The bombing of Dresden

Hello again!

Originally posted by beorna Dresden was bombed because it was a german city, which was possible to bomb, I repeat myself, and as Churchill said, just for the sake of terror.

this is a war crime they can not kill the people for fun does england today recognize this massacre ?

Originally posted by red clay Yomud, you cannot take anything out of context with WWII, and say it was right or wrong.  The Nazis initiated Total War, which by definition is a monstrous crime against humanity.  The Britts had the attitude that they were defending themselves.  "They sowed the wind, now they shall reap the whirlwind" "Air Marshall Harris". What about the Bombing of British cities, and the killing of British citizens, that triggered the retaliations? War, in any form is stupid and insane. An idiotic waste of resources and lives.  You can't revisit WWII some 60 years later and judge it with modern values.  That's revisionist bs.

What you write here is not correct, at least in parts.

I agree, that we have to see all in a context. Germany started the war with the attack on Poland, but it was not Germany that declared war on Great Britain or France. It was of course Germany that attacked the Netherlands unprovoked and that bombed Rotterdam on may 14th. But it was as well the UK that bombed Mönchengladbach on may 10th.

You write, that the nazis initiated a total war. That may be true for the east, but it is not correct for the west. Hitler forbade direct attacks on civilian targets during the BoB, even restricted for a time attacks on London. A total war was declared by Goebbels in february 1943. The politics of moral bombing by the UK started already in july 1941 and the area bombing doctrine was from february 1942, one year before Goebbels' Sportpalast speech.

You write as well, that Hitler's total war was a crime against humanity. Well, I agree, that the nazis committed great crimes, especially in the east. But you are using double standards here. You accuse the Nazis of a crime against humanity, which did not exist during WWII. But you excuse the area bombing directive which was as well against the HC, that should protect civilians and BTW, the allied decision to expell millions of germans after WWII fullfills as well the case of an ethnic cleansing, which is a crime against humanity, too. And different to the nazi crimes against humanity, were the expulsions committed after the London protocoll.

I agree, that the british people had the attitude, that they defended themselves and that the germans just reaped the whirlwind. Well, I said it above, it was not germany that declared war on the UK and it was not germany that bombed the UK first. And the mood of the British does not change the fact, that Germany before the Baedecker Blitz did only attack legitimate targets, but were accepting collateral damage like e.g. in Coventry. It was the UK which started the war against civilians. And we should perhaps look at the proportions. Germans killed 60,000 British civilians. The allies killed not only more than 70,000 french and Benelux civilians, but as well ca. 600,000 civilians in germany. Tens of thousands of them Foreign labourers and as well up to 75,000 children. Not to forget, that more than 140,000 allied pilots and crew members lost their lives.

It is till today taught, that Germany started the terror bombing. That is, why the British and American population is, even when they feel sorry for the civilian victims, not willed to excuse or to express a public apology or every sign of regret. But the queen contributed donations for the Frauenkirche in Dresden and, even if only in a short inscription on the new memorial for the bomber pilots who died during WWII, the civilian victims of the bombing war are remembered. Germany does not demand a british apology. Every nation has to decide for itself, for what they like to apologize and for what not. It would be for sure a proof of luminary to express regret for a criminal doctrine. Maybe the British and Americans will show such luminary one day, maybe they will not.

I agree again, that war in any form is stupid and insane. It is indeed a waste of lives. The wasted resources are less important, as I think. But maybe you think about the nations, which went on war after 1945. Wars did not end with the destruction of nazi-Germany.

I agree again, that we cannot use standards of today for WWII. Nevertheless can people today recognize wrong decisions of the politicians in 1939-1945 and later. Churchill and others decided as they thought it was right or as they thought it was necessary. It is now history. It is more annoying, that people today try to justify it.

Revisionism is a killer argument, cos revisionism is usually linked with the attempt to rewrite and falsify history. In germany e.g. we had for several decades the myth of a clean Wehrmacht. Today there is a lot research from Germany which investigates the share of the Wehrmacht of the nazi crimes. There is research about the entanglement of the economy in these crimes or about the role of the police, which was ignore for long. Shall we call this revisionist, too? I suppose not! So why do you like to call research about the bombing war revisionistic or maybe research about the entanglement of other european nations and governments in nazi crimes or about allied war crimes?


Edited by beorna - 03-Dec-2013 at 05:35

Originally posted by red clay I wanted Kirsten to see what revisionism has done and also how controversial a subject this actually is. Thank you.  You did an excellant job.

Then you are for sure able to show us my "revisionism", do you?

A bunch of very good postings! But no one mentioned the "book"!

And I as well.

I have read it, and it's science fiction.

Originally posted by Mountain Man Originally posted by beorna What I meant is, that Dresden laid outside the range of allied bombers and it was as well dangerous to fly such long distances over the enemy's territory. So Dresden was not a target of allied bombing. And of course there were many other cities which could be bombed, too and where nearer For starters, Dresden obviously did not "lie outside of the range of Allied bombers", since they bombed it. The British believed that the enemy civilian population in Europe was a legitimate target, just as America did in Japan.

Well, thank you very much for your information. But the distance from Britain to Dresden is ca. 950km, from Rome more than 1000 km. With a normal bomb freight it is of course possible for B17 and as well for a lancaster and there were as well a few hunter aircrafts which could manage these distance, but Dresden was already at the limits, because you have to calculate dogfights e.g. or other incidents.

Originally posted by opuslola so one must admit his descriptions should be taken as truth.