Opinion of the Dresden Bombings

[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.

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.

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.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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".

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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So it goes...

[RosettaStoned]

Not as bad as what happened to my city.

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

[minionofmidas]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

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

[GMantis]

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

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

[Snip]

Yeah, I know that.

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?

[12th Doctor]

[Snip]

Yeah, I know that.

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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?

[12th Doctor]

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

[Snip]

Yeah, I know that.

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.

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.

[Brittain33]

Not as bad as what happened to my city.

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[GMantis]

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.

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

[k-onmmunist]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

Any comparison between Dresden and Japan is laughable.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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.