A Real Holocaust: Dresden -- 13 February 1945 (invaded, empire, Japan, France)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question that comes to mind is whether the incendiary bombing of Dresden was justified or even necessary by February 1945. The undefended city of Dresden seemed an unlikely military target. Some think it was Churchill's payback for Coventry and the blitz of London. Others say it was to help the Soviets who were 60 miles away. Whatever the case, besides the horrific and incalculable loss of life, the world lost one of the outstanding cities of medieval culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
The RAF gave this reasoning for the mission just prior to the bombing...
Regardless of whether it was neccesary or not, I've never heard many German narratives where they shed a tear for the complete destruction of Warsaw(planned in advance) or the devastation inflicted upon Belarus, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Greece, and so on. Not all Germans supported Nazism, but those that did were complict in the fate of their country.
Necessity is a tough thing to pin down when it comes the massive bombings late in the war. For instance, one of the best criticisms of the Dresden bombings is that the military target list that was used to justify the attacks remained largely untouched. The primary factory areas of the city were located nowhere near the center of town that was bombed. The factories remained largely untouched during the raids as did the major rail hub located there and the bridges that facillitated movement west from the town.
TonyT's posts about the Allied bombing campaign and "Directive 22" are contained on page 5 (post #50). I would highly encourage folks to read it in full as it is quite informative. I will quote some parts of it here that pertained to Dresden and the intent:
Quote:
In 1942, with Churchill’s approval, British Bomber Command was issued “Directive 22” which called for them to deliberately bomb the residential neighborhoods of at least fifty-eight cities across Germany. As per the directive, the aim was erosion of “the morale of enemy civilian population, in particular industrial workers” and the target of the bombers was to be “built up areas, not for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories”. Dubbed “de-housing” by British government officials, Churchill told President Roosevelt that the new policy would potentially result in “nine hundred thousand civilians dead, one million seriously injured, and twenty-five million homeless”. This was in keeping with what Churchill had been advocating since July of 1940, which was to launch “absolutely devastating exterminating attack[s] by heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland”.
...
With respect to Dresden, Winston Churchill is the person that selected it as a target of a critical nature, citing it as a “communication centre” whose destruction would disrupt German operations against the Soviets advancing from the East. The actual orders issued to Bomber Command stated the purpose of the raid was to “cause confusion in the evacuation from the East” and “hamper the movement of troops from the West”. To be clear, the “evacuation” to which the order referred was the thousands of German civilians fleeing from the Russian advance, not retreating German troops. The point was that the bombing would undoubtedly create a panic among the refugees. The sheer mass of people fleeing Dresden would clog the roads to the point where German troops in the West would be unable to move forward to reinforce those fighting in the East. And it was for that exact reason that the British classified these non-combatant refugees as “legitimate military targets” and launched the attack on Dresden.
Given what is known, I don’t think it can honestly be said that the bombing campaign against Germany, at least as far as the British are concerned, was really aimed at only military targets so as to shorten the war and save lives. Rather, it was exactly what the Germans labeled it at the time; “terror bombing”. And should anyone doubt that, they need only look at a statement made by Churchill in the aftermath of the Dresden bombing: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed…The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing”.
Based on those quotes I think there is very little to support the idea of Dresden and the bombings in general as anything more than a concerted effort to terrorize the civilians of Germany, which was the intent and directive of bomber command virtually from the beginning. In sections of the post unquoted, it took until 1944 for the Americans to convince the British to change strategy and specifically target industries, but by 1945 they were starting to run out of targets and went back to their old practice.
As for who started the "terror bombings" that answer would be the British. Hitler had issued Directive 17 at the beginning of the Battle of Britain that was extremely explicit about NOT engagin in attacks on civilian targets, but Hitler reserved the right to give such an order as a reprisal, in particular London was not to be touched.
Quote:
The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population
On August 15th a German bomber group mistakenly bombed the wrong airfield and the target they attacked was very close to London. Additionally the Germans were actively bombing British ports and there were civilian casualties during these raids, but the intent was NOT to bomb civilian targets.
In response to these raids, the British launched an attack on August 24th against industrial targets within the city of Berlin. Do to heavy cloud cover the bombs were dropped indescriminately across the city. The British continued these attacks daily and civilian casualties mounted in the city as the bombing was still indesciminate. In response Hitler rescinded Directive 17 on Septmeber 3rd and planning began for raids that began on September 7th that directly targeted British cities in direct response to British targeting of German cities.
So, if we go back and unravel the series of events that gave rise to "terror bombing" it was the British who began it and the British who instilled as the primary directive of bomber command for most of the war.
Again, we need to look at this in its historical context.
In the 1930s and at the beginning of WW2, the received wisdom was that bombers could win wars. British children were all evacuated in 1939 because there was an expectation that mass bombing of cities would occur (my mother was evacuated to Uttoxeter).
Both German and Allied bombing campaigns were variations on this theme. Yes, they attacked industrial targets which contributed to the war effort. But they also attacked civilian targets with the intention of damaging enemy morale and the willingness to continue the war effort. And, as I have already said, they did not have the technology to bomb only industrial targets. The bombing campaigns were a logical extension of prevailing military doctrine. The understanding that bombing alone cannot win wars only came after WW2.
Finally, in total war, there is no such thing as innocent civilians. The civilian populations of the protagonists were conscripted in to the war effort. The men went into the army and the women took their place in industry. My grandmother worked in the post office and my great aunt worked in a munitions factory. An attack on the civilian population was also an attack on the productive capacity of the country.
Dresden was a legitimate target according to the military doctrine of the time. It was an industrial centre, a communications centre and was packed with retreating troops and refugees. An attack on Dresden could heighten the disruption of the German war machine. Moral considerations did not enter into the equation.
Moral considerations did not enter into the equation.
So, the German attacks against civilians were no less immoral than the Allied attacks against civilians. The only problem I have with any of these debates is the desire of people, particularly those on the winning side, to import a certain level of morality into the actions of their country. As you quite well stated, morality was not a concern, it was total war. Do not demonize one side for actions that were readily repeated by the other. Incinerating Dresden isn't any more morally correct than the German destruction of Warsaw or bombing of London.
Both sides violated international laws and treaties that they had signed. Both sides ignored their morality to seek vengeance on the other for acts deemed an afront to their nation. When it comes to WW2 no nation has clean hands or passes the morality test.
To me, the one act of Germany that rose to a level above that of the western Allies was the Holocaust, outside of that the actions people condemn Germany for were repeated by every other nation and in the case of the Soviets one can also make cases for atrocities that rose to the level of the Holocaust, if not quite to the same scale and industrial zeal. However, the fact that they did perpetrate the Holocaust and commit those other acts does not repeal the moral standard for the Allies.
"we were just sitting there enjoying a nice bratwurst when for no apparant reason we were bombed."
Your warped knowledge is history is about as bad as your warped knowledge of lifeform warfare.
Perhaps read up on some of the mind controlling parasites that attack ants? Or perhaps the spores that wipe out entire colonies of millions sprouting mushrooms out of their heads?
Maybe you could read some of Leaky's seminal works on chimpanzees?
Perhaps, what is different from the way the Germans behaved and our bombing of Dresden and other cities is that the Germans had it in their power to end the bombing almost instantly. The key to stopping the whole thing was in their hands.
They simply had to surrender to the allied armies. Perhaps, if they had done so sooner, they could have avoided the occupation of eastern Germany by the Soviet Union. One can argue that since Germany was a dictatorship, the ordinary people didn't have the power to make their government do anything. I say bullcrap. A general strike would have brought the Nazi government to its knees. They couldn't kill everyone or put everyone in concentration camps. The German people elected the Naziis and than essentially stood by them for 12 years.
On the other hand, had the Germans won World War II does anyone in their right mind believed that would have ended the Holocaust or the other atrocities committed by the SS and other German forces? I suspect it would only have sped the process up. Without having to worry about fighting an opposing army, the Naziis would have made short work of the Jews and other "undesirable groups" they were hellbent on exterminating.
One last point: Always remember it was Germany that declared war on the USA--it wasn't the other way around. If they didn't want those bombs falling on them they should haven't picked a fight with us.
So, the German attacks against civilians were no less immoral than the Allied attacks against civilians. The only problem I have with any of these debates is the desire of people, particularly those on the winning side, to import a certain level of morality into the actions of their country. As you quite well stated, morality was not a concern, it was total war. Do not demonize one side for actions that were readily repeated by the other. Incinerating Dresden isn't any more morally correct than the German destruction of Warsaw or bombing of London.
Both sides violated international laws and treaties that they had signed. Both sides ignored their morality to seek vengeance on the other for acts deemed an afront to their nation. When it comes to WW2 no nation has clean hands or passes the morality test.
To me, the one act of Germany that rose to a level above that of the western Allies was the Holocaust, outside of that the actions people condemn Germany for were repeated by every other nation and in the case of the Soviets one can also make cases for atrocities that rose to the level of the Holocaust, if not quite to the same scale and industrial zeal. However, the fact that they did perpetrate the Holocaust and commit those other acts does not repeal the moral standard for the Allies.
Agree with your comments.
We have to try to understand matters from the point of view of people involved at the time and, here, written history does not help us very much because that usually involves rationalization and justification of what they did.
My window on this is my mother. When you have crouched under the kitchen table listening to the whistle of bombs; when you have been forced out of your home by an unexploded land mine; when your mother and your aunts are all conscripted into industry (women were also conscripted in the UK); when rationing determines how much and what you will eat; when your school friends go off to the army and some do not return; when your boyfriends are all in uniform and some do not return then your perspective on the war is not a moral one. It is a question of survival. You have to do what is necessary to force your enemy to surrender and you really do not care how many of them are killed in the process. In 2011 we like to make the nice distinction between combatants and civilians. But, in WW2 that distinction was at best blurred and, for most people, did not really exist.
excuse me for noticing but the germans did nothing when thousands of people were being exterminated systematically - this nonsense they didnt know what was happening is rediculous - i had second degree burns on my hand and the stench was awful - i cant imagine the stench from thousands of burning bodies - if you prefer to believe in that neo nazi propaganda good for you - but you know what they say about karma - aint it the truth
We've had this discussion before haven't we? Usually in discussing the atomic bomb. For the OP - you must understand the concept of Total War, in which the loss of territory was not an issue, as in previous wars, but the survival of a nation and its citizens were an issue. In total war, as tragic as it is to think about, you have all the resources of a nation devoted to the task of making war - men, and later in germany - old men and young boys, fighting on the front line, women working in the factories, young children working in fields to supply food for troops. This was the case in Germany, and in Japan, and other nations at war. In essence, every man, woman, and child was a state instrument of war. Such is the harsh terrible realities of that world war. Obviously, the axis powers were the agressor in this war, and also it can arguable be pointed out that Germany originaly started the campaign of bombing civilian cities, if not in WW2, then in the Spanish Civil War (and, obviously, other non-war acts of genocide that can not in any ways be interpreted or defensible as acts of war).
I have no issues with the bombing of German cities and targeting the civilians of an enemy nation in WW2 except for one thing - it was a strategic error. The bombing of German cities did not seem to hasten the war end. Otherwise there is no guilt or shame here, it was a legitimate if failed strategy. In contrary, the bombing of Germany's oil infastructure was VERY effective.
On the other hand, lets face it, the bombing of Japanese cities DID hasten the end of the war and was the right strategy. The dropping of two atomic bombs and the tragic death of tens of thousands of civilians, ironically, prevented the death of millions of civilians in the invasion of it's homeland.
Edit comment: The 'no other lifeform" comment by the OP is kinda strange. You mean like Klingons or something? Animals out in their natural environment have been documenting as killing for sport, or their version of warfare, or anger, by the way.
excuse me for noticing but the germans did nothing when thousands of people were being exterminated systematically - this nonsense they didnt know what was happening is rediculous - i had second degree burns on my hand and the stench was awful - i cant imagine the stench from thousands of burning bodies - if you prefer to believe in that neo nazi propaganda good for you - but you know what they say about karma - aint it the truth
Yes, but when you say the Germans-do you mean, some Germans, many Germans or all Germans did nothing to stop the atrocities??
Personally, I don't have any opinion about what happened in Dresden. But I would like to add the following:
Formed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara served in WWII as staff to Gen. Curtis LeMay. In his video documentary called "The Fog of War," McNamara talks about the firebombing of Tokyo, which he was responsible for orchestrating. He laments that 100,000 Japanese civilians were burned to death each night (IIRC), and seems to conclude that he and LeMay were war criminals, saved only by the ultimate US victory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
