Dresden, 1945

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Lest we lose sight of some of the hard facts:

(1) Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsmarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; had anti-aircraft defences to protect them all, and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

(2) The Germans could have stopped any attack by declaring Dresden, or any other city, "Open". However, this would have required them to give up all the above mentioned military activity within their bounds and they chose not to do so anywhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Guys,

Lest we lose sight of some of the hard facts:

(1) Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsmarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; had anti-aircraft defences to protect them all, and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

(2) The Germans could have stopped any attack by declaring Dresden, or any other city, "Open". However, this would have required them to give up all the above mentioned military activity within their bounds and they chose not to do so anywhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid..

Actually the latest discussion was triggered by the April 17 raid on Dresden, 20 days before the end, while the Seelow heights were being contested. In case you missed it.

Cheers
Sandeep

[wm]

if someone got bombed 20 days before the end it merely meant he was born under an unlucky star.
It was the German military thinkers who pushed the idea that "(military) necessity knows no law", so really Germans and their apologists shouldn't complain that someone tried the idea on their heads.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sandeep,

You post, "Actually the latest discussion was triggered by the April 17 raid on Dresden, 20 days before the end, while the Seelow heights were being contested. In case you missed it."

And, in case you missed it, the thread is about "Dresden, 1945" and the opening post does not mention the 17 April raid. I am not sure that it is necessarily me who is off-thread here!

Anyway, to pick up your focus, which of the following were no longer true on 17 April 1945: Dresden "had 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsmarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; had anti-aircraft defences to protect them all, and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

The Germans could have stopped any attack by declaring Dresden, or any other city, "Open". However, this would have required them to give up all the above mentioned military activity within their bounds and they chose not to do so anywhere."

Cheers,

Sid.

[joeylonglegs]

As I see it, raising the death toll without or even against evidence is an insult to those who really and horribly died.

" The death toll was staggering. The full extent of the Dresden Holocaust can be more readily grasped if one considers that well over 250,000--possibly as many as half a million--persons died within a 14-hour period, whereas estimates of those who died at Hiroshima range from 90,000 to 140,000. Allied apologists for the massacre have often "twinned" Dresden with the English city of Coventry.

This is blatantly false. These are inflated numbers.

Seeking to establish a definitive casualty figure, in part to address propagandisation of the bombing by far-right groups, the Dresden city council in 2005 authorised an independent Historians' Commission (Historikerkommission) to conduct a new, thorough investigation, collecting and evaluating available sources. The results were published in 2010 and stated that between 22,700 and 25,000 people died at Dresden

(Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr, Nicole; Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. Gutachten und Ergebnisse der Dresdner Historikerkommission zur Ermittlung der Opferzahlen. (in German), V&R Unipress, pp. 48, ISBN 978-3899717730)

Absolutely nowhere near 250,000.

[Appleknocker27]

Just re-reading this old and long thread. Hopefully the Goebbels/Irving fake numbers and bogus TB47 are permanently debunked.
We wouldn't people from YouTube comments cherry picking Irving quotes from our posts and using them on comments there as fact now would we.
(Yes...I just saw exactly that from this thread)

[Helly Angel]

Just re-reading this old and long thread. Hopefully the Goebbels/Irving fake numbers and bogus TB47 are permanently debunked.
We wouldn't people from YouTube comments cherry picking Irving quotes from our posts and using them on comments there as fact now would we.
(Yes...I just saw exactly that from this thread)

So we can conclude that there was no massacre in Dresden and no one died, right?

[Helly Angel]

Hi Guys,

Lest we lose sight of some of the hard facts:

(1) Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsmarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; had anti-aircraft defences to protect them all, and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away...

In post number 1 of this long and interesting topic where fanatical apologists for the Allies intend to reduce the number of victims, just as revisionist fanatics seek to reduce the number of victims of the Holocaust, the following material is read:

"8.) Winston Churchill, memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur Harris (28th March 1945)

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction."

This is evidenced in the words of the British Prime Minister, that this bombardment only had the purpose of sowing terror among civilians. It is truly irreverent for the victims of these appalling war crimes to try to minimize or justify one of the greatest crimes of WWII. It would be like justifying Katyn or Babi Yar. Leave revisionism aside and respect the thousands of civilian victims. With the death of a single innocent civilian, it is already an unjustifiable crime.

Best regards,

[Michael Kenny]

It is truly irreverent for the victims of these appalling war crimes to try to minimize or justify one of the greatest crimes of WWII. It would be like justifying Katyn or Babi Yar..............it is already an unjustifiable crime.

You are sadly misinformed as to the definition of a 'War Crime'. Whilst the shooting of Jewish civilians is a War Crime bombing them would not be. That is a fact. You are arguing morals here and that is an arbitrary decision. For example some people shed boatloads of tears for Concentration Camp Guards who were the subject of revenge attacks but I think they got exactly what they deserved.
Perhaps if you were to start a thread on the morals of bombing Dresden you might elicit more support?

[Helly Angel]

I do not write looking for support. The guards of the concentration camps are as criminal as the military personnel who shoot at civilians and drop bombs on them. That's a war crime just the same. Both deserved the punishment, but since the latter won the war, they did not receive it except in their conscience. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, regardless of the color of the uniform of the perpetrator. In that "movie" there were no good or bad, everyone had their hands full of blood, only one side lost and the other won. Harris's memories trying to justify that are sad and embarrassing. The memories of the Allied soldier who survived the bombing are much better and clearer, recognizing the sovereign barbarity perpetrated.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Helly Angel,

It is not true that "The guards of the concentration camps are as criminal as the military personnel who shoot at civilians and drop bombs on them."

There is an essential difference. The victims of the camp guards are in their protective custody. The victims of bombing and shelling are in the protective custody of the enemy. Furthermore, there are mechanisms by which the latter deaths can be avoided by the enemy, such as evacuation, retreat, surrender or declaring an Open City. The Germans were prepared to do none of these things at Dresden.

No, Churchill does not say "that this bombardment only had the purpose of sowing terror among civilians." His point was that by the end of March 1945 Germany was already so devastated that increasing terror might be the only result of further bombing. It is, perhaps, to Churchill's credit that he considered easing up on the bombing of Germany at a point when he didn't have to.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Kenny]

The guards of the concentration camps are as criminal as the military personnel who shoot at civilians and drop bombs on them. That's a war crime just the same.

Again you are wrong. Criminality and Morality are not the same thing. Never have been.
What puzzles me is that the vast majority of the people who like to bring up Allied war crimes never acknowledge that the war crimes committed by Germany are on a scale that completely and utterly dwarfs those committed by The Allies and that German war crimes were an officially sanctioned policy of the state. I guess the lesson is if you decide to be that brazen then make sure you win because claiming that 'you' should not be prosecuted for murdering 1000 innocent civilians because the Allies killed 5 innocent civilians is not going to get you off the hook.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

The guards of the concentration camps are as criminal as the military personnel who shoot at civilians and drop bombs on them. That's a war crime just the same.

Again you are wrong. Criminality and Morality are not the same thing. Never have been.
What puzzles me is that the vast majority of the people who like to bring up Allied war crimes never acknowledge that the war crimes committed by Germany are on a scale that completely and utterly dwarfs those committed by The Allies and that German war crimes were an officially sanctioned policy of the state. I guess the lesson is if you decide to be that brazen then make sure you win because claiming that 'you' should not be prosecuted for murdering 1000 innocent civilians because the Allies killed 5 innocent civilians is not going to get you off the hook.

US army land warfare doctrine prevailing during WWII, made hostage taking and disposal "officially sanctioned policy".. as was the nuking of civilians. All officially sanctioned...

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi sandeep,

You post, "US army land warfare doctrine prevailing during WWII, made hostage taking and disposal "officially sanctioned policy".

You will, of course, be both providing sources for this quote and claim and some examples of it in action? You are obligred to do so on AHF if requested.

Consider this such a request.

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

Hostage-taking was part of customary law and the Hague Conventions didn't explicitly forbid it.
In fact, as far as I know, it happened frequently during ww1 (especially the Austro-Hungarian Army was found of it) so I see no reason why hostage-taking shouldn't be legal during ww2.
And ww1 happened after all the Hague Conventions were solemnly signed.

The nuclear (and conventional) bombing of civilians is legal to this day. Targeting civilians, it.e., if the sole reason for the attack is killing them, is illegal.

Killing POWs without due process was explicitly forbidden by the Hague Conventions, so in the case of the guards, it was a war crime - as criminal as it gets.