Dresden

[Larspeart]

Bombing a city centre, while vile, is the most effective way to eliminate the WILL TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE in war. Bombing a base is seen by the populace as 'acceptable damage to combatants'. It is when they, the 'innocent citizens', are bombed that the realize the resolve fo the enemy in which they face.

Example- Japan. Hiroshima.

Tactically, it was a mid-level target at best. From a MORALE standpoint, it was a major, populated, and interior city, FULL of (mainly) Joe-Schmoe citizens who had as little to do with with war as possible/they could.

'If my enemy is willing to do ANYTHING to win, I cannot defeat them'.

"Never do an enemy a small injury" - Niccolo Machiavelli

Had the germans bombed London as thoroughly as we bombed Dresden, i often wonder what would have happened. London was battered, but it wasn't annihilated like Dresden was (nothing left afterwards). I often wonder if the British resolve (admirable as it was, and I say thank you!) would have held out under THAT much bombing.

 

[Jon_in_london]

And wonder what would have happened to German armaments production if Bomber Harris had not insisted on bombing city centres instead of actual armament factories?

Now, tell me Jon, how did the Blitz affect the British morale? Did it lower it or did it encourage the Brits to continue fighting?

It would have been wonderfull to be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the beginning, the RAF was lucky if it hit the right country nevermind a specific building within a specific city.

Lots of people bang on about "blitz spirit" I think this is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊- British government propaganda that people have started to believe as fact.

I have read my Grandfather memoirs and have read how he described the air-raids- "morale-booster" didnt appear once.

 

[Jon_in_london]

This is accepted historical fact. Ive googled but I cant find an opposing view. The increase occured between early 1942 and July 1944. After that production decreased.

Its become accepted historical dogma that hasnt been widely challenged.

The Cologne raid of May 1943 was the RAF's first really big raid- and there wouldnt be another for months- so I doubt that production really did increase 5-fold while the bomber offensive was in "full swing"

 

[Kerberos]

Bombing a city centre, while vile, is the most effective way to eliminate the WILL TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE in war. Bombing a base is seen by the populace as 'acceptable damage to combatants'. It is when they, the 'innocent citizens', are bombed that the realize the resolve fo the enemy in which they face.

Example- Japan. Hiroshima.

Tactically, it was a mid-level target at best. From a MORALE standpoint, it was a major, populated, and interior city, FULL of (mainly) Joe-Schmoe citizens who had as little to do with with war as possible/they could.

According to Wikipedia Hiroshima was a major military target: "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." Link

Still the main effect was undoutebly the moral one. What IMO makes it far more obvious that Hiroshima and Nagazaki was justified than that Dresden is, is the fact that the bombings made Japan surender. Dresden had no such obvious effect. That's not saying that Dresden wasn't justified, but it's IMO less obvious.

Had the germans bombed London as thoroughly as we bombed Dresden, i often wonder what would have happened. London was battered, but it wasn't annihilated like Dresden was (nothing left afterwards). I often wonder if the British resolve (admirable as it was, and I say thank you!) would have held out under THAT much bombing.

I'm not sure that the Germans could have bombed London as thoroughly as the Allies bombed Dresden, since I don't think the Germans ever held the same overwhelming arial supremacy that the Allies did in the end of the war. I have even heard that the Germans were actually winning the Battle of Britain, untill they shifted focus from destroying the RAF to terrorbombing.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

No, just the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. It's reprehensible whichever side does it.

And Ed, ethics is not like fashion. If something is unethical, then it's unethical no matter when it occurs, or whichever culture you happen to live in.

This notion that morality is culturally dependent is an incredibly moronic notion. Allow me to assure you it's not.

When an entire nation devotes all of it's energies towards supporting a war machine there are no innocents, except the children. The question becomes whether you are prepared to lose because of your principles?

You could debate (but don't) on military and technological terms whether it was possible to destroy the Nazi economy in other ways, at reasonable cost to yourself and still win, but those who lived then (and suffered the same at the hands of the Germans) did not think so.

Your armchair and chronocentric (I like that word) moralizing is therefore rather pitiful, since you quite likely would rather see us all give in to such attacks rather than be tainted with the ugliness of war.

No doubt we will hear from you when the anniversary of Hiroshima comes around.

 

[simper]

Its become accepted historical dogma that hasnt been widely challenged.

The Cologne raid of May 1943 was the RAF's first really big raid- and there wouldnt be another for months- so I doubt that production really did increase 5-fold while the bomber offensive was in "full swing"

Between early 42 and July 44 german armament production increased 3-fold when the British were doing their utmost to implement their area bombing strategy, rather than an alternative. The increase in German production is historically important. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy among historians to supress the truth you should be able to find a number of respected historians who take an opposing view.

 

[CapelDodger]

Between early 42 and July 44 german armament production increased 3-fold when the British were doing their utmost to implement their area bombing strategy, rather than an alternative.

To a great extent, the British were doing what they could do. The strategic reason for it was back-written from there. The morale effect of doing something horrid to the enemy was paramount. That and Bomber Harris being a well-connected sociopath, of course. It was only from early '42 that the German economy was being fully mobilised, and the industry of the conquered was being integrated into the German war-effort (never very effectively). Bombing wasn't the only factor, and clearly not a dominant one.

The really effective campaigns were the ones against the aircraft industry, ball-bearings (they had to buy them off the Swiss for gold) and synthetic fuel. Requiring synchrony with the US. But they were horribly expensive. Murderous, even - not to civilians but to aircrew.

Dresden was politically motivated. Great efforts have been made to justify it militarily, but the real military targets were already being bombed witless. It was a crime in my personal moral vocabulary. And (as should have been noticed at the time) a gift to Nazi apologists.

 

[Elind]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

To a great extent, the British were doing what they could do

Right, and that was the nature of war without precision bombs. Industries were largely in cities. What do you expect?


Dresden was politically motivated. Great efforts have been made to justify it militarily, but the real military targets were already being bombed witless. It was a crime in my personal moral vocabulary. And (as should have been noticed at the time) a gift to Nazi apologists.

Bombed witless? Yet the war war was not yet won and you have no complaints about all the other witless bombings? Perhaps this was no more than doing what they could and it is doubtful that that the outcome of a firestorm was a calculated result. While Germany was sending its children and grandparents to die for the fatherland, you seriously expect those people then to sit, in their armchairs like you, and decide that Dresden alone was full of beautiful buildings and beautiful innocent people but the rest of Germany was fair game?

As to politically motivated. Tell us one thing that is not political in war? Do you consider that somehow sinful, as opposed to witless bombing?

 

[Mike B.]

Between early 42 and July 44 german armament production increased 3-fold when the British were doing their utmost to implement their area bombing strategy, rather than an alternative. The increase in German production is historically important. Unless there is a worldwide conspiracy among historians to supress the truth you should be able to find a number of respected historians who take an opposing view.

How much of this increase is due to the fact that in 1942 Germany still was on a civilian economy footing. I believe Germany didn't go to full war footing until 1944 (!) when the war was already lost.

I believe for a long time they were going with slave labor from the conquered lands.

I believe Hitler and Borman had October/November 1918 in the back of their minds, when the German population turned against all war and the ridiculous sacrifices they had to made. So the idea was to make the war as painless to the German population as possible.

 

[Giz]

How much of this increase is due to the fact that in 1942 Germany still was on a civilian economy footing. I believe Germany didn't go to full war footing until 1944 (!) when the war was already lost.

I believe for a long time they were going with slave labor from the conquered lands.

I believe Hitler and Borman had October/November 1918 in the back of their minds, when the German population turned against all war and the ridiculous sacrifices they had to made. So the idea was to make the war as painless to the German population as possible.

Indeed, still waiting for Simper to give the rise in production from mid 1943 onwards...

 

[LW]

It would have been wonderfull to be able to do so. Unfortunately, in the beginning, the RAF was lucky if it hit the right country nevermind a specific building within a specific city.

In the beginning.

In the first year of night bombing more Brits died during the raids than Germans and at least 99% of the bombs exploded in the middle of nothing.

But the Brits got better. By 1943 they could pretty reliably hit the correct city. By 1944 the latest they could decide what parts of a city they would hit. At that time Harris could have changed back to bombing military targets. He didn't because he believed he could kill enough Germans to break their morale. He couldn't.

One bomb hitting a factory does more damage to war effort than 20 hitting apartment buildings.

 

[LW]

Indeed, still waiting for Simper to give the rise in production from mid 1943 onwards...

These are from The German Armed Forces cite.

For example, the armored fighting vehicle production totals were:

1942: 10750
1943: 24840
1944: 32794
1945: 5713

Note the 33% increase from 1943 to 1944.

There are also figures for artillery pieces but there the totals are not counted and I'm not in the mood of computing them all by hand so I just randomly choose to examine only field and siege artillery pieces:

1942: 2290
1943: 4485
1944: 12927

Note the 3-fold increase from 1943 to 1944. In particular, in 1944 there were over twice more 105mm howizers made then than all field artillery pieces in 1943. Though, to tell the truth these figures all seem awfully low to me and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that they are incorrect.

 

[CapelDodger]

To a great extent, the British were doing what they could do

Right, and that was the nature of war without precision bombs. Industries were largely in cities. What do you expect?

Harris explicitly followed a policy of bombing civilians, and opposed the highly effective precision campaigns when they became possible (in concert with the US).

Bombed witless? Yet the war war was not yet won and you have no complaints about all the other witless bombings?

I described the targets as being "bombed witless", not "witlessly". Berlin, the Baltic and North Sea ports (Swedish ores) and the Ruhr were bombed repeatedly, for strategic military reasons.

Perhaps this was no more than doing what they could and it is doubtful that that the outcome of a firestorm was a calculated result.

It was. High-explosive bombs were dropped first to create plenty of kindling, followed by incendiaries. Fire-storm was the intended result. It had already been witnessed (on a smaller scale) in London's Docklands; it wasn't a surprise.

While Germany was sending its children and grandparents to die for the fatherland, you seriously expect those people then to sit, in their armchairs like you, and decide that Dresden alone was full of beautiful buildings and beautiful innocent people but the rest of Germany was fair game?

Military targets are fair game. To declare every German a military target was not justified.

As to politically motivated. Tell us one thing that is not political in war? Do you consider that somehow sinful, as opposed to witless bombing?

Again, I did not describe the bombing as "witless". It had a purpose - primarily, to mollify Stalin as well as give him a demonstration of the Western Allies capabilities. War is plitical, but military considerations do crop up. The bombing of French transport links before D-Day was military. The bombings of the Ruhr, Ploiesti, Spandau, Monte Cassino and Hamburg were military. Dresden wasn't.

 

[Elind]

Harris explicitly followed a policy of bombing civilians, and opposed the highly effective precision campaigns when they became possible (in concert with the US).
[/B]

Yes I have read about the debate of "carpet" bombing versus "precision" bombing, but the meaning of precision then was vastly different from today and we saw how ineffective "precision" bombing and avoiding civilian areas like major cities was for the US in Vietnam, many years of advances later.

On that basis I wonder just how valid it is to condemn them for choosing the brute force approach. Surely if they thought it would have been MORE effective they would have been shooting themselves by not doing so? They may have been wrong, but second guessing is always easy.

As to the politics of the day; they were what they were. Russia could potentially have taken over much more of Europe. If this was a demonstration to prevent that then it was a lot more than just "politics".

On "witless", I take your meaning, but mine was that it was obviously not enough anyway, and it's second guessing again.

 

[hodgy]

Re: Re: Dresden

I think it was completely disgusting. Utterly appalling and disgusting to mass murder innocent people. That's my judgement.

Ian, the bombing closed the munitions factories, it shortened the war. In WW1 the Royal Navy blockade of Germany caused starvation - is that any different? The alternative is to let the war drag on - more soldiers killed and wounded, more civilians killed and wounded, more suffering all round.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes I have read about the debate of "carpet" bombing versus "precision" bombing, but the meaning of precision then was vastly different from today and we saw how ineffective "precision" bombing and avoiding civilian areas like major cities was for the US in Vietnam, many years of advances later.

There's a similar background to those two bombing campaigns (leaving Dresden aside for the moment). Since 1918 air-forces have been promising to win the next war alone and cheaply, and they've always failed. Before the War Against Hitler the Allied strategy was that the French would provide the ground forces while the British bombed German industry to shards (and blockaded Germany). In the event, both elements failed (gotta love the Royal Navy, though). But the Brits had a huge investment in bombers - the first 1000-bomber raid was British - and so they used them. To great applause, and (having been born in '54 in a well-bombed city) I can understand that. I loved watching film of the Taliban front-line getting carpet-bombed.

The precision bombing proved to be impossible (despite the promises), so a "strategic" reason had to be found for bombing anyway. Which is how the Brits ended up bombing civilians to "break their morale", while celebrating the stoicism of the British working-man under bombardment and the positive effect on morale and social cohesion (mythical, but hey).

The RAF claimed they could control Iraq without large and expensive ground-forces. Nope. The Italian air-force claimed it could make Ethiopia a cake-walk. Nope. (And they did use chemical weapons, unlike the RAF.) And so on. Those fly-boys love their toys, and have to justify them. Even now we have advanced manned fighters being developed when any fool knows missiles and UAV's can do any job much better.

The latest effort in Iraq had a lot of the same in it. In the end, you have to get boots on the ground. That said, "Shock and Awe" was something else.

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Ian, the bombing closed the munitions factories, it shortened the war. In WW1 the Royal Navy blockade of Germany caused starvation - is that any different? The alternative is to let the war drag on - more soldiers killed and wounded, more civilians killed and wounded, more suffering all round.

Wars are fought to be won, with the tools available, but the specific case of Dresden was not about winning the war. Any more than the final killing-sprees in the Nazi empire were. Dresden was bombed as a demonstration to an ally by people who had either been brutalised by the war or had a dodgy morality from the start (IMO).

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dresden

Wars are fought to be won, with the tools available, but the specific case of Dresden was not about winning the war. Any more than the final killing-sprees in the Nazi empire were. Dresden was bombed as a demonstration to an ally by people who had either been brutalised by the war or had a dodgy morality from the start (IMO).

With respect, in the previous post you are rambling off course, which was supposed to be justifying that Germany could be destroyed (industry wise) without excessively damaging cities (and the civilians who worked in the industries).

In this post you seem to get to your (IMO) point however, which is that the allies were basically immoral or utterly brutalized. Since you come from that stock you are entitled to your opinion, but I've spent a lot of time there too and I'm a bit older, and I never got that impression.

Oh well...

 

[kimiko]

Supposedly, Dresden was a remarkably beautiful city. For this reason it was immoral to bomb it so thoroughly, and I reference another bombing to make this point. When the US was preparing to drop nuclear weapons on Japan, they made a list of targets. Kyoto was the very top city on the list. Only due to the refusal of the Secretary of War was Kyoto spared for its cultural and historical value.

You can try to make the point that Dresden was/is not as important to Germany as Kyoto was and is to Japan, but the point of saving cultural valuables stands. Personally I consider people to be more important than buildings, even historical and beautiful ones, but the destruction of culturally prized architecture, art, and beautiful places is an act of spite. Countries won't always be at war with each other, and some things can be lost forever. To obliterate beauty unnecessarily is an attack not just against a contemporary enemy, but an act of cultural genocide, and crime against future generations of humanity. War is a common brutality in human history, but we needn't be heartless. There can be an art to war.

 

[Elind]

War is a common brutality in human history, but we needn't be heartless. There can be an art to war.

In the movies, maybe.