Dresden, 1945
Re: Dresden, 1945
This is a web page from the commission.
http://www.dresden.de/en/02/07/03/histo ... ission.php
Some extracts:
"As an outcome of these two analyses, the Commission was able to conclude that the air raids on Dresden between 13th and 15th February 1945 caused up to 25,000 deaths. This corroborates official figures issued by the responsible authorities in 1945 and 1946."
"The plausibility of the newly determined figure was tested in several further phases of study. Neither the documentary records, nor the numerous contentions and narratives to be found in literature and the media revealed sustainable arguments which placed the result in doubt." [My interpretation - they checked all the stuff on Irving's website but I'm happy to accept any evidence that proves that they didn't]
" The Commission gave consideration to the number of refugees killed in Dresden from several perspectives; their number is frequently assumed to be very high. The analysis of individual records, however, revealed clearly that the proportion of refugees among those killed during the aerial bombing of Dresden was actually only small. This conclusion was also confirmed by a statistical evaluation of the records of nationally active tracing services."
"The popular assumption that the remains of many of those killed in Dresden were not recovered was similarly shown to be untrue. On the basis of both a spatial analysis of the recovery work and an analysis of archaeological investigations in central areas of the city, it can be excluded that any significant number of deaths went unrecorded in this manner. There was equally no evidence found to support the widespread belief that recovery and burial were documented so incompletely that correct determination of the number of persons killed must be impossible. It is true that the responsible authorities were required to improvise in many cases, given the extent of the catastrophe and the pressures of time, but the Commission is nevertheless convinced that at least the numbers of persons killed were recorded in an essentially orderly manner. This applies both to the persons recovered up to the end of the war and to the work of the subsequent years. At the same time, the Commission investigated whether a significant number of persons could have been burned to ashes in the firestorms of the night of 13th/14th February to such an extent that registration would have been impossible. From the results of material science and archaeological investigations, it became clear that the necessary prerequisites were met at most at isolated points."
I am particularly keen to see any scientific evidence for a firestorm that would completely destroyed the remains of refugees but leave the remains of the citizens available for burial!
The casualties resulting from the German firestorms were investigated in the early period of the cold war in work funded by the civil defence authorities interested in likely casualties and survivors from a nuclear firestorm and the value of civil defence measures such as shelters. There were no figures for Dresden because it was in East Germany. Here are some figures
Hamburg 50,000 dead 18% of the "at risk population"
Kassel 6,000 to 9,000 dead 8% of the "at risk population"
Darmstadt 8,000 to 15,000 dead 12% of the at risk population comment No Air Raid Bunkers
Brunswick 560 dead <1% of the at risk population comment 23,000 people survived in good air raid bunkers
Heilbron 6,000 to 8,000 dead 17% of the at risk population
Source:
Efficacy of Bomb Shelters: With Lessons From the Hamburg Firestorm*
KENNETH A. LUCAS, MD, Phoenix, Ariz; JANE M . ORIENT, MD, Tucson, Ariz;
A R T H U R ROBINSON, PhD, Cave Junction, Ore; HOWARD MACCABEE, PhD, MD, Walnut Creek, Calif;
PAUL MORRIS, M D , Oakland, Calif; GERALD LOONEY, MD, Redondo Beach, Calif; and
MAX KLINGHOFFER, MD, Indialantic, Fla
and reference contained therein
{Try DTIC if you want a copy]
No reason to believe that the figures for Dresden should be any different to these other firestorms [Once again, happy to accept any evidence that shows that Dresden was different] so -
Assuming 18% of the at risk population was killed in Dresden then:
25,000 dead gives an at risk population of 139,000 that is to say 139,000 people were in the area covered by the firestorm
100,000 dead gives an at risk population of 556,000 that is to say half a million people were in the area covered by the firestorm
Hamburg breakdown [from the same source]
"On The Night of July 27-28, 1943, a terrible firestorm was caused by Allied incendiary bombing of the city of Hamburg, Germany. At the time, an estimated 1.5million people were in the Hamburg metropolitan area; 470,000 were in the damaged area, and 280,000 were in the 14 km2 (5 square miles) firestorm area.’ Of these 280,000 people, about 50,000, or 18%,were killed in the attack. Thus about 230,000, or 82%,survived."
Regards
John
http://www.dresden.de/en/02/07/03/histo ... ission.php
Some extracts:
"As an outcome of these two analyses, the Commission was able to conclude that the air raids on Dresden between 13th and 15th February 1945 caused up to 25,000 deaths. This corroborates official figures issued by the responsible authorities in 1945 and 1946."
"The plausibility of the newly determined figure was tested in several further phases of study. Neither the documentary records, nor the numerous contentions and narratives to be found in literature and the media revealed sustainable arguments which placed the result in doubt." [My interpretation - they checked all the stuff on Irving's website but I'm happy to accept any evidence that proves that they didn't]
" The Commission gave consideration to the number of refugees killed in Dresden from several perspectives; their number is frequently assumed to be very high. The analysis of individual records, however, revealed clearly that the proportion of refugees among those killed during the aerial bombing of Dresden was actually only small. This conclusion was also confirmed by a statistical evaluation of the records of nationally active tracing services."
"The popular assumption that the remains of many of those killed in Dresden were not recovered was similarly shown to be untrue. On the basis of both a spatial analysis of the recovery work and an analysis of archaeological investigations in central areas of the city, it can be excluded that any significant number of deaths went unrecorded in this manner. There was equally no evidence found to support the widespread belief that recovery and burial were documented so incompletely that correct determination of the number of persons killed must be impossible. It is true that the responsible authorities were required to improvise in many cases, given the extent of the catastrophe and the pressures of time, but the Commission is nevertheless convinced that at least the numbers of persons killed were recorded in an essentially orderly manner. This applies both to the persons recovered up to the end of the war and to the work of the subsequent years. At the same time, the Commission investigated whether a significant number of persons could have been burned to ashes in the firestorms of the night of 13th/14th February to such an extent that registration would have been impossible. From the results of material science and archaeological investigations, it became clear that the necessary prerequisites were met at most at isolated points."
I am particularly keen to see any scientific evidence for a firestorm that would completely destroyed the remains of refugees but leave the remains of the citizens available for burial!
The casualties resulting from the German firestorms were investigated in the early period of the cold war in work funded by the civil defence authorities interested in likely casualties and survivors from a nuclear firestorm and the value of civil defence measures such as shelters. There were no figures for Dresden because it was in East Germany. Here are some figures
Hamburg 50,000 dead 18% of the "at risk population"
Kassel 6,000 to 9,000 dead 8% of the "at risk population"
Darmstadt 8,000 to 15,000 dead 12% of the at risk population comment No Air Raid Bunkers
Brunswick 560 dead <1% of the at risk population comment 23,000 people survived in good air raid bunkers
Heilbron 6,000 to 8,000 dead 17% of the at risk population
Source:
Efficacy of Bomb Shelters: With Lessons From the Hamburg Firestorm*
KENNETH A. LUCAS, MD, Phoenix, Ariz; JANE M . ORIENT, MD, Tucson, Ariz;
A R T H U R ROBINSON, PhD, Cave Junction, Ore; HOWARD MACCABEE, PhD, MD, Walnut Creek, Calif;
PAUL MORRIS, M D , Oakland, Calif; GERALD LOONEY, MD, Redondo Beach, Calif; and
MAX KLINGHOFFER, MD, Indialantic, Fla
and reference contained therein
{Try DTIC if you want a copy]
No reason to believe that the figures for Dresden should be any different to these other firestorms [Once again, happy to accept any evidence that shows that Dresden was different] so -
Assuming 18% of the at risk population was killed in Dresden then:
25,000 dead gives an at risk population of 139,000 that is to say 139,000 people were in the area covered by the firestorm
100,000 dead gives an at risk population of 556,000 that is to say half a million people were in the area covered by the firestorm
Hamburg breakdown [from the same source]
"On The Night of July 27-28, 1943, a terrible firestorm was caused by Allied incendiary bombing of the city of Hamburg, Germany. At the time, an estimated 1.5million people were in the Hamburg metropolitan area; 470,000 were in the damaged area, and 280,000 were in the 14 km2 (5 square miles) firestorm area.’ Of these 280,000 people, about 50,000, or 18%,were killed in the attack. Thus about 230,000, or 82%,survived."
Regards
John
Re: Dresden, 1945
Never heard the term scare quotes before. I like it.The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:*Found*, in scare quotes eh!
I admit I was being a bit internet.
Guess that's probably directed at me. You thought I was claiming forgery. No... that would be a potentially libellous statement about a notoriously litigious individual.The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:Weaselly half-claims of forgery
To be honest, I don't greatly care about his document. Could be meaningful and good for him for trawling through the archives.
Weasel... fair one maybe. Don't mind being a weasel when it comes to Irving.
-
- Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 21:12
Re: Dresden, 1945
That's clearly Michael Kenny's view on it too, whilst histan is content to re-post the findings of the Commission published prior to the discovery of the decode; none of the members of the Commission have yet published anything on the decode.antwony wrote:To be honest, I don't greatly care about his document.
As this guy points out; this isn't the way reputable historians operate:
RJ Evans wrote:Historians who are advancing a particular argument have to take all relevant documentary evidence into account, and where documents appear to go against their argument, they have to explain them; failing to mention them at all constitutes suppression of relevant evidence and is not acceptable in a reputable historian.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Dresden, 1945
Reputable historians like Irving?The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:
As this guy points out; this isn't the way reputable historians operate
A court-proven liar and and a convicted criminal?
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 16 Mar 2017, 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Dresden, 1945
My view is that you have to first make your case.The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:That's clearly Michael Kenny's view on it too,antwony wrote:To be honest, I don't greatly care about his document.
Others have fallen into your trap and are trying to 'prove' your denial of the facts is incorrect.
All they are doing is allowing you to set the agenda and proceed as if your revisionism fantasy is a fact that needs rebuttal. This is not how it works. You have failed to prove anything.
-
- Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 21:12
Re: Dresden, 1945
A blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote.Michael Kenny wrote:Reputable historians like Irving?
A court-proven liar and and a convicted criminal?
That's pathetic. The decode isn't going to go away, no matter how many insults and imaginary motives you attribute to anyone who mentions it.Michael Kenny wrote:My view is that you have to first make your case.
Others have fallen into your trap and are trying to 'prove' your denial of the facts is incorrect.
All they are doing is allowing you to set the agenda and proceed as if your revisionism fantasy is a fact that needs rebuttal. This is not how it works. You have failed to prove anything.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Dresden, 1945
Your 'evidence' is not sufficient to overturn the many other attempts to reach a definitive figure. That is all. All history is a weighing of evidence and you simply came up light.The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote: That's pathetic. The decode isn't going to go away, no matter how many insults and imaginary motives you attribute to anyone who mentions it.
You could be right.
You could be wrong.
I have weighed your numbers against the other numbers.
On the balance of probability you are very likely wrong.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Dresden, 1945
I always look at someones posting history before I ascribe motives. I do not need to 'imagine' when I can consult track-record.The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:no matter how many insults and imaginary motives you attribute to anyone who mentions it.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
Re: Dresden, 1945
Perusal of WWII history vs members' posting history...interesting shift in agenda.
I haven't seen this poster trying to prove anything definite by way of numbers ...revisionism et al. The only emphatic comment he has made is to the effect that mainline respectable historians are not talking about this new find at all.
They are neither saying it's wrong nor factoring it in their researches. But in thread after thread on AHF we hear about "new research" prevailing over old notions. Earlier on this thread too we have seen sarcasm coming our way when new research has been questioned vis a vis the versions of folks who experienced things first hand.
Why this double standard? Does this construe taking political sides blatantly? We are supposed to be apolitical .. right?
I haven't seen this poster trying to prove anything definite by way of numbers ...revisionism et al. The only emphatic comment he has made is to the effect that mainline respectable historians are not talking about this new find at all.
They are neither saying it's wrong nor factoring it in their researches. But in thread after thread on AHF we hear about "new research" prevailing over old notions. Earlier on this thread too we have seen sarcasm coming our way when new research has been questioned vis a vis the versions of folks who experienced things first hand.
Why this double standard? Does this construe taking political sides blatantly? We are supposed to be apolitical .. right?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Dresden, 1945
Because they are all lefty liberal bleeding-heart anti-German Soviet apologists or because they don't think it is strong enough evidence to overturn the current consensus?sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
I haven't seen this poster trying to prove anything definite by way of numbers ...revisionism et al. The only emphatic comment he has made is to the effect that mainline respectable historians are not talking about this new find at all.
If there is some cover-up going on then you are in pole-position to bring 'the truth' to the fore and gain international standing for your outstanding research.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 06:34
Re: Dresden, 1945
Those labels ...left..liberal..right..et al lost meaning 30 years ago...took me another 10 to 20 years to realise that. So let's skip the laundry marks please.Michael Kenny wrote:Because they are all lefty liberal bleeding-heart anti-German Soviet apologists or because they don't think it is strong enough evidence to overturn the current consensus?sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
I haven't seen this poster trying to prove anything definite by way of numbers ...revisionism et al. The only emphatic comment he has made is to the effect that mainline respectable historians are not talking about this new find at all.
If there is some cover-up going on then you are in pole-position to bring 'the truth' to the fore and gain international standing for your outstanding research.
Challenging a religious belief is never easy ...whether ancient scriptural religions or current secular ones. Irrespective of what new information emerges. It's much easier to label it heresy or blasphemy and burn out the eyes of the guy who fails to fall off the edge of the earth and says it is round.
NO academician, particularly in Germany, will put his career and liberty at certain jeopardy by pursuing an information dug out by Irving to its logical end !
Re: Dresden, 1945
Just put some thought into what this document says and then look at in the context of the other known facts.
It states that 80,000 to 100,000 missing person reports had been filed of which around 9,000 [sorry exact figure is in Sandeep's post] had been associated with an actual body. I am happy to accept both of these numbers as facts. The question is how to interpret these facts in the light of all the other information available.
The German's were meticulous in recording all the available information they could about each body they found and of recording the number of bodies they found. These numbers are consistent with a total of around 25,000 deaths that can be associated with bodies. They are also consistent with the statement that at that time 9,000 of the missing person reports had been associated with a body. So on that count the document does not challenge the findings of the commission.
So the question becomes how to interpret the figure of 80,000 to 100,000 missing persons reports.
Start with some questions - does each missing person report relate to a single individual. For example if three people are separated and all survive there would be six missing person reports relating to three individuals and no bodies for them to be associated with. Similarly if one of them had in fact died there would be four missing person reports relating to three different people, two relating to the same person who had died and two relating to people who had not died.
This leads to the second question - how many of the missing person reports refer to an individual who had died and how many refer to an individual who was still alive? It is known that large numbers of people became separated and were later reunited. Did these people report this fact to the authorities and withdraw there missing person report?
If I make the assumption that all of the missing person reports refer a discrete individual and that all of these people died then I have a problem. The number of actual bodies found is consistent with a death toll of 25,000. But there are up to 75,000 missing persons reports that can not be associated with a body that was found. Where are the missing 75,000 bodies?
Were they simply buried undocumented in unmarked mass graves at unknown locations that have yet to be uncovered despite of all the development work carried out in Dresden?
Were they burned to such an extent that there was no trace left of their bodies?
According the scientific experts this was not possible, except for in a small number of locations. Is there any available scientific evidence to challenge the conclusions of the original scientists.
If I accept that they were in fact 25,000 bodies and 75,000 people of whom there was no trace then this gives a ratio of "bodies" to "no bodies" of 1 to 3. That is for every body there were three other people who were killed but left no trace.
If I apply this ratio to the Hamburg firestorm - and why should the Hamburg firestorm be different from the Dresden firestorm (scientific evidence please)? - then I would have 50,000 bodies and 150,000 killed with no body able to be found. This would give a total number of deaths in Hamburg of 200,000 out of an "at risk population of 280.000.
How about a different interpretation. 100,000 missing person reports filed. 25,000 of these related to persons who had died and 75,000 related to people who at the time were missing but had actually survived.
Regards
John
It states that 80,000 to 100,000 missing person reports had been filed of which around 9,000 [sorry exact figure is in Sandeep's post] had been associated with an actual body. I am happy to accept both of these numbers as facts. The question is how to interpret these facts in the light of all the other information available.
The German's were meticulous in recording all the available information they could about each body they found and of recording the number of bodies they found. These numbers are consistent with a total of around 25,000 deaths that can be associated with bodies. They are also consistent with the statement that at that time 9,000 of the missing person reports had been associated with a body. So on that count the document does not challenge the findings of the commission.
So the question becomes how to interpret the figure of 80,000 to 100,000 missing persons reports.
Start with some questions - does each missing person report relate to a single individual. For example if three people are separated and all survive there would be six missing person reports relating to three individuals and no bodies for them to be associated with. Similarly if one of them had in fact died there would be four missing person reports relating to three different people, two relating to the same person who had died and two relating to people who had not died.
This leads to the second question - how many of the missing person reports refer to an individual who had died and how many refer to an individual who was still alive? It is known that large numbers of people became separated and were later reunited. Did these people report this fact to the authorities and withdraw there missing person report?
If I make the assumption that all of the missing person reports refer a discrete individual and that all of these people died then I have a problem. The number of actual bodies found is consistent with a death toll of 25,000. But there are up to 75,000 missing persons reports that can not be associated with a body that was found. Where are the missing 75,000 bodies?
Were they simply buried undocumented in unmarked mass graves at unknown locations that have yet to be uncovered despite of all the development work carried out in Dresden?
Were they burned to such an extent that there was no trace left of their bodies?
According the scientific experts this was not possible, except for in a small number of locations. Is there any available scientific evidence to challenge the conclusions of the original scientists.
If I accept that they were in fact 25,000 bodies and 75,000 people of whom there was no trace then this gives a ratio of "bodies" to "no bodies" of 1 to 3. That is for every body there were three other people who were killed but left no trace.
If I apply this ratio to the Hamburg firestorm - and why should the Hamburg firestorm be different from the Dresden firestorm (scientific evidence please)? - then I would have 50,000 bodies and 150,000 killed with no body able to be found. This would give a total number of deaths in Hamburg of 200,000 out of an "at risk population of 280.000.
How about a different interpretation. 100,000 missing person reports filed. 25,000 of these related to persons who had died and 75,000 related to people who at the time were missing but had actually survived.
Regards
John
-
- Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 21:12
Re: Dresden, 1945
Several contemporary documents feature enormous estimates of homeless people [350,000 to 500,000] because of the attack. Why do you think that is if they were not previously living in an "area covered by the firestorm".histan wrote:No reason to believe that the figures for Dresden should be any different to these other firestorms [Once again, happy to accept any evidence that shows that Dresden was different] so -
Assuming 18% of the at risk population was killed in Dresden then:
25,000 dead gives an at risk population of 139,000 that is to say 139,000 people were in the area covered by the firestorm
100,000 dead gives an at risk population of 556,000 that is to say half a million people were in the area covered by the firestorm [emphasis added]
1. A document the Commission accepts as unquestionable genuine; Wolfgang Thierig's "Final Report" of 15.03.45 [based on information known early on 10.03.45] states that there are "350,000 homeless and long-term re-quartered."
http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/deutschla ... griffe.php
2. The 14.02.45 entry in the War Diary of the German Air Force High Command states: "There are now 500,000 homeless in a city of 650,000 inhabitants—a figure enormously swollen by refugees". Cited by Irving; not challenged by Evans.
3. The British intercepted and decoded a 14.02.45 message from the Civil Police Commander in which he estimated that 500,000 were homeless.
Records of this decoded message are found in at least four different places:
1. UK NA: HW 16/43, ZIP/GPD 4009, Traffic 14.02.45, pp.1-2, no.5 [original decode].
2. UK NA: HW 16/70, ZIP/AT 1525, 26.02.45 [selection of decodes of significance importance].
3. UK NA: HW 16/14, AT 1525, 27.02.45 [English translation for Bletchley Park Air Section].
4. An English translation is found in a SHAEF file in the USAF archives, it has been cited in secret reports and published works since as early as June 1945.
Re: Dresden, 1945
The problem is that the message referred to 80,000 to 100,000 missing . Missing is not the same as dead, but that is the implication that the poster is trying to make with no evidence to back it up.sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:Perusal of WWII history vs members' posting history...interesting shift in agenda.
I haven't seen this poster trying to prove anything definite by way of numbers ...revisionism et al. The only emphatic comment he has made is to the effect that mainline respectable historians are not talking about this new find at all.
They are neither saying it's wrong nor factoring it in their researches. But in thread after thread on AHF we hear about "new research" prevailing over old notions. Earlier on this thread too we have seen sarcasm coming our way when new research has been questioned vis a vis the versions of folks who experienced things first hand
What a lot of people don't understand is that the major killer in a fire storm is not fire, but the fact that the storm robs the surrounding atmosphere of oxygen and as a result of that the people hiding in the shelters die of suffocation not as the result of being incinerated.
-
- Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 21:12
Re: Dresden, 1945
What do you believe became of the 80,000-100,000 missing person notifications the police received? What about the 35,000 reports that were received prior to 10 March?How about a different interpretation. 100,000 missing person reports filed. 25,000 of these related to persons who had died and 75,000 related to people who at the time were missing but had actually survived.