The bombing of Dresden....from a POW perspective

[SCG_Neun]

I found this very moving.....and I just happened to stumble upon it.  It's a Facebook video..so I apologize for those that do not have access to it...

 

https://www.facebook.com/bbcbreakfast/videos/1043763525637785/

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's terrible, war is terrible. The loss of human life in WWII was so extreme it's hard to comprehend.

[Bando]

Impressive to watch this man.

What a character.

Basically, in war, all parties are doing horrifying things to each other.

 

Well, the world is not getting any safer today, but here's a bottoms-up for everlasting piece, wherever you are...

[johncage]

people who have never been in a war need to stop crying about how horrible it is and just let the survivors and veterans say everything that needs to be said. and to be perfectly fair, it's not always the same opinions either.

[LukeFF]

people who have never been in a war need to stop crying about how horrible it is and just let the survivors and veterans say everything that needs to be said. and to be perfectly fair, it's not always the same opinions either.

 

Who died and left you in charge of what people can say and not say?

[indiaciki]

The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. The city was about to surrender. There were no troops. The Britsh bombed it just to prevent it to surrender to the Red Army. They even admitted it was a war crime some years ago.

Edited November 19, 2015 by indiaciki

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime, an immoral act or the Consequences of War?

 

20,000 civilians lost their lives in the Dresden bombings.

 

London was bombed for 57 consecutive nights. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed. Was that a war crime, an immoral act or Consequences of War?

[Cybermat47]

Who died and left you in charge of what people can say and not say?

Couldn't have said it better myself

[LukeFF]

The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. The city was about to surrender. There were no troops. The British bombed it just to prevent it to surrender to the Red Army. They even admitted it was a war crime some years ago.

• It was a transportation hub for troops being sent to the Eastern Front.
• It was still a manufacturing base for precision military optics at the time it was bombed.

Edited November 19, 2015 by LukeFF

[NobbyNobbs]

It was a transportation hub for troops being sent to the Eastern Front.

In 1945? And whom germans were sending to East through Dresden? Children, old men and cripples?

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by NobbyNobbs

[J2_Trupobaw]

Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime, an immoral act or the Consequences of War?

 

20,000 civilians lost their lives in the Dresden bombings.

 

London was bombed for 57 consecutive nights. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed. Was that a war crime, an immoral act or Consequences of War?

 

Bombing an undefended city is war crime. A manned fortress is fair game. Were there troops defending the Dresen, war material being manufactured, stored or transported through it? (ditto for London, Berlin, Warsaw or other cities that were bombed along with troops and war material in their limits). 

 

Dresen was bombed to demonstrate to Stalin that, despite his advantage in number of men and tanks, Western Allies can retaliate if he decides not to stop his march West after Germans are defeated. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki; citizens of Dresen were lucky that Third Reich collapsed before nukes were ready to use or they would be subject of even worse demonstration. Taken together, destruction of these three cities likely saved us from WW3, by making undeniable examples what would it look like. 

[9./JG27golani79]

Wasn´t there a discussion about pretty much the same topic which ended pretty much in the same way and got closed shortly after?

 

Why does it always have to be this way?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

In 1945? And whom germans were sending to East through Dresden? Children, old men and cripples?

The German Army was still putting up a very stiff but ultimately futile resistance. Defence of Upper Silesia, January-May 1945 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Laurels-Defence-Silesia-January-May/dp/1874622655I would recommend this book.

[Cybermat47]

From what I've heard, Dresden was a militarily important city. But the fact is that a lot of civilians died.

 

Personally, I don't support nor condemn the bombing.

 

I just hope that it's never repeated.

[Juri_JS]

As food for thought before this thread gets closed - here a text by Kurt Vonnegut (the author of Slaughterhouse 5) who was in Dresden during the bombing as a POW:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20857.htm

[6./ZG26_Emil]

From what I've heard, Dresden was a militarily important city. But the fact is that a lot of civilians died.

 

 

Indeed it was and the technology at the time did not enable precision bombing deep inside Germany.

 

Much was written attacking Harris after the war when the UK was being run by the left wing socialist party and as you can imagine there was a lot of anti war sentiment at the time (don't forget Churchill was voted out) but I don't believe it was a war crime whatsoever, just a necessary evil in a brutal war that as you say we never want to see again.

 

Saddly I'm not so sure our politicians have learned these lessons.

Edited November 19, 2015 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

As food for thought before this thread gets closed - here a text by Kurt Vonnegut (the author of Slaughterhouse 5) who was in Dresden during the bombing as a POW:

The death toll was vastly exaggerated for Dresden with claims of 200,000 civilians or more killed. The actual figure was around 25,000 who lost their lives. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7470248/Nazis-exaggerated-Dresden-death-toll-German-historians-conclude.html

 

Any civilian loss of life is a tragedy but more civilians were killed in WWII than combatants.

 

 

 

Much was written attacking Harris after the war

  As Harris said: The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind.

 

 

Does it make it right? That's for you to decide.

[DD_Arthur]

Emil, if you do a little research you'll find the first person to disown Arthur Harris and the RAF's strategic bombing campaign was.....Winston Spencer Churchill.

 

Btw; Churchill was kicked out of office in the 1945 general election by the votes of millions of british servicemen.      

[indiaciki]

okay, let's forget Dresden for a moment, Belgrade (an allied city along other occupied but militarily insignificant serbian cities were bombed by allied bombers on eastern 1943 (at that time the Yougosla forces fought the Germans on all fronts succesfully) - killing more civilians that the the Nazis did) for no military reason al all. Belgrade was liberated by the Yougaslav Army and the Red Army in October 1944 with infantery, artillery and tanks. The bombing of allied cilivialans with no damage to occupation forces was what? Just asking those defending bombing of civilians for some insane reason. Same happend elswhere...allied bombings of allied civian cities just for the case of what? Military impotence ??? As was burning of civilians in their subway shelters in Hamburg. What ever sick mind could justify that as military targets - I envy those stupid enough thinking it's right. The Red Army fought German military. And defeted them militarily. The bombing raids were pure sadism. Bombing friend or foe alike. Civilans? Sorry. It's sick.

Edited November 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[indiaciki]

PS. In November 1974, Burton was asked to write an article about Sir Winston Churchill for "The New York Times". Since Burton had just played the wartime leader in The Gathering Storm (1974), the newspaper expected a laudatory piece. Instead they were presented with a rant about Churchill the right-wing politician, whom Burton wrote, "to know him is to hate him".

[indiaciki]

Bombing an undefended city is war crime. A manned fortress is fair game. Were there troops defending the Dresen, war material being manufactured, stored or transported through it? (ditto for London, Berlin, Warsaw or other cities that were bombed along with troops and war material in their limits). 

 

Dresen was bombed to demonstrate to Stalin that, despite his advantage in number of men and tanks, Western Allies can retaliate if he decides not to stop his march West after Germans are defeated. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki; citizens of Dresen were lucky that Third Reich collapsed before nukes were ready to use or they would be subject of even worse demonstration. Taken together, destruction of these three cities likely saved us from WW3, by making undeniable examples what would it look like. 

 

An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack said:

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than 

Manchester

 is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with 

refugees

 pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its 

china

, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance....

The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front... and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what 

Bomber Command

 can do.

[39]

[31]

 

^{That was the beginning of the cold war. just as the nukes on Japan were preventing Japan to surrender to the USSR as they intended to do.  There's something really pathologigal in that kind of thinking. And it's going on right now, unfortunatly.}

Edited November 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[unreasonable]

okay, let's forget Dresden for a moment, Belgrade (an allied city along other occupied but militarily insignificant serbian cities were bombed by allied bombers on eastern 1943 (at that time the Yougosla forces fought the Germans on all fronts succesfully) - killing more civilians that the the Nazis did) for no military reason al all. Belgrade was liberated by the Yougaslav Army and the Red Army in October 1944 with infantery, artillery and tanks. The bombing of allied cilivialans with no damage to occupation forces was what? Just asking those defending bombing of civilians for some insane reason. Same happend elswhere...allied bombings of allied civian cities just for the case of what? Military impotence ??? As was burning of civilians in their subway shelters in Hamburg. What ever sick mind could justify that as military targets - I envy those stupid enough thinking it's right. The Red Army fought German military. And defeted them militarily. The bombing raids were pure sadism. Bombing friend or foe alike. Civilans? Sorry. It's sick.

 

You really should be more careful about accusing those who disagree with you about highly controversial issues of being stupid or insane, especially in such an overwrought - almost hysterical tone . It indicates that you do not understand the difference between normative moral judgements and empirical calculations, have a weak grasp of historical facts, and are unable to see the various sides of a complex issue. Bold letters and emotive simplifications are not a reliable marker of intelligence.

 

I suspect that the vast majority who would defend the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki etc, do so on the grounds that it was considered at the time to be the lesser evil, given the facts as the people who made the decisions understood them. Even most of those who would disagree, would I think accept that this is not so much because the whole project of strategic bombing was intrinsically flawed or evil, but because it had reached a point - unclear and debatable - where the balance of justification had tipped.

 

BTW - guess who carried out the first bombing raid on Berlin? I will save you the trouble of looking it up in wiki - it was the Soviet Air Force. If they had had developed a large strategic bombing force you can be sure that they would have used it. Once the Red Army arrived in German territory they routinely shot all the men of military age and raped all the women - until the leadership decided that this was counter-productive and put a stop to it. There is no easy "Soviets good, Allies bad" slogan to be had here.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Emil, if you do a little research you'll find the first person to disown Arthur Harris and the RAF's strategic bombing campaign was.....Winston Spencer Churchill.

 

Btw; Churchill was kicked out of office in the 1945 general election by the votes of millions of british servicemen.      

 

I do agree  

 

What I mean was there was a lot of very strong anti war sentiment after the war (with good reason), there was a lot of resentment where the jobs promised didn't materialise and the political landscape changed massively across the UK which is something we often don't read much about. Because of that I think there was a lot more written about Dresden and the bombing campaign especially when the many people's political views moved to the left which has mostly tended towards more pacifist and anti war/anti colonial ideology. That's not to have a pop at the left/labour, you could argue it's success over the years was a product of the two big wars, massive poverty and sacrifice and the people having had enough of the establishment and wanting something back. 

 

So in short I meant that nowadays there is more of a tendency to look back on the glory and victories but I think people couldn't care less in the late 40s and 50s, they just wanted jobs and security, the country was in tatters economically and our empire was in it's death throws.

 

Hopefully you get where I am coming from, this was written way too fast for a subject like this but it's a fascinating subject for me.

 

As far as the bombing itself I just think we shouldn't use terms like warcrimes because it implicates the men involved and made them feel like their contribution was insignificant which we know wasn't the case. Rightly or wrongly those bombing raids did a lot of damage to German industry and transport infrastructure, it displaced workers and generally caused havoc. 

 

I'm not defending or supporting it just think we're lucky to have the benefit of hindsight from which to pontificate from and I hope we never see that kind of suffering again.

[DD_Arthur]

 

Hopefully you get where I am coming from, this was written way too fast for a subject like this but it's a fascinating subject for me.

 

 

 

I do understand where you're coming from m8 and yes it is a fascinating subject but rather wanders off topic into british social history!

 

Ironically, I think you can still make a case that the RAF's strategic bombing campaign did more damage to the british wartime economy than the german one!

 

So back to Dresden; was it a "war crime"?  It was undoubtedly no more - or no less - of a war crime than the bombing of Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Cologne, Belgrade or Hiroshima.

 

For the RAF and the USAAF there was nothing unusual about the bombing of Dresden.  It was just another operation.  It was not done to stop the city surrendering or to teach the Russians a lesson or to prevent a third world war.  None of these things were a consideration in early 1945. 

 

The timeline of events is well known and understood.  On the eve of the Yalta conference Churchill asked of his airstaff what could be done to assist the russian advance in the east as the germans withdrew from Breslau.  This put the planning wheels in motion.  During the Yalta conference the russians issued a memorandum asking for allied air raids on eastern german cities as their front approached them.

 

The result was heavy, combined allied air raids on Berlin, Liepzig, Dresden and Chemnitz.  The sh#t hit the fan so to speak when it became known that something "unusual" had happened at Dresden in terms of civilian deaths and cultural destruction.  In the US a press report cited "allied terror bombing" which aroused much public disquiet although this was censored in the UK.

 

It was at this point that Churchill - ever a man with an eye for his place in history - started back-peddling.

 

The bombing of Belgrade during the easter of '44 was indeed an absurd, callous disgrace but the fact is Belgrade was bombed by the allies because Tito requested it. 

[Reflected]

I just finished reading "Masters of the Air". It has a chapter dedicated to these bombings. The reason why the 8th AF gave up its doctrines and principles of "precision bombing only" was simple: They thought that Germany was so close to collapsing that if they burned a few cities to the ground together with the RAF, it would make people turn away from Hitler and probably even cause an uprising, so they wouldn't have to occupy Germany from street to street.

 

Little did they know how terrorized the German population was, they had no chance to rise up against Hitler. If you worked in a factory and your family died in the bombings, you still had to show up for work, and you weren't even allowed to talk about it, otherwise you could be marked as a traitor.

 

By the way, I recommend that book to everyone who's interested in the air war over Europe. 

[MiloMorai]

American precision bombing is a myth. How can there be any precision when a bomber formation is 1/2 to 1 mile across and all drop there bombs at once and thru clouds?

 

On Dresden, the Americans were to drop the first bombs but due to weather the mission was scrubbed.

[downedpilot]

I found this very moving.....and I just happened to stumble upon it.  It's a Facebook video..so I apologize for those that do not have access to it...

 

https://www.facebook.com/bbcbreakfast/videos/1043763525637785/

 

I wonder if you lined  up all the wapons of war, and you were told have what you like, but another man has one has well, would you  have it.

[TheBlackPenguin]

Dresden was terrible, as were many other cities which were destroyed before and after, war is a terrible nasty thing. Many of these civilians could not have done a thing about the regime which had taken charge, indeed doing so would have simply led to imprisonment or worse...

 

How much has the debate over Dresden been influenced by this book? Is it a good or bad thing? The POW interviewed did mention that other cities had also been hit and how unforgivable it was (hell is lined with good intentions as they saying goes) and we should never forget, which is what worries me the most as this generation continues to move on out of living memory.

 

Anyway the book and author:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Dresden

 

Written by someone who has been discredited as a historian:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

 

What did or perhaps do the Russians make of it? They suffered worse than anyone else from WW2.

[Cybermat47]

Thats what you get for starting a war. Don't like it? Don't start one.

That's not a very good argument to justify Dresden. Some of the people killed in the raid would've been born after WWII began. And the ones who were around when WWII started hardly had a choice - Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, not a democracy.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

That's not a very good argument to justify Dresden. Some of the people killed in the raid would've been born after WWII began. And the ones who were around when WWII started hardly had a choice - Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, not a democracy.

 

I'm not being an ass but Hitler was elected democratically actually. As far as the rest goes it's always the innocent that suffer the most in war and that's unlikely to ever change even with current conflicts. 

[Cybermat47]

I'm not being an ass but Hitler was elected democratically actually.

 

Nah, you're not being an ass

 

AFAIK though, only 44% of the German population actually voted for Hitler (still a shockingly high number), and he became Fuhrer by exploiting loopholes in German law.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Nah, you're not being an ass

 

AFAIK though, only 44% of the German population actually voted for Hitler (still a shockingly high number), and he became Fuhrer by exploiting loopholes in German law.

 

David Cameron got far less 

[Cybermat47]

David Cameron got far less 

I got that feeling after speaking to my English friends

[TheBlackPenguin]

Nah, you're not being an ass

 

AFAIK though, only 44% of the German population actually voted for Hitler (still a shockingly high number), and he became Fuhrer by exploiting loopholes in German law.

 

Yep, weakness in German law and weakness in character(s):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen

[9./JG27golani79]

Yep, weakness[...] in character(s):

 

Pretty easy to say now isn´t it?  ..

[TheBlackPenguin]

Pretty easy to say now isn´t it?  ..

 

True, although, if you read the accounts at least some were shocked by certain appointments ("The French ambassador in Berlin, André François-Poncet, wrote at the time that Papen's selection by Hindenburg as chancellor was "...'met with incredulity'.[...] Papen," the ambassador continued, "enjoyed the peculiarity of being taken seriously by neither his friends nor his enemies. He was reputed to be superficial, blundering, untrue, ambitious, vain, crafty and an intriguer." ^[6]

The cabinet which Papen formed was known as the "cabinet of barons" or as the "cabinet of monocles"^[7] and was widely regarded with ridicule by Germans. Except from the conservative German National People's Party (DNVP), Papen had practically no support in the Reichstag." wiki, so take it as it is) and there is a lot of lessons still worth remembering. It really does seem that if one or two things had gone differently the whole thing may have been avoided with Hitler potentially fading into history, of course we'll never know.

 

Unfortunately my grand mother and grand father has passed, so I cannot ask them, so if anyone has grandparents or family who were around it might be worth asking. Once their gone .