What does a left wing mean?
why was it nessesary to shoot down houses and shops? why not only military bases and war buildings?
were the attacks justified?
"The firebombing of Dresden is a base level opportunity for neo-nazis and apologists to use to try and point out “SEE, THE ALLIES WEREN’T ALL THAT GREAT EITHER!” Anyone with any real Second World War knowledge comes to terms with the fact that the Allies probably also killed a lot of civilians long before they get this deep into studying the topic. Whether or not Dresden is justified, I can’t say. I dont know as much about it as I probably should.
That being said I find your almost casual dismissal of the moral implications to be in bad taste and not in keeping with the nature in which Indy and the crew are covering the war"
"The firebombing of Dresden is a base level opportunity for neo-nazis and apologists to use to try and point out “SEE, THE ALLIES WEREN’T ALL THAT GREAT EITHER!” Anyone with any real Second World War knowledge comes to terms with the fact that the Allies probably also killed a lot of civilians long before they get this deep into studying the topic. Whether or not Dresden is justified, I can’t say. I dont know as much about it as I probably should.
“That being said I find your almost casual dismissal of the moral implications to be in bad taste and not in keeping with the nature in which Indy and the crew are covering the war”
Well first for a lot of us English is a second language (for me too, but I have 2 uni degrees and a US/UK flight training) so don’t expect everyone to be supereloquent in a foreign language or even the structure of these language. Not to mention the different grammar styles. German has many long scrabble words, upperclass London uses many words to say something and are often so polite foreigners don’t have a clue what they are actually trying to convey (of say to put it simpler).
So if someone does’t give a long explanation why he/she thinks the bombings were justified and why he/she doesn’t believe the good intentions of "Wheraboos/Nazi’s it doesn’t have to mean a dismissal of moral implications.
As for moral implications, morals are to an extent personal and in the days of internet “outrage” people are often accused of being “immoral”. I don’t think you are immoral just because we seem to disagree.
Back to the bombings, what I find immoral is people making up fake quotes
The person who wrote this made up a quote and then argued against it, the classic straw man argument. That goes very much against my morals but then again.
As for the bombing campaig, like you (thanks for that) I don’t claim to now everything:
1 After 5+ years of a continuous stream of coffins and basically the National Socialist continuing an unwinnable war the Allies were getting totally and utterly sick of the war.
2 The bomber campaign was not about maximizing civilian deaths but seen as a way to win the war against a people who did go from first attempt Democracy to Dachau to put it very bluntly. Yes this can be seen as bad taste but it history is science and doesn’t care about taste. The bombings were aimed at destroying moral, did that work? Well there was an attempt on the life of Hitler in August 1944.
b Gernany gave up in 1918 when the war was lost, like Napoleon who abdicated in 1813 etc. We now they didn’t in 1945 but they couldn’t predict the unthinkable.
c The people who decided on the bombing also mostly had to go through World War 1 were German cities hardly suffered any damage while the French and Belgium farmlands where devastated and even NOW feels the effects of WW1. One of the goals was never, ever, ever again. And so far it worked and German in Stuttgart only have to look at the rubble to see the effects of war. In early 1945 the whole cold war was still in the future.
3 At the time Dresden was bombed the Allies weren’t ever on the other side of the Rhine. Well they had been for a week or so in Arnhem and unfortenately the 2 divisions there kept fighting like crazed fanatics. This in spite of having soundly been defeated in Normandy. To me and many others it is still utterly inconcievable that Germany kept on going untill the streets of Berlin. Even the Japanese gave up in August 1945, so why not the Germans.
4 Like I wrote earlier, Frederick Tayor proved there were military targets in Dresden and the bombings stopped rail transports to the death camps and was also on request of the Soviets. At the end of the war the bombings largely stopped, Dresden was one of the last
5 Another point against “future” predictors that the war was dying down at the time, it was not. Februart 1945 was incredibly deadly with Dutch people being starved to death in the Western Netherlands to Death Camps working overtime, to continuous vicious resistance by the Axis forces. This part never got a lot of publicity as the “Bulge” and the Ardennes are well. My grandparents were always surprised at the unwaivering belief of the Germans that they would win the war and the way they treated the Soviets (school classes throwing empty cans at starving POWs while making sure their gardens were perfectly attended to and the windows were nice and clean).
6 As for the occupation, In the Netherlands the National Socialists had no problem shooting with machine guns small children who were looking at the bombers coming over in the Netherlands. They had no problem taking a small girl from a Jewish mother and clubbing her to death in front of here eyes.
7 V2s produced by slave labour still caused lots of deaths in London, Belgium and other places.
8 Just to compare this treatment with the Allied victors, my grandfather was picked up as a POW in Erfurt (actually he was “Arbeitseinsatz” after being picked up in the Netherlands and being put to work in Germany where he was with the fire brigade because he had convinced the German authorities that he had experience with that. So he was picked up and received medical care and a massive meal with “eggs floating in fat”. The best meal he ever had. He didn’t speak English but after a while he met an American of Belgian descent and was released with a big bag of supplies.
The best way to avoid deaths was stopping the war ASAP at the time and doing that for me is having the moral high ground. Virtually all the Germans I know blame the National Socialists for the bombings not the Allies. Also in order to judge we have to try to “timeshift” to 75+ years ago, which why I was making the points above. Lots of real sons and daughters died “again” in an incredibly vicious war which had to be stopped.
Also I think the statement of Jean Marc see below is historically correct, bad taste or not. History as a science is filled with “bitter pills” unfortunately. The key is is it true or not.
And actually I have far more problems “neo nazis/wherabozos” than a number of actual ex-Nazis I got to meet and talk to. Unlike the 1933-1945 party members they do not live in a totalitarian state where “disappearing” is always a risk and the people where brainwashed or suckered in by a nice looking uniform with stripes.
Chewie/Marc
PS to state the obvious, I don’t condemn current day (2020)Germany in anyway as the Germans living now had very little to do with WW2. The Dutch people now are not responsible for the slave trade either and the Romans are not responsible for the harsh treatment of Boudicca etc.
PS2 Back to now 2020 military missions avoid any military casualties by using drone strikes.
A little late but I feel like I can respond to some of this.
“As for moral implications, morals are to an extent personal and in the days of internet “outrage” people are often accused of being “immoral”. I don’t think you are immoral just because we seem to disagree.”
I was accusing Jean.Marc.Sandra of being immoral because it seemed to me his justification for the bombings was that the people there more or less deserved it because they happened to live near some military targets. Those people didn’t deserve to die, Im not saying that that really matters in the long run because I ultimately believe that you get what you get and not what you do or do not deserve. But it felt to me like OP was insinuating that their deaths were ultimately not as important because they happened to be on the other side.
“2 The bomber campaign was not about maximizing civilian deaths but seen as a way to win the war against a people who did go from first attempt Democracy to Dachau to put it very bluntly.”
From what I understand, whether or not hitting German cities would actually help win the war in the long term is what is disputed, as the Allies can be accused of not really knowing themselves, but trying it anyway. I dont really know myself.
“Yes this can be seen as bad taste but it history is science and doesn’t care about taste. The bombings were aimed at destroying moral, did that work? Well there was an attempt on the life of Hitler in August 1944.”
The flippant manner in which Jean ignored any potential wrongdoing on the part of the Allies lead me to make the comment about taste. I was being polite when I said “in poor taste.”
" but it history is science and doesn’t care about taste"
My comment about taste has absolutely nothing to do with history or the truth of the matter. I was accusing Jean of being simplistic and unsympathetic. I was accusing Jean of being ignorant, which I think is completely against the spirit of what Indy and the team are trying to do.
Well there was an attempt on the life of Hitler in August 1944."
That assasination attempt was carried out by military officers who would have been very aware of how doomed the war effort was, regardless of any action on behalf of the Allies to lower morale. Furthermore, there were a dozen or so attempts on Hitler’s life before the bombings, so assassination attempts on Hitler’s life can not be attributed to those attacks
c The people who decided on the bombing also mostly had to go through World War 1 were German cities hardly suffered any damage while the French and Belgium farmlands where devastated and even NOW feels the effects of WW1. One of the goals was never, ever, ever again. And so far it worked and German in Stuttgart only have to look at the rubble to see the effects of war. In early 1945 the whole cold war was still in the future."
Im not sure any of the RAF High Command were personally involved in the First World War in the manner that you imagine.
“One of the goals was never, ever, ever again. And so far it worked and German in Stuttgart only have to look at the rubble to see the effects of war. In early 1945 the whole cold war was still in the future.”
I dont really know what you mean by this. The purpose of the bombings was to teach the German people the destructive effects of war so that they would not go to war again? That makes zero sense at all. The German people suffered immensely in the First World War, hundreds of thousands of young men dead, a ruined economy, flattened national prestige. The 2nd World War Allies were going right for the throat and with the Soviets coming from the other side it was pretty clear Germany was not rising up to start a third world war. Any notion that the bombings were to teach them a lesson is laughable. The German populace did not go to war a third time because Germany as it was ceased to exist at the end of the 2nd world war, and that was gonna happen regardless of any bombing campaign.
3 At the time Dresden was bombed the Allies weren’t ever on the other side of the Rhine. Well they had been for a week or so in Arnhem and unfortunately the 2 divisions there kept fighting like crazed fanatics. This in spite of having soundly been defeated in Normandy. To me and many others it is still utterly inconceivable that Germany kept on going until the streets of Berlin. Even the Japanese gave up in August 1945, so why not the Germans.
They were pretty obviously winning my man, regardless of pushing into Germany itself, it’s days were numbered. Furthermore, Japan surrendered after Germany did, so the Allies could not use the bombing of Japan to force its surrender as a precedent to force Germany to surrender.
4 Like I wrote earlier, Frederick Taylor proved there were military targets in Dresden and the bombings stopped rail transports to the death camps and was also on request of the Soviets. At the end of the war the bombings largely stopped, Dresden was one of the last
Okay so Im in agreement that there were military targets in Dresden, rail lines are one of the easiest things to repair after bombing raids, plus Im pretty sure most of the “undesirables” in Germany proper would have long since been removed, and thirdly, the Soviets can request whatever they want, but if they requested indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, they should have been told no. I am also pretty much in agreement that the bombings stopped after the war yes, that would make sense, I never doubted that.
5 Another point against “future” predictors that the war was dying down at the time, it was not. February 1945 was incredibly deadly with Dutch people being starved to death in the Western Netherlands to Death Camps working overtime, to continuous vicious resistance by the Axis forces. This part never got a lot of publicity as the “Bulge” and the Ardennes are well. My grandparents were always surprised at the unwavering belief of the Germans that they would win the war and the way they treated the Soviets (school classes throwing empty cans at starving POWs while making sure their gardens were perfectly attended to and the windows were nice and clean).
The war was by far past its deadliest stages and was dying down in comparison to its most deadly years. Im sure plenty of German grunts were also unaware of how bad things really were so their overconfidence does not surprise me in the slightest.
6 As for the occupation, In the Netherlands the National Socialists had no problem shooting with machine guns small children who were looking at the bombers coming over in the Netherlands. They had no problem taking a small girl from a Jewish mother and clubbing her to death in front of here eyes.
Not really sure what this has to do with anything, plenty of documented German war crimes that I am absolutely not disputing in any way shape or form. I dont care what the Germans did, the actions of these Germans would never justify the civilian deaths occured in bombing civilian targets.
7 V2s produced by slave labour still caused lots of deaths in London, Belgium and other places.
Relatively low casualties for the amount of effort that went into building and firing a V2, also not sure what this has to do with anything as I would completely support the targeting of V2 launch sites as legitimate targets. If you are trying to make another point about how bad the germans were, see what I already said above.
8 Just to compare this treatment with the Allied victors, my grandfather was picked up as a POW in Erfurt (actually he was “Arbeitseinsatz” after being picked up in the Netherlands and being put to work in Germany where he was with the fire brigade because he had convinced the German authorities that he had experience with that. So he was picked up and received medical care and a massive meal with “eggs floating in fat”. The best meal he ever had. He didn’t speak English but after a while he met an American of Belgian descent and was released with a big bag of supplies.
Im sure the Allies treated the people they were liberating much better than the Germans did when they conquered them. The questions is how did the Allies treat the Germans who they had been fighting for so long.
The best way to avoid deaths was stopping the war ASAP at the time and doing that for me is having the moral high ground. Virtually all the Germans I know blame the National Socialists for the bombings not the Allies. Also in order to judge we have to try to “timeshift” to 75+ years ago, which why I was making the points above. Lots of real sons and daughters died “again” in an incredibly vicious war which had to be stopped.
The primary argument here is whether or not hitting targets like Dresden really did all that much in the long term to end the war ASAP. If it could be quantifiably marked down how exactly the bombings shortened the war, then there would be no issue here. Thus, is the centre of the argument.
Ending the war as as soon as possible at any means necessary carries the potential for some pretty terrible “solutions” to the conflict. Seems like a dangerous situation where the ends justify the means no matter what.
Also I think the statement of Jean Marc see below is historically correct, bad taste or not. History as a science is filled with “bitter pills” unfortunately. The key is is it true or not.
Okay, so here we are again. I had an issue with the way Jean dismissed the Dresden deaths because he seemed to be implying that because they were Germans they deserved it. He presented that as if it was factual and it is very much not. factual. That is a personal moral judgement that is very much removed from the realm of facts.
Dont try to tell me history is full of “bitter pills” like I dont know that, I know it through and through. Im not uncomfortable that Jean Marc brought up this topic, I think he did it in such a weak way that even I can poke holes in it, and I ultimately THINK DRESDEN WAS JUSTIFIED.
neo nazi also like to use dresden to put the ally at the same scale as the axis when it come to war crime
Never disputed that, they definitely do that, and they are idiots. Dresden is a one-off, the Nazis pursued systematic annihilation of peoples and cultures. There’s no comparison there.
2 Likes
I met Indy before and guess what I never have seen him scolding people who happen to have different point of view, like you did. You are the one that keeps invoking Indy and crew, the rules say “keep it civil” and you didn’t. Calling people ignorant (without even asking why the has that opinion?) or “asshat” doesn’t fit the bill in my opinion. Also calling him “vindictive” for concluding that the bombings were justified and not up to the same level as that of the AXIS. I think most of us definitely agree with the latter and “justified” generally means having a good reason to do it (e.g. stop the trains to the death camps and the Soviet front, ending the war earlier, save more Jews as was hoped by the Allies). To me it does not mean he is “vindictive” against current 2020 Germans. Source Oxford dictionary definition of Vindictive : “showing a strong and unreasonable desire to harm or upset somebody because you think that they have harmed you.” Link: vindictive adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
From someone who is lecturing others about morals and being “flippant” while scolding someone in the same post also does not make sense to me. Please practice what you seem to be preaching.
But guess what, I can see it is a touchy topic, even after 75 years. That we probably can agree on. Let is all assume that this is just a difference of opinion? In which we can more ore less respectfully disagree on.
I don’t know you personally so I am not sure how you are personally, I don’t know Jean Marc personally but I don’t think he is an “asshat”? I for example like his stance on “whereaboos”!
FInally, as I don’t know you but know that such a discussion tends to go better in person than via keyboards just one thing. Please cleanse your posts from the scolding parts (or give a good explanation why you can’t resist), I would appreciate that!
Having said that I think it is your right to scold anyone (including me) but it is against forum rules!
Best regards,
Marc
2 Likes
I met Indy before and guess what I never have seen him scolding people who happen to have different point of view, like you did. You are the one that keeps invoking Indy and crew, the rules say “keep it civil” and you didn’t. Calling people ignorant (without even asking why the has that opinion?) or “asshat” doesn’t fit the bill in my opinion. Also calling him “vindictive” for concluding that the bombings were justified and not up to the same level as that of the AXIS. Well
Not long after the episode that talked about the Allied invasion of Iceland, Indy spoke of how he and the team had received comments about how it wasn’t an invasion, it was an “occupation”. Indy rightfully countered that regardless of what you call it, it was what it was, an armed takeover of a neutral nation, and that to pretend like it wasn’t was historically dishonest. Indy and the team present a balanced, humanizing view of the war, where the deaths and suffering experienced by innocent bystanders is important regardless of what side they happened to be on. This is the spirit of content that I was talking about, and the one that I felt your friend was not following.
have seen him scolding people who happen to have different point of view, like you did.
You spoke of how history is science, and that taste does not come in to it. If Marc’s point of view is that the people of Dresden deserved to die or that it wasn’t that bad because the Nazis did worse things than Marc has got some pretty serious issues. I used the word asshat because using “bad taste” seemed to confuse use as to what exactly my point was. I was keeping it civil, and keeping it civil led to a misunderstanding. I’m not going to agree to disagree here. Marc said something that is pretty objectively awful and I was countering his argument. When you took issue with my use of the word “bad taste” I clarified.
how are german civilian innocent though? For me being complicit of the worst regime of history don’t make you innocent and Dresden was pretty “nazified” too
He said this unironically. I couldn’t even begin to unpack how wrong this is.
Also calling him “vindictive” for concluding that the bombings were justified and not up to the same level as that of the AXIS. I think most of us definitely agree with the latter and “justified” generally means having a good reason to do it
He was implying that the people of Dresden were complicit enough in Nazi German war crimes to warrant their deaths. This seems to me to speak to a level of personal anger or hatred for them that is a best misguided and at worst psychotic.
(e.g. stop the trains to the death camps and the Soviet front, ending the war earlier, save more Jews as was hoped by the Allies).
Yeah maybe you stop a few trains from Dresden before they are repaired within a matter of days, you are vastly overestimating the importance of this mission in regards to the holocaust. The Soviets were quite happily steamrolling Germany by 1944, didn’t need any allied help on that front beyond what had already been given. Ending the war earlier, I doubt it had much effect, and as for your final point, people making strategic bombing decisions didn’t know about the death camps until it was all over, the Dresden bombings had nothing to do with the Holocaust, except perhaps immolating the few Jews who were left in the city who hadn’t already been deported to camps by the Nazis. Stop saying that this justified the attacks, none of these things came as a result of it.
From someone who is lecturing others about morals and being “flippant” while scolding someone in the same post also does not make sense to me. Please practice what you seem to be preaching.
Wauw. Lecturing people about their own lack of morals is almost, by definition, scolding them. It doesn’t make sense to you that I might insult someone’s decorum when they insist that a whole bunch of random civilians had it coming to burn to death? What I am preaching is respect for the dead and a humanizing view of those who might otherwise simply be viewed as “the enemy”. I didn’t say anything about using curse words.
That being said, I will remove the aforementioned curse word from my original post to comply with Forum Regulation. We need not discuss this further. I appreciate your comments and respect you. I maintain little to no respect for Marc. His own opinions have warranted this lack of respect.
1 Like
Thanks for that although it is worrysome that your only reason is " to comply with Forum Regulation"…
Well I kind of figured why he said this. Many neo-Nazie forums claimed in the past that Dresden was NOT Nazified and somehow is an innocent angel in the past. I might but can’t mindread that Marc was countering that argument.
And for your information it was completely under the control of the Nazi’s and most of its Jewish population had been shipped off to the deathcamps. Maybe you are unaware of this trope but it is true.
Marc was arguing against Neo Nazi so that makes sense to me. Had you had the courtesy to ask for clarification before scolding him he probably would have told you.
“he Dresden bombings had nothing to do with the Holocaust, except perhaps immolating the few Jews who were left in the city who hadn’t already been deported to camps by the Nazis. Stop saying that this justified the attacks, none of these things came as a result of it.”
he Dresden bombings had nothing to do with the Holocaust, except perhaps immolating the few Jews who were left in the city who hadn’t already been deported to camps by the Nazis. Stop saying that this justified the attacks, none of these things came as a result of it.
Are you serious that YOU believe no one new about Auschwitz, Majdanek, Dachau, Vught,Natzweiler-Struthof (In France) and other deathcamps on 13th February 1945? In that case you really don’t know what you are talking about. Alternatively you didn’t care to do some very basic research or even worse you follow the “Das haben wir nicht gewusst” trope of too many WW2 Germans who claimed they new nothing (in spite of living next to Dachau or driving the trains). You are really getting close to denying the body of knowlegde about the holocaust. What I really like about current day Germany is that virtually all the Gernans disagree with would your are saying.
So if you are trying to be pro-German you (I don’t know) are dead wrong here! Present day Gemans think differently. Other Germans I spoke to who went trhough World War 2 sometimes candidly admitted they were scared and said they were haunted for the rest of their lives about what they did or the knowledge that they knew what was happening. I respected their opennes and I am not as condescending about this.
" Ending the war earlier, I doubt it had much effect, and as for your final point, nobody knew about the death camps until it was all over, the Dresden bombings had nothing to do with the Holocaust, except perhaps immolating the few Jews who were left in the city who hadn’t already been deported to camps by the Nazis. Stop saying that this justified the attacks, none of these things came as a result of it."
Wrong again, Klempener and many other Jews were saved, see topic above. Not sure why you are ignoring this or claiming that it is not true. The trains were simply not all running after a few days… My numerous points were to stat that the war still was in full effect and many other people would die.
The goal of the bombings was shortening the war and the mass deaths, oh and killing more people on the other side was a stated goal indeed. The B-17s were specifically outfitted with for the time precision bombing equipment. And yes the Allies didn’t know about the exact effects.
“Stop saying that this justified the attacks, none of these things came as a result of it.”
Nope I won’t stop about it. And from a 1944/1945 timeshift standpoint I can see more that just “Allied bonbers” going after innocent civilians. Does that make the attacks justified/justifiable from 2020. No off course not. Oh and Klempener and other Jews have survived THANKS to the bombing of Dresden, so I have proven to you that some other lives were saved as a direct result. Like it or not. Trying to silence me by “Stop saying” (the truth).
Oh a old tourguide of mine Ed Shames 101st Airborne happens to be Jewish and he did fight the Nazis because of their extreme antisemitism and was well aware by the nd of 1944 what the National Socialists were doing to the Jews. ( I am pretty sure he wasn’t lying). I am not sure about you.
In short about morals, the Allies had very difficult decisions to make as to winning the war, in any case lots and lots of people were dying and going to die. The Death Camps and Gernan concentration camp deaths started spiking as the war neard its end. Thus stopping the war/death camps and minimizing the deaths
“I dont care what the Germans did, the actions of these Germans would never justify the civilian deaths occured in bombing civilian targets.”
Another one, and railway stations sending Jews to Aushwitz and factories producing for the war are arguably military targets. To focus on the “I don’t care part”,well I rather not focus. There were also miltary people killed as very likely also party members.
As for the assassination attempt on Hitler:
Well it is a sign of low morale when Generals do that, the Allies were aiming to lower morale and get a peace/more like a surrender in 1918. Afterwards it is easy to say that the National Socialist would go on to Berlin but that was and is inconceivable.
“Any notion that the bombings were to teach them a lesson is laughable.”
Laugh all you want BUT basic refresher, see below!
After World War 1 there was the “dagger in the back” conspiracy. Look it up, Germany didn’t lose the war. Germany lost a lot of soldiers but there was virtuall no damage to the cities inside Germany which fuelled this conspiracy.
After World War 2 it was different. There was no question who won and who lost. (in spite of “wheraboos” lying about losing in Russia because of Winter or ginormous numbers of resources).
Not use if you have ever been in Germany but cities like Stuttgart still have “Turmen” a mountain or rubble from the bombings. (My granddad was forced to clear some of this rubble which also gave him the opportunity to find some food as he as a POW was starving). OK, I got to talk to a lot of German teachers and guess what, some of them say that when you bring school kids to Dachau (as in the camp, not the city itself) it is “the others” dying. If you bring them to the very very impressive mountain or Rubble it shows the results on the other side. And yes a lot of (also young) Germans who had to clean up the mess still are traumatized by the experience and often like most Germans get understandably annoyed that they were too young to stop the holocaust/SHoah or born after. Most seem to agree that replacing Democracy with National Socialism was the cause.
I personally like this way of teaching the causality and also think that some German schools might go a little too far in emphasizing “German” guilt. <=Don’t quote me out of context here. There after all where National Socialists on other countries as well.
Oh and yes Germany ended split up untill 1989 and the final peace treaty was in the 1990s. The Allies in 1944/1945 couldn’t predict all that so that has no effect on whether the decision was wrong. They knew that after WW1 the Allies had let it happen again and wanted to make sure the defeat was total and unquestionable.
We call this technique timeshifting at my old Uni. It is very easy to be enraged behind your keyboard as is common in the age of outrage but those people were trapped in their time and tasked with winning the most vicious war in human history. They know as much about their future as we 4 months about the predicament we are in now.
Best Regards and I appreciated that you stated earlier something in the sense that you don’t know everything. (Nobody does, and guess what the more I know about history/airplanes etc. the more I know that I don’t now).
1 Like
Well I thought we were finished here but evidently we are continuing. Just to be clear before we continue, I actually do think the Dresden bombings were justified, I just find the reasons Marc presented for it being justified to be really quite terrible ones.
Well I kind of figured why he said this. Many neo-Nazie forums claimed in the past that Dresden was NOT Nazified and somehow is an innocent angel in the past. I might but can’t mindread that Marc was countering that argument.
And for your information it was completely under the control of the Nazi’s and most of its Jewish population had been shipped off to the death camps. Maybe you are unaware of this trope but it is true.
Marc was arguing against Neo Nazi so that makes sense to me. Had you had the courtesy to ask for clarification before scolding him he probably would have told you.
Well if anyone had actually brought up any neo-nazi arguments in this thread that might have made more sense. If Marc was preemptively attempting to get ahead of the argument than he did a bad job.
And for your information it was completely under the control of the Nazi’s and most of its Jewish population had been shipped off to the death camps.
My dude, if most the Jewish population had been shipped off than what jews were left in the city to prevent from being sent on the trains? Furthermore, even if a large number of jews were left in the city, how does firebombing said city do anything except change whos killing them from the Germans to the Allies, even if by accident.
Marc was arguing against Neo Nazi so that makes sense to me. Had you had the courtesy to ask for clarification before scolding him he probably would have told you.
I dont require clarification on any points, Marc made his opinion clear. I am well aware Dresden was a German city with Nazis in it. That does not make it more okay that the city was immolated.
are you serious that YOU believe no one new about Auschwitz, Majdanek, Dachau, Vught,Natzweiler-Struthof (In France) and other death camps on 13th February 1945? In that case you really don’t know what you are talking about. Alternatively you didn’t care to do some very basic research or even worse you follow the “Das haben wir nicht gewusst” trope of too many WW2 Germans who claimed they new nothing (in spite of living next to Dachau or driving the trains). You are really getting close to denying the body of knowledge about the holocaust. What I really like about current day Germany is that virtually all the Germans disagree with would your are saying.
To Clarify: When I said Nobody knew I meant nobody who was actually making Dresden bombing decisions. Im sure plenty of Germans knew what was going on or at the very least figured it out. The primary point here is that the Allies did not have a full comprehension of what was going on until later into the war. Nobody who mattered when it came to air force decisions knew about the full extent of the camps until Allied soldiers literally started walking into the ones scattered in the East and West.
What I really like about current day Germany is that virtually all the Germans disagree with would your are saying.
Modern Germans would probably agree that the majority of Allied Commanders didn’t know about the full extent of the Holocaust until the war was mostly over. I didn’t say anything about whether or not the German people knew as that would have absolutely no bearing on Air Force targeting decisions.
TO CLARIFY MY POINT: The AIR FORCE commanders in charge of the decision making about whether or not to hit Dresden probably had little to no knowledge of the Holocaust as we understand it today. It did not factor into their planning or their decision making.
As for research, from the Holocaust Encyclopedia itself " While all important German cities and production centers were bombed by Allied forces until the end of the war, no attempt was made to interdict the system of mass annihilation by destroying pertinent structures or train tracks, even though Churchill was a proponent of bombing parts of the Auschwitz complex itself."
Now, let’s be clear here before we continue. I am NOT a holocaust denier, but I find the idea that Air Force commanders made Dresden decisions based on damaging holocaust infrastructure to be patently untrue.
Wrong again, Klempener and many other Jews were saved, see topic above. Not sure why you are ignoring this or claiming that it is not true. The trains were simply not all running after a few days… My numerous points were to stat that the war still was in full effect and many other people would die.
If any Jews were saved by the firebombing of Dresden, then thats great. But it was probably simply an unintended positive side effect. I doubt that it played any part in making the decision to press home the attack.
The goal of the bombings was shortening the war and the mass deaths, oh and killing more people on the other side was a stated goal indeed. The B-17s were specifically outfitted with for the time precision bombing equipment. And yes the Allies didn’t know about the exact effects.
We can go around and around here, but based on my sources, my information, knowledge of the Holocaust played NO PART in Dresden decision making.
Max Hastings wrote numerous WW2 books, many of which are used by Indy Neidell and the team as sources for their show. Hastings himself states in “A World Undone”
“by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war”
So I’ve got Max Hastings and The Holocaust Encyclopedia both stating pretty openly that what you say about it was incorrect.
. I am well aware that they had strategic military targets in mind when they hit the city, I am well aware that the city itself was a production centre for many war goods and that hitting rail networks and industrial facilities is totally justified. If Nazi party members were killed in the attack, then thats great, Im glad to know that. But to suggest that that makes all the civilian deaths okay is some pretty terrible ethics.
Like it or not. Trying to silence me by “Stop saying” (the truth).
Your interpretation of Dresden Justifications is patently incorrect. I am attempting to inform you as to why and how your interpretation is incorrect. Marc’s original interpretation was asinine and came across as somewhat sociopathic. You can say that what you say is the truth, I can say that what I say is the truth.
In short about morals, the Allies had very difficult decisions to make as to winning the war, in any case lots and lots of people were dying and going to die. The Death Camps and Gernan concentration camp deaths started spiking as the war neard its end. Thus stopping the war/death camps and minimizing the deaths
Again, Air Force Commanders wouldn’t know about this.
Another one, and railway stations sending Jews to Aushwitz and factories producing for the war are arguably military targets.
Oh most definitely legitimate targets. Destroying the entire city to get at those targets is the part I disagree with.
To focus on the “I don’t care part”,well I rather not focus. There were also military people killed as very likely also party members.
As previously mentioned by myself, Nazi Party Members and military soldiers killed in the attack is totally fine, m good with that. The issue is all the other thousands of people who burned alive as collateral damage.
After World War 1 there was the “dagger in the back” conspiracy. Look it up, Germany didn’t lose the war. Germany lost a lot of soldiers but there was virtuall no damage to the cities inside Germany which fuelled this conspiracy.
I know all about the “dagger in the back” conspiracy. It was embraced only by those who didn’t want to believe that Germany had lost or those who were too stupid to see the myriad evidence that Germany had lost. They were starting to recruit the very young and the very old into the German Army. There were food shortages, mass political unrest led to a couple uprisings to proclaim new governments. There were riots in some cities and the western front was collapsing faster than it could be put back together as the Allies spearheaded into the Hundred Days offensive. They were done, anyone with a brain knew it. Only nationalistic fools believed in any “stabbed in the back nonsense”. German cities could have been pulverized and they still would have gone on about “glorious Germany”. Just in case you think im Pro-German or some such nonsense, they lost both World Wars fair and square. Frankly I dont think they ever had a chance at all of winning the Second one which makes it all the more tragic.
A person can believe that the Allies might have erred in bombing Dresden, and NOT be a Neo-Nazi or Holocaust Denier.
As I said in one of my original posts:
The firebombing of Dresden is a base level opportunity for neo-nazis and apologists to use to try and point out “SEE, THE ALLIES WEREN’T ALL THAT GREAT EITHER!” Anyone with any real Second World War knowledge comes to terms with the fact that the Allies probably also killed a lot of civilians long before they get this deep into studying the topic. Whether or not Dresden is justified, I can’t say. I dont know as much about it as I probably should.
Im gonna add on to this here. I dont know whether or not it really matters, as I ultimately believe that Allied Victory was the best outcome. However, with that being said. people like Marc who seem to justify Dresden because “they were Germans and the Germans were bad so they deserved to burn” is an “ends justify the means” mentality that lead to the majority of the worst atrocities in history. If you believe that a grouping of people can be universally condemned as being related enough to deserve what they get is out and out, no, ifs ands, or buts, a bad thing.
After World War 2 it was different. There was no question who won and who lost.
With the sheer force of numbers and power arranged against the Germans by 1944, the answer to that question was written in stone. Germany was done for, again, it was only a matter of time. Allied bombing of German cities did nothing to make that come sooner or make it easier.
Bomber Harris himself, the man who universally supported the bombing of German cities, more or less admitted that, to him, the German cities were not “worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” He would have watched Dresden burn a hundred times over if it meant that even a few less British deaths. His thoughts on the matter are well documented, and nowhere does he mention the Holocaust as a reason. He wasn’t really sure if bombing the cities was even still working towards the end of the war but continued on with it anyway because he wasn’t really willing to stop.
We call this technique timeshifting at my old Uni. It is very easy to be enraged behind your keyboard as is common in the age of outrage but those people were trapped in their time and tasked with winning the most vicious war in human history. They know as much about their future as we 4 months about the predicament we are in now.
Im not enraged, just disappointed. I would also gladly argue this in person with somebody so the age of keyboard outrage has nothing to do with this. Not to mention that people have been bothered by this since literally right after the war ended so recent societal trends have nothing to do with it either. I would be bothered by it then, I am bothered by it now.
people were trapped in their time and tasked with winning the most vicious war in human history.
If you actually read what Allied Air Force commanders had to say about why they bombed Dresden after the fact, you would understand it wasn’t a difficult decision made for the sake of a greater purpose. It was done without any real evidence that it would work. Douhet’s theories on air warfare had long been disproven as weak at best and ridiculous exaggeration at worst by virtue of practical experience.
When these decisions were made the war was already won. As Max Hastings himself said and as I quoted above:
“by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war”
Thats my final say on the matter, Im tired of arguing and I think we’ve beaten this topic to death. Im not a holocaust denier, i’m not a neo-nazi, and ultimately, I not dumb enough to think the bombing of Dresden is in any way comparable to the dozens of German war crimes.
I agree to disagree with you, lets just go back to watching the show we both enjoy.
2 Likes
Hi Alex,
"Im not enraged, just disappointed. I would also gladly argue this in person with somebody "
I was about to suggest the same. 
. I think that would help if we talked. I have PM’d you. And some of us were talking yesterday.
Over the phone/whatsapp/komi/teams whatever works better. Alternatively we can also on because I feel WE need to explain some points we have or even better just start by saying hi IRL!
Best Regards,
Chewie
1 Like
Hi Alex,
As you haven’t responded here is some a
Glad we totally agree here. Thanks.
As you didn’t react to my PM invite I have to apologize in advance for not Stopping the discussion . Incorrect holocaust statements (doubtless not intentional) need to be corrected":
Well as you yourself argued in the later reply that Churchill wanted Auschwitz bombed, we both agree the earlier statement is untrue. Note: Auschwitz was liberated before Dresden and see the huge list of Camps I mentioned. I would still like to know what your source was for the original argument, my tentative advice would be to block that site!
I am more that a bit disappointed with you singling out the “Air Force Commanders” who seemed to know not enough about the Holocaust But first lets talk about how you make your arguments.
This is logically not an argument let us disect:
Timing:
“no knowledge of the Holocaust as we understand it today.”
Air Force Commanders like Air Minister Archibald Sinclair, Sir Arthur Harris and others indeed did not have the level of knowledge of today (2020?). Is that a real argument? I must disappoint you but I don’t have the Corona knowledge as people will understand it in 2095 (and you/everyone doesn’t either)! Also the holocaust was ongoing at the time so logically they could not know to the lever we know today.
Singling out Air Force Commanders knowing less than Churchill:
Why are you singling out “Air Force Commanders” while Churchill according to you wanted to bomb Aushwitz. What is your proof they didn’t know, and Churchill appearntly did? This is a pretty scathing attack on people like Sir Arthur Harris and the Air Minister Sinclair who like Churchill was responsible for the Air Force.
So do you any Actual PROOF that the Air Force commanders didn’t know about the holocaust or not enough for your taste?
Your earlier “no one knew” post earlier now became an attack on Air Force Commanders, why?
Best Regards,
Chewie
Air Force Commanders like Air Minister Archibald Sinclair, Sir Arthur Harris and others indeed did not have the level of knowledge of today (2020?). Is that a real argument? I must disappoint you but I don’t have the Corona knowledge as people will understand it in 2095 (and you/everyone doesn’t either)! Also the holocaust was ongoing at the time so logically they could not know to the lever we know today.
I want to stop this, arguing with you is like hitting a wall. You refuse to acknowledge any of the good points I make and then you shift the argument over to something else entirely.
Is that a real argument? I must disappoint you but I don’t have the Corona knowledge as people will understand it in 2095 (and you/everyone doesn’t either)! Also the holocaust was ongoing at the time so logically they could not know to the lever we know today.
You have effectively missed my entire point. I was not judging the Air Force Commanders for not knowing about the Holocaust, I was simply stating that because they didn’t know about it to the extent that we do today, that it didn’t factor into their decision making process. There’s no blame here for that, I am not accusing anyone of not being able to see the future. The fact that they COULDN’T predict the future means that there was no way they could have possibly known that their bombing of German cities was going to have any effect on the Holocaust.
Im not sure if my English is just not getting through to you or what but you keep changing the argument on me so allow me to about face. I am going to say this as simply as possible so that you understand this.
The fact that the air force commanders who were responsible for making decisions on bombing German cities, including other cities besides Dresden, did not factor stopping the holocaust or delaying it into their combat plans means that delaying the Holocaust and saving Jewish lives cannot be used as a defense of the bombing. It was a secondary effect at best, a positive one to be sure, but something that did not factor into the decision making process.
So do you any Actual PROOF that the Air Force commanders didn’t know about the holocaust or not enough for your taste?
Not enough for my liking. Nowhere have I ever seen Harris or Archibald use the holocaust as a defense for their strategic bombing decisions. Harris at least just seemed to figure it was worth the risk if it meant saving a few more British Soldiers. Which I think is pretty weak justification for killing 22,000 people.
And to reiterate, in the words of Max Hastings himself who is a laudable historian whose books are used as source material for this very show.
“by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war”
Max Hastings, Bomber Command, pages 171-172
I think that ultimately the Allies won the war, and that that was the best possible outcome, and that Nazi Germany needed to be put down permanently. You claim that they were making hard decisions to win the war. I argue that the war was already more or less won, anyone with a brain could see it, and that continuing with mass area bombing was unnecessary. I dont think it was a war crime, and Im not nearly braindead enough to argue that it makes the Allies as bad as the Nazis. They were very obviously the side that’s victory ended one of the most evil regimes in history.
The Yalta conference was held in early February 1954, where the Allies and the Soviets agreed on how to restructure Europe after the war was won. They were already two steps ahead of the end of the war in Europe.
Well, the term “argument” can have a negative connotation. Which might be the reason you were scolding Jean-Marc earler. And as for my English, it is not perfect but “asshat” was indeed a new word for me. That is why I sent you a PM to take it verbal?
Lets call it an exchange of information to get nearer to the truth, ok! Thanks for your simplification as you seem to think my English is insufficent. In my view it wasn’t necessary.
As for your repeated calls to stop, well you can stop the discussion ANYTIME by foregoing a reply. If you make statements that are simply untrue or a logical fallacy expect a reply in a forum. By the way you wrote a lot of text but did not go into my question for sources on below.
This is a statement of fact which is simply dead wrong AND you changed your opinion ending in the viewpoint that basically said the Air Force commanders knew less than today.
Also I am pretty sure it is not my English skills which are the reason for disagreeing with below (with sources)
Again feel free to reply to my PM.
I have not received a PM.
1 Like
Some points:
1 Max Hastings is a great writer but not a source of 100% absulute truth. Notably also because it was written in 1979 when there still was an East Germany and not all sources were available or just plain wrong (like the Devils Tinderbox).
2 Newer works Frederick Taylor, Dresden 2004 did benefit from the increased available knowledge such as the miltary benefits and it argues respectfully against some of the Hastings points.
3 The outcome of the war (Germany Lost/Allies Won was clear way before that), even Von Rundsted statted that after the defeat in Normandy. However that doesn’t mean te war didn’t go on and Germany kept fighting after the defeat was inevitable.
4 The fact that Indy uses this as a source on this show doesn’t make it undisputable. Indy tells people to do their own research and in my experience is open to other arguments.
So the outcome of the war (Germany lost) was set in stone. The question is how long and wiping out factories and a logistic hub very likely helped. I thus think we agree, it is just that there is a lot of other stuff that Hastings wrote at the time that is now up for debate!
NOTE: THE ALLIES KNEW ABOUT AUSCHWITZ AND THERE IS PRIME EVIDENCE IT PLAYED A ROLE:. Just let me know if you have sources which counter this prime evidence.
This is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, the communication says something I posted this already in the out of the foxhole questions but again. The holocaust DID play a part in the bombing campaign, Dresden was a mission and a part of the larger campaign so don’t expect the holocaust to come up on Navigation points/targets/Weight and Balance calculations and the formation coordination, etc etc.
Source:
Henryk Świebocki " The Issue of Bombing Auschwitz" [in:] Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp, vol. IV "
Retreived from:
http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/what-the-allies-knew-about-auschwitz,352.html
“I have not received a PM.”
I thought I had sent one, my sincere apologies for the mistake. It should be in your mailbox.