Report Says Death Toll from Dresden Raid was 25,000

[michaelmaltby]

"... If Harris, Spaatz Arnold or Le May had been on the losing side they would have been tried as war criminals."

That is certainly true - but it says more about the realities of winning than it does about the moral/immorality of war.

Once again I restate what I've posted else where - if you don't intend to FIGHT TO SURVIVE AND WIN (because you BELIEVE in your cause) than why not just roll-over and surrender.

What is unacceptable is the revisionism that we are exposed to today - the A bombs on Japan being the perfect example. Nobody talks about the Dresden-scale fire raid on cities like Tokyo with immediate casualties on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The focus is on the "super weapon". Was it evil of the USA to deploy thus weapon twice ...? In my books it saved a vast number of lives and was humane compared to taking homeland Japan - a meter at a time.

No one in the USA, Britain or Canada started off "itching" to wipe out German cities. No one. And we recognize in the law a difference between manslaughter and pre-meditated murder. Yes?

POSTSCRIPT: "I went to Dresden last year. What I thought was pretty neat is the fact that this city now has a partnership with Coventry. The church bells toll in both cities at the same time in memory of the dead in both cities. "

Very touching and progress.

MM

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What is unacceptable is the revisionism that we are exposed to today - the A bombs on Japan being the perfect example. Nobody talks about the Dresden-scale fire raid on cities like Tokyo with immediate casualties on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The focus is on the "super weapon". Was it evil of the USA to deploy thus weapon twice ...? In my books it saved a vast number of lives and was humane compared to taking homeland Japan - a meter at a time.

I agree completely.

 

[proton45]

Whenever this question comes up I always consider two facts...

1) even before the bombing of (axis) civilian targets began, their where many, many civilians who where already tired of the war (they saw war as a bad thing)...

And two...

2) If the bombing of civilian targets is justified as a "means to an end", then why are we working so hard (today) to eliminate civilian casualties with "pin-point precision bombing"? And...we no longer target civilian establishments residence.

"

What is unacceptable is the revisionism that we are exposed to today - the A bombs on Japan being the perfect example. Nobody talks about the Dresden-scale fire raid on cities like Tokyo with immediate casualties on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The focus is on the "super weapon". Was it evil of the USA to deploy thus weapon twice ...? In my books it saved a vast number of lives and was humane compared to taking homeland Japan - a meter at a time.
"
Very touching and progress.

MM

Their is one issue that I never hear mentioned that much (as a reason that Japan would want to surrender), but their was a fear of the Russians...and a fear that Japan might be split-apart between the Communists and the Allies. People never speak much of it...but the Russians really wanted in on the action. They had their eye on Japanese territories...and the Japanese government was very afraid of what might happen to Japan if it didn't "stay all together".

 

[riacrato]

Very true proton. The "means to an end" argument can be used to justify about everything, including the murder of the entire male population in certain areas of eastern Europe by "Einsatzgruppen" or the likes. Just like the "war is hell" argument it is all too often used to conventiently avoid a real and critical confrontation with the past.

 

[parsifal]

The means to an end was entirely justified in my opinion, just as this idea of "pinpoint bombing" is a myth. If the allies had developed qualms about hitting civilian targets, then you can bet your boots that the germans would embed their vital industries in the heart of civilian areas moreso than they actually did.

And every procrastination about avoiding "civilian targets in Germany costs more European lives as a whole, as the germans systematically go about the continent murdering every person they see as a threat.

The Germans have no-one but themselves to blame for the retribution that fell on their heads during the war. They were guilty of waging and agressive and illegal war.....the allies recovered from their initial defeats and meted out destruction on the germans, just as the germans would have done so (and attempted to do so in the baedekker raids and V bomb attacks) if it had been them in the box seat. But the bomber offensive was not a reprisal campaign....it was intended to either achieve, or at least lead to victory for the allies as soon as possible, and in this it was successful.

 

[Timppa]

Having said all that, the bombing offensives were necessary for victory

I disagree. Allies would have won anyway. Especially RAF bomber command could have been used much more effectively, like the Peenemunde/Dams raid etc. raid showed. Harris was just fixated on bombing towns.
What is RAF had directed its efforts on the ball bearing industry in late 1943, (same time as 8th AF) ?
Shorter war, I think.
What if RAF bomber command had concentraded its efforts on the oil industry, like 8th AF in spring 1944). ?
Shorter war, I think.
Harris' nickname "Butcher" was earned not only by killing killing Germans, but also by sacrificing the British bomber crews.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I disagree. Allies would have won anyway. Especially RAF bomber command could have been used much more effectively, like the Peenemunde/Dams raid etc. raid showed. Harris was just fixated on bombing towns.
What is RAF had directed its efforts on the ball bearing industry in late 1943, (same time as 8th AF) ?
Shorter war, I think.
What if RAF bomber command had concentraded its efforts on the oil industry, like 8th AF in spring 1944). ?
Shorter war, I think.
Harris' nickname "Butcher" was earned by not only by killing killing Germans, but also by sacrificing the British bomber crews.

I say eye for an eye...

Hitler and Goering should have thought about that first.

 

[Hop]

What if RAF bomber command had concentraded its efforts on the oil industry, like 8th AF in spring 1944). ?

In spring 1944 Bomber Command was concentrated on invasion preparation. After being relieved of that duty, BC dropped more tons on oil targets than the 8th AF did.

Until 1944 any attempts to knock out specific German industries were useless. The USAAF didn't have the escorts to allow them to attack targets deep in Germany, and the RAF didn't have the electronic aids to allow them to bomb accurately at night.

And of course neither force had the capacity to seriously damage German industry until 1944. In the whole of 1943 Bomber Command dropped 157,000 tons of bombs. In 1944 they dropped 525,000.

 

[pbfoot]

I disagree. Allies would have won anyway. Especially RAF bomber command could have been used much more effectively, like the Peenemunde/Dams raid etc. raid showed. Harris was just fixated on bombing towns.
What is RAF had directed its efforts on the ball bearing industry in late 1943, (same time as 8th AF) ?
Shorter war, I think.
What if RAF bomber command had concentraded its efforts on the oil industry, like 8th AF in spring 1944). ?
Shorter war, I think.
Harris' nickname "Butcher" was earned not only by killing killing Germans, but also by sacrificing the British bomber crews.

I agree the fact is that Harris had to ordered to coordinate with the 8TH AF in attacking oil industry and he did so very reluctantly

 

[buffnut453]

If the bombing of civilian targets is justified as a "means to an end", then why are we working so hard (today) to eliminate civilian casualties with "pin-point precision bombing"? And...we no longer target civilian establishments residence.

Hi Proton,

There are 2 factors at play here: the scale of warfare and social norms.

1. Scale of Warfare. WWII was pretty much "Total War" in which every aspect of a nation's resources were directed towards successful prosecution of the conflict. Since 1945, there have only been small-scale wars that have not necessitated the full resources of all protagonists. Of course, this is largely dependent on perception. For example, Vietnam was not "Total War" for America but it most certainly was for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. We must also not forget that had the Cold War turned hot, civilians would very much have been in the firing line via ICBMs.

2. Social Norms. In the late-30s, it was considered entirely appropriate to use force (usually in the form of air power) to subdue the civilian populace of one's enemies. Douhet theory of the bomber always getting through defences was a direct example of this mindset. Since 1945, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, there has been an increasing separation between the civilian population and the armed forces that defend them and hence the targeting of civilians has become less palatable from a political standpoint. The increasing availability of immediate reporting by global media has also played a role in this evolution.

 

[proton45]

I say eye for an eye...

Hitler and Goering should have thought about that first.

The only problem I have with this mindset is that we are allowing psychopaths to set the rules of morality that we follow...

 

[timshatz]

The only problem I have with this mindset is that we are allowing psychopaths to set the rules of morality that we follow...

One of Hitler's lesser known quotes was about that. He said (paraphrasing) that the actions of a totalitarian state forced a democratic state to act just like the totalitarian state. It's an interesting and somewhat accurate perspective. Add in the war being a Total War, a Mechanized War and an Industrial War and Fire Bombing becomes almost inevitable.

Once the Totalitarian State sets the parameters, the Democracies will follow.

 

[buffnut453]

Once the Totalitarian State sets the parameters, the Democracies will follow.

Excellent point - there is a constant tension between the desire to maintain democratic freedoms and the need to harness national resources to meet the threat from totalitarian regimes. The problem is that the "status quo powers" (UK, France and, to some extent, the USA) wanted to maintain existing trade structures that were beneficial to them whereas the "revisionist powers" (Germany, Italy and Japan) sought independence from international trade - in other words autarky, or complete self-sufficiency in natural resources and manufacturing. The actions of the revisionist powers effectively changed the international balance of trade and influence. The status quo powers sought to react without losing freedoms or spending an excessive amount of money on rearmament, hence Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" aspiration and the UK's hope to avoid war with Japan. Given the financial state of the UK and France, recovering from WWI and the effects of the Great Depression, this is perhaps not too surprising. However, it did mean that the Allies were initially reactive to totalitarian regimes that didn't play by the conventional rules of foreign relations and remained reactive until they had adopted some, but not all, the features of less democratic forms of government.

 

[proton45]

One of Hitler's lesser known quotes was about that. He said (paraphrasing) that the actions of a totalitarian state forced a democratic state to act just like the totalitarian state. It's an interesting and somewhat accurate perspective. Add in the war being a Total War, a Mechanized War and an Industrial War and Fire Bombing becomes almost inevitable.

Once the Totalitarian State sets the parameters, the Democracies will follow.

A man with insidious insights...

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... The problem is that the "status quo powers" (UK, France and, to some extent, the USA) wanted to maintain existing trade structures that were beneficial to them whereas the "revisionist powers" (Germany, Italy and Japan) sought independence from international trade - in other words autarky, or complete self-sufficiency in natural resources and manufacturing. The actions of the revisionist powers effectively changed the international balance of trade and influence."

An interesting point Buffernut but I'm not sure you are describing the situation accurately . Long before and during the 1914-18 world war Britain and France had thriving empires. In 1914 Germany and Italy were only newly re-united "countries" (post 1848 revolutions) and both were newcomers to the empire club.

America claimed it wanted no part of that club - but nonetheless we have the Monroe Document and the Spanish America War which very much set a tone of "empire".

In contrast - Germany has been humiliated by 1919 - not by the military situation (Germans don't accept they were defeated) but by the political and economic terms. Germany plans to rise again - strong and militant - and they want "empire" exactly for the same reasons England and France wanted empire -- mercantilism and self-sufficient + protected markets. In Germany's case Norway and Romania are both examples of territories that gave Germany strength through strategic resources, neutral but pro-German Sweden is another example of Hitler's economic patchwork. Russia conquered would have given the Nazis war machine a huge stock room.

"... Once the Totalitarian State sets the parameters, the Democracies will follow."

Too true, Timshatz. The irony in our current wars is that the Totalitarians (aka terrorists) put NO VALUE on human life knowing that we will be held to high standards in the Court of Public Opinion - while they are not.

I say - if the opponent doesn't value their own lives - why should we.

MM

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I say - if the opponent doesn't value their own lives - why should we.

All too true, especially in the conflicts we are currently involved in. Unfortunately however we are required to take the moral high ground.

 

[timshatz]

"Too true, Timshatz. The irony in our current wars is that the Totalitarians (aka terrorists) put NO VALUE on human life knowing that we will be held to high standards in the Court of Public Opinion - while they are not.

I say - if the opponent doesn't value their own lives - why should we."

My understanding is the tactic used in Iraq and A-Stan is the "Hearts and Minds" approach to let the locals know that we value their lives while the opposition (Involuntary Martrydom) sees their deaths as a neccessary evil in pursuit of their polictial and ideological goals.

I don't know how effective it was/is. Most likely, it was a combination of factors that lead to the improving situation in Iraq.

However, in a case of Total War between two industrialized societies, your logic holds as long as their are some commesurate goal or affect on the Economic/Military System. For instance, the US 8th Air Force was famous for missing targets and bombing residential areas. But it was trying to hit the industrial targets in the first place. Whereas Bomber Command was attempting to "de-house" the population, the population being the primary targets.

The general viewpoint of these two differing viewpoints is the 8th Air Force Air War has a less negative veneer to it than that of Bomber Command. The deaths of people killed when you dropped bombs and missed the target not being as negatively viewed as the deaths of people who WERE the target.

Again, that logic is only endemic to Democracies and most often, after the war is over. Totalitarian regimes kill for the sole purpose of terrorizing a population and that, in and of itself, is the reason for the actions in the first place. There is no questioning the morality after the war is over.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My understanding is the tactic used in Iraq and A-Stan is the "Hearts and Minds" approach to let the locals know that we value their lives while the opposition (Involuntary Martrydom) sees their deaths as a neccessary evil in pursuit of their polictial and ideological goals.

I don't know how effective it was/is. Most likely, it was a combination of factors that lead to the improving situation in Iraq.

Unfortunately it is not working. Just an example..

We build a school for the children. The people are grateful and happy and very appreciative. Later after we leave the area, the Taliban or Al Qaeda come in and destroy the school and kill a bunch of people, warning them that they should not support us. The next time we come back to help them again, they do not want our help for such things because it only brings the Taliban and Al Qaeda back. Unfortunately we can not be there all the time to stop these things.

The Iraqi workers that would work on our camps tried to do so without being identified outside of the camps because the insurgents would come and kill their families at night. Why do you think the Police there have to wear face masks? Same thing...

 

[timshatz]

Unfortunately it is not working. Just an example..

We build a school for the children. The people are grateful and happy and very appreciative. Later after we leave the area, the Taliban or Al Qaeda come in and destroy the school and kill a bunch of people, warning them that they should not support us. The next time we come back to help them again, they do not want our help for such things because it only brings the Taliban and Al Qaeda back. Unfortunately we can not be there all the time to stop these things.

The Iraqi workers that would work on our camps tried to do so without being identified outside of the camps because the insurgents would come and kill their families at night. Why do you think the Police there have to wear face masks? Same thing...

Adler, is it still that way or is it changed any? I'm asking because the stuff we get back here, from multiple sources, is the level of violence is way down but still around. Also that AQ is gone.

Is that all crap and the bad guys are just lying low until we leave or is everyone laying low until we leave?

 

[buffnut453]

Long before and during the 1914-18 world war Britain and France had thriving empires. In 1914 Germany and Italy were only newly re-united "countries" (post 1848 revolutions) and both were newcomers to the empire club.

Hi Michael,

I think we're saying the same thing. The UK and France didn't need to be self-sufficient because they had empires which delivered luxury items for trade, as well as certain staples. Therefore, there wasn't a need/desire to be self-sufficient. As late-comers to the empire game with insufficient territory to be self-sufficient, Italy, Germany and Japan had to rely on external trade but they wanted to be self-sufficient. This demand for autarky could not be implemented without impacting other nations and their interests. Germany's long-term goal was always subjugation of Eastern Europe to provide the self-sufficiency that the Nazi doctrine demanded. Likewise Japan became embroiled on the Chinese mainland to gain natural resources that were not present in the Home Islands.

KR
Mark