Opinion of the Dresden Bombings

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

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.