Opinion of the Dresden Bombings

[12th Doctor]

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

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

[Senator Ben]

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.

[GMantis]

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

[Sibboleth]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

[Sibboleth]

Ah, the wonders of wikipedia...

Fomer Waffen SS member Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.

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

Hilarious.

[12th Doctor]

Ah, the wonders of wikipedia...

Fomer Waffen SS member Günter Grass is one of a number of intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.

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.

[12th Doctor]

[12th Doctor]

[N.i.K.]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Since BRTD hasn't answered yet

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.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

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

[12th Doctor]

Since BRTD hasn't answered yet

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.

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.

[GMantis]

Since BRTD hasn't answered yet

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.

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.

[dead0man]

WAY overrated by history.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

[Hashemite]

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.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

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".

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

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

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.

[bgwah]

joke moderator