Dresden - all's fair in love and war, or not?

[JayKeeley]

With all this neo-nazi stuff going on these days in Germany (being that it's the 60th anniversary of WWII or thereabouts), there's still a lot of resentment for the bombing of Dresden where 35,000 people died in 2 days of firebombing by the Brits and US.

Are the complaints justified? Or are they having a fucken laugh?

 

[NAD]

I just read Slaughterhouse-five a few weeks ago, it centered around the Dresden bombing (ol' Vonnegut was there fightin' at the time). My knowledge is based on what the book said and I haven't done my research on the matter, but it seemed like a wholly fucked situation that should have never occured.

 

[JayKeeley]

I just read Slaughterhouse-five a few weeks ago, it centered around the Dresden bombing (ol' Vonnegut was there fightin' at the time). My knowledge is based on what the book said and I haven't done my research on the matter, but it seemed like a wholly fucked situation that should have never occured.

Well, as I understand it, the attack was requested by Russia since Dresden was a key location for the Nazi's and their push towards the Eastern Front.

So the Brits went in and firebombed the place. Lots of civillians died. Thing is, isn't it weird to focus on this and suddenly forget all the other atrocities of the war? What am I missing?

 

[NAD]

It was solely civilian and a neutral town apparently, no military operations whatsoever.

Care to link me some shitz about the current goings on? I haven't heard/read anything on it.

 

[JayKeeley]

Aces High > Tailgunner

@NAD: I read BBC news -- here is the article on the National Democratic Party (they're basically supported by neo-Nazi's: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4556233.stm)

Also, here's one to Dresden rememberance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4261263.stm

 

[JayKeeley]

Tail end Charlie in the boiling sky
The Enola Gay was my last try
Now that this Tailgunner's gone
No more Bombers (just one big bomb)

 

[Mormagil]

There were a few other firebombings that did almost as much if not more damage than the two atomic bombings, but those aren't mentioned nearly as often as Dresden. Hmm...

 

[cthulufhtagn]

There were a few other firebombings that did almost as much if not more damage than the two atomic bombings, but those aren't mentioned nearly as often as Dresden. Hmm...

almost every major city in japan, for example...
it's funny/alarming, in japan they really spin the war to make it seem like the US were the aggressors. not the way to learn from the past.

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

 

[Mormagil]

almost every major city in japan, for example...

Yeah, Tokyo and a lot of others in Japan, and in Germany, at least Hamburg (I think).

 

[spaffe]

As I've understood things Dresden, and other german cities with mostly civialns among the casualities, were bombed in order to lower the morale of the german people. But that argument is pretty stuped when one considers that bombings were done in Frebruary 1945 when most people saw Germany's defeat as something unevitable.

One question that comes to mind is why the these advocates of humanism and all that didn't bomb the death camps instead.

 

[Thanatopsis123]

WWII = Total War

Shouldn't this more generally be a discussion of limited vs total wars? Oh fuck it, I'll stop here. I just took a class of military history and we discussed this sort of thing and came to no conclusion about it.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

Japan still hasnt acknowledged their agression to this day really. China always gets pissed of off when Japan refuses to change their history books to reflect the country in a negative light.

 

[JayKeeley]

One question that comes to mind is why the these advocates of humanism and all that didn't bomb the death camps instead.

You mean while the Jews were still there? Otherwise I think the camps serve as a good reminder of what went down.

Here's the thing though, looking at it very simply: Germany started the war. They invaded most of Europe, even after being warned by Churchill. They systematically gassed 10,000,0000 human beings (non-military). Like Dresden, they bombed the living crap out of London (but the Brits had the common sense to go underground during the attacks).

So are Germany really in any position to make complaints!!? If anything, and especially compared to Japan, didn't they get off lightly?!

 

[cthulufhtagn]

If anything, and especially compared to Japan, didn't they get off lightly?!

i would say they probably did, although i'm not particularly familiar with the statistics for germany. i've seen them for japan, and in terms of simple area destroyed many of japan's cities were 60, 70% or more demolished outright, razed to the ground. the pictures are incredible. cities of wood buildings + firebombing = firestorms; many people died from sheer lack of oxygen, the fires were consuming so much! people were literally lifted off their feet and thrown by the wind the fires generated. i don't believe such things occurred in germany for the most part, due to the more modern construction of most buildings.

 

[spaffe]

You mean while the Jews were still there? Otherwise I think the camps serve as a good reminder of what went down.

Yes while they were there. If an action is judged in the light of how many persons it saves (which seems to be the case here) then bombing the camps would have been the right thing to do, since it would have saved more people in the long run. That has to be more important than keeping it as a memorial site right? (that's how I interpreted what you wrote anyway)

Here's the thing though, looking at it very simply: Germany started the war. They invaded most of Europe, even after being warned by Churchill. They systematically gassed 10,000,0000 human beings (non-military). Like Dresden, they bombed the living crap out of London (but the Brits had the common sense to go underground during the attacks).

That's a pretty problematic way of looking at it. The people bombed in Dresden had nothing to with the extermination camps and all that. Sure they didn't try to stop Hitler as he took power, but can common people really be exptected to? And also, can people be held responsible for what other completely unrelated people have done just because they're fellow countrymen?

And not that it's terribly important but they didn't gas that many. A lot were shot by the Einsatzkommandos (about 1 mil I think) and a great number died from starvation etc in the ghettos and camps.

 

[JayKeeley]

Yes while they were there. If an action is judged in the light of how many persons it saves (which seems to be the case here) then bombing the camps would have been the right thing to do, since it would have saved more people in the long run. That has to be more important than keeping it as a memorial site right? (that's how I interpreted what you wrote anyway)

Yeah, I never thought of it that way, simply because the allied troops came in tanks through land invasion. Why they didn't drop bombs on the camps, I don't know. That is a whole other eyebrow raising discussion.

That's a pretty problematic way of looking at it. The people bombed in Dresden had nothing to with the extermination camps and all that. Sure they didn't try to stop Hitler as he took power, but can common people really be exptected to? And also, can people be held responsible for what other completely unrelated people have done just because they're fellow countrymen?

I'm afraid these are the casualties of war (which is why I'm against war in the first place). When Germany carpet bombed London, they were hitting residential areas, not any significant military operations.

Let's take out all the grey areas here. Simply put: we were at war with Germany. Dresden is in Germany. As far as I can see, Germany are lucky that we didn't drop atom bombs in every major German city. Think of all the allied troops that could have lived had the A-bombs gone to work on their behalf.

After all, if Hitler had the A-bomb, he would have used it.

 

[JayKeeley]

UM fail it.

 

[NAD]

Simply put: we were at war with Germany.

Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with you. It's why I've always thought the term "war crimes" is so ridiculous. Okay so you can invade a country and kill 250,000 soldiers because their leader crossed you on some oil deal, but as soon as you firebomb a town of 14 civilians you are a War Criminal subject to all kinds of punishment.

Fuck war.

 

[JayKeeley]

Well, hang on there matey. Getting hit by bombs is slightly different to soldiers marching into a town and killing women and children at point blank range.

Or is it?

Mystery post!

 

[NAD]

You and your damn mystery posts.

No human life is worth more than the next, when it all comes down to it. Yes, soldier boy, made of clay, etc. but the distinction between the two isn't all that different. Is the Mai Lai massacre the worst portion of the Vietnam War? Probably, but that doesn't mean that any of the other "legal" killings were okay. It's all murder at the end of the day.