Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

WW2 bombings killed less than believed

Dhimmi

Half Man Half HobNob
News from a German study initiated to counter the growing figure used by right-wing parties to excuse the holocaust and gain support.


THE Allied firebombing of Dresden killed no more than 25,000 people – far fewer than scholars’ previous estimates running as high as 135,000 – a German commission has found.
The team of a dozen experts, including university professors, archivists and military historians, said four years of research so far had confirmed 18,000 deaths and showed that police and city administrators at the time believed there were about 25,000 victims of the bombing. The research is to continue until next year.

Since the end of the Second World War, experts have varied in their tally of people killed by waves of British and US bombers on February 13-14, 1945.
Some estimates have run to 135,000 or more. In his 2005 book on the bombing, British historian Frederick Taylor argued the real toll was between 25,000 and 40,000.

The high civilian death toll and the devastation of the centuries-old eastern German city centre have been a source of controversy for decades – as has the dispute over whether the Allies were justified in targeting the refugee-choked city.
The Allies hoped the bombing would hurt the Nazis where they would feel it most and help force their capitulation.

Recently, neo-Nazis in Germany have talked of 500,000 to one million victims, calling the raid a “bombing Holocaust” and comparing it to Adolf Hitler’s murder of six million Jews. They accused Britain and the US of committing mass murder.
It was after the far-right NPD party won seats in Saxony’s parliament in 2004 and gave greater voice to these claims that state officials decided a commission was needed to put the matter to rest.

“The commission, in this preliminary report, believes there were a maximum of 25,000 people who died during the February aerial attack,” the team said in a statement.

Nazi authorities had failed to provide adequate air raid shelters for Dresden. That left people cowering in basements where many were asphyxiated or buried by collapsing buildings. The town’s anti-aircraft guns had been removed for use against the approaching Soviets, letting the bomber crews take undisturbed and deadly aim.
The fire made superheated air rise rapidly, creating a vacuum at ground level that produced winds strong enough to uproot trees and suck people into the flames. Some who managed to get through the blinding sparks and fiery debris staggered into the Grosser Garden park, where many were killed by a second bomber wave. But the exact death toll has always been a question.

Nazi propaganda from 1945 put the toll at some 200,000. Under communist East Germany, authorities agreed upon 35,000. The neo-Nazis offered a sharply inflated figure.
The team of experts has pored through more than 2,600 linear feet of files in the Dresden state archives and interviewed dozens of witnesses.
The commission has also consulted studies on aerial attacks, rescue operations, firefighting, and archaeological evidence.
Despite the chaos during the final days of the war and the devastation of the bombing, they said they found that records of the recovery and burial of the dead from the raid was “remarkably orderly”.

“Through this work of the commission the victims get a face and a name,” said Dresden mayor Helma Orosz. “Behind every single victim is ... suffering and we should remember this”.


source:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/l...ngs-killed-less-than-believed-91466-21947633/
 
Isn't it generally accepted that area bombing had limited value during WWII - can't remember where I read it, but an article argued that bombing didn't succeed in stopping places functioning until US bombing of Indochina.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki excepted.....
 
25 000 isn't really a marking down of a generally accepted higher figure, 25 000 already was the generally accepted figure. It's further evidence in support of an already existing consensus. See the in-depth discusssion in Richard Evans book Telling Lies about Hitler, about the Irving trial. 25 000 is roughly the figure most of the experts have accepted for some time now.
 
Isn't it generally accepted that area bombing had limited value during WWII - can't remember where I read it, but an article argued that bombing didn't succeed in stopping places functioning until US bombing of Indochina.

Depends where you mean, AFAIK.

The impact of German bombing here was relatively limited because it wasn't actually all that effective. UK/US bombing of German cities and industrial plant, on the other hand, was very disruptive. Certainly, it was a major factor in parts of German industry grinding to a halt in 1944-5, and IIRC it was thought to be have contributed to a collapse in morale in the worst-hit cities.

The percentage of buildings destroyed in the bombings of German cities is usually far higher than in British cities. I was in Bremerhaven a few years ago and noticed how little there was that dated from before the war, far less than in even the most heavily bombed British cities.
 
fair comment - the stuff I'd read (a while back) made the point that places like Berlin continued to function as cities right up to the end, despite being pulverised - this was contrasted to Cambodia after the bombing there, where the agrarian society started to disintegrate.
 
fair comment - the stuff I'd read (a while back) made the point that places like Berlin continued to function as cities right up to the end, despite being pulverised - this was contrasted to Cambodia after the bombing there, where the agrarian society started to disintegrate.

It's not quite a fair comparison, though. I can't remember the exact comparison I read but the US dropped the same amount of bombs on the eastern part of Cambodia in a period of under a year as was dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of operations by both sides throughout the whole of World War II. It was a seriously staggering figure when I read it, given how small the area was.
 
25 000 isn't really a marking down of a generally accepted higher figure, 25 000 already was the generally accepted figure. It's further evidence in support of an already existing consensus. See the in-depth discusssion in Richard Evans book Telling Lies about Hitler, about the Irving trial. 25 000 is roughly the figure most of the experts have accepted for some time now.

"WW2 bombings killed about the same number of people as believed by people other than Nazi apologists"...
 
It's not quite a fair comparison, though. I can't remember the exact comparison I read but the US dropped the same amount of bombs on the eastern part of Cambodia in a period of under a year as was dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of operations by both sides throughout the whole of World War II. It was a seriously staggering figure when I read it, given how small the area was.

yes, I've read the same thing quoted in various places - and it is a startling and almost unbelievable comparison, but I guess thats part of the point though - clearly they didn't have more planes, or more missions, but were able to mobilise vast quantities of munitions onto poor Cambodia - in a way that wasn't do-able in WW2, hence the destructiveness, social as well as physical, must have been enormous.
 
Isn't it generally accepted that area bombing had limited value during WWII - can't remember where I read it, but an article argued that bombing didn't succeed in stopping places functioning until US bombing of Indochina.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki excepted.....

At the height of the bombing of N Vietnam, McNamara, Defence Secretary, produced a report showing it was actually having little effect on industrial production.
 
At the height of the bombing of N Vietnam, McNamara, Defence Secretary, produced a report showing it was actually having little effect on industrial production.


I don't think it was aimed at industry, more weapons sites, bridges, troop concentrations, transit routes, air bases, communications nodes etc. Strategic bombing of tactical targets. Kinda.
 
At the height of the bombing of N Vietnam, McNamara, Defence Secretary, produced a report showing it was actually having little effect on industrial production.

Funny that. Considering that the US had been trying to get the North to the negotiating table for a long time. So, they started bombing Hanoi etc and presto!, there were the N Vietnamese on the phone: "Hey - wanna talk?"
 
25 000 isn't really a marking down of a generally accepted higher figure, 25 000 already was the generally accepted figure. It's further evidence in support of an already existing consensus. See the in-depth discusssion in Richard Evans book Telling Lies about Hitler, about the Irving trial. 25 000 is roughly the figure most of the experts have accepted for some time now.

Excellent source to mention, quite right of course but I remembered there being some discussion about this previously. The part I found most interesting was how the Germans had taken a stance to discredit the high figure adopted by neo-nazis.
 
At the height of the bombing of N Vietnam, McNamara, Defence Secretary, produced a report showing it was actually having little effect on industrial production.

I should have been a bit more specific, the article I read (some time ago, it has to be said) was talking about parts of Cambodia, and IIRC, Laos (maybe the Plain of Jars region). It was pretty instrumental in creating the space for the Khmer Rouge to come to power, apparently.
 
None of this takes away the fact that many innocent civillians were killed.

Well since at least some of them would have been on their way to work/at work in munitions plants and other places defined as being legitimate target by the Geneva convention.
 
Well since at least some of them would have been on their way to work/at work in munitions plants and other places defined as being legitimate target by the Geneva convention.

None of this takes away the fact that many innocent civillians were killed.
 
As there were in London, Conventry etc etc during the Blitz and again (altho far more limited in number) when the V1 and V2s started falling. Innocent civilians were killed on both sides.
 
As there were in London, Conventry etc etc during the Blitz and again (altho far more limited in number) when the V1 and V2s started falling. Innocent civilians were killed on both sides.

No shit sherlock. I don't like this debating numbers malarky, it sort of takes away from the main issue, that far far far too many innocent civillians were killed in that war.
 
The thread hasn't really been about debating numbers, just whether aerial bombing was effective in winning the war. Its possible to have an interesting historical conversation about this, without forgetting that very large numbers of people were killed.

Bomber Command was probably at its most effective when control was temporarily wrested from Harris, and the aircraft used to knock out train intersections around the time of D-Day, rather than area bombing. Fewer dead, greater positive impact on the course of the war.
 
The thread hasn't really been about debating numbers, just whether aerial bombing was effective in winning the war. Its possible to have an interesting historical conversation about this, without forgetting that very large numbers of people were killed.

Bomber Command was probably at its most effective when control was temporarily wrested from Harris, and the aircraft used to knock out train intersections around the time of D-Day, rather than area bombing. Fewer dead, greater positive impact on the course of the war.

The other thing to consider is how operations by the likes of the SoE were originally stunted by a lack of air supply, as the planes were used for more traditional forms of war. However you want to measure it the SoE operations proved far more effective where they could be applied.
 
Back
Top Bottom