Talk Elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

I'm certainly interested to see what BRTD has to say.

It was unfortunate, but it was necessary.  After what the Germans had done to London, I feel little sympathy, especially given how the death total for the Blitz was higher than the highest estimate of the Dresden Bombings.  All in all, although it was a terrible event, it is difficult for me to condemn it too much.

Pointless and cruel.
However, the exaggeration and misuse of the events by Neo-Nazis is also quite disgusting

There's a statue of Bomber Harris in London. One of these days I intend to do some serious damage to it.

Ummm... but it wasn't necessary.  Allied inquiries post-war confirmed that it wasn't necessary.  Dresden had almost no strategic value as a target.  None.  And the war was literally two months from being over.

Dresden was bombed for the pure and simple reason that it was the only major German city left (except Munich) which had not yet been bombed.  That's a great reason.

There were no major production centers there.  There were no major military installations.  The place had almost no air defenses.  The Allied bombers were barely even shot at.

Dresden can be summed up as wanton destruction.  Nothing more.  It wouldn't have been so bad if the allies had just gone over once and hit it... but then seeing that the city was utterly defenseless, they decided to hit it even worse the next day.

Ah, the wonders of wikipedia...


As if Grass is mostly notable for having been a teenaged Waffen SS conscript for about a year or so...

Hilarious.

Well, you know, the Pope is a Nazi too.

()

()

Not Neccessary. My Grandmother lived in that city when it was bombed.

Just to make a slight correction, so that no one tries to get cute... yes, there were factories around Dresden, but they weren't the targets of the bombing.  More over, factory production in Germany was close to nil by that time, so even had the intent been "kill the workers and you cut production" as many have argued (which is still pretty reprehensible) the bombing was still totally unnecessary.

40,000 civilians killed.  That's the high end estimate, but I tend to agree with it, because the place had become the last refuge for German refugees at the time, so I actually wouldn't be surprised if even that is a little low.

Since BRTD hasn't answered yet, I will draw you all a picture of how his mental map works in these situations:


Killing people = bad-----> Designated groups of "unpeople" ----> Zionists
                                                                                              ----> Catholics ----> Irish
                                                                                              ----> Muslims
                                                                                              ----> Businessmen
                                                                                              ----> "Fascists" ----> "Nazis"---

---> Killing "unpeople" = always good

Subprocess: Is this "scene"?

"Scene" Confrimed.

Actuating---->  The Bombing of Dresden was fine.

Just to give you a further idea.  The bombing was so intense that it actually created its own weather pattern.  cyclones of fire engulfed the civilians in the city, and because of the smoke, and wind, there was no escape.  No matter how far in the ground, or in a bunker you buried yourself, you were either singed to death or asphyxiated.

Yeah, it's called working.

As for the question, I basically echo GMantis' comments.

I'd reply further to your ridiculous "mental map", but unfortunately my lunch break doesn't offer me enough time to bring up all the counterexamples. I'll just say that if you look at my posting history you'll see I have been critical of many British actions in Ireland, the Black and Tans come up as a key example, and some things actually contradict this simplistic process, such as criticizing actions by both Israel and Hamas. And I have never said that any group of people should be "bombed into the Stone Age" as you did with the Serbs.

     Quite tragic. A pointless attack demolishing a city of significant historical value.

You should really keep citing that one time I was extremely angry and being clearly hyperbolic, and I will continue to cite the 1,000+ times you have said the things you have said.

The burning of the US embassy made you want the same thing you are denouncing here?
You have some serious anger issues. And remember, the Germans in 1945 were far more deserving of the collective punishment you demanded for the Serbs.

WAY overrated by history.

What's my opinion of it? Strange question really. I would definitely say it was in breach of the Article II of the 1899 Hague Convention and Article IV of the 1907 Hague Convention (pretty much a rehash in that department of 1899). Essentially an attack on morale and an attempt to erase much of German cultural history - Florence of the Elbe etc - but that doesn't make it an isolated example; it happens in pretty much every war. In World War One the Germans burnt the library at Louvain and bombarded Rheims Cathedral; in World War Two the British and Americans bombed Dresden as well as Berlin and other major cities while the Germans bombed London, Plymouth, Coventry; in Serbia in the 1990s Christians destroyed mosques and Muslims destroyed churches; and in Lebanon in 2006 the Israelis destroyed the Rijalat al'Majd exhibition and a number of sites from their occupation which had become parts of Lebanese heritage. That's not a justification for it; just a statement of fact.

A strategically useless atrocity.

The US did the same in my hometown, Saint-Malo. However, the Germans read the writing on the wall beforehand and left the walled city for a smallish island off the coast of Saint-Malo, Cézembre. The historic walled city was destroyed, but it was entirely useless to the liberation of Saint-Malo. Cézembre was taken after the Americans surrounded the island and bombed it (one of the first uses of napalm, IIRC). The Germans surrendered in September 1944 since they were starving.

A massive war crime.

Allies had an heavy hand on bombing at the end of the war, we can see it all long of the cities of the French Atlantic coast. Instead of laying siege to the few cities of the coast still in the hand of Germans, while all the rest of the territory was freed, they chose massive bombing, like in Royan, for the one I know the best.

Allied bombings of other German cities were either strategic or retaliatory.  Dresden was neither.

Yeah, that I don't care about.  Laying siege to those places likely would have cost 10,000 of live in the immediate, and how many more in the aftermath.  Plus, Operation Overlord was running off of a very strict timetable, and the Allies were already running late, thanks to "Monty".

Not entirely - both sides targeted sites that were culturally significant and in some instances the British led the way. On 9-10 April 1941 the British targeted Berlin's centre and hit the eighteenth-century neoclassical German State Opera on Unter den Linden and also damaged the Prussian State Library. On 16 April the Luftwaffe responded by hitting St Paul's Cathedral in London

There was also the 28-9 March 1942 indiscriminate bombings of Lubeck which was a town with little military or industrial significance. It's not an isolated example either; while there were many attacks on strategic sites, many were on those towns and cities which were perceived or at least presented by Nazi propaganda as being of cultural significance - Rostock for instance where the RAF bombed the historic city centre rather than the aeroplane factory. These were all prior to the 'Baedeker Raids' which were in some ways a German response. There was also the raid from 30 April to 1 May 1942 by the RAF on Cologne known as the 'thousand bomber' attack which happened the night before the Luftwaffe targeted Canterbury. Dresden was certainly the most extreme example, but it was not an isolated one.

EDIT: Just thought I'd also quote the list presented to Churchill on 2 November 1943 by Harris and the RAF detailing the damage to German cities:

1. 'Virtually Destroyed': Hamburg, Cologne, Essen, Dortmund, Dusseldorf, Hannover, Mannheim, Bochum, Mulheim, Koln Deutz, Barmen, Elberfeld, Monchengladbach, Rheydt, Krefeld, Aachen, Rostock, Remscheid, Kassel, Emden
2. 'Seriously Damaged': Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Duisburg, Bremen, Hagen, Munich, Nuremberg, Stettin, Keil, Karlsruhe, Mainz, Wilhelmshaven, Lubeck, Saarbrucken, Osnabruck, Munster, Russelsheim, Berlin, Oberhausen
3. 'Damaged': Brunswick, Darmstadt, Leverkusen, Flensburg, Jena, Augsburg, Leipzig, Friedrichshafen, Wismar

There's no distinction drawn there between destruction of military targets or historic monuments; any damage would do.

joke moderator

Yeah, I know that.  I think I need to clarify my point...

At that time in the war, there was no strategic or retaliatory reason to strike Dresden.  It would be as if we had routed the Iraqi Army in 2003, and then bombed the sh**t out of Baghdad just because we could.

By late February 1945, the war was virtually over, and the remaining Germany army was falling back to Berlin, not Dresden.

Well, the point here isn't the French Atlantic Coast, which is a different case than Dresden, and pardon to have been on it, it was just because it went in the sens of the heavy hand of allies at the end of war.

But, actually, on the French Atlantic Coast, you had just to let a few divisions at each cities. There wasn't a lot of cities, and no major cities, we speak about small to middle cities (from about 10,000 to 50,000 according to the cities). Frankly, these harbors were small shut areas closed by sea. The only point that make a bombing relevant would be that Germans are really ready to blast themselves with the cities. There was less civilians in that cities than in Dresden, but bombings have been as massive, that cities have been bombed at about 80%, and strategically, as Dresden, I don't see the point, all the west was freed, Germans had not the slightest perspectives, seems you just had to let few materials to welcome Germans who would have wanted to surrender.

I'm not an expert in war strategy but seems that allies, and French forces too I must say, wanted just to quickly finish with the west coast "pockets" so they massively bombed instead of trying to give a chance with time to that cities.

So it goes...

Not as bad as what happened to my city.

Uh... no.  Shut up, fool.  You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Then, instead of insulting me, would you mind enlightening me. The way you behave makes it seem as if you have no serious arguments.
What I see here are massive double standarts, but perhaps you have an explanation for them.

Why do they exaggerate the figures and so on anyway? A form of muted Holocaust-denial?

Basically, yes. They exaggerate the casualties of the Dresden bombings and downgrade the casualties of the holocaust until they are similar or even fewer and then claim that Germany was really a victim of the allies.

My anger was geared toward their massive rage over Kosovo's independence, and their own denial.  The Serbs have never owned up to their own crimes.  If they had, we never would have had to bomb them to get them to kick out Milosivic, and they woulnd't whine so loudly about to prospect of an independent Kosovo.  My anger was over that.  Had nothing to do with anything even remotely close to what is being talked about now, and had you been here, rather than just followed BRTD's lead, then you would know that.

The bombing of Serbia had nothing to do with the Serbs refusing to own up to their crimes, but due to NATO's decision to intervene in an internal conflict. Milosevic removal wasn't directly connected with the Kosovo war, and would probably have fallen anyway.
Whining is a strange word to use, considering that no one recognized their own separatist states, though they weren't very different from Kosovo in regards to ethnic cleansing.
In any case, none of the nations which participated in the Yugoslav wars have owned up to their crimes either: witness, for example the cult surrounding Ante Gotovina.
So, all in all, after being singled out for nearly 17 years and having a territory, which they regard as an ancestral homeland, being declared independent, contrary to all international practice, I would say that being angry is a reasonable reaction.
I agree that this has nothing to do with the current topic, but it struck me as incongruous how little sympathy you dispayed towards the Serbs, while condemning the same thing they were subjected to.

The Serbs were carpet bombed?  Must have missed that.  Here I thought that NATO picked out carefully selected, tactical and strategic targets and hit them with smart weapons designed to do as little collateral damage as possible.

Of course, you can't even call what happened in Dresden "collateral damage" since, once again, the citizens were the targets.

All that other stuff you said, the stuff that isn't wrong seems to be based on the premise that two wrongs make a right, so I don't really see the benefit of continuing the discussion along those lines.

Then why did you feel the need to respond to my original post stating that allied bombings of other German cities were either strategic or retaliatory when that is clearly not true of all cases?

The outcome of the war was still very much in doubt at that time.  Because of that, all the bombings, regardless of their targets, were either strategic or retaliatory.  Once the outsome of the war was no longer in doubt, it was bloodlust.

Sure the NATO bombing of Serbia hardly compares to Dresden and ranks pretty low on the list of war atrocities. But look at it from the Serbian prepsective. It was essentially NATO interverning on behalf of a terrorist insurgency and insult to injury to how they were treated before. Yeah the Serb atrocities in Bosnia were pretty horrific, something that you wouldn't find much denial of today there, outside of that fascist Radical party. However quite a double standard was held toward the other sides, Gotovina is one example listed above who is still beloved in Croatia and that the government never really made any attempt to apprehend or turn over, if the Serbs treated Ratko Mladic the same way they would rightfully be demonized up to mid-90s level. Hell it was actually the Serbian government that arrested Karadazic while the CIA gave him safe haven through the late 90s. Meanwhile Kosovo elects a terrorist and drug kingpin as their PM and the west gives his government unconditional support. Are people supposed to find that fair?

I just have a hard time believing that you are equating the mass graves with "combating a terrorist insurgency".  Moreover, I could personally not care less about who did what prior to the genocidal activities of the Serbs.  The point is that they did it, and no amount of "rationalizing" is going to make the right.  And the fact that people are still "rationalizing" it over there shows that they still have not made any real effort to come to terms with it.  Their (explosive) anger towards Kosovo's independence simply demonstrates that they have no idea, and that they still blame the Albanians and American's for the conflict.

As I said, it was only after we intervened that they suddenly started caring about the genocide.  None of the leaders in that area ever really got what was coming to them, but I am not going to use that as an excuse to say "well, gee, I can understand their anger."  No.  F**k them.  Their indignation would impact me alot more if it weren't so disingenuous.

If you are the group in power, as the Serbs were, then you always have the power to stop.  They did not.  Regardless of what the Albanians were up to, the Serbs had the responsibility to be the better "men" as it were.  They instead chose to one up the Albanians.

You have a pretty strange definition of strategic bombing I must say, but it is good to know that any act committed in a war where the outcome is in doubt is strategic. Does that apply to other military operations?

Again Dresden does not stand as an isolated example. Nuremberg was hit slightly before Yalta and during the conference Berlin, Mannheim, Chemnitz and Magdeburg were heavily bombed around the same time as the first bombing of Dresden. Then after Dresden you have the bombings of Xanten, Mainz, Cologne, Wurzburg, Worms, Paderborn, Rothenberg, Bayreuth, and Berlin. Targets for these bombings were often far from 'strategic', like in Dresden, where historic monuments - churches, museums, opera houses etc - were targeted (sometimes accidentally but quite often on purpose). For that reason, I think it is reductionist to simply ascribe the bombing of Dresden to 'bloodlust'; they were just as much attacks on German culture and national identity as they were on the German people.

Which city was that that?

I'm not disagreeing; on the contrary, the scope of death and destruction on the Eastern Front often gets underestimated outside of Russia and Germany. Few Americans have heard of the Wilhelm Gustloff or could find Minsk on a map, let alone know its fate in the war.

It was a show of force, an attempt to crush morale through the dying nation likely in the hope of ending the war a little sooner. Heavily bombing Serbia led to the rise of a rebellion and the fall of Milosevic. While the event was an inescapable tragedy, this was a time of massive war and destruction, death and massacre. To ask this is to ask whether the nuclear attacks on Japan were really necessary. They killed many innocents and severely injured countless more, but they helped end the power through a show of massive force.

The Serbs should've "stopped"? So in other words pull out of Kosovo, let the Kosovo Liberation Army ethnically cleanse all the remaining Serbs live there, and then let the place become a kleptocracy and a haven for any drug lord and/or terrorist who wants to hang out?

Sorry they didn't see that as a great scenario.

Even if one didn't know that the Americans had never experienced aerial bombings of their cities, statements like this would immediately indicate it.

Any comparison between Dresden and Japan is laughable.

If we are to assume that collective punishment is an acceptable thing and that dreadful things that happen as a result can be justified if less people die in the collective punishment than the initial outrage, isn't as though Dresden was the only city in Germany to be heavily bombed by the Allies and it isn't as though the population of Dresden was close to that of London, let alone the whole of Britain.

I feel I should add that my Grandmother lived in Coventry for much of the early '40's.

No.  It isn't.  The Japanese were still more than capable of putting up a fight, and very much intended to.

I had a feeling that, at some point, someone would try to draw that comparison, but it doesn't work.  At all.

Yes.  That is exactly what I was saying.

Or... what I might have been saying is the point to seem to have left off, which was that they could have gone on the defensive and not tried to exterminate all the Albanians.

Again, there seems to be some confusion here.  I am not saying that all Allied bombing was necessarily strategic, but rather that is had strategic value.  At that stage in the war, the Nazis still presented a real threat to European citizens.  What changed in the month of February is that the Allies overran almost all of the area from which V2's could have been effectively launched... at least for the most part.

Almost all of those places you mentioned have two things in common:

1) They were on the Rhine, or in the area of German territory directly East.  Makes sense since that's where the German army was concentrated.  They also wanted to limit resistance from the population and reduce potential fortifications as much as possible.

2) They had all been extensively bombed before.

Thus, hitting those areas to loosen up resistance makes sense, and the people living and the German army had reason to expect raids.

Dresden was far out of the way and was defenseless.

And again, the Allies made no pretense, none at all, that the target of the bombings in Dresden was anything, but the population.

     Absolutely. Japan didn't want to surrender even after we nuked Hiroshima. They were still capable of putting up a hell of a fight, & would continue to be unless we took radical measures to stop them. Bombing Dresden was completely useless except for increasing the body count, though.

In fact, the casualty projections for Operation Downfall (which numbered the same as the total of all U.S. casualties in the war, til that point) were probably low.  U.S. planners didn't know that the Japanese were saving their best technology and tactics for a U.S. invasion.  When the war was over, we learned that the Japanese kamikazes were being ordered to attack troop transports, not warships (which would have meant 100x the number of casualties from the average suicide attack), that the Japanese navy itself was to be deployed as a kamikaze strike force (like fire ships) and that the Japanese actually had jet aircraft that they were keeping in caves, that would have been far better than anything the Americans had at the time.

Japanese casualties in the war, up to that time, had been happening at a ration of 15-1.  Even with conservative estimates, the total number of Japanese dead would have numbered around 15 million, far higher than the number killed by the bombs.

Anyone who tries to rationalize the massacre of Dresden should have their head examined.
I am stunned that there is even an argument in 2009 about this atrocity.

That's strange, because a second ago you said that:



Cities I mentioned not on the Rhine or in the Rhineland: Magdeburg, Chemnitz, and Bayreuth. Chemnitz and Magdeburg are both in roughly similar locations to Dresden and were part of the same campaign of bombings - often the same mission was sent out to bomb Chemnitz and/or Dresden depending on which was a clearer and easier target.

Cities I mentioned that had not been significantly bombed before: Magdeburg, Bayreuth, Rothenburg, Xanten, Wurzburg, and Worms.

As to the presence of the German army in some of these cities, I feel here it is necessary to draw a distinction between the 'target' of the bombing and the 'aim' of the bombing; while many attacks may have been aimed at driving the German army out of towns and cities, the targets they chose to do so were often historical and cultural landmarks. The British and American authorities also claimed when bombing Dresden that the intention was to help the advance of the Russians in the east and to create confusion that would prevent the movement of German troops. Whether that is true or not is debatable, but the point is that the aim of a bombardment is different from its target.

I am not trying to say that Dresden was not an atrocious act, just that it is the most extreme image in a wider picture that is often neglected.

Fine, I'll give you Chemnitz, and say that was also unnecessary.  But Bayreuth was the site of a Nazi concentration camp and Magdelburg fits my profile of cities that were East of the Rhine, meaning cities directly between the allied advance and Berlin.  The Chemnitz incident was not nearly as intense as the Dresden bombing, either.

You know what I am talking about with what I am saying.  I have made every effort to be accommodating to your points.  I'm starting to wonder why you are trying to "show me up" and what I did to piss you off.  This is the first time you have ever acted this way towards me.

Lincoln didn't say what is in your signature, fwiw.

And Dresden was necessary to break the will of the Germans.

Bombing concentration camps wasn't Allied policy, because it did not advance the war effort... the presence of Flossenburg would have had nothing to do with the decision to bomb it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/11/quote_for_the_d_5.html (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/11/quote_for_the_d_5.html)

If you think this bombing was necessary, read Slaughterhouse-Five

I never said they bombed the camp.  I know that wasn't allied policy.  Very late in the war, however, there were a few efforts made to make it harder for the Nazis to run the camps... tragically few.

I wasn't trying to show you up at all. I commented on your initial question and stated that Dresden was by no means a one-off to which you replied that other allied bombings of German cities were either strategic or retaliatory. Beyond that I was essentially re-hashing my original point with reference to other allied bombing campaigns during World War Two in an attempt to problematise what I saw as being a slightly narrow interpretation of Dresden which I felt decontextualised it. My disagreement was with your interpretation and not with you per se.

Nietzsche was a lunatic. And your signature is still wrong.

Assuming the allies had chosen not to bomb Dresden, do you really think the "will" of the Germans would have been sustained (and even if sustained, made any tangible difference) after this:

()

Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but, in retrospect, the only difference not bombing Dresden makes is that a few thousand German civilians survive 1945.

None the less, that statement of his contains alot of truth.

A woman who was driving home from work when one of the wheels fell off of her car, right in front of an insane asylum.  She had a jack and and was able to get the wheel back, but was stumped about how to secure it back on.  The nuts and bolts had gone everywhere, you see.

A man approached her, and said "excuse me, miss, but if you took one bolt off of each of the other wheels then you could put the other one back on." 

She did just that, and when she finished, she thanked him and asked if she could give him a ride home.

The man said, "no thanks" and pointing to the asylum said "I live there".

The woman gave him a strange look and ask "How did you come up with...?"

But the man, who had already started to walk away  cut her off saying, "I might be crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid."

One of the greatest photographs ever.

Berliners deserved it for being such strong supporters of the NSDAP and totally opposed to Communism.

Oh...

That's a great quote.

Or you could mention how that photo is, in fact, doctored to hide the fact that the solider in the photo is wearing multiple wrist watches.  That's the communist ideal of personal property at its finest, right there.

Or, that in the original you can see soldiers looting german homes in the background.

I don't know what way RosettaStoned intended his remark; but it is an iconic (and so IMO 'great') photo - as a very powerful image and a work of art.

(I'd agree though that of course there was a lot of malign activity that the photo highlights which obviously doesn't fit under the label 'great'.)

You have to understand that for Russians this photograph symbolises the victory over the greatest theat that Russia ever faced, achieved at terrible cost and after the country suffered horrible destruction. I'm not saying that it is the correct attitude, but one must not forget about the historical significance of the picture.

Russia deserved everything it got as well. I feel no sympathy for either the Nazis or Soviets.

They deserved to have their country destroyed without provocation and to incur 10 million civilian casualties?

Yes, of course!

They were communists! Like our new American President OSAMA! Godless and.....ummmmmmmmm.....vodka drinking bastards.

You really are a sorry excuse for a human being.

()

Funny, I fail to note the resemblance between this photo and that one.

Funny, I didn't know that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost) was Stalin's idea.

Bah....Don't be ridiculous, Supersoulty.  Stalin kept Hitler from turning Russia (and perhaps the greater part of the world) into an absolute ruin.

Really? All by himself? (Insert Bertolt Brecht poetry here).

I view it as a war crime.

LOL. Stalin was a mass murderer as well. Still a Soviet apologist I see.

And yet it wasn't mass murderers that were killed. I guess it's justifiable if it "hurt" Stalin.

Under your premise killing German soldiers would have been wrong as well.

The Dresden Holocaust is one the worst but least well known atrocities that has been suppressed.

You know very well that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union not because Stalin was a murderer, but because he wanted to expand Germany's Lebensraum. Nor did Stalin give any cause for a German attack; he at least confined his mass murders to the Soviet Union and he did everyting possible to dissuade the Germans from attacking.
And if not being happy about the enormous destruction the Germans carried out in the Soviet Union makes me a Soviet apologist, then I'm a Soviet apologist and proud of it.

Killing soldiers and killing civilians are different things, though because they were led by a communist and were Russians, you probably regard their killing as a good thing. Despite your lack of sympathy about the Nazis, you approach them rather closely in sentiment.

GM, I do not regard the killing of Soviet civilians as a good thing. However, the Soviet Union should have been destroyed by the allies in the same way as Germany was destroyed. The USSR was just as guilty in many was as Nazi Germany of war atrocities. That's why I have little sympathy for the blood letting of the Soviet Army on the eastern front.

So basically StatesRights is saying:

-Stalin killed millions of people in the Soviet Union.
-Therefore when Hitler killed millions of people in the Soviet Union they deserved it.

Not following that.

You can't follow that? You need to take a break from the drinking my friend.

And you need to take a break and start behaving like a human.

()

...and your signature is still wrong, btw.

And you're still not a human.
Go back to the gutter from which you came.

Sad.

I don't see why killing a large amount of civilians and destroying large amounts of architectural landmarks entitles you to having a statue.