Split thread: Debate about strategy behind allied bombing of Dresden

[a_unique_person]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59759

Wasn't it: Chaos complains about WW2 allied strategic bombing. Others feel that the bombing was military useful and morally justifiable.

Decendants of holocaust survivors are naturally going to be prickly when Germans play the victim card in WW2...

The bombing of Dresden showed up what a lot of the allied bombing program was about, one general being determined to prove he was right, despite the detractors on his own side of what the bombing program was actually achieving. Germany was well and truly beaten by then, and he had nothing else to bomb. It was a good thing the Nazis lost, but bombing Dresden was really just about a fragile ego needing to be stroked.

[Giz]

The bombing of Dresden showed up what a lot of the allied bombing program was about, one general being determined to prove he was right, despite the detractors on his own side of what the bombing program was actually achieving. Germany was well and truly beaten by then, and he had nothing else to bomb. It was a good thing the Nazis lost, but bombing Dresden was really just about a fragile ego needing to be stroked.

Germany was still fighting back. Casualties were high all round (FYI UK casualties per division per month were higher in Western Europe 1944-1945 than they were on the Somme in 1916). The Allies had just had a shock in the Ardennes, and the US and the UK were running out of manpower in their frontline units.

And you think that the Allies should have finished the job with one hand tied behind their back. Riiight. I think the Allies decided to keep up the pressure until Germany unconditionally surrendered, and who could blame them (other than you).

[Giz]

That´s it. I´m sick and ****ing tired of your constant lies!

I did NOT object to strategic bombing, per se. I did ONLY object to attacks directed SPECIFICALLY against residential areas ONLY - areas with NO strategical industries.

I have pointed out the above to you *at least* five times now. Every time, you continue to post lies about what I claim.

1) Dresden had strategic value.

2) Harris's strategy followed orthodox Douhet teachings in vogue in the majority of the worlds airforces. If he'd had 20/20 hindsight, maybe he could have prioritised more effectively.

3) The bombing of German Cities did - apart from any industrial damage - have the following impacts:
a) The Luftwaffe was withdrawn from Russia to concentrate on the air defence of the Reich, handing the Red Army air superioty on a plate.
b) The Luftwaffe was subsequently destroyed by Allied escort fighters.
c) Production was geared towards AA rather than regular artillery (important as 60% of losses in combat losses in WW1 and WW2 were from Artillery).
d) About 2 million workers were employed in repairing/rebuilding work.

Of course you will ignore the above - which I have said before - and claim lies! Lies!!! !!!! Calm down.

[Chaos]

1) Dresden had strategic value.

That would be important if I was talking about Dresden only. Where in "residential areas" does it say "Dresden only"? Surely you realize that there are residential areas in other cities, too?


2) Harris's strategy followed orthodox Douhet teachings in vogue in the majority of the worlds airforces. If he'd had 20/20 hindsight, maybe he could have prioritised more effectively.

As I pointed out last time, you didn´t need hindsight to tell that - you only needed to look at the Blitz.


3) The bombing of German Cities did - apart from any industrial damage - have the following impacts:
a) The Luftwaffe was withdrawn from Russia to concentrate on the air defence of the Reich, handing the Red Army air superioty on a plate.
b) The Luftwaffe was subsequently destroyed by Allied escort fighters.
c) Production was geared towards AA rather than regular artillery (important as 60% of losses in combat losses in WW1 and WW2 were from Artillery).
d) About 2 million workers were employed in repairing/rebuilding work.


And how could that not be achieved by sticking to bombing industry?


Of course you will ignore the above - which I have said before - and claim lies! Lies!!! !!!! Calm down.

No, thanks. I´m busy enough pointing out your real lies; I don´t have time to imagine you posting more lies than you actually do.

[Giz]

No, thanks. I´m busy enough pointing out your real lies; I don´t have time to imagine you posting more lies than you actually do.

Well as the above post has been my position throughout, why don't you just post some examples of my "lies". Or keep hyperventilating... up to you...

[Piscivore]

This sounds familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=651896&highlight=dresden#post651896).

[Jon_in_london]

And how could that not be achieved by sticking to bombing industry?


Bearing in mind that in the beginning of the campaign, the RAF were having a good night if they bombed the right country, how were they going to pin-point specific factories?

Dont the factory workers live in residential areas and is it not then justfied to bomb them?

[Chaos]

Bearing in mind that in the beginning of the campaign, the RAF were having a good night if they bombed the right country, how were they going to pin-point specific factories?

Dont the factory workers live in residential areas and is it not then justfied to bomb them?

"Beginning of the campaign" might be a good point, if we weren´t talking Dresden et al, which was happening in 44/45.

And regarding your other argument, one *might* take that to justify the attacks on London and Coventry, too, don´t you think?

[Giz]

"Beginning of the campaign" might be a good point, if we weren´t talking Dresden et al, which was happening in 44/45.

Are you suggesting that the Allies should have ceased bombing/shooting Germany BEFORE the Third Reich surrendered? Try selling that idea to GI's and Tommies taking losses as they fought on the German border.

[QUOTE=Jon in london]

Dont the factory workers live in residential areas and is it not then justfied to bomb them?QUOTE]

Indeed - whose survival should the US & UK Governments have prioritised? German civilians, or US/UK former civilians who had been drafted in order to prevent Germany enslaving the world?

[Skeptic]

The bombing of Dresden showed up what a lot of the allied bombing program was about, one general being determined to prove he was right, despite the detractors on his own side of what the bombing program was actually achieving.

That's all well and good, but considering what Germany had done to the world in the war, such complaints about the conduct of the allied bombing campaign pale to utter insignificance.

To claim that it is somehow morally significant--or significant at all--that the bombing campaign against a nation whose war goal was world domination, enslavement of hundreds of millions, and the systematic genocide of tens of millions, was not done with the utmost care to save the lives of these nations' people, is simply absurd.

Complaining about Dresden being "unnecessary" and "a war crime" near the end of a war in which the Germans deliberately wrecked half the world and enslaved and genocided millions, is the equivalent of the serial killer and rapist, once caught, whining about the "police brutality", the "corruption" he saw in jail, philosophising about how it is pointless to punish him more than is absolutely necessary because that is just "revenge", and so on.

They usually do that, don't they? Until, that is, they "find Jesus" on death row and are large-hearted enough to "forgive" the families of the victims for wanting to execute them--as if that was something to forgive, or as if this desire is completely disconnected with them killing people. The way things are going, in a few years the residents of Dresden will hold public ceremonies officially "understanding" and "forgiving" the RAF and USAF for the "war crime" of bombing their city for some unfathomable, inexplicable reason.

[Chaos]

Are you suggesting that the Allies should have ceased bombing/shooting Germany BEFORE the Third Reich surrendered? Try selling that idea to GI's and Tommies taking losses as they fought on the German border.

*snip*

As you insist in completely making up the meaning of what I said, I can only conclude that you´re not interested in debate. Go play somewhere else, like the Sean Hannity forums.

[Giz]

As you insist in completely making up the meaning of what I said, I can only conclude that you´re not interested in debate. Go play somewhere else, like the Sean Hannity forums.

Whose survival should the US & UK Governments have prioritised? German civilians, or US/UK former civilians who had been drafted in order to prevent Germany enslaving the world?

[Chaos]

Whose survival should the US & UK Governments have prioritised? German civilians, or US/UK former civilians who had been drafted in order to prevent Germany enslaving the world?


Reply to what I have said - and that goes for *all* posts in discussion with you, not just in this thread - instead of making up some idiotic strawman. Show me that you are at all capable of having an honest discussion with someone you do not agree with.

THEN, and not before that, I will answer your question.


By the way, "Skeptic", I guess this is another good opportunity to ask if you will finally present evidence for your claims about members of my family. So? Will we *finally* see evidence, or will you repeat your slanderous, racist crap, or will you *finally* admit you´ve been pulling your accusations out of your ass?

[Giz]

As you insist in completely making up the meaning of what I said, I can only conclude that you´re not interested in debate. Go play somewhere else, like the Sean Hannity forums.

As I said before; state where I have misrepresented your position, or cool it with the drama queen act.

And puh-leez stop playing the "why didn't Harris have 20/20 hindsight?" card.


Skep:
I'd agree with your post except for the bit at the end, I can't see decendants of the Nazi's (sorry - "the 99.999% of innocent Germans") forgiving the bloodthirsty RAF/USAF airmen who saved the world from history's darkest tyranny (sorry - "bombed the homes of innocent Germans while deliberately, and with knowledge ahindhand, neglecting all targets of military value").

[Chaos]

As I said before; state where I have misrepresented your position, or cool it with the drama queen act.

And puh-leez stop playing the "why didn't Harris have 20/20 hindsight?" card.


Skep:
I'd agree with your post except for the bit at the end, I can't see decendants of the Nazi's (sorry - "the 99.999% of innocent Germans") forgiving the bloodthirsty RAF/USAF airmen who saved the world from history's darkest tyranny (sorry - "bombed the homes of innocent Germans while deliberately, and with knowledge ahindhand, neglecting all targets of military value").

I see it is pointless to discuss with you, troll. Now who´s the drama queen here, eh? Me, or Mr. "ohmygawd you won´t allow the allies to kill civilians pursuing a pointless strategy" Giz, or maybe Mr. "the only thing I don´t like is that the Germans where not completely exterminated" Skeptic?

[AWPrime]

Dont the factory workers live in residential areas and is it not then justfied to bomb them?
That line needs to stop before that. Or it would be good to gas jews who have or might have financed the allies.

[Giz]

That line needs to stop before that. Or it would be good to gas jews who have or might have financed the allies.


If you thought through that comparison a bit more carefully you might see:

a) German residential areas/workers - were able to assist the German war effort.

b) Jews imprisoned by the Third Reich - were unable to assist the allied war effort.

Collateral damage to (a) is rather different to the premeditated murder of (b).

[Skeptic]

I'd agree with your post except for the bit at the end, I can't see decendants of the Nazi's (sorry - "the 99.999% of innocent Germans") forgiving the bloodthirsty RAF/USAF airmen who saved the world from history's darkest tyranny (sorry - "bombed the homes of innocent Germans while deliberately, and with knowledge ahindhand, neglecting all targets of military value").

One of the main reasons that lies behind the discussion of the bombing of Dresden is the current generation of Germans' need to stick to the fiction that the Nazis were the only "real" criminals in WWII, and the rest of the Germans no less their victims than, say, the French or the Poles.

It is therefore of utmost importance to signify as many Germans as possible as "innocent victims". One wonders, though: how many of the residents of Dresden were in the Nazi party? The SS? The Gestapo? How many of them lived in homes stolen from jews, confessing (after the war) utter ignorance as to what could possibly have happened to their jewish neighbors? When jews in Dresden were forced to wear yellow stars, how many citizens in Dresden protested? When Hitler appeared in Dresden before the war, was he received any differently than with the enormous enthusiasm he got everywhere else he visited? When Goebbles demanded "total war" against the jews (among others), or when Hitler explained how the war will lead to the "elimination of the jewish race in Europe", were the people of Dresden shocked? How many of the people of Dresden had benefited from the slave labor of the untermenschen in Speer's, Himmler's, and Saukel's factories? How many of the residents of Dresden, had Hitler won the war, would have refused their new role as the super-race, ruling over the jew-free slave empire of the inferior Slavs, which Hitler planned for the Germans?

We all know the answers to these questions. And we all know they don't fit very well with the "mass of innocent Germans" tragically and/or evily mislead by a "gang of Nazi criminals".

To hear the stories today, one gets the feeling that Dresden was some hotbed of the German resistance, with most of its residents ardent anti-Nazis who were punished for nothing. In reality, of course, they were just as enthusiastic supporters of Hitler--and his genocidal plans--as most other Germans were, right up to the end of the war (it was only after the war, naturally, that everybody suddenly "discovered" they never "really" supported "that Nazi gang of criminals". And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

It is to keep this fiction alive--the fiction of the seperation between the "innocent Germans" and the "criminal Nazis"--that a search for "innocent Germans" must go on, with Dresden leading the list as a likely candidate. But it's nothing more than a fiction, and an obvious one at that.

[AWPrime]

If you thought through that comparison a bit more carefully you might see:

a) German residential areas/workers - were able to assist the German war effort.
b) Jews imprisoned by the Third Reich - were unable to assist the allied war effort.

Collateral damage to (a) is rather different to the premeditated murder of (b).
(a) is also premeditated if you bomb civilians deliberately. The core of the argument used by you is: It is all right to kill anyone that can assist the enemy’s war effort.

This would mean for the Third Reich that they were justified to kill those jews, because if they lived then they could have found a way to aid the allies. This would turn the holocaust into a preemptive strike.

But that isn’t right. As soon as both sides moved to bombing civilians on purpose or committing genocide, they have moved into total war, making any one-sided war crime convictions hypocritical at best.

[Giz]

But that isn’t right. As soon as both sides moved to bombing civilians on purpose or committing genocide, they have moved into total war, making any one-sided war crime convictions hypocritical at best.

Riiiight, strategic bombing = the holocaust. Morally no difference at all, no siree.

And "one-sided war crime convictions hypocritical at best."
- Yep, Churchill and Eisenhower and Hitler and Pieper. What possible difference could could there be between them (other than being on the winning or losing side)???

And what is the "hypocritical at best" implying? Do you think that the Nuremberg trials were a bad thing? That the convictions were unjust?

[Loss Leader]

Is this debate colored with too much understanding of modern warfare?

We have to remember that precision bombing was impossible during WWII. Bombing the right city was considered a success. Is it right, then, to criticize the allies for waging war in as precise a manner as our technology allowed?

If our choices were bomb Dresden or not wage an air war, why should we not have bombed Dresden?

I think we could have won the war without the 44/45 air campaigns but is it fair to ask the generals in WWII to operate with our level of hindsight?

I think it was an unavoidable decision. I'm glad I didn't have to make it and I'm glad Kurt Vonnegot survived.

[AWPrime]

Riiiight, strategic bombing = the holocaust.
Deliberately bombing civilian areas (no targeting of military structures) with firebombs = strategic bombing.......Riiiight

And what is the "hypocritical at best" implying? Do you think that the Nuremberg trials were a bad thing? That the convictions were unjust?
There weren't bad, but they should have been held against both sides, convicting individuals who have crossed the lines.

Or they could have declared it to be a case of total war, and total war has no morals.

[Loss Leader]

Or they could have declared it to be a case of total war, and total war has no morals.

I might agree with you had the Nazis managed to confine their crimes to their, you know, enemies. Instead, they set out to exterminate an entire race of people - my race, as it happens. I don't think total war against uniformed combatants and exterminating all the Jews you can find are really morally equivalent.

[AWPrime]

I might agree with you had the Nazis managed to confine their crimes to their, you know, enemies.
In total war, the german people would become the enemy of the allies.

Instead, they set out to exterminate an entire race of people - my race, as it happens. I don't think total war against uniformed combatants and exterminating all the Jews you can find are really morally equivalent.
Killing captured Jews (by Nazis) and deliberately bombing non-combat germans (by the allies) are morally equivalent. In both cases there is deliberate killing of potenciaal (but innocent) threats.

[Skeptic]

Deliberately bombing civilian areas (no targeting of military structures) with firebombs = strategic bombing.......Riiiight

There weren't bad, but they should have been held against both sides, convicting individuals who have crossed the lines.

So you think that, to make things fair, they should have put a few RAF pilots on trial in Nuremberg together with Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher, etc.?

The "it's just the victors' justice!" argument had been used before in the Nuremberg trial, by the way. Unfortunately, it was used by Hermann Goering...

[Skeptic]

Killing captured Jews (by Nazis) and deliberately bombing non-combat germans (by the allies) are morally equivalent. In both cases there is deliberate killing of potenciaal (but innocent) threats.

The jews were a "potential threat" to the Germans only in the diseased imagination of the Nazis. The Germans under Hitler, however, were not a potential, but a very real and actual, threat to the British, abd to the rest of the world as well--especially to the jews, of course--due to tiny little things like the conquering of Europe, the bombing of England, the plans for invading it, the genocide and enslavement of all "untermenschen", etc., etc.

If you want moral equivalence, well, if there was a jewish state that:

1). Was ruled by a fanatical German-hating leader;
2). Who made all Germans in his country wear yellow Swastikas;
3). Who invaded and conquered all of Europe;
4). Who repeatedly said that he will kill all Germans anywhere he will find them;
5). Who set up ghettos and concentration camps to starve and gas to death all Germans;

(etc., etc., etc.)

Then, perhaps, you could say that jews were "a potential threat" to the Germans on the same level that Germans were a potential threat to those who were fighting Hitler, and then, perhaps, you could say that German soldiers killing jews they captured was somewhat morally equivalent to British pilots bombing German cities.

But that was hardly the case, was it?

[Giz]

I don't think you're going convince AWP, Skeptic.

I mean we can point out that getting bombed until surrender (then aided in rebuilding) differs from being captured - thus rendered harmless - and then being gassed anyway. etc, etc, but nothing will deflect AWP from his moral equivalence kick.


Loss Leader: I agree with both your posts. All I'd add is that whilst the war could have been won without the 44/45 bombing campaigns allied ground losses would have been much higher. Why should the Allies have suffered more to save some Germans?

[Chaos]

Is this debate colored with too much understanding of modern warfare?

We have to remember that precision bombing was impossible during WWII. Bombing the right city was considered a success. Is it right, then, to criticize the allies for waging war in as precise a manner as our technology allowed?

If our choices were bomb Dresden or not wage an air war, why should we not have bombed Dresden?

I think we could have won the war without the 44/45 air campaigns but is it fair to ask the generals in WWII to operate with our level of hindsight?

I think it was an unavoidable decision. I'm glad I didn't have to make it and I'm glad Kurt Vonnegot survived.

That´s not at all the point. Contrary to the raving and rambling of certain people here, attacks on industrial targets that happened to kill civilians aren´t what I´m complaining about. *I* am complaining about those attacks that were actually intended only to kill civilians, to the exclusion of other industrial and military targets.

[Giz]

That´s not at all the point. Contrary to the raving and rambling of certain people here, attacks on industrial targets that happened to kill civilians aren´t what I´m complaining about. *I* am complaining about those attacks that were actually intended only to kill civilians, to the exclusion of other industrial and military targets.

But Dresden was not intended to "exclude" industrial, military, and infrastructure targets. Rather, industrial, military, infrastructure, and civilian areas would all be hit by obliterating the city.

[Jon_in_london]

"Beginning of the campaign" might be a good point, if we weren´t talking Dresden et al, which was happening in 44/45.

And regarding your other argument, one *might* take that to justify the attacks on London and Coventry, too, don´t you think?

-Unfotunately even at the end of the war, bombing was only accurate enough to reliably hit the right city- more or less. Even pinpoint daylight attacks by mosquitos sometimes got it wrong. IIRC, they once bombed school in Denmark that was right next to the Gestopo HQ. Oops.

-Yes. Absolutely. No argument there. But thats total war isnt it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Skeptic, please explain why genocide is fair punishment genodice. Please show me why all Germans deserved to die for the crimes of their government, and then show my why, by that same standard, all Americans did not deserve to die for murdering Native American Tribes. Please explains why all of Turkey shouldn't be exterminated because of the Amerenian Genocide. Please explain why All Russians shouldn't be killed for Stalin's purges of Jews. Please explain why all the Israelites from 3000+ years ago didn't deserve to be killed for the genocide they commited against the Caanites. Please explain your twisted, bloodthristy logic, so that Ij can understand why only those people you hate deserve to die, and why you deserve to live, if genocide is an acceptable response to genocide.

[Giz]

Skeptic, please explain why genocide is fair punishment genodice. Please show me why all Germans deserved to die for the crimes of their government, and then show my why, by that same standard, all Americans did not deserve to die for murdering Native American Tribes. Please explains why all of Turkey shouldn't be exterminated because of the Amerenian Genocide. Please explain why All Russians shouldn't be killed for Stalin's purges of Jews. Please explain why all the Israelites from 3000+ years ago didn't deserve to be killed for the genocide they commited against the Caanites. Please explain your twisted, bloodthristy logic, so that Ij can understand why only those people you hate deserve to die, and why you deserve to live, if genocide is an acceptable response to genocide.


You realize that the Allied strategic bombing campaign in no way equals genocide, right?

[fuelair]

"Beginning of the campaign" might be a good point, if we weren´t talking Dresden et al, which was happening in 44/45.

And regarding your other argument, one *might* take that to justify the attacks on London and Coventry, too, don´t you think?

But the attack on Coventry would have had lots less effect if Churchill and buddies had evacuated it since they knew the bombers were coming well ahead of time. (This is a 'don't get me started' topic with me).

[Loss Leader]

But the attack on Coventry would have had lots less effect if Churchill and buddies had evacuated it since they knew the bombers were coming well ahead of time. (This is a 'don't get me started' topic with me).

Revealing that we had broken the German codes would have compromised the entire war effort on the continent. But you knew that. I'll agree it must have been an impossibly difficult call.

[Loss Leader]

Killing captured Jews (by Nazis) and deliberately bombing non-combat germans (by the allies) are morally equivalent. In both cases there is deliberate killing of potenciaal (but innocent) threats.

AW - I am very, very tempted to report your post.

In order for your statement to be true, the Jews must have been enemies of Germany in exactly the same way the Germans were enemies of the allies. I submit that an entire race of people cannot be the enemy of a country. I submit that the Germans were wrong. In fact, I submit that they were so obviously wrong that their behavior exceeded any bounds of human acceptability.

The Germans had actually invaded innocent nations. Had the Jews actually invaded innocent nations? The Germans had carried out air campaigns against civilian targets. Had the Jews carried out air campaigns against civilian targets? The Germans were continuing to produce goods to fuel their war effort. Were the Jews producing goods to fuel their war effort?

(Actually, the Jews were producing goods against their will to fuel the German war effort as their slaves.)

My great uncle and his family were murdered by the Nazis for no reason other than their religion. I will not silently allow you to disrespect their sacrifice.

[Skeptic]

Churchill did NOT know in advance Conventry was going to be attacked. Like the story about FDR knowing about Pearl Harbor in advance, it's an urban legend. See here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/38/a3142838.shtml), messege 1, for far more details.

Yes, both FDR and Churchill had top secret intelligence indicating an imminent attack was possible or likely; but in both cases either the crucial information about the location, timing, and exact nature of the attack either arrived too late, or was unknown at the time.

People seem to think that codebreaking is some magical work when, once you "break the German (or Japanese) code", you can just read the enemy's transmissions (not to say his mind) completely, instantly, and with ease. They thus assume FDR and Churchill both must have therefore known in advance everything and anything the Germans and Japanese intended.

But it just doesn't work that way. Coventry and Pearl Harbor are two of the most famous examples where the difference between real codebreaking and the way it works in the popular imagination is seen, but not the only one.

[LW]

You realize that the Allied strategic bombing campaign in no way equals genocide, right?

Skeptic has previously presented his opinion that every German should have been killed as a punishment for the holocaust.

When asked whether this should include also children, he declined to answer. He may have clarified his position later but I haven't seen it because I have him on ignore.

Personally, I don't see how killing several million children for any reason would make the world a better place.

[Chaos]

Skeptic has previously presented his opinion that every German should have been killed as a punishment for the holocaust.

When asked whether this should include also children, he declined to answer. He may have clarified his position later but I haven't seen it because I have him on ignore.

He has not - to my knowledge - clarified this position.

He has also not provided any proof that my grandparents were "Hitler´s murderers". That is, besides the usual racist blather about "they were Germans, therefore they were guilty". For that matter, why he is so sure they were Germans is anyone´s guess.

He has *also* not, to my knowledge, taken back his claim that my parents, born AFTER WW2, are "Hitler´s murderers".


Personally, I don't see how killing several million children for any reason would make the world a better place.

Me, neither. One more thing that "Skeptic" has declined to explain.

[MRC_Hans]

-Unfotunately even at the end of the war, bombing was only accurate enough to reliably hit the right city- more or less. Even pinpoint daylight attacks by mosquitos sometimes got it wrong. IIRC, they once bombed school in Denmark that was right next to the Gestopo HQ. Oops.

No, it was a god bit away, but near the approach path. What happened was that one of the last planes in the first wave hit a chimney stack (it was a very low level approach) and crashed into the school. Several of the following pilots (I don't remember if it was all of them), on seeing the smoke and fire, thought it was the target and bombed it. You have very little time to assess the sitiation when you are flying at roof-top level over hostile terrain at ~500mph.

Btw, in the military sense, the attack was a success, since they did manage to take out the Gestapo HQ.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

As for Dresden, one must remember a couple of things:

It is easy enough for us, in hindsight, to say that Germany was already beaten, but back then, fierce fighting was still going on, and soldiers were dying every minute.

One of the reasons for the devastating effects of the late bombings was that a reasonable degree of precition had finally been achieved, probably coupled with the vaning resistance as Luftwaffe was on its last legs. Carpet-bombing a city is basically an attempt to annihilate it, but they had not been used to come even close to that objective.

The military effect, and thus the justification, of the WW2 bombing campaign has been and is still fiercely debated, and we will obviously never know the answer, but even if it had no other effect, it served to pin down enormous ressources, in men and material, including aircraft, to defending cities. Ressources that the Germans were dearly missing on the other battlefronts. If the thousands of troops, high-powered guns, and munitions had been available to defend the coast of Normandy, the D-day might have gone differently.

Hans

[AWPrime]

In order for your statement to be true, the Jews must have been enemies of Germany in exactly the same way the Germans were enemies of the allies. I submit that an entire race of people cannot be the enemy of a country. I submit that the Germans were wrong.
You clearly missed the point. Not all Nazis wanted to kill the Jews; many of them just wanted them transported to another/new country. However it was judged that the Jews could have build a very strong nation that would (they would hold a grudge) threaten Nazi Germany. This is the kind of potential threat that I am talking about.

In this case the Jews were as innocent as German babies who were burned alive by allied firebombing (firebombing was designed to destroy civilian areas).

War is dirty; some wars are dirtier than others.

So you think that, to make things fair, they should have put a few RAF pilots on trial in Nuremberg together with Goering, Kaltenbrunner, Streicher, etc.?
Nuremberg was also meant to set standards; one of them is that deliberate killing of innocents/non-combatants is a big no-no. If the Allies really wanted to show a perfect moral position then they would have also tried those that order the firebombing of German civilians.
Of course the RAF officers should get a lesser sentences, for their intent wasn’t purely annihilation.

[Darth Rotor]

Personally, I don't see how killing several million children for any reason would make the world a better place.

So, you are not a kindergarden teacher, eh? :D

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You have very little time to assess the sitiation when you are flying at roof-top level over hostile terrain at ~500mph.
Hans
392-400 mph was Mosquito's rated top speed. :)

DR

[a_unique_person]

As I said before; state where I have misrepresented your position, or cool it with the drama queen act.

And puh-leez stop playing the "why didn't Harris have 20/20 hindsight?" card.


Skep:
I'd agree with your post except for the bit at the end, I can't see decendants of the Nazi's (sorry - "the 99.999% of innocent Germans") forgiving the bloodthirsty RAF/USAF airmen who saved the world from history's darkest tyranny (sorry - "bombed the homes of innocent Germans while deliberately, and with knowledge ahindhand, neglecting all targets of military value").

It was already well known that area bombing didn't achieve what it claimed it would, the demoralisation of the population. The Germans and British just got angrier. It cost Hitler the Battle of Britain. Harris knew it didn't work, but that was all he had, his ego, and it had to be stoked. Dresden achieved nothing in a war that was already well and truly won.

[Loss Leader]

Not all Nazis wanted to kill the Jews; many of them just wanted them transported to another/new country. However it was judged that the Jews could have build a very strong nation that would (they would hold a grudge) threaten Nazi Germany. This is the kind of potential threat that I am talking about.

It doesn't matter whether the Nazis though that a Jewish state would be a "potential threat." It really doesn't matter what the German reasoning was. The bottom line was that the German crimes against the Jewish people are an absolute evil. They are always wrong, they are always unforgiveable. There is no justification or defense that may be admitted under any circumstance when one's goal is genocide.

I don't know exactly where the line of relativism ends and absolutism begins, but I know that it is somewhere before one starts using Zyklon B.

As for the statement that "not all Nazis wanted to kill the Jews," it would have been very nice if they had, you know, shot and killed the Nazis who wanted to. Or at least not helped. Or maybe spoken up once in a while. As far as I'm concerned, they have the same moral culpability as Hitler himself.

[Skeptic]

You clearly missed the point. Not all Nazis wanted to kill the Jews; many of them just wanted them transported to another/new country. However it was judged that the Jews could have build a very strong nation that would (they would hold a grudge) threaten Nazi Germany.

This is too absurd for words.

The Nazis DID want the jews dead. The very cornerstone of Nazi ideology is the jew as a parasite, a bacillus, which must be eliminated for the good of mankind. The reason they put the jews in ghettoes, starved, and gassed them was not to prevent them from having a jewish state; it was simply to eliminate this bacillus, so it will not "contaminate" the world.

The very idea of a jewish state (let alone one strong enough to threathen the German ubermenschen) was, for the Nazis, a logical contradiction, since one of the main reasons they considered the jews "parasites" in the first place is that, for them, jews could not create their own state and must have a "host" to live on.

The so-called "Madagascar plan", or other plans to move the jews east en mass first, were not plans for a jewish state, or even for the transportation of the jews to another country. They were simply plans for a jewish ghetto, the only difference between them and what eventually happened was the question whether it would be more efficient to have the jews in one huge ghetto in the east (or Madagascar) before starvation, disease, and/or the extermination camps take care of them, or whether the plan eventually adopted--immediate extermination by shooting in the small villages, larger ghettoes with eventual transfer to the exetermination camps in the larger cities--was more effective.

To call the Madagascar plan or the idea of a super-ghetto in the east a plan for a "jewish state" or "relocating the jews to another country" is like calling the establishment of the Warsaw ghetto a plan for "jewish municipal autonomy" or "relocating the jews to another part of the city".

[Darth Rotor]

"we never intended to kill them, just to move them to Madagascar" (or wherever) is for the most part a post-war rationalization.
Maybe they should have tried for Miami instead.

/kidding

I can't find the link, but if the various Zionist activists and the Nazi's couldn't convince German Jews to move to Palestine/Israel, I don't see how Madagascar was going to work without command of the sea and ownership of the Suez Canal, once WW II started. The Brits tended to be in command of the Sea, or at least roughly so, starting about 1 September 1939. As I understand it, I may be wrong, the Xyklon B and ovens weren't begun until after things turned bad in 1942. (May be off by a year) Please correct me if I remember that incorrectly.

The Madagascar plan would require Rommel to take Alexandria, then Cairo, then, Jerusalem, at which point, Madagascar isn't needed. Costs less just to ship them all to Israel/Palestine, while Il Duce's valiant Navy patrols the sea lanes of the Mediterranean. With Rommel being underresourced, as he almost invariably was, one can barely argue for "the Madagascar plan" figuring in long term strategy or policy.

DR

[Skeptic]

I don't see how Madagascar was going to work without command of the sea and ownership of the Suez Canal,

Not to mention the number of ships needed for it, even in the most serene peacetime. And of course it was mere expulsion, not settlement: no plans whatever were made to provide the expelled jews with any provisions, medicines, or anything else that would enable them to live in that tropical island.

It was never taken seriously. Essentially it was a Nazi daydream: "Oh, how nice it would be if the jews could all be put in Madagascar, where starvation and disease would kill them all naturally, without us having to dirty our hands with mass extermination."

[Giz]

It was already well known that area bombing didn't achieve what it claimed it would, the demoralisation of the population. The Germans and British just got angrier. It cost Hitler the Battle of Britain. Harris knew it didn't work, but that was all he had, his ego, and it had to be stoked. Dresden achieved nothing in a war that was already well and truly won.


1) There is a difference between area bombing not acheiving what its most fervent supporters claimed (i.e. unilaterally forcing German surrender) and area bombing not acheiving concrete advantages for the Allied war effort.

2) Hitler lost the Battle of Britain because he switched from attacking the RAF to attacking cities. The Allied air offensive destroyed the Luftwaffe during its futile defence of German cities. What advantages do you think accrued from the withdrawal/destruction of the Luftwaffe from Normandy or the Russian Front? (And give thanks to the strategic bombing campaign!)

3) You have evidence that Harris knew it didn't work and that he did it anyway, sending his aircrew in harms way, just to pander to his ego?

4) Whilst Germany was still fighting and Allied soldiers were still dying, why should any let up of the war effort take place?

[AWPrime]

The Nazis DID want the jews dead. The very cornerstone of Nazi ideology is the jew as a parasite, a bacillus, which must be eliminated for the good of mankind.
Actually that was a side issue, one that was stupidly and immorally blown out of proportion.

The true cornerstone is nazisme is the concept of "Großdeutschland", all the others things were the means. Nazis like humans had different opinions about the means.

[gnome]

I would like to reject the idea that the question of whether something is a war crime relates to the conduct of the nation the alleged crimes were perpetrated against. A war crime is a war crime, it doesn't matter what the other side has been doing.

That said, I believe the idea of what constitutes a war crime can adjust over time. I'm not prepared to suppose that bombing of civilians was a war crime THEN. In modern warfare it is possible to be far more specific about one's targets, making it less acceptable than it was then.

[AWPrime]

I would like to reject the idea that the question of whether something is a war crime relates to the conduct of the nation the alleged crimes were perpetrated against. A war crime is a war crime, it doesn't matter what the other side has been doing.

That said, I believe the idea of what constitutes a war crime can adjust over time. I'm not prepared to suppose that bombing of civilians was a war crime THEN. In modern warfare it is possible to be far more specific about one's targets, making it less acceptable than it was then.
Very logical, except the fact that the bombs used (firebombs) are designed to kill civies and destroy homes. Regular bombs are better against factories and so forth.

[Loss Leader]

Actually that was a side issue, one that was stupidly and immorally blown out of proportion.

The true cornerstone is nazisme is the concept of "Großdeutschland", all the others things were the means. Nazis like humans had different opinions about the means.

Once again, you come dangerously close to disrespecting the memory of my family members. And you do it with historical inaccuracy. First, you speak about Nazism as though it were an actual political philosophy. It was not. National Socialism was the will of the Fuhrer, full stop. It was whatever bonkers thing Hitler wanted it to be.

And Anti-semetism was an integral part of Hitler's philosophy. It is not possible to read Mein Kampf without the anti-semetism. There would be nothing left of the book. Here's Hitler now: "If we pass all the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive remains the failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish menace."

If the Germans were driven towards Großdeutschland, the engine that drove them was hatred of the Jewish people.

Once again, I ask that you not minimize this fact in your postings.

[gnome]

Very logical, except the fact that the bombs used (firebombs) are designed to kill civies and destroy homes. Regular bombs are better against factories and so forth.

But with specific bombings against factories not at all as effective as it is now, the choice to bomb civilians becomes a legitimate question of survival. Another example might be a nuclear retaliation to a nuclear strike--committing to applying a lesser use of force undermines the nuclear deterrent... but in that case you are committing to massive civilian loss.

It's not an easy question... because then suddenly you can bring in the issue of whether terrorist attacks on civilians are a legitimate question of survival, because the smaller "terrorist" army cannot hope to defeat the enemy's actual military. I'd have to say "no" to that but I'm not clear on where the line is.

[Chaos]

I would like to reject the idea that the question of whether something is a war crime relates to the conduct of the nation the alleged crimes were perpetrated against. A war crime is a war crime, it doesn't matter what the other side has been doing.

What a novel idea ;) . And one that will put you right into the Nazi camp according to some people.


That said, I believe the idea of what constitutes a war crime can adjust over time. I'm not prepared to suppose that bombing of civilians was a war crime THEN. In modern warfare it is possible to be far more specific about one's targets, making it less acceptable than it was then.

Fair enough, I guess.

On the other hand, by now I´m willing to accept anything short of "carpet bombing German cities was a great idea, the more dead German civilians, the better, how dare you disagree you Nazi scumbag" as fair enough.

It's not an easy question... because then suddenly you can bring in the issue of whether terrorist attacks on civilians are a legitimate question of survival, because the smaller "terrorist" army cannot hope to defeat the enemy's actual military. I'd have to say "no" to that but I'm not clear on where the line is.

That, on the other hand, leaves the question if maybe Blitz was *not* a war crime. After all, assuming the Luftwaffe was not trying to exterminate the British population but to defeat the RAF, then according to what other here said *any* tactics leading to that goal are legitimate.
I´m not saying that the Blitz wasn´t wrong, mind you, I´m just suggesting that the stuff proposed here by some people cuts both ways.

[AWPrime]

Once again, you come dangerously close to disrespecting the memory of my family members.
Both my grandfathers have spend time in workcamps and barely survived oother family members died. Don't disrespect them by only considering your family. In WW2 62 million people died, don't forget about them.

And you do it with historical inaccuracy. First, you speak about Nazism as though it were an actual political philosophy. It was not. National Socialism was the will of the Fuhrer, full stop.
The fact the several Nazis wanted to kill (and tried to) him suggest that this is inaccurate at best.

[Skeptic]

Actually that was a side issue, one that was stupidly and immorally blown out of proportion.

Huh? Everything in Nazi philosophy was saturated with genocidal hatered of jews. It started with Mein Kampf and even earlier, and ended with Hitler's last will and testament, where he speaks of the necessity of continuing to fight "the poisoners of the world, world jewry", and infected just about everything in between. If anything, the opposite is the case: Hitler saw the reason the world objects to his desire for Lebensraum as only one of the many evil, evil things the jew, which controls everything of course, had conspired against him.

[MRC_Hans]

392-400 mph was Mosquito's rated top speed. :)

DRThat certainly changes things ;) .

.... I suppose I was thinking about kph :blush: .

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Very logical, except the fact that the bombs used (firebombs) are designed to kill civies and destroy homes. Regular bombs are better against factories and so forth.

They were indeed. The paradigm was that if a factory is a legtimate military target, then so is the people running it. The slip in ethics occurred during the first year of the war, on both sides. Both Hitler and the allied commanders prohibited their bomber pilots from attacking civilian targets, in the beginning, then as the collateral damage added up, such inhibitions were rationalized away.

I'm sure both sides would have preferred to make surgical attacks on factories, equiment, stores, etc. if only for the ressources saved, but the technology of the time simply did not permit that. An analysis of the early bombing missions, which were targeted primarily at war facilities, it was discovered that only a fraction (I can look up the exact figure) of the bombs fell within a mile of the designated target.

At the same time, daylight attacks proved to give unbearable losses, so the strategy was shifted to night attacks on targets big enough to be hit: Cities.

Of course this does not necessarily have a bearing on the Dresden attack, since at that point the allies had achieved air superiority, and the technology for presition attacks had been developed, so at that time it should not have been necessary to blanket bomb the city. But once ethics have deteriorated, it is hard to bring them back as long as hostilities continue.

Hans

[Euromutt]

Harris knew it didn't work, but that was all he had, his ego, and it had to be stoked. Dresden achieved nothing in a war that was already well and truly won.I suggest you try reading some material written after the opening of the Soviet archives, e.g. Antony Beevor's Berlin:That night [13-Feb-1945],the British bombed Dresden. The following morning, which happened to be Ash Wednesday, the US Air Force followed in their path and also attacked several lesser targets. It was intended as a rapid fulfilment of the promise to the Stavka to hinder German troop movements by smashing rail communications. The fact that there were 180 V-bomb rocket attacks on England that week, the highest number so far, did little to soften the planners' hearts. [...] Dresden's population was swollen by up to 300,000 refugees from the east. several trains full of them were stuck in the main station. The tragedy was that instead of troops passing through Dresden to the front, as Soviet military intelligence had asserted, the traffic was civilian and going in the opposite direction.Emphases in bold mine.
The bombing of Dresden was conducted in effect at the request of the Sovs, who did so on the basis of faulty intelligence. And, given the Sovs' attitude towards the Germans at the time, they probably weren't too fussed about limiting civilian casualties, especially since it wasn't their ordnance being expended, and they could always blame the western Allies as the ones who carried out the actual bombing. Unsurprisingly, once the second world war was over and the Cold War begun, and the Sovs were vying for German hearts and minds, blaming the British and Americans was precisely what the Sovs proceeded to do, especially in their zone of occupation (which included Dresden). The claims that Dresden was bombed for no good reason were, if not initiated, at least encouraged by the Sovs in order to deflect any blame from themselves, the very people who had provided the reason.

[dogjones]

As far as I'm aware, the incendiary bombing of German civilians was basically a terrorism tactic. Harris' objective was to lower the morale of the German populace, his theory being they'd put pressure on their government to surrender.

He was wrong - it united the civilians in their hatred of the RAF.

Not dissimilar to terrorism problems today. Suicide bombers target civilians, the theory being that the civilians will put pressure on the government to agree to the terrorists' demands. Result is civilians united in their hatred of said terrorist group.

In no way am I suggesting that the RAF was nothing more than a terrorist group (my grandfather flew on a Lanc) - but that particular tactic was unquestionably employed, and it unquestionably didn't work (at least, in the way it was intended).

Churchill's instructions to Harris after the Dresden raid:

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise, we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land."

ETA: Bickering about the morality of the whole thing is frankly silly. It was a war. That's W-A-R, pronounced "bang!" Morality is meaningless in these situations - the only thing that matters is victory. Did it contribute to victory? Not really.

[gnome]

ETA: Bickering about the morality of the whole thing is frankly silly. It was a war. That's W-A-R, pronounced "bang!" Morality is meaningless in these situations - the only thing that matters is victory. Did it contribute to victory? Not really.

I completely disagree. There is morality in war. This is a gray area, especially for its time... but I would not reject entirely the idea of a war crime. Would you commit genocide if it contributed to victory? Would you torture your enemies civilians, with the only worry being whether it helped you win?

[dogjones]

I completely disagree. There is morality in war. This is a gray area, especially for its time... but I would not reject entirely the idea of a war crime. Would you commit genocide if it contributed to victory? Would you torture your enemies civilians, with the only worry being whether it helped you win?

I would define war crimes as truly senseless acts of violence which in no way contribute to victory. The nazi systematic genocide of the Jews did not contribute to any kind of military victory. However, the atom bombs dropped on Japan were genocidal in a sense - and VJ day came shortly thereafter (or so the argument went at the time - some argue not these days). Or consider the end of "Ender's Game", where the only way to victory was to kill ALL of the enemy. Would I do it? Hell yes.

Torture is usually for vital information that would contribute to victory. However, is it reliable information? No - so torture is senseless and pointless, and therefore a war crime.

I maintain that once you are in a war situation, morality goes right out the window. You are, after all, killing each other. Most, if not all, wars are immoral right off the bat.

[Euromutt]

ETA: Bickering about the morality of the whole thing is frankly silly. It was a war. That's W-A-R, pronounced "bang!" Morality is meaningless in these situations - the only thing that matters is victory. Did it contribute to victory? Not really.Wrong on both counts.

First, for about as long as warfare has existed, people have tried to create rules in an effort to limit the damage it causes, especially to those individuals incapable of participating in hostilities. War isn't some uncontrollable autonomous beast; it's an activity conducted by humans, and thus humans have the power to control it. These efforts have not always been successful, but they have been made repeatedly. War only has to be as nasty as one side wants it to be.

Second, as I've pointed out, it was thought at the time that the bombing of Dresden would disrupt German troop movements by rail, likely killing or incapacitating a sizeable number of German soldiers in the process, which would degrade the Germans' combat power and thus aid victory. Whether or not this proved correct in retrospect is beside the point; you have to judge a person's actions by the information available to them at the time.

There's a pernicious aspect to the way history gets taught in primary and secondary education which fails to acknowledge that events don't happen until they happen. No (specific) event, or series of (specific) events, is inevitable until it actually takes place. It's facile to say the bombing of Dresden was gratuitous because the war would less than three months later, because in February 1945, nobody knew that the war would only last that long. Sure, you can argue that, given the Allied superiority in manpower and equipment, Germany's days had to be numbered, but the point is that nobody knew what that number was, or how many more lives would have to be lost to reach that point.

Bear in mind that, even by 1944, the Soviet Union and the British Empire had, for all practical purposes, exhausted their manpower pools; the only people left to recruit were boys reaching military age. At the time of D-Day, the Anglo-Canadian forces committed to the invasion of north-western Europe were literally everything the British and Canadians had left. There was no manpower reserve to bring badly attrited units back up to strength; instead, any unit which had lost too much manpower to remain combat-capable was disbanded and its remaining personnel reassigned to other units which had suffered less attrition. The Soviets didn't even make exemptions for "essential war work"; by 1944, 80% of agricultural work force was female, with the balance being made up by males either too old or too young to fight. By 1945, even the Americans weren't doing much better. By the time Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese home islands, was in the works, Paul Fussell (then a 21 year-old rifle platoon commander) was deemed sufficiently fit to take part, even though he had already been wounded in the back and leg in ETO, wounds which caused him to be pronounced 40% disabled after the war. In those circumstances, it's hardly surprising the Allied leaders were unwilling to risk the war lasting even a day longer than strictly necessary, especially not if it meant sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers for the sake preserving those of Axis civilians.

[Piscivore]

Bear in mind that, even by 1944, the Soviet Union and the British Empire had, for all practical purposes, exhausted their manpower pools; the only people left to recruit were boys reaching military age. At the time of D-Day, the Anglo-Canadian forces committed to the invasion of north-western Europe were literally everything the British and Canadians had left. There was no manpower reserve to bring badly attrited units back up to strength; instead, any unit which had lost too much manpower to remain combat-capable was disbanded and its remaining personnel reassigned to other units which had suffered less attrition. The Soviets didn't even make exemptions for "essential war work"; by 1944, 80% of agricultural work force was female, with the balance being made up by males either too old or too young to fight. By 1945, even the Americans weren't doing much better. By the time Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese home islands, was in the works, Paul Fussell (then a 21 year-old rifle platoon commander) was deemed sufficiently fit to take part, even though he had already been wounded in the back and leg in ETO, wounds which caused him to be pronounced 40% disabled after the war. In those circumstances, it's hardly surprising the Allied leaders were unwilling to risk the war lasting even a day longer than strictly necessary, especially not if it meant sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers for the sake preserving those of Axis civilians.


Given these facts, and the additional fact that the Axis powers were losing, how much less combat-capable was the German Army?

[Loss Leader]

Given these facts, and the additional fact that the Axis powers were losing, how much less combat-capable was the German Army?


The German military, at that point, was largely made up of children and old men who could not surrender for fear of being shot by the allies and could not retreat for fear of being shot by what was left of the Nazis.

[Euromutt]

Given these facts, and the additional fact that the Axis powers were losing, how much less combat-capable was the German Army?In terms of raw firepower, significantly less so, obviously. But in comparing armed forces, you can't just look at manpower and firepower; you also have to ask what objective each force is expected to be capable of achieving. In early 1945, the job of the Allied armies was to force Germany and Japan to an unconditional surrender; the German and Japanese armed forces, by contrast, were realistically expected to do no more than inflict sufficient losses on the Allies to make them settle for something less than unconditional surrender. The latter task clearly takes way less in the way of AFVs, artillery, air power and logistical capability than the former.

Moreover, the Germans and Japanese had long ceased using the same rulebook as the Allies, certainly the western Allies, with regard to recruitment. The Germans had "augmented" their regular armed forces with the Volkssturm, a national militia consisting of those too old, young, or infirm to be inducted into the regular armed forces, and groups of Hitler Youth, some of whose members were young as fourteen.
For the defense of the Japanese home islands in the event of an Allied invasion, the Imperial General Headquarters insisted that "all able-bodied Japanese, regardless of sex, should be called upon to engage in battle. [...] Each citizen to be prepared to sacrifice his life in suicide attacks on enemy armored forces." The [i]Kokumin Giyu Sento-Tai ("National Volunteer Combat Force") was comparable to the Volkssturm, except it incorporated women as well as men, and its equipment was even worse; many of its members were expected to take on the American invaders with pitchforks and spears of sharpened bamboo. Sure, neither the Volkssturm nor the Kokumin Giyu Sento-Tai were ever going to turn the tide of battle, but might have proved capable of inflicting sufficient casualties on the Allied forces to make it extremely costly for Allies to achieve their objectives of decisively defeating the Axis powers.

[Loss Leader]

the German and Japanese armed forces, by contrast, were realistically expected to do no more than inflict sufficient losses on the Allies to make them settle for something less than unconditional surrender.

This may have been true of the Japanese, but I don't think the German army had any sort of coherent goal in the last 90 days. Hitler's mind was gone and nobody was actually running things in his place. They were still following their last orders up to the day the war ended: Try to take over the world.

The Japanese, in the last 90 days, were basically looking for an honorable way out.

[qayak]

Interestingly, I was on a backpacking trip with my son last week and on the way home I stopped at several used book stores. In one I picked up a copy of "The Starship & The Canoe" by Kenneth Brower.

For those who do not know, this is the story of George Dyson, son of Freeman Dyson, and a comparison between the two men and their worlds.

Freeman Dyson worked for the RAF during WWII and, although he did not work directly on it he states that the job of others was to figure out how to create a "fire storm" in cities being bombed.

He also states that there was a competition between the British and the US to do this. The British had the bigger problem in Germany because of the building construction but that they did manage to achieve the goal on a couple of occasions as did the Americans in Japan.

According to Dyson, the first fire storm was in Hamburg on July 27, 1943 where 40,000 people were killed. Fire storms depend on climate instability which the bombs interact with, travel very fast, generate intense heat and burn up oxygen in large areas of the city. They kill people even inside bomb shelters. The second firestorm created by the British was in Dresden.

The American fire storm in Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki and as many as the one dropped on Hiroshima.

In Dyson's words: "The defenses made it impossible for us to bomb accurately. We stopped trying to hit precise military objectives. Burning down cities was all we could do, so we did that. Even in killing the civilian population, we were inefficient. The Germans had killed one person for every ton of bombs that they dropped on England. To kill a German, we dropped three tons."

"Many times, I decided I owed it to the public to run out into the streets and tell them what stupidities were being committed in their name. But I never had the moral courage to do it. I sat in my office until the end, carefully calculating how to murder another hundred thousand people most economically."

"After the war ended, I read reports of the trials of men who had been high up in the Eichmann organization. They had sat in their office writing memorada and calculating how to murder people efficiently, just like me. The main difference was that they were sent to jail or hanged as war criminals and I went free. . . ."

Dyson's contribution to the fire storms? He advised the RAF that they were only lossing one bomber due to collision, for every thousand sorties that they flew and that the loose formations of bombers were susceptable to enemy fighters. he advised that the bomber density should be increased five fold which raised the number of collisions by one-half percent but they would save much more in reduced losses to the enemy. He was right.

[Euromutt]

This may have been true of the Japanese, but I don't think the German army had any sort of coherent goal in the last 90 days. Hitler's mind was gone and nobody was actually running things in his place. They were still following their last orders up to the day the war ended: Try to take over the world.Hence my insertion of the word "realistically." Whatever orders may have emanated from the Führerbunker, I don't think any German Wehrmacht field commander had any other goal than holding off the Sovs for as long as possible, hopefully long enough for the western Allies to get to and capture his unit first. German IX and XII Armies, in fact, deliberately disengaged from the Soviets to the south of Berlin and fled west for the specific purpose of surrendering to the US 9th Army on the Elbe. But that was only by the last week of April 1945.

And again, the bombing of Dresden occurred in mid-February; at the time, the western Allies were still on the wrong side of the Rhine, and while the Sovs had a couple of bridgeheads over the Oder, these were limited to the flood plain; the Germans still held the high ground overlooking the bridgeheads, as well as the "Baltic Balcony" of Pomerania (now northern Poland), which threatened the Russian flank. The Sov operation to clear the "balcony" couldn't start until March, and as it turned out, the final offensive across the Oder towards Berlin didn't start until 16-Apr-1945. Understandably, the Sovs felt their Oder bridgeheads were a little vulnerable to counter-attack, or alternatively that it was not a good idea to give the Germans opportunity to reinforce their defenses, hence the promise extracted at Yalta that the western Allies' air forces would interdict German troop movements.