Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Bombing of Dresden. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Amount of destruction and new pictures (not used yet)

I uploaded Image:Dresden1945.jpg, Image:Dresden1945-2.jpg and Image:Dresden1945-3.jpg (city destruction map) Most recent official number of killed people: 35.000, official numbers changed between 25.000 and 160.000 in western Germany. The east nearly always used 35.000. destroyed inner-city: 15 square kilommeters with 90% and more destroyed completely. city population not significantly warned by bommber warning sound signals because that technology was no longer working. The radio warned anyway. There were 222.000 flats in total. 75.000 of them totally destroyed, 11.000 strongly hit, 7.000 hit, 81.000 slightly damaged. Source: altes-dreesden.de (in German, private website) The many villa quarters (some of them situated in the most expensive living area of Europe in those times) were hit much less than bigger inner-city houses of the plain working class population. NetguruDD (sig added by Sam [Spade] 10:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))(Images linkified by Chris 73 Talk 00:40, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC))

I found another serious source which I trust. http://www.geschichtsthemen.de/dresden_1945.htm (German) It looks scientifically made to me, all sources are explained.

It offers the following numbers: all together dead people found 02/1945 untill 04/1945: 25.000, war-dead people found in later years 10/1945-09/1957: 2.000. No registration of burried people 05/1945-09/1945. number of missed people: 35.000, about 10.000 of those 35.00 missed ones were found alive. The estimated number of killed people for 02/1945 is 40.000. It is said in this ttext that often left wingers want less, and right wingers want more to be the new official number.

The guessed number of refugess within the city for 02/1945 is 200.000 according to that text. Long time it was estimated to be even 500.000 and more but the refugees (really very very very many, I saw balancd films about in the today´s TV.) were told to quickly leave Dresden. The guessed number of 200.000 actually in the city was given by the refugees adminstration. NetguruDD 11:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who do you think warned the refugees? Get-back-world-respect 23:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody warned the refugees from the east more than any other population. With "told to quickly leave the city" I only meaned that they could not stay too long in such huge amounts because they maybe would have needed too much resources, room etc., don´t know why, I just read that the administration didn´t want to keep too many of them. NetguruDD 18:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Had civilians been warned the life of many innocent could have been saved. But it was intended to kill them. Get-back-world-respect 20:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

main station and militaric facilities

The militaric facilities in the north of the city can be watched at any time today. They were not really hit. The main station in the southern city center was destroyed completely. However, three days later rains went again through the city. Sorry, I don´t know a source for the second claim, it´s just popular guessing. I have no and had no relatives who lived here in those days, my knowledge is just from reading and watching. NetguruDD 16:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"85% of Dresden were destroyed." This is wrong. Only the center was destroyed completely. There are flat statistics and a destruction map above this abstract here. The population was 570.000 out of former 630.000 plus 200.000 refugees, the city size is 328 square kilometers, the number of killed people is estimated 40.000 today. NetguruDD 16:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

strafed

I am removing the words "British and" from the sentence "There are eyewitness reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by British and American aircraft, though it is doubted", because the British did not have any fighter aircraft with the range and the British bombed at night so they would not have been able to see people on the roads. As the official MOD page RAF Bomber Command states "Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos." I see no point in keeping the link BBC: Dresden strafing a myth claims historian as it is only denying that the RAF and not the USAAF had the capability. Philip Baird Shearer 21:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With the whole city burning I do not see how pilots would have had trouble to see people trying to escape. Get-back-world-respect 01:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Flying with your aeroplane into flames is not the easiest way to get out alive of that hell. Especially if your plane is a heavy bomber. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 06:15, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

You do not need to fly into flames to use their light. Ever used a candle? Get-back-world-respect 20:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed these sentences

At the time, the city was crammed full of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army. Dresden, having been spared from previous attacks, was considered to be very safe.

Because Dresden had been targeted and bombed before on October 7, 1944, and January 16, 1945 and the safe bit is in another paragraph starting "Dresden was widely considered by Germans...".

The rest of the paragraph:

There are eyewitness reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft though it is doubted. The official MOD page RAF Bomber Command states that "Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos." http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dresden.html

was in the section "The attacks", so it does not need to be in the section "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" because it has nothing to do with the justificaion for the attacks it is part of the attack.--Philip Baird Shearer 02:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for the Attack

At the time, the city was crammed full of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army. Dresden, having been spared from previous attacks, was considered to be very safe. There are eyewitness reports that civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by American aircraft, though it is doubted.

I have moved the fist sentence of this paragraph to the top of the section. I have moved the second sentence into the the section The attack.

I think that the first paragraph "Dresden was widely considered..." should be moved to the top of the section called "Dresden compared with other bombing targets in Germany". Any one disagree and if so why? Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DonePhilip Baird Shearer 09:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bomber Harris

As is shown in the section "reasons for the attack", many senior people in all three of the major allied nations were involved in the principle of attacking cities because they were major communication nodes and to do so would help stop German troop movements between fronts.

The Air Staff short-listed Dresden and Berlin because not only were they rail transport centres, but they were also industrial targets as well (two targets in one).

Harris did not order the bombing of Dresden as part of an overall bombing policy. It was the The British Air Staff commanded by Sir Charles Portal who according to the British Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair in his memo to Churchill on 27 January 1945 recommended the attacks on "Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz and Leipzig" over and above those already under way under the "current directive" which is what Harris was following.

Harris could not order the USAAF to attack Dresdon (nor could the Air Staff) that had to come from higher up in one of the Allied Joint Commands or from a Senior American commander.

So the sentences:

"British Air Marshal Arthur Harris, inventor of area bombing, ordered the action"
"Some think that Air Marshal Arthur Harris and others should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity."

are misleading because they put Harris too far up the chain of command. (also the first is wrong because Harris was not the "inventor of area bombing").

I suggest that the sentences are modified to read:

"The Allied commanders who ordered the action,[some ...]"
"Some think those who in the Allied commands approved and ordered the attacks and others who carried them out, should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Does anyone object to this and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object not mentioning those who carried the actions out because as was rightly noted during the Nuremberg Trials, having received an order is no excuse for war crimes. Get-back-world-respect 20:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand what you have written. Do you object to the changing of the words to those above. YES or NO. If NO then explain why you wish him to be named specifically when there were other above and below him involved in the decision many who he did not command, some of them named in this article. There are others for example general Carl Spaatz commander of U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe and Jimmy Doolittle commander of the Eighth Air Force and Harris's American equivalent.--Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I object to not mentioning Harris as he is well known as a main character in the attacks. Feel free to add more names. Get-back-world-respect 19:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He was not the main character in the attacks. What is your source for stating that he is? He is not even the best known ([[Jimmy Doolittle] is). I think what you mean, is that his is the name you are most familiar with and you do not like the man, because, unlike Churchill, he did not show any contrition for the attack. However he did not alter allied priorities which made Dresden a the target, he did not personally drop a bomb, and he did not order the Americans to bomb Dresden.

I do not think that specific person should be named because it was a joint allied decision taken at very high levels with a lot of people concurring. But if you wish to name an individual, for most Americans Jimmy Doolittle a Medal of Honor holder is far better known than some obscure Brit. He as in the same postion in the American Chain of command as Harris was in the British, and the Eighth Air Force bombers carried out more raids on Dresden than the RAF. So if you think that a crime was committed and you want to name a specific person why not name him? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not write he was the main character. I wrote he was a main character. I also told you to feel free to add more. Get-back-world-respect 12:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that a specific person should be named. unless you come up with some more names that you think should be included and do it I am going to take his name out with the modifications I suggested before:

"The Allied commanders who ordered the action,[some ...]"
"Some think those who in the Allied commands approved and ordered the attacks and others who carried them out, should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harris is one of the main characters in this context. If you think he is being singled out, add others rather than striking him out. He is mentioned in the introduction for a long time, and it was not me who put his name there. Get-back-world-respect 22:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article heavily overrepresents the view that the bombings were legitimate attacks on military targets. It is however a major dispute whether the deliberate killing of tens of thousands of civilians was not a war crime totally unnecessary for the end of the war that was close anyways. Get-back-world-respect 20:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it does. What it shows now is the people who made the decision to bomb Dresden and why they made that decision. This is important if you wish to explain to people who was responsible for committing alleged war crimes.

BTW you removed a section on the JIC. I think you were wrong to do this because it was a Joint Allied organisation (and not the modern British JIC the link pointed to). It was because of this analysis and recommendation that Eisenhower came to his opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is very clear from your edits what you think. It is however not neutral to include whole paragraphs in the article with material seemingly supporting the legitimacy of the attacks while the opposite view is mentioned but not covered in any detail. Get-back-world-respect 19:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The paragraphs do not "seemingly supporting the legitimacy of the attacks" They report on who in the Allied commands gave what reasons for the attack and who knew and approved of those reasons. It would seem to me, that as you think that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, you would want the organisations and people involved in making the decisions named. If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I already explained, the exaggerated focus on the view of the Allies is why I dispute the neutrality of this article. Get-back-world-respect 12:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

obscene

Get-back-world-respect removed the following sentence:

In the brutal realities of war, just as a wounded soldier uses up more of the enemy's resources than a dead one, living enemy refugees are far more of a burden and a hindrance to an enemy than dead ones.

with the comment "living enemy refugees are far more of a burden and a hindrance to an enemy than dead ones" is obscene!" Apart from the obvious that wars are obscene, why is that statment specifically obscene? Why did you remove it?Philip Baird Shearer 03:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is obscene to propagate in an encyclopedia the view that people should be denied their dignity by calling their life a burden and a hindrance. The terminology is very close to that of the Nazis who described the life of jews and disabled people as "worthless". Get-back-world-respect 19:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that your last sentence is close to Goodwin's Law. Living enemy civilian refugees behind enemy lines are only a burden an a hindrence to the enemy, they are a positive asset to the attacking force. So it the sentence is rewriten as:

In the brutal realities of war, just as a wounded soldier uses up more of the enemy's resources than a dead one, living enemy refugees are a far more of an asset to the attacker than dead ones.

would you still object? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to accept any attack on the dignity of civilians in an encyclopedia article. Get-back-world-respect 12:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Defending the dignity of civilians is POV, even if it is right. Talking of people as if they were objects is a sad reality in war discussions. The leader "In the brutal realities of war" should make it clear that we're not advocating a general viewpoint; that said, we could be even clearer. How about this?

In the brutal realities of war, people are considered wholly in terms of their strategic value. In those terms, just as a wounded soldier uses up more of the enemy's resources than a dead one, living enemy refugees are a far more of an asset to the attacker than dead ones.

I would certainly staunchly object to completely removing this POV. It would be a nice world in which it didn't occur, but Wikipedia is not a peace platform. JRM 13:03, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not need innuendo about "the brutal realities of war". Encyclopedias cover facts, not judgments. "people are considered wholly in terms of their strategic value" is not a fact. A fact would be "general XYZ stated that he considered people wholly in terms of their strategic value". Get-back-world-respect 13:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right. 'Nuff said. JRM 13:32, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Reverts

As we already had a protection here, I would welcome if we could get back to discussion rather than reverts. Especially if the reverts lead to the article including several numbers in brackets that once represented links someone felt too lazy to care about. Get-back-world-respect 12:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is quite normal in Wikipedia to put links at the end of an article and foot note them with numbers in the article.Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you do not want things reverted then read the comments when I reverted

However, only three months before the capitulation of the Nazis, many doubt that the bombing that mostly killed civilians had any military use.

I commented the revert with (confusing, removed because not many in the JIC doubted.) Why do you just put it back in without rewording it?

In the previous section in this talk page you wrote:

Encyclopedias cover facts, not judgments. "people are considered wholly in terms of their strategic value" is not a fact. A fact would be "general XYZ stated that he considered people wholly in terms of their strategic value". Get-back-world-respect 13:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where is the fact in many doubt that the bombing that mostly killed civilians had any military use. Who in the JIC stated that? Who else at the time in the Allied command stated it? Or do you use a diffrent set of criteria, to that which you expressed abouve, when putting your POV into an article? Philip Baird Shearer 14:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that many doubt that the bombing that mostly killed civilians had any military use. Not in the JIC, but no one said that. The fact that many dispute the military use is already mentioned in the article, but not supported with innuendo like the opposite claim. I do not regard this as neutral.

This is the first article I see at wikipedia to use numbers that refer to sources at the end of the article. Usually numbers in brackets stand for external links. Get-back-world-respect 22:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who are "many doubt that the bombing" if does not refer for the members of the JIC mentioned in the previous paragraph? Please find another way of saying it which is not ambiguous. It ought be phrased without without "weasle terms". Philip Baird Shearer 00:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hague II

As this article is highly controversial I would welcome very much if you did not rewrite it all the time without discussion. This leads to serious errors as for example your edits about Nuremberg were factually wrong given that the Trial was set up such that only Nazi crimes could be dealt with. Get-back-world-respect 22:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if it is true that they were set up that way -- but I am not an expert on that and I do not wish to go and find out so I'll take your word on it. But no one Axis side on the was tried as "participants in the decision or execution of assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory". If it was a war crime why not? It was either because no crime had been committed Hague II (1899) Arts 25,26,27), or because of victors justice. So unless you can convince me otherwise I am going to re-instate it. If anyone is interested they can go and look up the clauses and make up their own minds. Philip Baird Shearer 23:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added it to Nuremberg Trials. Sec II Art 6 of the London Charter defined them as "trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries". It certainly would have been awkward to try Nazis for aerial bombings the Allies had copied so well. I was told that it was argued that the Hague Convention applied only to war "on land", allegedly there were no rules for aerial warfare. I do not know if that is true. As the crimes fit so well with the crimes defined by the Hague Convention, and as the damages occurred on land, I am not sure if this is true. At least crimes against humanity fits perfectly: "a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population". Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that all you have! You want to use a 2003 definition of what constitures a "crime against humanity" for an alledged crime that took place more than 58 years before it?

BTW I have scanned all the Hague documents and I can not find the phrase "crimes against humanity". Please could you tell me in which document I can find it in and in which paragraph because 1907 covers Hague VI-X.

As the British treaty obligations stood at the time of WWII the RAF was acting within them Hague IV (1907) Arts 25,26,27. I think no crime was commited and you think that a crime was committed. It does not matter what we think, without a court case with the law as it was at that time, it is only speculation. When I put in that no prosecution took place of Germans because Arial bombardment was covered by Arts 25,26,27 or victors justice, you took it out with the comment speculation. So I have rewriten it without that phrase. But if you wish to mention that some people think a war crime was commited, then the sentence about the Axis not being tired for such a crime is relevent. I would prefer to put why they may not have been tried either 25,26,27, or victors justice, but you have said that is speculation.

I am going to revert the sentences to what I wrote because and I would appreciate it if you would come up with a better argument than you opinions and a 2003 definition for a replacement, if you do not like it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As you could have seen easily from the article crime against humanity, the term existed before the war, but its interpretation was only done by the Nuremberg Trial, one reason why some speak of victor's justice. In my eyes it is perfectly reasonable to call the holocaust a crime against humanity under whatever definition. Same holds for the deliberate mass killing of other civilians. Get-back-world-respect 11:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopida article should not hold information as a fact if it it is only POV. The Holocaust is a crime against humanity. The "assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" had never been judged to be a war crime let alone a crime against humanity. The former is a crime the latter is a POV (Point of View). Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Harris statue

The statue of Harris is covered on the Harris page it should not be mentioned here. It is not directly relevent to the Dresden bombing, unlike the Queen's concert in Berlin, which was. So I am taking it out for the second time.

BTW Harris was offered baronet in 1953 which is the same as the Hugh Dowding who was commander of RAF fighter command during the Battle of Britain. You ou changed the wording on the Harris page so as to take out the German Government why did you include that here? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still think that the Dresden bombing was the primary reason why the Harris statue conflict occurred, and that is what many others think:

At s SHAEF press briefing two days later it was revealed in 'off the record' comments that the aims of 'Thunderclap' were to bomb large population centres and prevent relief supplies from getting through. An Associated Press war correspondant immediately filed a story that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing in order to seal Hitler's doom and this set in train a number of embarrassing questions on both sides of the Atlantic on the morality of this form of attack. Eventually, even Churchill, who had been a wholehearted supporter of 'Thunderclap', went so far as to comment to the British Chiefs of Staff that 'the destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.' Harris, however, remained unrepentant, commenting on Churchill's objection that he did not regard 'the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier'. Even so, Dresden remains the prime example cited by those who condemn the morality of 'city busting' as practised by the Anglo-US bombing forces and was still a matter of contention in 1992 when a statue of Harris was unveiled in London.

Source: The Oxford Companion to the Second World War

I am however ok with not mentioning it here as long as Harris is mentioned prominently enough to encourage the interested reader to click on his article. I found that Harris was the only commander in chief not to become a peer in 1946 and refused the title later because the bombers were declined a campaign medal. Get-back-world-respect 11:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then put Harris in a "See also" section, or mention that he was C-in-C of RAF Bomber Command. He was not the only "commander in chief not to become a peer able to sit in the House of lords in 1946" what about Hugh Dowding the C-in-C of the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Also as you have written on the Harris page you know the reason why he was not. BTW Churchill was given a peerage either! (but I leave it to the reader to find out why). Why do you want to mention him over and above that American hero Jimmy Doolittle who held the same poition in the USAAF?

The Briefing is correct "were to bomb large population centres and prevent relief supplies from getting through [to the front]" it was the associated press report which reported the briefing incorrectly "had resorted to terror bombing in order to seal Hitler's doom". This was never stated as an objective by the senior command of the the USAAF or the RAF as policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)