Dresden

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Germans had bombed London with only the tiniest fig leaf of 'going after military targets' since 1917 with a/c, 1915 with airships. Those mostly night raids had little chance of hitting what was supposedly specifically aimed at, they were in fact designed to achieve political gain through terrorizing civilians, why else? And this history definitely factored into British thinking in the second world war.

So the 'who did it first' argument leads nowhere (to go back further, in the German view the WWI British blockade was mainly affecting civilians, increasing death rates of the old, sick, very young etc. though not blowing them up).

However scale also matters, I agree.

No easy answers IMO. I also generally agree with the other poster's statement insofar as the US nuclear bombings of Japan were unavoidable given the situation and attitudes of the time, but I can't agree with putting them in some completely different category of morally unassailable because 'they saved lives'. Maybe every raid on German civliians didn't save lives in a similarly clearcut way, but overall defeating Nazi Germany was a moral necessity and did save lives, and who can say exactly what would happened if German cities had remained inviolate.

Joe
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Either way I do not justify bombing of civilian centers of population by any side Allied or Axis except for the Atomic bombings of Japan which in my opinion saved lives by ending the war.
Click to expand...


Does 'saving lives" justify deliberatly targeting civilians? IMO, NO.

Did the Allies have to drop the bomb on a civilian target to end the war?

I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.

And about the original topic Dresden, it was wrong to target it and I don't agree with Harris's policies.
 
When referring to the atomic bombing of those 2 japanese cities the best possible argument to explain such course of action should be sending a message to Smiley Dzhugashvili; not forgetting the experimental nature of dropping the very first atomic bomb on civilian targets.

The rest is pure prime hand picked certified Grade A crap.
 
freebird said:
I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.
Click to expand...
It took a large emergency effort by the US occupation to ship food into Japan which barely avoided mass famine in the winter of '45-'46 just from the effect of US blockade up to August, and there was still widespread hunger. Had the war dragged on even a few months longer it would have been mass death, potentially far beyond the scale of Japanese civilian deaths in all bombings let alone just the nuclear ones. I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the a-bombings didn't save lives, Japanese and Allied. But does that alone make them moral? Good question I think.

To reiterate my position, which I don't think you got, since you put my post up next to one I don't entirely agree with: I'm ambivalent about the Allied area bombings. It seems most people have a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't.

I agree with you from a today's hindsight perspective it's very easy to say civilian deaths in war are undesirable, sure. I just don't think it really answers the question in the context of that war and that time.

And I don't think it's very meaningful to discuss the morality of particular air raids in a vacuum. One's real position is actually illuminated I think by considering how it varies among different cases.

Joe
 

In my opinion the A-Bombs were justified. It helped in my opinion ensure that no American soldiers were going to have to step foot onto mailand Japan and fight a battle to the death.

Better them than us...
 
freebird said:
And about the original topic Dresden, it was wrong to target it and I don't agree with Harris's policies.
Click to expand...

I also don't agree with Harris, but you have to see it in the time frame. You should read the book, it explains much. Not that it takes away the blame of bombercommand, but it places the whole thing into context. Nothing is black-and-white. Harris had a view and wether it was right or wrong can only easily be judged after the war.
 
freebird said:
Does 'saving lives" justify deliberatly targeting civilians? IMO, NO.
Click to expand...

IMO, in the context of WW II...absolutely. Almost 20,000 American soldiers died in the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns combined. Do the math on an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

freebird said:
Did the Allies have to drop the bomb on a civilian target to end the war?
Click to expand...

Probably. The Axis were targeting civilian population centers since at least 1937.


freebird said:
I've also read that by 1945 the Japanese were in no position to fight anywhere beyond their island, and if the Allies had blockaded them for a few months or a year they would have to capitulate.
Click to expand...

Since they refused to surrender after we obliterated Hiroshima, it's hard to believe that they would surrender after a blockade of any length. You're talking about people who thought nothing of flying bomb-laden airplanes into American warships.

freebird said:
And about the original topic Dresden, it was wrong to target it and I don't agree with Harris's policies.
Click to expand...

See my answer to your second question.

TO
 
In my opinion there are two sides to every coin and your POV often aligns with the side or condition you happen to most sypathetic with - rather than the rationale behind the act. Killing kids is rarely as much fun as it is cracked up to be.

If you believe in God and have the convictions of Christianity (in purest form) or Buddhist or a multitude of others, then you foreswear violence in all forms.

For the multitude, the POV should focus on the tactical or strategic objectives that would (seem) to justify collateral damage ( the "Oh well, sorry about that - but ya gotta break some egges to make an omelette" when the technology available is not adequate to prevent civilian deaths)

I fit as an imperfect example of number one and an unrepenitent example of number two in the context of Allied destruction delivered in WWII. I make no second guesses anymore under the principle of "what coulda happened, did happen"

For Dresden, we were asked by Stalin (to Roosevelt, Roosevelt to George Marshall to Hap Arnold to Tooey Spatz - to comply. Spaatz objected, Arnold over rode objection after duly noting it. Spaatz saluted and gave the orders.) to bomb the central train station to ensure a disruption in rail logistics to and from the city.

This was accomplished and a lot of women and children burned to death. I wish Hitler and the Gestapo had decided to vacation in central Dresden but I am informed that did not happen.

Question, should civilians that support a political agenda also sign up to the risks of declaring war? If so that takes care of Germans and Brits and Japanese and Russians, etc and the two American civilians killed in Oregon from a balloon bomb. Doesn't quite address the kids. So, there will possibly be an accounting for the Christians and Buddhists that slipped in their ultimate moral obligations as well as the casual 'drive by' sinners. Presumably the Conscientious Objectors will skate punishment.

Am I sorry it (Dresden) happened - yes. The war was too close to the end. Were Soviet and Brit and US and Canadian trooper lives saved as a result? Don't know but that would mitigate my answer.

Am I sorry Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened - no... because I trully believe millions would have died in that bloodbath - Soviet, US, Brit, Canadians, Indians, Aussies, new Zealander's and many, many Japanese women and children in addition to adults in the forthcoming invasion. I was in Japan as a young kid and I have many vivid memories of burned out cities - even in 1948.

So many Japanese were killed in just the conventional fire bombing. General LeMay left few sticks of wood joined to another in every city the size of Chattanooga and above.

Unfortunately, every war seems to not be a duke out between the leaders that want power over other people but the entire rank and file of the population somehow gets dragged into it.

Next Constitutional amendment I want to see is; "IF you're gonna declare war (or police action) or whatever, 50% of all of Congress must be the first under arms as drawn by blind ballot, and to refuse to go is to step down from Congress. The process will continue through replacement re-elections until the billet is filled and the war may proceed". Seal Team training to follow...

Leader should lead at the front. If enough politicians get killed early, there should be an opportunity to pause and re-think how badly one or both wish to continue.

If you merely need to respond to nuclear attack, this rule is suspended and President may authorize retaliation.
 
Great post Bill....

The fact that the Soviets wanted Dresden flattened to ease the defense available to the Germans on their way to Berlin almost justifies the bombing... Less defense is less casualties....

The fact that there were 1000's of German soldiers there (reinforcements), troop transport trains measured in miles, a marshalling yard for said trains, basically a supply center for the Russian Front, as well as precision engineering from 127 factories in the city, from tail assemblies for V-1 bombs, torpedo parts, machine guns, searchlights, aircraft parts, field telephones, two way radios, and included Zeiss, who manufactured bomb aiming devices and time-delay fuses, all these add up to me as a viable military target........

The fact that there were refugees there without proper bomb shelters with firewalls, air filters and sealed doors is quite unfortunate... However, if I was a German during this time, the last freakin place I would be is a large scale city with armament factories in it, especially in 1944-45.... U just gotta know ur gonna get the snot beat outta u...

Bottom line, the bombing of Dresden saved alot of Allied lives.... Did it save more than the Germans lost that day??? Who knows, but one things for sure, the bombing of Dresden saved good guy lives, and thats what it was all about....
 

Very well said!

And I must agree with the notion that bombing Japan with atomic bombs was "necessary"; the Japanese culture is a culture most of us can't understand. In many ways, it was similar to the mindset of certain Middle East factions that wish to see the West be destroyed. I don't pretend to understand it, but IMHO metaphysical attributes seem to be more important than physical/material attributes; "death before dishonor" and all that. I have no problem with dying for what you believe in, but the fanatical obsession the Japanese dispalyed during WWII with dying for their Emperor is fascinating. I have no doubt that if we had ended up having to invade mainland Japan, the casualties would've been in the hundreds of thousands on both sides (including civilians).

BTW, another good book to read concerning the Dresden firebombing is Firestorm: Allied Airpower and The Destruction of Dresden,by Marshall De Bruhl.
 

And now for the other shoe... Once upon a time a commission by a wealthy lady to Harvard at the turn of the 19th to 20th Century to a guild of Dresden glass blowers - perhaps $1,000,000 in 1900 - to create the glass botony exhibit for Harvard...for their museum of natural history.

Can never be replaced and all the remaining skilled glass artists died in that raid. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it.
 

I don`t know about wheter these facts are true or not, I suspect though these are stemming from the apologist arguements that Harris put forward.

In any case, the problem with the 'viable military target' arguement is that no viable military target was targeted in Dresden. Dresden city center itself and its civillians were targeted, no attempt was made to hit anything of military importance.

Any target of military nature destroyed in Dresden was just random collateral damage. The operation didn`t aim for anything else than terror and mass murder, to maximize civilian casulties. And, in Feburary 1945, even the origianal arguement of terror bombing, however weak it was, that it will 'force the Germans to surrender', would be rather cynical.
 
I dont necessarily agree with that Kurfurst... It is widely known that the Soviets wanted Dresden out of their way.... Bomber Command, with the help of the 8th, did just that, and the War was over in 5 weeks.... It was not a terror campaign for that city, but a flattening for the Sovs... Churchill ordered the Air Ministry and Portal to blast the East German Cities... Harris had no choice in this....

Did it instill terror??? Ur goddamn right it did....

The facts I posted are not from Harris' apoiogistic feelings but from Tail End Charlies by John Nichol and Tony Rennel, and quoted in part from The Dresden Yearbook by Taylor...

Portal even stated in Neillands book, The Bomber War, that Antonov wanted the railway junction of Dresden bombed...
 
Sorry guys...but i do have some major issues with this type of discussion.

I will do my best effort to make this sound as "neutral" as possible...but knowing i´d make an awful politician is that i can predict i will fail.

Did the atomic bombing of those Japanese cities save the lives of an imaginary number of USA soldiers? The response should be quite simple: if you were planning to land your troops in the main Japanese islands, oh well, then you bet you were going to have wounded, crippled, dead and missing items. Ask yourselves this: was it necessary to land USA troops in Japan´s main islands in 1945 to ensure defeat of the enemy?

Is this sufficient to add soundness to the allied argument for using the atomic bombs? Not entirely sure...as many people have said on this thread, you got to assess the moment and circumstances. Was Japan capable of posing a threat against the USA during 1945? Absolutely no.

The IJN was virtually dissolved, so was their merchant marine; Japan´s supply lines for oil and other essential materials was critically disrputed if not effectively cut off. A naval blockade would have had as consequence a group of Japanese negotiators asking the USA government for a piece of paper to sign.

Would the USA care for famine in Japan causing another immaginary number of deaths perhaps higher than the 2 atomic bombs? I do not think so.

Let´s not forget the assertions issued to defend such course of action come precisely from the comfort of the bench of the victors. Some sort of automatic "moral highground" permeating everything coming from them Allies.

Now i´d ask you a very simple question: could the same line of thinking be applied to defend Luftwaffe commanders?

What about General der Flieger Alexander Löhr, that right after the end of the war was handed over to the Yugoslavs to face "trial"...he was charged with "mass murder" of Yugoslav civilians during the Luftwaffe bombings against Belgrade (April, 1941).

Putting aside (i) the legitimate nature of the target (Belgrade) for it was packed with Yugoslav soldiers, and (ii) Churchill´s devotion and dedication to falsify numbers -he was the one that made up the alleged death toll of Belgrade citizens-, is that i ask: did the bombing of Belgrade save the lives of an imaginary number of German soldiers that would storm the city?

What i do know is Löhr did not have too many rights if any during the circus he endured, and was executed.

And Wolfran von Richtofen? Was the aerial bombing of Stalingrad aimed to target the units of the soviet 62nd Army (under Chuikov), and large military industry facilities (ie. Krazny Oktyabr) that were inside the city?

I´m glad von Richtofen died before being subjected to another one of those multiple allied circus trials. Von Richtofen was a man not less committed to his nation and profession as Air Commander than Spaatz or "-Civilian- Bomber" Harris.

There were significant differences between Löhr´s -or von Richtofen for that matter- bombing attacks against Belgrade or Stalingrad and those performed by the US Air Force against Japan by the time the atomic bombings were dropped...one comes to my mind:

Japan was already on its knees whereas the attack against Yugoslavia was just starting...meaning the Yugoslav enemy -whatever its military means and organizational capabilities might have been- had not yet been hit by a single bullet.
 
Well Udet if we did not land troops in Japan how were we going to defeat them (in a scenerio that we did not drop the A-Bombs)?

A blockade is not going to work. The Japanese people were allreayd living under war rations and all they need is fish and rice and there were plenty of that in Japan. Besides they would just continue to attack the US ships in the blockade with Kamikazi's.

Whether troops were landed or not there would have been unneccessary American lives lost in a war that we did not start. Period...
 

And don't forget you'll loose a lot of support from the people if a war drags on too long, you saw it later in Vietnam and maybe now in Iraq.
 
Oh and for the reason behind the Dresden bombing (not justifying it) Acording to mr. Taylor, it was an attempt to disrupty supply lines toward the eastern front in which Dresden was a major crossroads. It was done by Harris' phylosophy that if you cause chaos, it will be much more effective then bombing railroads, after all, railroads are easlily replaced. I'm not saying this justifies the bombing, but it makes you understand a little. It did work, hardly any transport went through Dresden during the remainder of the war.
Also keep in mind that the British were at war for 6 years with a very powerfull and stubborn enemy, even at februari 1945, the Germans put up great resistance, it took the Americans 3 weeks to even cross the river Rhine, so you can imagine it looked to them the war could drag on for a much longer time. The British people probably thought "better them than we", just like most Americans now think of the Arabs, that's what war does with you.

For the Germans not doing any terror bombing like Kurfurst says. They invented it with Guernica, Warshaw and Rotterdam. Maybe Goering didn't want any English casualties in june 1940 as the wanted to have peace with the UK, but in Spetember he clearly thought otherwise. As for aiming at militairy targets, most bombs fell in a part of London called the City, it's the center of London and a residential area. Don't fool yourself, both sides were very well willing to bomb the hell out of the other ones civilians, and the only reason that the British made more casualties than the Germans was because the British were quite a lot better at it.
 
Marcel said:
And don't forget you'll loose a lot of support from the people if a war drags on too long, you saw it later in Vietnam and maybe now in Iraq.
Click to expand...

And if it came out later that we had the weapon to end the war, and didn't use it, there would be hundreds of thousands of mothers, grandmothers, wives and sisters demanding to know why all those boys died.

Les said it in a previous post, it's about saving the lives of the good guys.

TO
 

Exactly. The Japanese were not ready to surrender per se. They wanted to end the war, that is true. But they wanted to end the war in 1942, only on their terms. Same was true in 1945.

The Japanese terms in July of '45 had three main points:
1. Japan repatriated her troops back to Japan in Japanese ships (the few that were left).
2. No occupation of the Japanese Home Islands.
3. The Japanese hold their own war crime trials.

Essentially, it would've been as though the war was never fought in the first place. It would've set the stage for another war in 20 years, much like the Imperial German Army retreating into Germany in the First World War. And the Generals in charge of the Allied Forces had seen that happen once and were not about to let it happen again.

The invasion was going to happen. It was a machine in motion, as was the whole war. And the war, at this point, was only going to get worse for all concerned. Look at Okinawa (more so than for Iwo Jima) for the effect of such a fight. 110K in Japanese Army Dead (add in another 5-10K if you include Japanese Air and Sea Casualties), 200K in Civilian Dead, 18K dead for the Americans (both Naval and Land). Kyushu would've seen an exponential rise in the number of dead from this point as the numbers of troops involved (820K by the end of August for the Japanese and 650K for the Allies) increase and the Japanese Civilian population was considered a combatant. Add in starvation and disease (the real killer for the Japanese population when the Allies invaded) and the dead for the Japanese easily passes one million by the spring of 1946 (inefficiencies in the disemination of foodstuffs caused by Allied destruction of transport causing an already starving population further into a daily deficiet of caloric intake).

By 1946, there can be little doubt that the Japanese dead would've made the death toll caused by the A-bombs look comparitively mild. The bomb is and was a horrible weapon. But considering the options (and I've just scratched the surface here) the final result of an Allied invasion would've resulted in a Japanese Götterdämmerung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Menu
Log in
Register