Dresden

The topic is "Dresden". There would be impossible to post a topic for each and every similar event that took place during whichever war or battle.

The fact that it was a "total war" doesn't justify, morraly, mass - murder.

Hell, there is nothing moral about any kind of war I would say!

And, Heraclius, from what I've read in History Books, the English were the first to attack German cities in 1940, which lead to the retaliation of the Luftwaffe, by Hitler, not Goering orders. A very bad decision as it led to the defeat of the Germans in the Battle of Britain.

As for every attack, that finally causes collateral damage, those who are responsible for it always blame these losses to circumstances. Well, since it is statistically easy to demonstrate that using powerful weapons against targets neighbouring non-intended victims leads to "collateral damage" wouldn't it be better to find a way to anihilate threats by using less dangerous methods, instead of saying "Yes in destroying our intended target  some of our bombs hit a ...... and unfortunately there where some .... inocent victims.  As you know, this happened before, we knew it wil happen this time but we have prepared this good explnation:

• there was intense enemy AAA fire (as if you attack a miltary target and expect it not to react)
• one of our pilots made a mistake (well, every pilot is a human being, humans make mistakes, even if they have excellent training. There are not superhumans who can't make mistakes! And anyway, the pilots that are bombing are executing orders at their best. If you don't send the bombers, you don't have boms falling over people)
• the missile suffered a technical malfunction which lead to it hitting the civillian target (same as with the pilots, there are no such things as 100% faultproof designs)
• we didn't knew that there were civillians near the target (so you knew exactly where the target was, what defenses ut had, and yet you didn't realize that there where kids playing nearby, or you assumed that at the moment of the attack they should have been in bed, and far far away from that place)
• the enemy purposely concentrated masses of civilians near the target so that they blame us for attacking innocent civillians (well the enemy wasn't morally right but we sure leveled the difference by accepting to kill those innocents, and blaming it all to him. It's as if he said, "You know, I'm a mass murderer but I don't have the means to commit mass-murder so I think you should do it for me. Anyway these are the people who I am supposed to be the beloved ruler. They don't really love me very much you know, so if you come and drop some bombs on top of them we might all be happy: I would have killed a lot of people, using your bombs, you would have tried to kill me (well if you succeed there will be other guys like me and I would have enjoyed a most interesting experience), my people would start to dislike you and love me (if we'll keep on doing these things they'll worship me and hate you so you won't need to justifiy it to anyone if you have them wiped out), you would have shown your military might, etc.")

I don't know but it seems that terrorist attacks are justified by those who order/revendicate them by very similar reasons:

• "We want to be free, your leaders don't allow us  to, so we blow you people into pieces until your leaders, which you cannot probably convince anyway, give us what we want (which by the way we are not very sure of and anyway it has nothing to do with most of the people we kill)"
• "The (US, UK, Israel, etc.) are responsible for our ...... and the death of our soldiers/people/women/children. So let them having it coming back. So what if there are people who actually are simpathetic to our cause among the victims? If they are with us they will understand that this is total war!"
• "Our lord/god/leader (pick which ever you want) is the One who gave us the task to make the infidels understand that ours is the right path. (we don't know that for sure but we must say it or we will be taught the right path the hard way)"
• "Our heroic freedom fighters ... (actually they are brainwashed or not very sane individuals who accept blowing/killing themselves in order to be accompanied on their last ride by the people around them)"

Of course, these are not accurate quotes, and there would have been many more others. Who ever agreeds with "Dresden", or any other similar event, should agree that terrorist acts are justified and accept that something like 9/11 or Madrid, or London are just necessary and unpleasant battles in a total war. Maybe they should join either the terrorist force that suits them better or the military force at hand?

Originally posted by Act of Oblivion   .."Who ever agreeds with "Dresden", or any other similar event, should agree that terrorist acts are justified" ...a very strong, and very, very sweeping statement, but again, i do not think that any balanced and well reasoned mind would ever justify such acts, but as historians, it is possible to understand why such things occured.....perhaps 'justify' is the wrong word here...perhaps we could ask why instead?....

I meant just that: "Dresdens" are not justified!!!

As for why such terrible things happen. Well I don't know, maybe we should ask for a solid statement, that could be satysfying, from those who think / do / order such things? One that we might accept as being right, perhaps?

*And I'm not a historian!

Originally posted by Komnenos Originally posted by Cezar And BTW, WWII is not to be blamed only on Hitler and Germany. Every responsible leader of the great powers of that age should have not allowed it to happen. If a general boycott would have been declared against the Third Reich ... That's indeed a interesting question: "Could WW2 have been prevented by the World Community or the more powerful and influential states at the time? And how?" The Nazis surely never made any secrets about their expansionist ambitions, the idea that the Germans were "ein Volk ohne Raum" (a people without space to live) is older than the Nazi movement, but was adopted by Hitler in the twenties. The invasion of the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, the annexion of Austria in 1938 and the occupation of the Sudetenland and the rest Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939, clearly demonstrated that The Nazi's postering were not only empty words. But what, realistically, could have done about it? Chamberlain's famous appeasement policies were probably the best proof that the few democratic sates left in Europe were both incapable and completely unwilling to intervene in any way. By 1938/39 it was already to late, the West had inactively watched as Germany re-armed and in 1939 already feared, somewhat unjustified, Hitler's military potential. In 1936, Hitler had the world fooled with his Olympic spectacle that portrayed Germany as a well organised and recovered country, if slightly authoritarian. And in 1933, when Hitler came to power, there was certainly a sigh of relief in the capitalist West, as the immanent danger of a Communist revolution and thus the potential spread of Communism throughout Europe was avoided. So when would the Democratic West have intervened? Or should the Soviet Union have done something about it? In the early and mid thirties it certainly was in no position to exert any pressure, be it diplomatic and militarily, on Germany. In any case, it would not have been tolerated by the West. I can't see occasion where an effective policy of hindering Hitler's agressive plans could have been implemented. An economic blockade in the mid thirties certainly could have postponed Germany's war preparations, but it would have been impossible to organise. Too many foreign companies, protected by their governments, had a vested interest in supplying Germany with raw materials and goods. In the end, we can only state the West's impotency, but still blame Nazi Germany for the outbreak and horrors of WW2. There was and still is no excuse.

Churchills opinion, in the work that got him the noble price, seems to be that the Munich agreement was the (last) crucial mistake. Czechoslovakia was highly industrialized, and that agreement (apart from showing Hitler that the west wasn't even ready to defend the last democracy east of switzerland) practically gave it into Hitler's hands - not instantly, but by the loss of the fortified border areas, a military defense of Czechoslovakia had become futile.

Originally posted by Act of Oblivion ..Dresden was awful, but so were many other acts during this war....many more destructive and horrific than the bombing of one particular German city......thats is why i think it is impossible to keep the topic of Dresden singled out....you HAVE to look at the bigger picture to help understand why... ...By the way, i thought using the word 'historian' might be a compliment, we are all here supposedly to discuss one of our favourite pastimes...i am sorry if my judgement was misplaced!!!!!...... ...Perhaps, as an exercise in understanding and therefore seeing a justification for conflict at the time, here is Britain's "solid statement" for going to war..... "I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street.  This morning, the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note, stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.  I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany�> > The situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel itself safe, has become intolerable.  And now we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part�> > May God bless you all.  And may He defend the right, for it is evil things that we shall be fighting against � brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution; and against them I am certain that right will prevail.> "> Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, speaking on the wireless, 3 Sept. 1939

Whoa! don't mistake me, I was only speaking of what "Dresdens" look like to me. "Make love, not war!" seems as one of the most imperative choices to me. Sounds great but it doesn't just seem to be applying to human society.

The fact that war had to be fought against those who started it, and that Britain, or the British, were right by all means in their fighis a concrete solid (or better) statement! And not just them! My country was tangled in that hellish frame of time  too! I had relatives that fought and were harmed during it! It is not that I say people should not fight when attacked/forced to/need to, I was just trying to show my strictly personal opinion about events like "Dresden". I didn't even tryed to say I was objective!

And thank you for your compliment, that's just how I took it, but the idea is that I'm not considering myself worthy of it. I'm just a regular guy who feels something about history .

Edited by Cezar

 First of all Act of Oblivion i'd like to commend you on some brilliant posts thus far, very warm welcome again to AE  

 -------

 Okay I think I should make this very clear, I am not saying Dresden was great or that the fact so many people died was a wonderful moment in history or a great triumph for the allies.

 My general point was it is not fair or proper to highlight this one act in 6 years of savage warfare, I was stunned bordering on insulted when (I believe correct me if I am wrong on the details) when a German politician recently said something along the lines of Britain should apologise for Dresden (again correct me if I am wrong here its somewhat hazy).

 I remember thinking how dare he ask for an apology from us, did not Germany go rampaging around europe invading country after country, exterminating millions and threatening the future even existance of many of its neighbours? and he wanted an apology from us?

 This was a man who very much missed the bigger picture here WW2 was not Dresden it was a damn sight bigger than one city that got bombed into the ground.

 The entire war was infinitely worse collectively than that one act, yet it is focused and highlighted as if it was THE big moment in WW2 to overshadow all others, I believe it is terribly unfair and short-sighted to make such a fuss over Dresden considering the collective horrors throughout the war in many many countries across the globe.

 

..hey Cezar...

..we are ALL regular guys!!!!..i would value and respect your opinion even if i disagreed with you, i would still try and consider what has been said, and try to look at it with reasoned eyes and a open mind....i hope i have shown that here.....even though on some points i have disagreed!!!..sometimes, i like to play devils advocate but without being offensive...because it often motivates more responses.....and i welcome that......

..respect to you for sticking to the subject.....it has proved difficult at times for you...but you had your standpoint.......personally, i admire that....if  we at times differ on our thoughts and opinions, there does not have to be 'confrontation'......hey!!!..we are just talking!!!

..if we did not have these talks, then history, and historical thought and writing would never move on, its the idea of 'revisionist history'....in such a manner, we all can continue to learn, and to learn, is one of the main reasons i came here...so thank you....in my eyes, by discussing these issues, you ARE a historian.....we ALL have room to improve our history skills...its on going.....and i just love the fact there is always more for me to learn, especially from all the people around these forums....whether i agree or not!!!!!!................

..i too lost some family members in WWII and i have a small knowledge of Romanian involvement as well, not as much as i would like, but like i said, i am still learning!!!!.......

..your phrase "hellish frame of time"  .....well spoken....a most appropriate use of words.....i might just ask your permission to use it when i do my writing at home...!!!...

....if you want to know anything else from/about me, or just want to chat...'pm' me..............

It is not well known that when Chamberlain returned from Munich he told his Cabinet that we have gained 6 months to prepare for war. Even he knew it was unavoidable.

Originally posted by Act of Oblivion ...in all honesty, i would have to verify the idea that Dresden was 'behind' the Allied front.....my instincts tell me that may have not been the case....but a good point though....but again, i stick to my idea that this was an act of war....

Dresden fell only on May 7th or 8th, IIRC. So it think we can call the bombing an act of war.

as for your last point about 'inferior races'..i would suggest that by no means did the majority of britain 'see' the german people as 'somehow racially inferior'...if anything, the Allied effort during the war proves that a healthy respect was then made towards the 'enemy'....in fact, Anglo-German relations before the war were quite amiable, if not reasonably friendly...however, politically suspicious. As for 'hiding' operations, for sure operations would by nature in war, be somewhat secretive, but not for the reasons you gave....'common moral judgement' is probably always against the killing of others, but we must, i stress must 'see' these actions in its correct context...

Seems like we misunderstood each other here. I was referring to the german death camps - those were behind the german front, and therefore what happened there could not be justified as an act of war in any way.

..but in a bid to clear up my standpoint, i am not arguing that the bombing of Dresden can be justified morally as seen from todays perspective, but i think it can be argued that it can be understood in the context of total and unconditional war during the years 1930 to 1945.....it is hard to be clear on this subject, but i am trying my best with my writing!!!!!...

I think one can agree with that. At least those bombings were nothing that the Luftwaffe had not tried either, and nothing that had not been hailed by nazi propaganda when it had been directed against british, or yugoslavian, or soviet cities. And of course it's not like Goebbels hadn't asked whether the people wanted total war, 'more total and radical then we can even imagine today'.