Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

75 Year Anniversary of the Bombing of Dresden, justified or not?

And I could certainly understand why someone from Coventry might have had additional reasons to be very upset by what happened at Dresden.
They have reasons to be angry with Churchill, as he knew what was to become of Coventry and let it happen anyway.
 
you can look at ISIS and the "traditional" historical approach of a victorious army entering a city Siege of Badajoz (1812) - Wikipedia
to understand why we have rules of warfare.
They only really work when its state vs state and both sides recognize the rules. The Nazis were weird often they obeyed rules but when they broke them they really broke them.
Imperial Japan didn't but treated their own soldiers in a horrific manner as well.
But why would any state recognise (the) rules other than when it suits them? If you've decided to go to war, surely you've decided to try to win. War is not civilised.
 
you can look at ISIS and the "traditional" historical approach of a victorious army entering a city Siege of Badajoz (1812) - Wikipedia
to understand why we have rules of warfare.
They only really work when its state vs state and both sides recognize the rules. The Nazis were weird often they obeyed rules but when they broke them they really broke them.
Imperial Japan didn't but treated their own soldiers in a horrific manner as well.

TBF there isn't any evidence (from major wars at least) that war crimes (at least in terms of an investigation, trial and sentence) "work", or are anything other than victor's justice. They should all be punishable, but I am struggling to think of an occasion where they ever have been. I mean just from that war you have the debate over bombing civilians, the contrast in fortunes between U-boat skippers who machine-gunned survivors in liferafts and USN and RN captains who did the same thing, or what was done to POWs by the Germans (criminal) and Soviets (not criminal).

As for Dresden, it was obviously a horror but by no means a unique one, and I think Harris' point about the hypocrisy of the politicians who only seemed to be bothered by Dresden because it looked nice (as opposed to somewhere like Pforzheim, Tokyo or Hamburg) and because they thought Jerry was beaten by then is still valid. Bomber Command had been ordered to carry out worse by the same politicians in the past and had suffered hugely for it, so they were the last people who should have complained about the humanity of it or indeed feel so ashamed by the raid that the contribution of Bomber Command to the war effort was obscured and minimized for years afterwards (and still is today, FWIW).
 
Last edited:
But why would any state recognise (the) rules other than when it suits them? If you've decided to go to war, surely you've decided to try to win. War is not civilised.
Because they can recognise that specific wars are shorter than remembered history, and that in future the same standards, or lack of, may be applied to them to their detriment. This is why we have and generally obey The Geneva Convention and suchlike, not out of altruism but to set commonality so that if e.g. your expensive soldiers are taken prisoner, the enemy isn't inspired to very visibly do to them whatever horrible thing you might have done to theirs. It's both sensible and absurd at once. Also think about it in terms of maintaining control and it starts to become a little more clear.
 
on the subject of the nukes, there is the argument that the threat of Russia alone would have produced surrender.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [79]

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [89]

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [90]

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [90]


and so on
 
No it's not. Knew all about it but to intercept the Germans would mean letting them know their codes had been broken.
Highly contentious. There were other (non-Enigma) indicators of the raids but didn't necessarily pinpoint Coventry.
 
Does still leave the argument that being completely overwhelmed and surrounded by the Russians would have been enough .... think i caught it from Chomsky :/

actually not but there was this :

In 1967, Noam Chomsky described the atomic bombings as "among the most unspeakable crimes in history". Chomsky pointed to the complicity of the American people in the bombings, referring to the bitter experiences they had undergone prior to the event as the cause for their acceptance of its legitimacy.[117]

and this

The New York Review of Books said:
And, quite properly, he turns the question back to us: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely among the most unspeakable crimes in history. To an undergraduate in 1945–46—to anyone whose political and moral consciousness had been formed by the horrors of the 1930s, by the war in Ethiopia, the Russian purge, the 'China Incident', the Spanish Civil War, the Nazi atrocities, the Western reaction to these events and, in part, complicity in them—these questions had particular significance and poignancy.
 
Last edited:



The bombing of Dresden was controversial at the time the city was firebombed which caused a fireball which killed tens of thousands and destroyed the centre of the city.

Should it have been done?
I'm no expert but perhaps it could have been done in a way that didn't result in so many civilian deaths. The idea that it wasn't a military target is false though, and is actual Nazi propaganda. There were military targets there, including the Waffen SS, however there was also slave labourers there, victims of the Holocaust. So, any targetting of Dresden would have had to have been very carefully done.
 
Hamburg was as bad in July 1943.
Hot weather and a week of night raids with HE and incendiaries caused a firestorm that deprived the city of oxygen, killing and burning more than 40,000.
My dad was serving in Bomber Command in Lincolnshire, loading Halifaxs and Lancasters with bombs.
He never spoke about it. But used to get upset years later. When the nightly news showed the US pouring bombs onto the Vietcong and civilians. It was only after he died that I found out about his armouring days off my uncle.
 
I'm no expert but perhaps it could have been done in a way that didn't result in so many civilian deaths. The idea that it wasn't a military target is false though, and is actual Nazi propaganda. There were military targets there, including the Waffen SS, however there was also slave labourers there, victims of the Holocaust. So, any targetting of Dresden would have had to have been very carefully done.
Not really bomber command was set up to burn cities.
 
Not really bomber command was set up to burn cities.

It was actually set up to deliver precision bombing against military targets, but found out quite quickly and at a high cost in lives* that this was impossible, given the technology available and the almost suicidal risk of doing it in the daytime when they could actually see what they were aiming at. That allowed Harris and others (who had always favoured area bombing) to come along and say that they might as well bomb cities, given thats all they could hit at night, and gradually he was able to build his force into one that specialized in attacking cities.

* though not by the standard of what they suffered between 1942 and 1944
 
Does still leave the argument that being completely overwhelmed and surrounded by the Russians would have been enough .... think i caught it from Chomsky :/

actually not but there was this :



and this
Japanese high command was batshit insane though. Simply believing killing enough invaders would get the allies to accept their surrender on their terms. You just end up with a higher body count and Japan under communist rule.
 
Is that the Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papapers fame?
Yeah, that's right. The Pentagon papers are only part of what he planned to leak. Iirc he leaked them first and alone so they would get covered and attention as he thought they could have an immediate effect. He also planned to leak a lot of stuff about the US nuclear arsenal, command and control etc but due to various issues like losing it all for a while only recently has.
 
Yeah, that's right. The Pentagon papers are only part of what he planned to leak. Iirc he leaked them first and alone so they would get covered and attention as he thought they could have an immediate effect. He also planned to leak a lot of stuff about the US nuclear arsenal, command and control etc but due to various issues like losing it all for a while only recently has.
Ta fpor that, very interesting :thumbs:
 
I'm no expert but perhaps it could have been done in a way that didn't result in so many civilian deaths. The idea that it wasn't a military target is false though, and is actual Nazi propaganda. There were military targets there, including the Waffen SS, however there was also slave labourers there, victims of the Holocaust. So, any targetting of Dresden would have had to have been very carefully done.
how would you suggest they achieved the necessary level of precision?
 
how would you suggest they achieved the necessary level of precision?

Short of time travelling and picking a vast number of Lazer guided bombs you can't do it with ww2 tech.
The US had the highly complex norden bomb sight which in reality was pants.
Mosquitos did a few precision strike but after they hit a school instead of Gestapo hq they stopped those.
 
The US had the highly complex norden bomb sight which in reality was pants.

It was a complex piece of tech at the time. Very accurate. Problem was they didn't have enough of them and often only the lead aircraft in each squadron would carry one. The other aircraft would simply bomb when they saw the lead bomber drop theirs.. Precision bombing effectively became area bombing.
 
It was a complex piece of tech at the time. Very accurate. Problem was they didn't have enough of them and often only the lead aircraft in each squadron would carry one. The other aircraft would simply bomb when they saw the lead bomber drop theirs.. Precision bombing effectively became area bombing.

They also flew higher which altered the speed of the bombs nobody really understood supersonic velocities. The Weather in Europe was worse so most of the the accuracy turned out to be theoretical
 

The bombing of Dresden was controversial at the time the city was firebombed which caused a fireball which killed tens of thousands and destroyed the centre of the city.

Should it have been done?
all's fair in love and war
 
Back
Top Bottom