Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 14

For the history of the edit to this page see Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Legal considerations

For previous discussions see Archive 13: Legal obligations and Archive 13: Legal considerations

Far-right German politicians

For previous discussion see Archive 13: Udo Voigt

The case for the bombing as a war crime: First paragraph

For previous discussion see Archive 13: The case for the bombing as a war crime: First paragraph

First Hands Accounts as Part of Argument?

I also forward the idea that the first-hand accounts are valid to be introduced as evidence of a "war crime". As Genocide Watch's President, Mickey Z and Jenkins point out its inhumanity as their primary reason for the "war crime" position, this simply supports it. Another reason would be that one of the things Shimoda took into account was the sheer suffering which this clearly documents. You made a good point when you broke the arguments in two, and unintentionally explain why this is so. You write: While the other lot says the military benefits disproportionately small for the destruction, pain and suffering it caused. There are two ways this can be examined in a favorable "war crime" context. You could aim to show that the military benefits were small (or, as mentioned above, even nonexistant - i.e. lack of military necessity) or that the pain and the suffering was great. The latter begs the question "how great?" Well, you can certainly cite figures and say that x number of people died or you can show how they died, the sort of inhumanity-angle that Shimoda takes into account (essentially, atomic bombs were a more efficient extension of firebombing)--Sin cloro 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

-PS why don't you pick a color to write in so that your contributions get the same visual attention as mine? And what was that format you were experimenting with before I reverted to Lysy?

I am so sick and tired of this,was a war-crime!,now they telling that 15.000!!died in Dresden soon they would say that nobody died!,It is a scandal meanwhile people go to jail in europe cause they dare to say that the nazis did not kill 6m jews!.They extreme right jews got the power and we ate up everything that "they-our" media says. I am sooo pisseed off!.user:pablingat 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UCT)

No, the figures used in the article are sourced from respected peer reviewed historians, unless the majority opinion amoung respected historians change the figures (of between 25,000 and 35,000) ought to remain in this article. This article is not the place to falsify history. As for you other comment, that has nothing to do with the development of this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The site seems to be better at the RAF side of

Thanks for the comments above,but i would like to know what you call "respected historians",what do you mean like David Irving? till he started to investigate about the holocaust,I do not understand why your answer is so offensive as well "As for you other comment, that has nothing to do with the development of this article" I am not attacking you,just talking the TRUTH, but fine keep the (development?) of this part-fake article.

P.S:We all know that most of the books were written by the allies(winners) not the lossers, So can we call them respected historians?,for whom?,for Israel?. Open you mind mate,turn off cnn & bbc for awhile and think about it,Cheers!..--user:pablingat 02 february 2007

The last one first because it is easy: indentation is sufficient.

Originally most of the the British political reaction to the bombing was in the section "Points of View", moving it out and creating another on the German reaction I think strengthened the article. For the same reason I think that the personal experiences are better in a subsection of impact of the attack. Even if the "Was it a war crime" debate was moved into a separate article (A suggestion which as been made more than once), arguably the personal experiences are part of the impact of the attack more than they are part of a war crime argument and should stay in the article. Part of this is because in war civilians are killed in horrible ways but that does not automatically make the killing a war crime even in these supposedly more enlightened times:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Source: Luis Moreno-Ocampo Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court

Also if anyone is going to read was it a war crime in this article then the chances are that they will also have read the sections before. If we do not assume that then we are doomed to repeat almost all of the rest of the article in was it a war crime section. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin, your response was duplicated so I took the liberty of deleting one instance and keeping the other. A good point about the relationship between the statute and Dresden. If the Dresden bombing had occured yesterday, we would be here taking into consideration motives and military goals and worrying less about the effects of firebombing. However, for the same reasons that any discussion of the Hague within the war crimes section, I remind you that there is no such model or framework during the war. Also, the moralists and humanists - particularly the "left" and a variety of religious hosts - craft their argument around this point of Dresden's totality, suggesting that "the suffering was too great for it not to be considered a war crime". Since this is a fundamental point of their argument, I think it makes sense to include the chilling accounts in the section. You said it yourself that "the amount of suffering in light of the degree of existing" (even nonexisting) "military necessity" was ultimately what all contentions boil down to. I think the eyewitness accounts fit in the section, but they could really go in either place. However, I am concerned that various portions of the war crime argument are scattered throughout the article. This weakens the actual section. Likewise, the RAF/aircrew comments (Akehurst and Leonard Cheshire) hit the issue right on the head because they understood that their target was the enemy and they saw the first hand results of their attack. They make it very clear that even if "Dresden served a military purpose" - they do not indicate otherwise - the suffering was far too great to justify the raid. And yet, these quotes could also become part of the Immediate/Contemporary response section. Maybe we should just forge forward and see where the war crime section is when it reaches its conclusion, yes?--Sin cloro 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pasafists think all war a crime. These views can be expressed first section of "Was the bombing a war crime?". This section is meant to be putting forward arguments based on credible reliable sources of why it was a war crime under international law. As I have said before in Debate over bombings I think that the structure (section headings etc) of the debate in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is better. It would allow the inclusion of people like Bishop George Bell who thought that the Church of England should "condemn ... the bombing of civilian populations".

I think you are misunderstanding the term "Military necessity". There defiantly was a military necessity to damage Dresden (you may argue that it was small, but the Allied high commends clearly though there was a military advantage to be had, and those reasons are laid out in the section reasons for the attack). If that had been done with the relatively few casualties as occurred the next day in the bombing of Chemnitz (14/15 February 1945), then I doubt that many would be arguing that the civilian injuries were clearly excessive in relation to the military advantage gained by the attack. As Moreno-Ocampo points out it is not a war crime to kill civilians if those deaths are justified by military necessity, (unless of course the attackers breach the laws of war when killing them). In judging if these aerial assualts were a war crime, it is not relevant how the civilians died, even if those deaths are very unpleasant, providing the weapons used to kill them are not prohibited by the laws of war. This is why I think if we are going to include personal accounts of the raids they should not be in this section. If you wish to include a quote from Cheshire about Dresden, because he was an expert in this field, then that is a different matter.

I think that we have reached an agreement on the first 2 paragraphs, even if like me you are not really happy with all of the wording. What do you wish to do next? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the bright side, we seem to have found something we can live with for the first two paragraphs. Interesting that you have revived the subject of subdividing the "war crimes" article, as now would be the time to do it. It seems to me that this is a double edged sword. As some have taken note on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki talk page, subdivision invites a number of problems. Unrelated, but I completely disagree with your military necessity synopsis for all the reasons I have already mentioned. Where do we go from here? I'm going to insert the RAF quotes and I guess we can play around with them. Then I guess we should take a look at Friedrich.--Sin cloro 09:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is totally absurd.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zwitterion (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Late to the discussion but - Didn't Churchill mention that burning 600,000 Germans to death was the mission. ( a little bragging etc but he did seem to know the approximate population and refugee count - they did attack at night - they did have a second attack during the rescue attempt - this sounds like military aims were probably not paramount ). The count of deaths that now are excepted as "official" seem to match the German army count of recovered bodies. It seems unlikely that ( after seeing the pictures of Dresden after the bombing) that such a large number of refugees could have escaped in the middle of the bombing at night.) Churchill intended to kill as many civilians as possible, why do historians think the Allied airforces were too incompetent to do the job - they certainly flattened the city, hardly a house or wall left standing. Is there a political motive - who wants a low count, who wants a high count - I see little history or forensics in any of the arguments/counterarguments, might as well be on CODOH or NITZOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A War Crime? Hahahahaha. A bit late in the day to decide that now, hippies! All the "criminals" are dead. Besides, inter arma silent leges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.127.161 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the estimate include the known dead 18,*** ( number from Irving and the German archives plus the number missing ( 35,000 )? There seems to be more houses and hospitals destroyed than people killed - were the people given an early warning to evacuate? The lower estimates ( Taylor, Evans, et al ) seem more of a stretch than Irving's numbers, unless Germans had mutliply huoses per person?159.105.80.80 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Churchill issued a memo to his staff soon after the bombing that maybe terror bombing was not making the Allies look like the good guys ( paraphrasing ). It was smart of Lipstadt's team to use the Dresden bombing in an English court - maybe they had done a psyche review of the judge beforehand. 159.105.80.80 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The RAF website has the number of dead at Dresden as 50,000 or more. Anyone know where they got a number twice a high as "historians"?159.105.80.141 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They do not give a source. There are several inconsistencies on that site compared to other histories. They seem to be accurate when discussing what went on at 10-20,000 feet but less accurate when describing the impact that their bombing had on their targets. I guess for the impact on the ground the historians who wrote the web pages used third party sources, while for the stuff directly about the RAF they could use the internal sources for the air force's own records. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Art. 25 of Hague Convention

Art. 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Clearly this article defines valid targets which are defended and invalid targets which are undefended. The RAF mainly bombed civilian parts of the city such as buildings which were undefended, they didn't focus on the defended parts like the anti-aircraft defenses which were around the city. Strictly speaking, they bombed 78,000 dwellings which were undefended. Philip, did they violate against Art. 25?--62.8.232.10 19:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Nuremburg Tribunals ruled on this matter, hence the case closed over 60 years ago.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.31.223 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

German airspace as a whole was defended - it's not the RAF's fault if their system was breaking down by Feb 1945, and there doesn't need to be an AA gun in front of every house for them to be considered defended. IxK85 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IxK85 (See Kammhuber Line article), but the USAF also argued (as described in the article) that "Marshall's inquiry concluded that the presence of active German military units nearby, and the presence of fighters and anti-aircraft within an effective range, Dresden qualified as "defended"." (https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm II. Section ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target, ¶ 11.) and this analysis was probably based on compliance with the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938. Art 2. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Case for and against war crime

I find these sections highly problematic. First of all, they do not use reliable sources (and no, an inquiry by the US military is not reliable, since the US military is party in the dispute). The main source in the pro camp is described as a "revisionist historian". The "against" side lists claims of an inquiry solely by US sources, disregarding completely the british position, and presenting the contents of an "official guide" as supportive evidence totally disregarding the marketing nature of such publications. Surely there is some serious academic discussion of this issue? And when reference is mahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pagede to similar firebombings, surely the issue of how these are assessed is important? In this context, one could refer to the speech by the British ambassador given on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Hamburg bombings by the RAF: [1]. Quote "A madness gripped Europe between 1939 and 1945. The events of July 1943 were a particularly terrible and destructive part of that madness." Given the large space also given to the NPD's assessment of the situation in the introduction to the chapter, I don't think this chapter fulfills NPOV. It throws Nobel laureate Grass, a staunch supporter of the Social Democrats, into one pot with a party suspected of anticonstitutional activities whose leaders have repeatedly been convicted of holocaust denial. The chapter depicts opinions by individuals and individual organisations, which suggests they are representative for the specific positions held. This isn't just slanted, it is in some cases downright libelous, given that it associates pro-arguments with revisionism and neonazi tendencies. I doubt that Sir Paul Torry would like to be thrown into that pot for voicing doubts about the legitimacy of similar operations. --84.61.248.129 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick and tired of this,was a war-crime!,now they telling that 15.000!!died in Dresden soon they would say that nobody died!,It is a scandal meanwhile people go to jail in europe cause they dare to say that the nazis did not kill 6m jews!.They extreme right jews got the power and we ate up everything that "they-our" media says. I am sooo piss-off!.pablingat

See the arcived section Archive 13: Debate over bombings. There are a lot of sources that argue that it was a moral crime, but few apart from Jörg Friedrich seem to claim that it is a war crime. This is because as the legal section points out, there was no positive international law on the issue. As for moral crime, two books which put forward this argument are:

• Grayling, A. C. (2006). Among the Dead Cities. New York: Walker Publishing Company Inc. ISBN 0-8027-1471-4. Grayling starts his book on a chapter called "Introduction:Was it a crime" in which on page 4 he writes "Is this assertion - 'delierately mounting military attacks on civilian populations a moral crime? - an unqualified truth?". In the chapter "The case against the bombing" on page 226 he says of the 1907 Hague conventions "however legalistically one might claim that its provisions were not violated in the letter, seems quite clearly and emphatically violated in spirit by area bombing". On page 244 he examins Harris's claim that there was "no international law at all" and mentions that Geoffrey Best wrote that the assertion was not correct but "if he had restricted himself to saying that there was not much of it, and that what there was lay mostly in the relm of principles". In the chapter Judgement towards the end of the book which includes page 276 he says is that "The history behind the provisions of the 1977 first protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 is left in silence by [area bombing]. But its meaning is crystal clear; as a retrospective judgement on area bombing, it nominates it as a crime." (this is a sumation of his argument on page 237). He goes on to say on the next page "In short and in sum: was area bombing wrong? Yes. Very wrong? Yes" but he does not say it was a war crime. Indeed several times in the same chapter (Judgement) he uses the term "immoral act" (page 272) and "moral crime(s)" (pages 272, 274,275) to describe area bombing, he does not use the term "war crime".
• Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang (eds). Firestorm the bombing of Dresden, It is a compliation of essays one per chapter. One chapter is entitled "Dresden as a War Crime by Donald Bloxham". Bloxham puts forward a similar type of moral position to Grayling (he also quotes Geoffrey Best), but with some specifics for the Dresden raid.

If we were to include these then we should do as I suggested in the archive copy and have sections named in a simiar way to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article:

• Debate over bombings

  Support

  Opposition

Rather than having the section called "Was the bombing a war crime?" which excludes the moral question, but that is the one most people seem to mean when they say "it was a war crime".

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points from the archive -though not with others- but my main issue was the sourcing: Citing a US military inquiry as "evidence against" is like citing the defendant as authority on whether what he did was a crime. My main point is that the sources cited here are unsuitable to make a case either way. One is directly and actively discredited -then it should not be used at all- and the other has a vital interest in the outcome of any finding. What is being cited here is not REAL arguments for or against assessment as a war crime, but merely claims raised by one or the other side. Whether these claims are true and whether they warrant the conclusions for or against the respective assessment is left to the reader, and that despite the fact that he is only given tainted material to work with. I fully support a major workover of this section, though. However, I don't think that the point that there was no positive international law on the issue holds water. While it is true that aerial warfare was new, that does not mean that it was not covered implicitly by previous conventions, nor that these did not establish applicable principles. Your focus has largely been on looking at aerial warfare in general, but it can be argued that firebombing, due to the indescriminate damage and the mode of damage going beyond explosives, being very much covered, for example, by prohibitions at bombing certain buildings -if you can't control where the damage is done, you can't avoid them- and the burning and asphyxiating effect of the fire as per the prohibition of asphyxiating, poisonous or other deleterious gases. What I'd like to see in a section discussing the issue of "war crime or not" is an NPOV compilation of the research on questions such as these, not citing what those involve thought of it -at least not as the main body. --84.60.109.207 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently the way the section if structured it is quite reasonable to place the US military inquiry into a section entitled "The case against the bombing as a war crime" because there is also a section entitled "The case for the bombing as a war crime" where proponents arguments are listed. The US military inquiry is a useful template to use as it does address most of the issues raised by proponents of "it was a war cime" school, but there are plenty of other sources on the raids which include similar details and those of the inquiry tat could be quoted instead (EG Taylor).

Please read the section on legal issues, the link goes into details on this issue, but positive international law means explicit interntaional law not "implicitly by previous conventions". For example Doenitz was tried and found guilty of a breach or positive international law (the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936) when he ordered unrestricted submarine warfare. You argue that "firebombing, due to the indescriminate damage and the mode of damage going beyond explosives, being very much covered, for example, by prohibitions at bombing certain buildings -if you can't control where the damage is done, you can't avoid them- and the burning and asphyxiating effect of the fire as per the prohibition of asphyxiating, poisonous or other deleterious gases." Where is your source that firebombing was prohibited by "bombing certain buildings"? Where is your source that "the burning and asphyxiating effect of the fire as per the prohibition of asphyxiating, poisonous or other deleterious gases." because the ICJ in their ruling on the "legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons" paragraph 55 disagree with this analysis. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the points raised by the US military really address the points by the other side. The fact that a measure was sufficient to fulfill a goal doesn't mean it was necessary to fulfill a goal. To illustrate the point with an extreme example, while using a tactical nuclear weapon might get rid of the violent stalker in the neighboring city, it would not, generally, be seen as a valid means of defense against such a threat even though it is effective to that end. So demonstrating that something accomplished a goal is not enough to show it was a legitimate means to accomplish that goal. Second, you miss the point by demanding sources. I didn't state that firebombing "was prohibited by..." but said that a section such as this should show how such issues have, in fact, been addressed, instead of reproducing claims by parties to the issue. A 1996 ruling, by the way, is not conducive to the discussion, since it has no impact of what would have been found to be law 50 years earlier. Courts change their opinions. You miss the point, in any case, in considering this paragraph to be applicable to incendiary weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, which generate massive destruction by the explosion alone, such is not the case for incendiary weapons. They are initiators of follow-up fires, which, once started, continue to exist independently of the ordnance AND produce the chief part of the damage. Thus the effects produced by the fire are not coincidental, as is the radiation poisoning or the fires in a nuclear explosion, but deliberate. More, the deleterious effect is produced by a persistent chain of chemical reactions, much like with toxic chemicals. So there is no real basis for suggesting the court disagrees with the ideas I suggested above, since the court looks at something entirely distinct from incendiary weapons. Even so, however, the court makes significant missteps in the assessment from a scientific point of view, ignoring that many early chemical weapons achieved their effect through a primarily caustic effect thus actually being physiologically (and chemically) extremely similar to burns rather than systemic poisoning as is the case with nerve agents. Thus pointing to the issue of poisoning, while stating that a clear definition is lacking, is merely sidestepping the real physiological effect of the agents and weaseling out of dealing with it. On a chemical level, the effect of chlorine is quite close to that of a fire. It does not act like a nerve agent, but causes oxidative damage to tissue, especially moist tissue as it exists in the respiratory system, the eyes etc. And coincidentally, chlorine was one of the first chemical weapons used in the 20th century. So without actually looking at what one takes to mean "poisoning", paragraph 55 is pretty senseless waffling, alas. But then, these points don't really apply to nuclear weapons, as illustrated, so the judges can be forgiven. Yes, that also means that General Pace's talk about white phosphorous not being a chemical weapon but an incendiary was senseless waffling, too, because he's in essence arguing that chlorine gas is not, in fact, a chemical weapon. --84.61.252.147 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Far above - a good point - in order to please ( I am not quite sure, but for some reason they also seem very interested in certain sites ) some folks the deaths in Dresden will have to be replaced with birth figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

isnt killing innocents a war-crime?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.94.215.213 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends see military necessity --Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jorg Friedrich - recently on CSpan - uncovered an interesting wartime policy. Destroying a factory slows down production - killing the factory work stops production. According to Friedrich, Bomber Harris Curtis Lemay, Chuck Yeager, etc killing civilians is a military necessity. War is between nations(peoples) not gladiators.159.105.80.80 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Killing enemy civilians in enemy held areas is not as effective as dehousing them. Dead people consume far less enemy resources than refugees. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The defense of military necessity is a nonstarter. Given the context, there was no commensurate military advantage to be gained in respect to the magnitude of civilian casualties likely to result by firebombing Dresden. The Allies certainly knew this was the case long before the first Lancaster took off. It's the context in which it occurred that gives Dresden an aura of wanton destruction not the strategy.24.119.182.163 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Friedrich's thesis - from documents of the Allies - is that trained workers are not quickly replaceable, a factory usually is. People can live in some pretty bad conditions, factories can be run out of barns, but trained workers take years to develope ( of course now with automation killing the workers would be less effective ).159.105.80.80 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Please excuse me, I don't know how this works so I may be posting in the wrong place.

I would like to know why the main artical says nothing about Dresden being a city full of refugees who had fled there believing it to be a place of safty.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danu6403 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It does see the section Impact of the attack "Estimates are made difficult by the fact that the city and surrounding suburbs which had a population of 642,000 in 1939[24] was crowded at that time with up to 200,000 refugees" --Philip Baird Shearer 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II city bombing infobox

I know that this question is probably inappropriate for this articles talk page, but in the World War II city bombing infobox, just before the refs, the article on the Heilbronn bombing is actually the article on Heilbronn itself, and consists of but one paragraph. A better one (well I think so), is probably Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II, and so I think that the infobox needs to be changed. The trouble is that I dont know how I would do such a thing, or what I need to go or do for that to happen. Maybe someone can help me out? ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the {{WWII city bombing}} template there is a small edit button top left of the template. But for any template just add "template:" before the name of the template in the search box and click go. See the talk page on template talk:WWII_city_bombing about the bloat that has taken place in this template. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The article is very complete and very well-referenced. However, in assessing this article against the good article criteria, I see several issues. Primarily, this is with criteria 1b and 3b. The lead section does not adequately summarize the article. The lead is one sentence and a quote, which is much too short. There also appears to be a general over-use of the cquote template throughout the article. When I read it, I almost think I'm just reading a list of quotes at times. So I think the prose could be reorganized and tightened up a bit. Some of the more notable quotes could (and should?) be moved to wikiquote, and linked at the end of the article in a 'see also' section. It might also help to review the manual of style as well, as there are a few issues here (criterion 1c). There's some quotes that are italicized unnecessarily.

There are well documented reasons in the talk page as to why the lead section is as short as it is. It proved impossible to have a longer lead without the "its a war crime no its not" taking over. The short lead was a way around that conflict. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The overall organization could be modified a bit. Maybe moving some material in longer sections to new sections, or splitting longer sections into several subsections. Some of the section titles are a bit awkward (Personal reminiscences? Is 'reminiscences' a word? Possibly misspelled?).

Which sections were you thinking of?

See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reminiscences and there are lots of book titles which use it. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'Influences on art and culture' section is really just a list, and somewhat seems to ramble on with semi-notable to non-notable facts like a 'trivia' section. This section should be written out as prose, and if the list format is found to be best for this section, consider moving it to a separate list page, linked to from 'see also'.

I already fixed a few issues with the sections for references, further reading, and external links at the bottom. But there are quite a few 'external links'. Some of these could be pruned a bit; it might help to review WP:EL for help in trimming some of these.

I reverted the changes. The reference section is for books and articles used multiple times as citations. The further reading is for books and articles of interest to the reader of this article but not used as references. That is not to say that some of items in the further reading could not be pruned--Philip Baird Shearer 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, there's a lot of information here, and it's very complete. Just needs to be organized better before GA status. Good luck! Dr. Cash 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No military personnel would apologise

When programmes and documentaries have been on the television the interviewees have been highly suspect, not historians, nor military officers. The Allies should not have apologised anywhere near the time, and the acts of those attempting to apologise on behalf of Great Britain and the Allies should not be taken as indicative of the nations concerned. Londo06 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have links to the photos of the Dresden dead that were used at Nuremberg as proof of Nazi atrocities. It seems according to a source that the Dresden photos were too dramatic to not use. 159.105.80.141 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Any info on the Army censor instructions to not mention the use of white phosphorus - they seemed to know it was against the Geneva Conventions. Also any info on the targetting - city center not plants, rail lines, etc - link to documents? PS Why would you use phosphorus on a railroad rail - may be why rail lines were back in operation shortly. Does phosphorus leave bodies - in Iraq it leaves a mess,I assume to same or more so in a massive bombing. 159.105.80.141 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"they seemed to know it was against the Geneva Conventions." Which Gerneva convention? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the one they were trying to sneak around.159.105.80.141 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the memo I was asking about - in the Daniel Lerner papers at the Hoover Institute of War at Stanford. A Press Censor letter #816 from Feb 15, 1945. The Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force issued this to keep quite the treatment of soldiers after the war. Disturbingly the term "special procedures" was used - I suspect that referred to DEF status. The memo also mentions that the use of white phosphorus bombs as anti-personnel weapons was against the Geneva Convention. Later conventions may have banned its use specifically on civilians ( I am not sure if we signed that one , still using them in Iraq I believe ( soldiers call then Willie Petes but Irving haters/deniers may claim all US soldiers aere having hallucinations). The memo states the use is illegal but I am sure the Convention parsers will have a good time with what "is" really means ( I think attacking civilians was slightly prohibited - with Willie Petes maybe it was okay because they weren't personnel so how could it be anti-personnel according to Subsection ......159.105.80.141 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Flak

Someone posted that 16000 shells from Flak 88 mm gun were needed to take down one bomber. First of all, I searched the references, the number 16000 does not come up on search ANYWHERE there. Second, one Flak destroys one soviet medium or light tank, let alone american or german tank. Aircrafts are mnade of duralluminum, they are no match for 2-3 shells of an anti-aircraft gun. I can not imagine what someone who said 16000 was thinking, it can not be true physically, I deleted the stupid claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.216.68 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see help:talk pages: new topics should be placed in a new section at the bottom of the page, and sign your messages by typing four tildes: (~~~~) this will automagically turn into a name or IP address and datestamp.

The 16,000 can be found by following the the citation and page number provded at the end of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning is that it takes 16,000 hits to destroy one bomber -- that would clearly be overkill. I assume the idea is that you need to fire 16,000 rounds (most of which will miss the aircraft flying at 2-300 kph, 2-3,000 meters up in the moonless night sky) before you hit the bomber enough times to bring it down. Malatinszky 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Refugees

In "Impact of the attack" it says:

was crowded at that time with up to 200,000 refugees (See footnote 25:

Taylor, pp. 262–4. There were an unknown number of refugees in Dresden, so the historians Matthias Neutzner, Götz Bergander and Frederick Taylor have used historical sources and deductive reasoning to estimate that the number of refugees in the city and surrounding suburbs was around 200,000 or less on the first night of the bombing.)

So Beevor's "and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the city seeking sanctuary from the fighting on the Eastern Front" is already higher than the figure used in more specialized publications.

The recent addition:

In The New Dealers' War, historian Thomas Fleming writes that the city was "jammed with at least 500,000 refugees. (Thomas Fleming, The New Dealer's War (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 495.)

is 300,000 higher the the historians who have specialized in the raids, does he give explain how he came to these numbers? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Berlin was hit

A recent addition says: Berlin was hit on February 3, killing roughly 25,000 and Munich and Leipzig were both hit before the assault moved on to Dresden. When faced with the Associated Press, General George Marshall asserted that Leipzig, Berlin and Dresden had all been targetted as the Russians had requested at the Yalta Conference. This was untrue; Dresden was never mentioned at Yalta, although Leipzig and Berlin were.(Thomas Fleming, The New Dealer's War (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 496)

See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 12#Berlin and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities. The 25,000 figure is the initial estimate by the USAAF, This figure has since been scaled back most historians.

Dresden was mentioned at the Yalta conference. Taylor and other historians provide primary sources. What is true is that Dresden was not initially on the list of targets requested by the Soviets. The details of how it came to be added are given in the article section "Reasons for the attack" --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet reaction

Why Soviet reaction is not covered?--Dojarca 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Population statistics and use of napalm

Dresden population in 1944 was about 630,000 plus about 200,000 of refugees. In 1945 it was 369,000. This article points death toll number only of 25,000. What did happened with the rest 200,000? Goebbels number of 200,000 seems quite possible. What historian say about 25,000? Germany estimates this number as at least 35,000. Napalm was already in use during WWII. Did that "incendiary" bombs contain napalm? If so, then it is nothing surprising that there were about 300,000 dead. Encarta encyclopedia points number of 135,000, like David Irving (so he is not as discredited as this article trying to present).--Igor "the Otter" 11:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The British did not use napalm in this raid. Not sure about the Americans, but I have not seen it highlighted that they did. The most respected German numbers are by Götz Bergander Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte-Zerstörung-Folgen. Munich: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, 1977; and Friedrich Reichert, Verbrannt bis zur Unkenntlichkeit — Die Zerstörung Dresdens 1945, Dresden: Dresdner Museum, 1994 and they both put forward numbers less than 35,000. Please read the footnotes in the article for more on this subject. Encarta is a tertiary source, as they do not cite their primary or secondary sources, it is likely that they are quoting numbers based on Irving's "work". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And yes Irving is totally discredited see the evidence presented by Evans at the Lipstadt trial [2]. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Irving has been totally discredited. Darkmind1970 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This sourse says: Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs. The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established. And no, Irving-Lipstadt trial didn't totally discredited Irving. By the way, which relation this trial has to Irving's book about Dresden? Encarta still considers Irving reliable enough.--Igor "the Otter" 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the source from the trial documents I gave above and also not the in the general conclusion Evans writes:

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

The source you have found is either not correct or misleading. By their own figures more than half the tonnage of bombs dropped were high explosives

• British 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 incendiary bombs
• Americans 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs

These figures are about the same as the ones in our article (although the figures are tonnages flown out of England not the tonnage dropped on Dresden and it looks like the source includes those American bombers that bombed secondary targets as well as Dresden. (see Bombing of Prague in World War II). The British were using phosphorus and/or magnesium as the igniter for their incendiary bombs and probably dropped well over over half a million of them. So given that the Americans dropped less tonnage of bombs and only about 1/4 of the tonnage of incendiary bombs that the British dropped, and as US World War II napalm bombs were quite large (108 US gallons) (see this source), I do not see how the source can come to the conclusion that "Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs."

In the Coventry Blitz the Germans used 50 parachute air-mines and 36,000 incendiary bombs of which 20 were incendiary petroleum mines, and in the Feb 3 1945 raid on Berlin the Americans used some napalm bombs, so it is possible that some were used on Dresden, but not half of all those dropped. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That trial indeed have relation to the Irving's book. Irving is probably a poor lawyer, but I don't see, what did he falsified. Opinions prove nothing.

That sourse probably mean that half of incendiary bombs contained napalm (liquid incendiary bombs) Because else it contradicts itself. The rest must contained white phosphorus. Anyway, too many sourses (like this, for example), say about use of liquid incendiary bombs (napalm) during British air raids against Germany to just ignore them. Extremely high temperatures (about 1000C) play in favor of napalm too. --Igor "the Otter" 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Napalm has a specific meaning it does not mean "liquid incendiary bombs". That the British used incendiary bombs is not open to debate, but the construction of the types of bombs is given that the source is not citing a primary sources and the sentence used is ambiguous. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irving Trial did indeed show that Irving falsified history, twisted meanings and failed to properly lay out facts. The Judge pulled out at least nine of ten clear examples of this. Read his judgement on this - it's available on the web. It has also been gone over again and again on Wikipedia, on the relevant talk pages. This is not the right forum to debate this - take it to the David Irving Trial pages please. Darkmind1970 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Philip Baird Shearer: The only "liquid incendiary bombs" there could be napalm bombs. I think, sources talking about napalm must be mentioned in this article. RAF could have access to American napalm bombs that time.

2 Darkmind1970: You probably mean Irving-Lipstadt libel suit. That suit only show that Irving was not prepared enough to it. I don't think he falsified history, but Evans certainly falsified. Because he pointed number of only 25,000 dead, there only buried bodies were count.--Igor "the Otter" 11:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Encarta is not only sourse consider number of dead as 135,000. The Farlex encyclopedia supports it too:

On the night of 13–14 February 1945, a British and US force of nearly 1,000 bombers, supported by hundreds of fighter escorts, attacked the German city of Dresden. The resulting firestorm spread out from its ancient centre, obliterating buildings for 20 sq km/8 sq mi. The death toll is hard to quantify, as Dresden was housing both its own population and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from the advancing Russians. The official local figure of 39,773 is regarded by many as an underestimate; figures of 120,000–150,000 are generally accepted. --Igor "the Otter" 12:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It could have been napalm (I have not read any source that say it was) so you would have to find a reputable secondary source that cites a primary source to include such speculation in this article. As to the last source you quote above it is clearly not an accurate sources. As is documented in this article the RAF attacked twice during the night (without single seater fighter support for obvious reasons). The USAAF attacked during the next day and the day after (with fighter support). So the first sentence is wrong. The last sentence is also wrong as the " official local figure" was not 39,773 what does "official figure" mean in this context? Also it uses weasel words who says "figures of 120,000–150,000 are generally accepted" certainly not the secondary sources listed in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can't find such sourses for now. But white phosphorus itself burns at 4532°F (2500°C). Nothing but dark spot remains from the body in such temperature. There was also a firestorm. So it is just laughable to say that most bodies were buried, like Evans do not destroyed. The last sentence is also wrong as the " official local figure" was not 39,773 what does "official figure" mean in this context? Perhaps that is the number accepted by Dresden local authority. Farlex says that, not me. So you have seen already two internet encyclopedias which accept Irving's numbers.--Igor "the Otter" 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to 200 000 people?

One person wrote the followingDresden population in 1944 was about 630,000 plus about 200,000 of refugees. In 1945 it was 369,000. This article points death toll number only of 25,000. What did happened with the rest 200,000?

1. Dresden was hit again a month or two later to destroy the only link existing between the north and the south of the remaining Germany

2. When the russians came even closer the people might try to escape

3. They were refugees after all and moved as soon as the war ended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.107.53 (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

One person wrote... That was me, who wrote it, if you didn't noticed my signature.

1. May be.

2. The most important objection IMHO. Sure, the Soviet troops made terrible things in occupied Germany. But why survived Dresden citizens should think that allies who reduced their city to the ground will be better? According to this site: Magdeburg ranks third in the list of most severely damaged cities in Germany right after Dresden and Cologne.

On the eve of the war, Magdeburg had a population of 330,000 whereas in April 1945 only 90,000 survivors could be accounted for. Magdeburg was occupied by both Russians and Americans. So Irving's numbers are not retricted. They are mostly right. Do you think that in Dresden died less people then in Magdeburg?

3. Total difference is even more than 200,000. If even don't count refugees who entered Dresden in 1945, there will be 630,000-369,000=261,000 still.--Igor "the Otter" 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Irving is a totally discredited person, as are all his works. The site is probably not correct on its list of one, two three. It depends on what one means by a city, because there were many many German cities and towns that were damaged more than Dresden (so it could not have been third in the list), particularly those in the Ruhr. For cities like Essen in March 1945 the RAF changed their bomb mixtures because there was so little left to burn (see RAF Bomber Command March 1945 and Richard G. Davis, Bombing the European Axis Powers. A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive 1939–1945 Page 519 for more on the scale of destruction on the Ruhr. (Davis is the source for the change in bombing mix). Wesel probably has the misfortune to be the German town that suffered the most damage as a percentage of property destroyed by enemy bombardment during World War II. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The destruction of Dresden is considered by historians (Evans lost his right to be called historian after he falsified number of the dead in Dresden) as the most devastating air bombing of the WW2 (it was even more destroyed then Stalingrad). Saying that Irving is totally discredited is just repeating the tales Jewish mafia spread about him. Irving is the most reliable sourse about the destruction of Dresden. His numbers of the dead are worldwide accepted. I'm reverting back to Brian Geppert's edition. --Igor "the Otter" 07:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're attacking Evans? Let me repeat myself (again.) David Irving cited a source for the number of dead in Dresden that has been utterly discredited. He cited something called TB 47, which as even Irving has now publically acknowledged is a forgery, and a crude one at that. His estimates for the number of dead were never accepted. Oh and 'Jewish Mafia'? Congratulations, condemned out of your own mouth as a bigot. Darkmind1970 08:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't attack Evans, I just explained why he can't be trusted. Let me repeat myself (again.) David Irving cited a source for the number of dead in Dresden that has been utterly discredited. Then stop to repeat it. What is wrong in use of the words "Jewish mafia"? Do you mean that there is no such a mafia? Come on.--Igor "the Otter" 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

David Irving has indeed been utterly discredited and anything that comes out of his mouth or pen should be considered spurious as a default position. No doubt his audiences also enjoy tales of the "Jewish Mafia". Please moderate your language. Badgerpatrol 10:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One more repeating of the same tales. "Jewish mafia" is a proper term to describe circles which falsify history. --Igor "the Otter" 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not 'tales'. Facts. Irving has gone on record as finally admitting that TB 47 is a forgery. He said so during the libel trial he brought against Lipstadt, it's on the transcript! Irving cannot be used an a definitive source on this matter - he has been shown to be wrong. As for the term you used above, please stop using it, it's vile. Moderate your language and address the criticisms expressed. Darkmind1970 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgery is to say that only 25,000 were killed. That is forgery indeed. Mistake is not a forgery. That term ("Jewish mafia") is not vile. It just describes things as they are. --Igor "the Otter" 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor "the Otter", several editors have explained to you why Irving is not a reliable source. This is not open to debate he has been found unreliable in a court of law. Please stop making edits to this article that promotes his discredited research. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the tone both of you are using. Igor "the Otter" seems very biased in the matter and uses a straw man argument by bringing the jewish lobbyist argument. Philip Baird Shearer is not better though, because he defies the laws of logic. Just because the prove of a theory is disproved doesn't make the theory wrong, it rather weakens it. It still can hold true. And honestly I bet it will be beyond the powers of you two or any historian to ever find prove for a vaguely correct number, since extremely hot fires may or may not have destroyed much or not so much of the evidence. In such an chaotic time I would not even consider those figures about the numbers of refugees as proven. That alone makes the argumentation of both of you highly subjective. I do not demand that both you try to be unbiased, but at least stop arguing on such a low level. 87.170.131.211 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is another way of assessing the likely casualties that is by statistical analysis. It can not prove a figure but it can give a range of probabilities different numbers of dead. This is a subject that Richard Evans touched on see David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: (B) Suppression of internal inconsistencies paragraph 8. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not like arguments based on the credibility of a person, because thats completely polemic. Wikipedians should leave polemics to politicians and use an argumentation based not on ad personum arguments. Even against users that appear to be very revionist like Igor "the Otter".

That said, to assess likely numbers you'ld first have to have reliable resources. The red tapeism in germany may help to shed light on the matter. One can assume that there are only very few cases of non registered dead or missing. Those that were missing directly after the events of the bombings, who've never been found later on... might imo as well be added to the number of victims. Therefore a number of victims of 22,000 - 35,000 is in the range of the more plausible numbers.

But since I lack detailed background information I just repeat what I think are plausible sources. I'ld wait for the results of the newest findings of that commission of experts in Dresden (somewhen in 2008).

On a sidenote, my interest in the matter stems from two points:

1) If there was no bombing of Dresden, I would certainly not exist now.

2) Revionists sometimes question facts, more often they question what cannot be covered by the facts in order to support what they think is likely correct. In such a case it is important to find plausible counter arguments, and I'ld like to find them in sources as Wikipedia without reading ad personum arguments and such. So, I think it is important to also provide detailed information on why the estimated numbers are correct. And I think the results of that afore mentioned commission will be highly detailed, thus hopefully providing disarming arguments for revisionists.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.187.169 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, how many editors have said one or another (Wikipedia is not a democracy). There must be found a consensus. I think, I explained good enough, why it is not right to call Irving and all his research discredited because of some court desision. For example: one worker of LA Fire Departament have won a suit against LA Fire Departament and have got $1,500,000 from it. Is LA Fire Departament therefore totally discredited? Too strong expression, IMHO. The same can be said about propaganda campaign against him. Irving is not only source says that 135,000 were killed. His estimates are not retricted, but the number of 25,000 is retricted indeed (I explained why). My edition seem to be more neutral IMHO. I also don't understand, why my sentence about squads burning bodies with flamethrowers was deleted. I reverting back. --Igor "the Otter" 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not an internet news group. Please name one other historian who agrees with Irving on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to do it if you name one historian but Evans who agrees with 25,000 number. The deal is not only in Irving. The sentence about flamethrower squads have no relation to Irving. This is from Kurt Vonnegut who was an eyewitness of that events ("Slaughterhouse-Five", one of the last pages). --Igor "the Otter" 09:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that you ask for this information because I added a section to your talk page detailing Evans' evidence. In that Evans does not categorically state that the number was 25,000 instead he gives estimates by different people and weighs the sources for the ones which are more credible than others. See this URL in which Evans after recording how much Irving's numbers have fluctuated writes:

5. In 1977 Bergander's book appeared, which after painstaking research and sound reasoning came to the conclusion that the number which 'came nearest to the truth' was 35,000, even if he did not exclude the possibility of it being a few thousand more.[48] This figure tallies with that given by Walter Weidauer and by the East-German authorities.

6. Many historians accept the 35,000 figure.[49] For instance the historian Earl A. Beck said 'the constant increase in estimates of the number killed in the raids does not comport with the facts. Official reports justify an estimate of between 25,000 and 35,000 killed. Figures that rose to 100,000 or 200,000 killed lost touch with reality.'[50] In 1994 research by the Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert was published, using a previously unused source, which convincingly reduced Bergander's figure of 35,000 to 25,000.[51] This figure can be regarded as close to definitive.

The footnotes given for theses estimates by reliable sources are "48. Bergander, p. 268.; 49. For example Pommerin, p. 244; Sherry, p. 260.; 50. Earl A. Beck, Under the Bombs. The German Home Front 1942-1945 (Kentucky, 1986), p. 179.". You can follow the URL for more details such as the sources these historians are writing in. This URL, from the same source, goes into more detail with Evans using Friedrich Reichert as a source. -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a novel largely concerned with time-manipulating space aliens from Tralfamadore! NOT a reliable source. (Albeit an excellent and moving book). Badgerpatrol 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That novel has both fictional and historical parts. Here is the link which says exactly that I did. Do you mean that Kurt Vonnegut lied then he said he was an eyewitness of that? --Igor "the Otter" 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The novel is a work of fiction that draws upon Vonnegut's own experiences. It is not a historical document and not a reliable source in this context. In fact, the link quoted in the Kurt Vonnegut article (an interview in Rolling Stone, available here does not mention anything to do with flamethrowers, but the link points only to a portion of a longer interview (only available in the print edition of Rolling Stone) that, assuming good faith, presumably does contain the quote (in which case, the source for consideration is the interview with Vonnegut, not his fictional novel). I'm not saying Vonnegut is a liar at all, and I'm not saying the statement is untrue. I am saying that works of fiction are not reliable sources for historical articles. Badgerpatrol 11:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The burnings were both to prevent disease and Nazi propaganda, which was obviously effective as you (Igor) bring it up. Before the first pyre was lit about 10,000 bodies were buried this efforts continued but was found to be too slow, so in addition pyres were built in the Altmarkt and about 500 bodies a time were burnt. The burning was overseen by SS staff who had learn how to do it efficiently at Treblinka. The pyres were constructed between 21 February and 5 March and a total of 6,865 bodies were burnt. These bodies were included in the Police secret "Final Report" of the 18,375 fallen recovered by 10 March (the date of the report). The Police report estimated that from the evidence of similar raids that the total number of dead (including those still beneath the rubble) would eventually total around 25,000. (Taylor Dresden: Tuesday, 13 February, 1945 pp.401,402)

It was a Police/SS report later in March known as Tagesbefehl Nr 47 "Order of the Day 47" when the number of bodies recovered had risen to 20,204 that was probably doctored in Berlin by moving the point (used by the Germans in place of a comma used by English speakers) to make a total of 202,040 that was given to foreign correspondents (Taylor 424), that is the document that has caused Irving so many problems.

The implication of the parenthetical addition you are repeatedly adding "(special squads were used to burn remaining bodies with flamethrowers, many people were also reduced into ash during the bombing because of high temperature and weren't buried)." implies that this was a sloppy procedure in which the number of dead were not counted. It was not, it was a methodical with detailed records kept of where the bodies were found how they died, and in many cases who the victims were (Taylor 204,403). You are also adding it without a citation. Further the other alterations you are making at the same time are:

• immediately after you insertion there is a working link in a citation http://www.bombenkrieg.historicum-archiv.net/themen/dresden.html that you are changing to a broken link http://www.geschichtsthemen.de/dresden_1945.htm
• Higher up the page changing two instances of "percent" back to "per cent".
• Lower down the page you are changing wording to imply that David Irving's figures are legitimate.

In my opinion these are not valid edits please stop making them. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Above, Igor the Otter writes, "(Wikipedia is not a democracy). There must be found a consensus." What does this mean? Why isn't Wikipedia a democracy? It can only because policies overrule individual beliefs, and in this case NPOV which rejects fringe views, and V and RS, make Igor's sources pathetically irrelevant. And what does it mean, we must find consensus? There already is a consensus and Igor is just not part of it. Does Igor think consensus means unanimity? that is absurd because it would mean that any single editor could veto or control an entire article. Simply absured. Igor is just grasping at straws to push his point of view. Philips, you and others have had admirable patience. You have explained your edits with remarkable clarity and reason. There is a consensus and it is to maintain the edits you have made. At this point I advise you simply not to respond to Otter. As you know feeding trolls is discouraged at Wikipedia. Please do not do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be only internet encyclopedia which continue to insist on the number of 25,000. I already explained, why Evans can not be trusted. If truth is trying your patience then it is your own problem. The number 135,000 is more accepted then 25,000. Understood? I reverting back. --Igor "the Otter" account 2 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)]

User:Moreschi deleted Igor's comment above and I restored it. I did not restore Igor's edit to the article. It is one thing to revert a user's edit to an article. It is a different thing to delete or modify his edit to a Talk Page unless that edit is truly egregious (i.e. violates a fundamental policy of Wikipedia). Igor may be wrong, he may be a bit abrasive and obstinate. However, he has a right to express his opinion. It does the project relatively little harm to let the above edit to this Talk Page stand. --Richard 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that? Banned means banned, and socks of banned users are similarly unwelcome. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Questioning reference

Reference 30 reads "^ The Bombing of Dresden in 1921, by Richard J. Evans".....

Presumably 1921 is an error. Wanderer57 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. Somehow everyone missed this dreadful piece of vandalism: [3] ... I'm fixing... thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fire Bombing

Question: I thought the event was commonly referred to as "fire bombing." Do I misrecollect? Is the phrase inaccurate? If it is common, but inaccurate, is it mentioned in the article? Jd2718 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe in the second sentence? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops. Skimmed the lead, reading the body. Totally missed it. Thank you. (also, someone just edited the lead, and one result is that the word now stands out more). Jd2718 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the lead back (see #introduction below) fire bombing is not as common as bombing see these numbers for a simple Google search:

• about 17,000 English pages for "fire bombing of Dresden" -wikipedia
• about 55,400 English pages for -"fire bombing of Dresden" "Bombing of Dresden"

It is also inaccurate as more than half the tonnage of bombs dropped were HE not incendiary --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The recent introduction into the lead of "because of the deliberate targeting of or reckless disregard for civilians" is wrong. The Allies deliberately targeted civilian property that was indirectly aiding the Axis war effort but they did not target civilians. In the words of the dehousing memo "Investigation seems to show that having one's home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished.". The POV about whether the bombing was a "reckless disregard for civilians" is far too complexed an issue to sum up in one or two lines in the introduction. In my opinion it is better to leave the introduction brief and avoid these issues which lead to endless POV editing --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. I had my doubts about what I wrote but I figured I'd be bold and give it a stab to see what objections would be raised.

However, I disagree that the controversy cannot be summed up in the introduction. I think WP:LEAD requires that we make some effort to characterize why this incident is controversial. It was ultimately about the loss of civilian life, right? Is the controversy solely because of the inaccurate and inflated estimates of civilian deaths or is there still controversy when the more accurate and lower estimates are used? The introduction needs to fairly state what the controversy is and then add a counterbalancing statement as appropriate. Something like "The firebombing remains one of the most widely known and controversial incidents of modern warfare because it became one of the most widely cited examples of civilian death and suffering as the result of a military operation. The controversy centers around the actual numer of civilians killed and whether their deaths were the result of deliberate targeting or accidental and unintended collateral damage.

We really need to underline to the reader the symbolic importance of Dresden as an example of "civilian death and suffering as the result of modern warfare". We may counterbalance this by saying that the facts don't actually support the extreme picture that is the common perception but we can't attack the common perception unless we state what that perception is.

--Richard 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world we would be able to do what you suggest, but the reality is if you look back through the history of the article, when the introduction included the two POVs about butchery and military necessity the introduction became a mess and a battle ground. Particularly as some wanted to include war crime as the sections below use that term. So lets discuss that issue first (in the next section) and see if we can defuse the article so that the lead section can be a more complete summary of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer

Organisation

I am trying to take in this article, and am having some problems. I think that the organization makes it hard to read.

• The use of "Reasons" as the first section makes it look like Wikipedia is writing an apology. It's like explaining why you did something before explaining what you did. Good for a child avoiding problems with his mother, lousy for an encyclopedia article.

The reasons for the bombing are given first because it explains why the Allies bombed the city. Is not a apology it is a description of how and why the Allies made the attack. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• The lack of background in the beginning (what was going on in the war immediately prior to the bombing) leaves the reader swimming.

The reasons give the reasons for the attack. The article is already too large, there is no need to give a summary of the war, that is covered in the links. I don't think that such a background is given for any of the other bombing and blitz articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if your read the campaign diary of the RAF for Jan, Feb, Mar you will get a feeling of the industrial process that this bombing was a part. This raid was not particularly notable at the time, it was just one more out of the sausage machine. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet it has a symbolic significance that is way out of proportion with being "just another sausage". We need to explain what that significance is and how this incident got to have that significance. If that significance is overblown, we should state that also and explain why. --Richard 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is all ready in the article. see the section: "Political responses to the bombing" --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But that comes late in the article. Jd2718 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The lead itself could not stand on its own as a summary. Even if it could, at this point it would reflect the current strange organization. And the quote in the lead belongs elsewhere.

Please read the archives. The problem with this article is when the lead has been expanded it has attracted sentence of "Oh yes it was a war crime" "Oh no it wasn't. It is easier and leads to less unbalanced POV to leave the introduction sparse. As it stands the introduction does stand as a summary of the attack. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But the charge that it was a war crime is arguably the most notable thing about this incident. Perhaps it is not so much that this particular bombing was a war crime while other bombings were not but that this bombing came to symbolize all the other bombings which were also arguably war crimes. We need to look at what has been written and accurately portray the public perceptions of the incident as well as the factual details. --Richard 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But any analysis of area bombing -- such as that carried out by A. C. Grayling comes to the conclusion that it was not a war crime. It is far more productive to address the moral issues as Graying and others have done over the policy of area bombardment against the claim that the Allies were fighting a just war, than the limited legalistic argument of was it within the laws of war at that time. Not one credible source has been able to explain what war crime was being committed, but lots have addressed the moral argument. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be far easier to have a paragraph in the lead that says that the firebombing of Dresden has often been called a war crime, but that there is no consensus in favor of characterizing it that way (and mentions a prominent government that disagrees). A whinging historian's opinion is not a substitute for reporting on what is out there. Jd2718 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that there is something that needs to be added (save a bit of background), and I am not claiming that anything needs to be deleted. But this should be turned into a normal article, which right now it is not. Jd2718 12:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a normal article? I think the best improvement that can be made is the dropping of war crime section headings, because they lead to a technical debate that is not very constructive. What would be better is to use headings of oppose and support that have existed in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article for a long time and have now been moved into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not the first time I have mentioned this (see also Archive 13#Debate over bombings), but it is a large project and I while I would support someone who took it on I do not want to initiate it. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A normal article would have a lead that explained what the event was, why it was notable, and summarized any major controversy surrounding it (maybe 3 paragraphs). A brief background section would set the context of Allied bombing at that time. The next section could be the plan. Next, the execution of the plan. The immediate results of the plan. The long-term effects. Analysis would follow, not precede, the description of the event. Sections might include Justifications, Objections, and Was it a war crime? Finally, the section on Dresden in popular culture should remain. Jd2718 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being proposed. Are you arguing for "Oppose" and "Support" headings in this article or are you arguing for a separate article that focuses on the question of whether Dresden was a war crime (something like Debate over the Dresden firebombing)?

I could support either approach. My major concern is that we communicate to the reader in the intro what the nature of the controversy is. I think NPOV disallows us to say that it was or was not a war crime. I think NPOV requires us to say that there has been and remains much controversy over whether or not it was a war crime.

--Richard 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Most people when they say the bombing of Dresden was a war crime really mean it was a moral crime. If you think there is a POV issue over it being a war crime, name one source that can explain what the crime was given the state of international law in 1945. The reason why the article is so unbalanced in this area is that there is little to no detailed legal argument that is presented to explain why it was a war crime. Which is why to make the article more balanced the moral arguments are more interesting and easier to balance. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are in the right when you offer that most people don't know what they are saying. I would also be careful about actively arguing the British case - you give the impression that you want to portray the right POV, rather than being willing to give appropriate weight to other POVs. (understanding that the appropriate weight, in some cases, might be 0) Jd2718 01:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a debate that is starkly polarised along nationalistic lines. Badgerpatrol 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it reads quite like it is. Moving the analysis so that it comes after, rather than precedes, the discussion of the events might help with that. Jd2718 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Does it? The bit I read deals with a broad spectrum international response to the question of whether or not the Dresden tragedy amounts to a war crime, mentioning the US military, Sartre, Vonnegut, etc. etc., with British correspondents weighing in significantly on both sides of the debate. The "Political Responses" section necessarily deals with the British and German sides because it seeks to explain how the main protagonists responded to the events, and is only tangentially related (if at all) to the question of the status of the raids or otherwise as a war crime. Badgerpatrol 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the links I provided. I am suggesting that the headings

• 4 Was the bombing a war crime?
  • 4.1 Legal considerations
  • 4.2 The case for the bombing as a war crime
  • 4.3 The case against the bombing as a war crime

be replaced with the structure used in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on "Support" and "Oppose" whether it gets moved out into a new article is a size consideration and should be step two. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jd2718 you wrote above "I don't think you are in the right when you offer that most people don't know what they are saying."; then please name one source that explains which "war crime" was committed for any conventional strategic bombing by any side in World War II. It is because I want to present a more balanced POV that I want to change the section headings, to those used by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki articles because unless you can come up with a source that presents a coherent argument for the "war crime" that was committed, there is no possibility of presenting a balanced POV. BTW what analysis are you talking about? The article follows: planning/decision, action, effects, debate. I presume you are talking about the first section of the debate being moved down below the other sections. It does not really help because not one of the people who say it was a "war crime" actually explain what they mean when they say it. One of the major problems in this area is what makes Dresden so unique that it is more of a war crime that say the bombing of Chemnitz the next night or any other strategic bombing raid at any other time during World War II? If it was not unique then one is left with the argument that all strategic bombing of cities was a "war crime" if so then lots of Axis aviators, like for example Hugo Sperrle, were guilty of a war crime. Yet no Axis aviator was tried for such a crime, not even Goering for the pilotless weapons, which was bombardment not assault, and so it can be argued breached Hague IV 26 as no warning was given. It has been argued in these archives that not to prosecute Axis aviators was an Allied political decision, but as yet no evidence has been presented, and Donitz was tried and found guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare -- because he broke positive international law -- even though Allied submariners had committed similar breaches. -- BTW If you want to follow the thread for Allied reasons for not prosecution Axis aviators you need to follow up on the views of Telford Taylor. --Philip Baird Shearer 06:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Moral crime vs. war crime

PBS,

I agree with you that, technically, the bombing of Dresden was not a war crime for all the reasons that you listed. (Well, given that I don't know much about the law of war, my agreement is not worth a lot.)

We can inform the reader that the mainstream consensus is that the bombing of Dresden was not a war crime according to the laws of war at that time. We should also mention that there are those in the minority who characterize it as a war crime. However, to focus only on that technicality misses the point.

Most people have not heard of Chemnitz and yet many, many people have heard of Dresden. Rightly or wrongly, that particular bombing has become emblematic of civilian suffering from "collateral damage". I can't speak authoritatively on this but I would wager that many people are under the misconception that the civilian deaths were either caused by deliberate targeting or, at best, the result of a wanton disregard for the risk of civilian casualties.

The symbolic meaning of Dresden now overshadows the actual facts. What makes Dresden notable is the symbolic meaning attached to it. Is there an article titled Bombing of Chemnitz in World War II? Why not? Do people argue about whether the bombing of Chemnitz was a war crime? Or any other city? Why not?

I think this is the most important question that must be grappled with in this article. I'm not trying to argue that Dresden was a war crime or that civilians were deliberately targeted. I'm trying to argue that many, many people believe this and that this belief must be squarely characterized and dealt with.

--Richard 07:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that the moral questions over Dresden were much more significant in the 1960's when it was widely thought that more people died in Dresden than in the two atomic bombings put together. Several factors, including the end of the cold war, and the destruction of Irving's reputation and his figures means that today the bombing of Dresden is less of a symbol than it was 30 years ago. As to you comments on having no article on Chemnitz, I am sure that one day we will but we already have a lot of articles on the destruction of German towns -- it takes a long time to catch up with Bomber Harris -- but there are a lot of articles eg Bombing of Würzburg in World War II and Operation Hurricane (1944) to name but two. The articles on German bombing tend to take the form city-name Blitz as in Rotterdam Blitz or Coventry Blitz, while article names on Allied city bombing are in the form bombing of city-name in World War II. However even in articles that have already been written like Bombing of Cologne in World War II still needs a lot of work because there were dozens and dozens of raids on such cities (see the Cologne time line for a list of month when one or more raids took place).

But getting back to this article. I would be strongly against putting the post war debate before the events in the war. I am against messing with the introduction until the format of the discussion is altered to be more like the structure in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I will help with a conversion of the current format but I do not want to be the lead in the alteration because it is a larger job than I want to take on. But I am going to make one change now to get the ball rolling. I am going to replace the "Was the bombing a war crime?" with "Debate over the bombing of Dresden" and a couple of other headings.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what are your objections to the changes Jd2718 --Philip Baird Shearer 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That explains why my 60s and 70s based perspective of Dresden is different from the perspective put forth in this article. Now I feel like a middle-aged dinosaur. I read Slaughterhouse-5 in college and that formed my understanding of what happened at Dresden. Yes, I know Slaughterhouse-5 was hyperbole and fictional but the assumption was that the base facts documented in the history books of the time were true.

My next question to you is whether the 60s and 70s symbolic importance of Dresden is worth mentioning in the article lead followed by the above explanation of how and why that significance faded. Surely I'm not the only one who has not kept up-to-date with the historiography of this event. --Richard 03:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19