher standard than yourself? If you could actually provide evidence to the contrary, you'd find you'd sway a great number of people. Yet you have repeatedly failed to do so, and furthermore, dodged answering some very poignant questions.

Finishing of with yet another snide comment (this time, about indoctrination), is not going to win anybody over to your point of view.

Given your repeated reference to biased sources with vitriollic opinions, you want to be careful when you accuse people of being indoctrinated.

 

Please refer to the evidence of eg. MH17 again (but not here it is too OT, use the UKR thread please, will take a look I promise) I have seen no proof at all in this particular thread so I am certainly happy if you finally give it Also I think the German word means something like that: If you are exposed to a certain view or opinion over a long time, you may believe it without actuall evidence. That is quite human nature, so I don´t see why you seem upset....guess a language problem. Better for me to go back to languages I can write better....

 

Undoubtedly they killed, looted and raped.But it was much more chaotic,a spontaneous revenge from soldiers who just witnessed 4 years of nazi madness in their country.Very soon great effort from above was put into this type of behavior eradication.I say again if it was literally eye for an eye, none would've survived in the area where Red army came.

If we approach the subject from perspective of individuals, human beings, it is a catastrophe. If I imagine children, or completely innocent people who even hated the Reich burning, crippled ,families destroyed it makes me sick and sad. But that is IMO unrelated to this subject because we aren't talking on this level. Also from today's perspective those bombings were definitely war crimes, but than again was also pretty much anything happening in WW2 (in the east literally anything). Again, Germans started the war, then they imposed the way it was going to be conducted and therefore couldn't expect or have moral right to expect different conduct of their enemies. Total war isn't some phrase invented by apologists of allied bombing. It is precisely defined principle in military science, which clearly defines civilian sector as asset of the enemy, and therefore legitimate target. Who imposed this kind of warfare, and is it possible for other side to play completely fair and still hope to win?? Maybe yes today in asimetrical wars against some barbarian tribesmen, but certainly not than against seemingly unstoppable german army and genocide that was following in it's wake.

 

In hindsight I agree, things are clear cut. During total war, the lines are definitely blurred.

"As far as Dresden being a militarily significant industrial centre, an official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel."

(Wiki, Taylor)

This is the information and intelligence that many Allied personnel were receiving.

 

Well there were certainly millitary and industrial targets in Dresden. However those were not comparable to the Ruhr or Kassel.

I found another link (which I hope isn´t anti.semitic too):
“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”
RAF January 1945
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_dresden.htm


So it seems Dresden was to show the might of the RAF. Because the other reason they state is invalid, there was no advance at all, to the contrary the city was flooded with refugees.....that´s pretty cynical imo.

 

"Seeking to establish a definitive casualty figure, in part to address propagandisation of the bombing by far-right groups, the Dresden city council in 2005 authorized an independent Historian commission to conduct a new, thorough investigation, collecting and evaluating all possible sources by modern scientific methods. The results were published 2010 and stated that a minimum of 22,700 and a maximum of 25,000 people were killed."


@Bundesluffwaffe:

You do know what the word "incidentally" means?

"as something that is less interesting or less important." (my emphasis)

"in an incidental manner : not intentionally"

"Not incidentally, the market slump was followed by widespread layoffs."

So it seems that it was not bombed to show the might of the RAF, other than it was realized that it would. Which is not the same at all. I drink water because I'm thirsty, not because it causes me to incidentally pee after a few hours. Your logic has me drinking to pee.

Do you think the Ruhr had not already been bombed? Kassel was bombed already 1942, so what is your point with that comment?

 

My point was, that maybe the Ruhr or Kassel (IF you target the industries and not the whole city plus children) were legitimate targets. But I admit, I don´t know the laws exactly to judge it. Dresden or other smaller cities which barely had any industry were almost annihalted too tho. Thansk for the explaination of the word, you are right, I better post in my own language so maybe I can make myself clearer and people would understand better

 

Hi

Sorry, it's actually a book that I just finished reading. I apologize if I'm linking stuff unintentionally -- I don't mean to and I definitely am not here to stir up trouble.

Cheers.

 

Gentlemen, and others, lets stay on topic.

The Allied Bomber Baron's, Harris being the most notable, had deep philosophical and practical reasons for keeping their 4 engine heavies out of the tactical realm of operations.

First their crews were not trained for it, nor were most of their aircraft well suited for the task. The most effective tactical support aircraft is one that can operate close to the ground.

The problem, and one never really solved during this period, is that ground targets such as tactical military units, are very small, often dispersed, difficult to see from ground clutter and mobile. In the time it takes for 500 bombers to take off, form up and reach a laager area, your target could be 20 miles down the road. These targets also offered few good navigation and aiming points for the bombers to effectively deliver their loads. Worse BDA's are problematic. Yes you can see a bunch of bomb craters, but what else. Crew moral was a serious issue and being able to show them results were a key factor.

In every significant amphibious operation, Heavies were used to 'soften up' the target, yet they never achieved the results desired in part because of the size and dispersal of those targets and because they were already hardened to withstand naval bombardment. Nor were they effective against most naval targets like ships who had nothing to hide under besides the weather. There was some success in attacking troops engaged with allied ground forces, but this came at considerable expense to the troops they were trying to help.

Its easy too say they should have been used elsewhere, but far harder to prove they could be effective in such roles.

 

Thank the gods for voices of reason. I don't know who you are but there are few cases in which I agree 100%but this is one of them.

 

Imho if the Allies had bombed OIL targets from 43 on instead children, the war would a) be over much faster and b ) Allies wouldn´t have to commit war crimes in burning complete cities. It is proven that OIL bombing (and maybe u-boat targets which really threatened the UKs survival) was the most effective and experts are still wondering why they didn´t target these honestly from 43 to 44. War would be over in end of 44 latest. Cause no fuel - no war.

Yes, they targeted oil, but only later and the effect came too late - of course in 45 Germany was suffering severe fuel shortage. But that goal could be reached earlier if the effort had been made instead commiting war crimes. There was the "big week" which targeted plane industries eg. Well, yes some factories were hit hard, but still the output of fighters increased. There should have been a "big 2 months" and destroy oil starting in 43 (es early as possible when LR escorts came to the frontline P47/51)