Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 11

"vicarious act of retaliation"

 * "As acts of retaliation, they were at best vicarious (even if entire nations are seen as morally competent agents)." Can someone explain this sentence? My understanding was that a vicarious act was one undertaken on behalf of another? I don't understand how this applies here? Cheers, User: Badgerpatrol 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Weighting of arguments
I would suggest that the balance of weighting given to the case for and against classifying the bombing as a War Crime/Crime Against Humanity is unbalanced. This makes the article suffer from lack of NPOV and justifies that tag. I'd invite someone to expand the argument for, or curtailing the latter. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Obradovic (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are encouraged to sign you comments on a talk page with four tildes as in: ~ 

What is unbalanced about it? It took a long hard fight to get the wording that is there at the moment. I am going to remove you NPOV notice as you have not explained what you think is non Neutral Point of View in the section. What do you think is missing from the for argument given the details of the lack of treaties as detailed in the link Area bombardment? Or what is OTT for the for side? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A simple point of view
Here's a really simple point of view: the bombing saved Jews from the holocaust, it destroyed German military facilities and it probably didn't encourage further resistance. It was not a crime, it was the response of an outraged world at the singularly beastly regime of the Nazis. Those who think it was too harsh; be advised to thank God that I was not the principal resident at 1600 Pensylvania Avenue or 10 Downing Street in February 1945.

Some historians have a quite simple point of view on this subject:

Every British (not US) air attack after 14 February 1942, that was able to terrorize many people was not a bombing of industrial or military targets but an attack on civilian population according to the Area bombing directive and to Churchill's statements on 30 March 1945. The bombing of Dresden belongs to this category. Direct attacks on civilian population have ever been a war crime. Number 17 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) -- sig taken from the history of the page


 * Which historians?


 * No British air attack after 14 Feb 1942 was designed to explicitly terrorize (although I doubt those on the receiving end of a 1000 bomber raid understood that).

That's what you say. Air Ministry and Churchill say different. Air Ministry at the beginning and Churchill at the end of the campaign.--145.253.209.130 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many were designed to sap the morale of the Germans by "dehousing" them, but by no means all raids were designed to do that. The area bombing directive you mention is one of many directives which were issued during the War. For example on On 27 March, 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders that control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including the strategic bombers, would pass to the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. They were ordered to help bomb tactical targets in France in the lead up to and during the Normandy landings.

This was an exception explicitly excludet from the Area bombing directive to support D-Day operations. --145.253.209.130 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Directive the RAF received at the end of this campaign dated 25 September 1944, was to attack German oil, communications and certain other targets like U-boat pens.

This was an exception explicitly excludet from the Area bombing directive.--145.253.209.130 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not an exception it was a new order. The combined chiefs of staff handed "executive responsibility for control" back to Chief of the Air Staff in September and a new directive (order) was issued to RAF Bomber Command on 25 September which listed First Priority: Petroleum industry; Second Priority: Transportation system, Tanks, ordnance depots, motor transport production plants; and "When weather or tactical conditions are unsuitable for operations against specific primary objectives, attacks should be delivered on important industrial areas, using blind-bombing techniques as necessary". Harris used this last section to continue to prioritize area bombardment, and threatened to resign, hence the new directive on the 27(?) January. But to say that the 1942 directive was in operational for the Bombing of Dresden is just not true. --


 * This is made clear in the section of this article called "Reasons for the attack". Where it is reported that Portal said that aircraft diverted to such raids (as Dresden) should not be taken away from the current primary tasks of destroying oil production facilities, jet aircraft factories, and submarine yards.

According to Air ministry and Churchill, these were secondary tasks.--145.253.209.130 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The how do you explain the 25 September directive where the primary target was oil? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * another directive was issued on 27 January 1945, Yet more were issued after the Yalta Conference, all of which are much more relevant than the 1942 directive to the Bombing of Dresden.

Why more relevant?--145.253.209.130 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they superseeded the earlier directives. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Churchill statements you mention are already in the articles in the section "British" and that memo was not a directive (although one followed shortly after it). --Philip Baird Shearer 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW the USAAF mix of bombs to insenduaries for the Dresden raid was simialr to that used but the RAF. On Page 365 of "Dresden Tuesday 13 Feb 1945" by F Taylor, he states that the USAAF planned to use used 678.3 tones of HE and 400 tones of incendiaries, not all were dropped on Dresden but those that were, were in the same ratio. This he says was an unusual bomb mix because it was more like an RAF city busting mix instead of the usual USAAF precision mix. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 145.253.209.130 you have not answered the question which historians "have a quite simple point of view on this subject"? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think this image makes it clear what the bombings were all-about...Diagram showing the effects of strategic bombing on German morale in 1945, published 1947 Stor stark7 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So your point of view is this: On let's say 27 March 1944 Area bombing directive was invalid, not because it was officially canceled but because other directives were issued directly disagreeing with A.B.D. And because these were newer directives, A.B.D.fell behind.

Others might say, because A.B.D. was never officially canceled it was valid all the time and these other directives you mentioned were just exceptions from the rule.

We would never find a solution to this discussion point, if in the end Winston Churchill hadn't made his statement and cleared things. What's your opinion? --84.147.131.96 19:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If a soldier is ordered "to stand to attention" and then told "stand at ease", the first order has not been cancelled but it has been superseded. So it was with general directives, each one superseded the previous ones. The most of the later directives (with the notable exception of the D-day tactical support order) did not disagree with the 1942 directive, they just gave other things like oil targets higher priorities and area bombing lower a priority. But at any one time the RAF Bomber Command was working from the last general directive they received along with some specific ones for certain missions. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If at least one general directive after 14 feb 1942 says something like "attacks should now be focussed on military and industrial targets" you are absolutely right. Please point me to the corresponding official reference.--89.50.221.156 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am just watching television in California, San Francisco Bay Area - Chabot College Channel 27. Today is April 28, 2006, and it is 16:52 PST. Program is named The Western Tradition and is narrated by U.C.L.A. History Professor Eugene Weber. This television program is available from The Annenberg / CPB Collection. Eugene Weber just said that bombing of Dresden killed 135,000 civilians. --Student watching TV

Prejudiced opinions
The page I have removed the link to was in my opinion inspiring hatred. Amongst the major problems with this site is the map that is claiming Polish and Czech regions belonging to the "Great Germany." This was unacceptable, historically incorrect, and quite Nazi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.231.102 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

reply to the deleter: the WEBSITE ISNT NAZI AT ALL. theres not a single swastika in it, there are no references to nazis, hitler, holocaust or anything that you may find nazist. the map corresponds to a point of view concerning the parts of europe with german population (excluding switzerland). and in fact if you take time to surf through the site you will find that its mostly pro-monarchy. by the way, you censor the link because you dont tolerate a different point of view. you censor the film because you cant understand art and/or transgression at all. you can search for "nationalism" "national parties" in wikipedia and find links to nationalist neo-nazi parties including the NPD. some of the these parties promote wht would you define as a nazist ideology (wich is NOT the case of NBGER). and you havent deleted them links. so what is your real problem? cant you just adapt to freedom of speech?

your unjustifiable censorship and intolerance shows that you are closer to the nazis than you would think.

Konstantine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.30.33 (talk • contribs)  11:47, 21 June 2006  (UTC)

Source for the assertion that bombing Dresden destroyed cultural targets.
In the article, there is a "citation needed" marker after a sentence in the "was it a war crime?" section. The sentence purports that because Dresden was a cultural center, it was supposedly protected under the Hague Convention of 1907.

Now, there are several factors involved here: 1) In 1907, aerial bombardments were not commonplace (especially since the earlier 1899 charter prohibited bombings from balloons for 12 years). 2) Because of this, the framers of the Conventions of 1907 included only "Naval Bombardments" in their writings. 3) There was no other agreement in place at the time of the Dresden Firebombing.

Here is Article V of the Hague Convention regarding naval bombardments: "'In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes.'" This is the only quote I can find that is on topic. Whether or not one can simply substitute the word "air" for the word "naval" is a question worthy of debate. I don't know if this can be considered a citation supporting that sentence; however, it seems to me that "cultural center" might be equivalent with "artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes..." As I said, though, this is food for thought/debate; hence, I'm posting it here on the talk page first to get people's opinions.

Speaking of opinions, the following sentences form mine: "My POV:It is indeed a hot topic to discuss Dresden as a War Crime. There is no strict guideline on point, since there was no modification to the 1907 Hague Conventions extant at the time; however, one point is intriguing. At the end of WWII, when the victorious Allies were dispensing justice at Nürnberg, several high ranking Allied officials commented that what the Nazis did was so horrifying that no legal precedent existed (no one ever prosecuted the Spanish Inquisitors, Tamerlane, King Herod, or any other horrifying genocidal maniac(s) before, basically); therefore, they created the term 'crimes against humanity' in order to try the Nazis for what they had wrought (in essence, ex post facto justice).  Now, before you all jump on the 'LYNCH THEKURGAN AS A NAZI APOLOGIST' bandwagon, hear me out.  I think the Nazis got what they deserved.  In fact, I think hanging was too good for them. The point is that the Allies dispensed ex post facto justice by creating a new class of crime to handle a situation too horrifying to have been considered before. Why, then, would it be wrong to classify firebombing (not only of Dresden, but of Tokyo, Hamburg, Bremen, London, and Coventry, as well) as a violation of the Hague Conventions? I'm not saying that the Germans' atrocities are mitigated by this, either; I'm only saying that the principle is the same. In fact, the 1899 document prohibits aerial bombardment altogether since balloons were the only aerial vehicles of the time. True, it expired 12 years after the fact, but the framers of that document considered it distasteful enough to prohibit it, and they had, at the time, no idea at all about firestorms or atomic devestation. In summation, I do think that the firebombing of Dresden was a War Crime (as was Coventry). End of my POV"

My opinion aside, do you all think we can use the previous quote from Article V of the Hague Conventions of 1907 on Naval Bombardment as a citation for the "cultural center" sentence (with the word "air" substituted for the word "naval" since the document framers might have classed the two as the same were they familiar with WWI style aircraft)?

TheKurgan 05:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should add details of Hague, because we had a section like that which for space limitations has been moved to another article because it is relevant to all bombings: See the next section in the article The case against the bombing as a war crime it contains "For details on the treaty obligations of the Allies see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945".


 * The citation is not requested for Dresden having building of cultural significance, but because it uses weasel words "Those who support this view often refer to..." and that should be replaced with "People like John Smith have referred..." "+REF:to John Smith saying this".


 * A similar clause to the naval one can be found in the "Laws and Customs of War on Land "(Hague IV); October 18, 1907
 * 25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
 * 26 The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
 * 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.


 * It can be argued that (1) allied strategic bombing was a bombardment of defended towns because of the German national air defences (see Kammhuber Line), (2) as an aerial assault no warning was required, and (3) that All necessary steps as far as possible were taken.


 * As to your moral point and the legal definition of crime against humanity. If the Allies had thought Axis area bombardment had been illegal they could have prosecuted members of the Axis side for area bombardment. They did after all try Doenitz and find him guilty of unrestricted submarine warfare, although it was acknowledged by the tribunal that the Allies committed the same crime. Further thanks to the wording used in the Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity:
 * The Tribunal therefore cannot make a general declaration that the acts before 1939 were crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter, but from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity.(my bolding)
 * this means that if aerial bombardment was a crime against humanity then Germans could have been prosecuted without it involving the Allies because the bombardment was "committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity". They were not. Why they were not is subject to two theories: [A] because it would have been not expedient and hypocritical to do so (but that did not stop the Doenitz prosecution); or [B] it may have been morally wrong but it was not a war crime because there were no custom or treaty obligations making it so.


 * BTW if you look through the archives of this talk page you will come across as many sections over this debate as there are paragraphs about it in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Came across this 1963 article
Is this just some heap of apologist trash, or does it have merit?

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/war/dresden1.html

TheKurgan 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * R. H. S. Crossman was a left wing British politician most famous for "The Crossman Diaries" (Diaries of a Cabinet Minister) which not only served up a lot of tittle-tattle about his fellow Labour party members, it also reported on some Cabinet proceedings which would normally have been secret for 30 years, and as such was a useful source for British constitutional arrangements for a number of years.


 * In early 60's in Britain the zeitgeist of the time, (CND BAN THE BOMB), particularly in left wing circles was swinging against the perceived wisdom of the 1950's that Britain had fought a Just War, this was reinforced by the constant worry at the height of the Cold War that every major city in the Northern Hemisphere could have worse done to it than happened to Dresden with less than 30 minutes warning.


 * Crossman was not an historian and apart from the fact that he had been in SHAEF during the Second World War, he had no specific knowledge of the Dresden bombings. When writing this particular article he seems to have been heavily influenced by David Irving's Book Apocalypse 1945, The Destruction of Dresden which had just come out. This book is now discredited as a source but at the time Crossman was not to know that it was anything but a scholarly work.  If one reads the article with the understanding that it is written in the context of the zeitgeist of the time and with several political agendas:  he was a left wing member of the Labour party, so at that time bashing Churchill was par for the course, that as a former soldier he mentions the Army Generals' bias against the resources which went to the strategic bombing offensive, and that it probably used Irving as a source, then it makes an interesting read. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and the Kingdom of Saxony
Was this intended as fratricide? IP Address 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Slanted
I understand that this article has a long history of editing, and a huge talk archive, but despite that, my reaction to the reading of this article is surpise. It seems both apologetic and completely out of line with what I learned in college. I don't think this article tells the entire story, I also think that the entire article has been worded in favor over one point over the other. Case in point: the length of the 'for war crime' argument vs the 'against war crime.' Another point is that a substantial portion of the 'for war crime section' is rebuttal to the point of view it is supposed to be 'for'. As for comparison, in the 'against war crime section' with the bombings of Tokyo, John Mcnamara himself believed they were committing war crimes as he himself said in the documentary 'The Fog of War' so that's not a very good argument is it. (Bjorn Tipling 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Slanted argument
The arguments in this article under the sections “The case for the bombing as a war crime” & “The case against the bombing as a war crime” are slanted toward the view that it is not. The author (or authors in this case) identify with the argument that it is not a war crime. Arguments under the case for war crime are attributed to others and the arguments are positioned as if other people only were making them: “Those who support this view…” “Others state…” “British historian Anthony Beevor wrote…” “…regarded by supporters of the war crime position…” “They contend…” “According to Friedrich…” To use this tool in logic arguments is to otherize the holders of one point of view for the reader. Because the statements under the argument against war crimes are made as statements rather than attributions, the sense is made that they are facts, whereas the arguments made by others are opinions. Furthermore, there are attempts to debunk the arguments in the for war crimes section. This does not happen in the against war crimes section: “However, Friedrich's case is disputed even by historians” “without considering the absence of military necessity, the civilian death toll, and Dresden's cultural significance.” I was tempted to mark this article for NPOV, but I figured it would be better to get more input from the discussion page here rather than do that.RhodyJim 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)]]


 * Absolutely agree, 100%. The sheer length of the "case against it not being a war crime" was the first thing that caught my eye, but the lack of a rebuttal is absurd, especially when it cuts to war-time protocol, which has a strange way of making the inhumane sound logical.


 * I believe it is wrong to describe strategic bombing as a 'war crime', for this might be held to suggest some moral equivalence with the deeds of the Nazis.
 * sorry, invalid logic, somewhere along the lines of ad hitlerum and reductio ad absurdum.


 * The same number of people estimated to be killed in Dresden is equal to the entire Battle of Britain campaign waged against British cities.
 * fact.


 * However, the Battle of Britain was conducted as part of a campaign against 20 odd nations, in good shape (bar a a very few defeated ones), who had declared war on Germany. Dresden was conducted against one nation that was already completely defeated and trying to throw in the towel. Wallie 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, the protocols defend what the Allies were "trying" to do, their alleged "objectives". They do not defend what they actually did, and likewise, automatically assume that the Allied brass, of course, acted in "good faith" without malicous intent...of course, none of them were harboring extreme hatreds of the Germans or anything (they were). By the way, I found Friedrick Taylor's text to be nauseatingly apologetic, like he was a defense attorney hired by the British and American governments specifically to write their pardon. Typical, but not uncommon.--72.92.0.83 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent
This excellent article on a very difficult subject helps restore my somewhat battered faith in Wikipedia. I recommend a new book, Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden 1945, by Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang, Pimlico 2006. The chapter "The Dresden Raids: Why and How" gives a very good concise summary of the decision making process which led to the bombing. Adam 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to check that one out - literally.--72.92.8.6 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting concept
It seems that everywhere we look (not just Wikipedia), we get the following two assertions:

Dresden War Crime? NO = smart, well researched, scholarly people who are correct.

Dresden War Crime? YES = crackpot, Nazi apologists who are incorrect.

 I think we can never get away from a little bit of Victor's History here. Some enterprising Wikipedia poster above said it took very hard work to get the wording as it is. It's laughable that it took such hard work to get it as slanted to the "not war crime" POV as it is. Why do people not even want to consider the fact that the Allies commited war crimes? Are we so holier than thou that we cannot accept any smirch on our history? If so, we are deluding ourselves. In their pasts, all of the Allied countries of WWII have committed genocide (Americans and Canadians wiping out native American populations (and Canadians doing Mengele like medical experiments on the mentally ill (Duplessis incident)), Britain in Kenya, France with its own people (Vendee during the Revolution), Poles killing themselves at Jedwabne, Soviets at Katyn, and many others). With so much blood on our hands, how can we possibly make NPOV judgments about war crimes and atrocities?

There are also neutral and enemy parties from WWII who committed genocides, notably the Turks wiping out the Armenians and the Japanese murdering tens of millions of Chinese and Koreans. Spanish genocide against the New World is also horrific.

It seems we have much work to do to get this article neutral. The folks involved are trying hard, but not hard enough. 

TheKurgan 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Total War


 * I do know whether it was a war crime. But it was wrong. Then again, war is wrong. Wallie 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties
"Contemporary official German records give a number of 21,271 registered burials, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt.[26] There were around 25,000 officially buried dead by March 22, 1945, war related or not, according to official German report Tagesbefehl (Order of the Day) no. 47 ("TB47"). There was no registration of burials between May and September 1945.[27]" Since these are only officially registered and found victims, the total number of casualties must be far higher...

When you become a registered Wikipedian and sign your comments, I will be happy to discuss this question. Adam 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

USAAF bomb mix
In response to WikipediaSleeperCell2 and Wallie, the USAAF was just as involved in the Dresden city busting raids as the RAF. The USAAF mix of bombs to insenduaries for the Dresden raid was simialr to that used but the RAF. On Page 365 of "Dresden Tuesday 13 Feb 1945" by F Taylor, he states that the USAAF planned to use used 678.3 tones of HE and 400 tones of incendiaries, not all were dropped on Dresden but those that were, were in the same ratio. This he says was an unusual bomb mix because it was more like an RAF city busting mix instead of the usual USAAF precision mix. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The city raids were primarily done by the RAF. The US were after military targets such as the railway yards. It is clear they helped the RAF in conducting their terror raids. However, they were minor players in this aspect. Also, Churchill did order the bombings. Harris was an underling and should not be held responsible. He was a supporter, but "ardent supporter" is POV, and other RAF Officers were too. Wallie 10:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was a just a precision raid on the railway why did the USAAF use a different ratio of ordanance in this raid from that which they used for precision raids?
 * If you think Churchill ordered the raid please provide a source for the order. I put it to you that he was not directly in the chain of command to issue such an order. There is a detailed section in the article which explains how the decision to bomb Dresden was made and at no point in that is there a mention of Churchill issuing a specific order.
 * If you do not think that Harris was an ardent supporter of Area Bombardment then how do you explain the arguments leading up to the January directive?
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 11:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I won't disagree with the wording of the intro. Harris was an ardent supporter of area bombing, but so was Churchill. It is wrong to credit Harris for this. He is being used as a scapegoat by Churchill. I think it is clear to anyone that Churchill was the main instigator of this raid. Can you not see it yourself? Is this about being fair, or is it just about demonizing Harris? Wallie 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Harris was not used as a scapegoat by Churchill, just see his response in the British section of the article. Also his statment after the War that in his memoirs where he wrote: "In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method". He was an ardent supporter of Area Bombardment in a way that most were not. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Dresden so special
I sincerely can't understand why there are so many talk archives and edits on this article. It seems that people make such a big hoopla because it was a "cultural center" and Germany was already near collapse, but I don't see how those are reasons that Dresden or any other German city should've been spared. The point is the war wasn't over, Germany still needed to be defeated, any actions that would've expedited its defeat was Justified. The arguments against it being a war crime is clear and simple, The internationally recognized laws of war did not forbid strategic bombing. The arguments for it being a war crime is ridiculously weak, "cultural center", Germany close to collapse, or simply too many people died. It may have been a terrible event yes, war crime no, hence no Nazis were prosecuted for strategic bombing of Londond, Coventry, etc. There aren't nearly as many archives or edits on the Hamburg and Cologne articles, what is sooo special about Dresden??

Anomaly 54 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From the article
 * "Taylor suggests that, although the destruction of Dresden would have affected people's perception of the Allies' claim to absolute moral superiority in any event, part of the outrage involves Goebbels's master stroke of propaganda"
 * "off-the-record press briefing held by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force two days after the raids, British Air Commodore Grierson told journalists that the aim of Operation Thunderclap had been to bomb large population centres and prevent relief supplies from getting through. Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, subsequently filed a story saying that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing."
 * And The now discredited book "The Destruction of Dresden" by David Irving (Pub: William Kimber; London 1963), which was for two decades considered by many to be an accurate historical work (and the many articles based on it), which credited 130,000 deaths to the raids.
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anomaly is quite correct. There was nothing at all exceptional about the Dresden raid. It was a standard RAF-USAAF area bombing attack, one of many on German cities in the last months of the war, made much easier by the inability of the Luftwaffe to prevent them. It was not the raid that killed the largest number of people, either absolutely or as a proportion of the city population. (Operation Gomorrah at Hamburg killed 50,000 people). It was a minor event compared to the fire-bombing of Tokyo (100,000 dead), which doesn't even have its own article at Wikipedia. Nor was it the only raid which destroyed important cultural monuments - cumulatively, the damage in Berlin was much worse.

The reason more people died at Dresden than might otherwise have been the case was not the ferocity of the raid - many equally fierce raids on other cities killed far fewer people - but because before late 1944 this part of Germany had been beyond the reach of Allied bombers, and the Nazi authorities had done almost nothing to prepare proper air defences. The Gauleiter of Saxony, Martin Mutschmann, was corrupt and inefficient, and he is mostly to blame for the high death toll.

Dresden has come to be seen as an "exceptional" raid for three reasons:
 * It took place late in the war, at a time when it can be seen in retrospect that Germany was close to collapse - although this was far from obvious at the time. The book I cited above (Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden 1945, by Paul Addison and Jeremy Crang, Pimlico 2006.) gives a thorough account of the military justification for the continuation of area bombing in this period.
 * Dresden is located in what later became East Germany, and the Dresden raid was used by the East German regime and the Soviet Union (echoed by the international "peace movement" through the 1950s and 60s) as a propaganda weapon against the US and UK. This was a piece of gross hypocrisy, firstly because the raid was carried out partly to assist the Red Army offensive on the Oder, and secondly because the Soviets themselves were at that very time carrying out appalling atrocities against the German civilian population, including expelling up to 10 million Germans from the eastern territories in the middle of winter.
 * David Irving's deliberate falsification of the death toll was generally accepted for many years, until Irving was discredited in the 1990s, and Irving's false figure has been so endlessly repeated by people who want to see Dresden as an "Allied war crime" that it is still widely believed. Adam 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the book Rhetoric and Reality, Tami Bidle gives what I believe to be a good background on the concept of Area bombing and even the whole idea of Independent Air Arms. In the first chapter she also describes the innate psychological reaction people have to the idea of aircraft being used as an offensive weapon; the vulnerability we feel. When discussing the merits or lack there of of Strategic Bombing it isn't just a debate about Law, effectivesness or justification, but it's also an emotionally charged subject. I believe the majority of people who are opposed to Area bombing of cities in WW2 would hold their views even it was on a much smaller scale and the toll on civilian lives wasn't nearly as terrible as it actually was. Dresden isn't any more speical than the majority of the other targets in ww2 it's simply the poster child of pacifists and people against area/strategic bombing in general.

Anomaly 54 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing a case that area bombing was militarily or morally justified. I am arging that within the strategy of area bombing, there was nothing unusual about the Dresden raid. Adam 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you're saying, but much of the controversy over the bombing of Dresden (and therefore it's notoriety) has alot to do with the merits of the concept/practice of area bombing, don't you agree? I also understand that the legal and the moral aspects are two separate things, but they often get muddled, and it's difficult to avoid that. I personally believe that its ridiculous and frankly disgusting for those here who are arguing that this was a war crime to be doing so 60 odd years after the fact, and basically to owe the ability to carry on this debate in part to what the area bombing of Germany helped accomplish. Do you think that this would've been tolerated under the Nazis? Anomaly 54 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While I have found this to be an interesting conversation, this is not a thread in an an internet newsgroup, but a subsection of a talk page designed to improve the contents of an encyclopaedia article. I do not think that the content of this subsection is going to result in a constructive change to the article page, and could end up as a troll, so I think we should drop it. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, and I apologize. Anomaly 54 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the fact that this question arose means the article isn't good enough yet. So maybe it helps to contribute to the article. --32X 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then what was so special about NY, it was just another city with tall buildings, so whats the fuss about 9/11?. As flawed as the pro-bombing opinions. -- unsigned edit by 200.84.201.215 23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the perspective from someone who was born in the early 1980s in the GDR and lives since 5 years in Dresden. I should start with some facts. When it comes to deaths by bombings over Germany, Dresden is among the top 3 with Berlin and Hamburg. While the later two make the two biggest cities of Germany, Dresden is way smaller. In that time Berlin had about 3 to 4 million citizens, Hamburg had about 2 million citizens, and Dresden was with about 650.000 citizens only the 7th biggest city.

The arguments against it being a war crime is clear and simple, The internationally recognized laws of war did not forbid strategic bombing.

That kind of bombings were done since August 1944, industry and infrastructure was partly destroyed before the Feb. 1945 bombings.

The arguments for it being a war crime is ridiculously weak,

That could already disqualify you from a serious, fact based discussion.

''"cultural center", Germany close to collapse, or simply too many people died. It may have been a terrible event yes, war crime no,''

At that time around mid-Feb 1945 already several hundred thousand (if not million) people were fleeing from the Red Army, from the East to central Germany. Several ten or even hundred thousend people were expect to be in Dresden additionally. It's hard to actually give a number since people weren't counted _and_ facts were faked after the war.

From what I know, many people fled into the stadium and the adjacent urban park (2 km² in size) and became targets of the bombers. After the first raid was over and people started to extinguish the fires a second, even bigger raid came over them about 3 hours later which resulted in even more deaths and the real destruction (fire fighters were death or unable to do anything againt the fire) of the city. Even churches were bomb targets. strategic bombing you said?

I think I've seen/heard/read that the bombings over Dresden were very efficient (what a despising term). Bamberg f.e. had nearly no damage due to bad weather and a lot of luck (people brought some markes for the bombers out of the town). Since I don't want to give wrong facts, I just say that too many factors for the damage were too good (or too bad, in another point of view).

I've read numbers of 20,000 up to 200,000 deaths, I don't know which number is the most acurate but in my opinion even 2,000 are too much. But then again it was war - started by Germany.

hence no Nazis were prosecuted for strategic bombing of Londond, Coventry, etc.

Are you sure? In the Nuremberg trials a lot of people were doomed because of crimes against humanity.

what is sooo special about Dresden??

Some suggestions already came in that discussion.
 * There was propaganda by nazis during the war, and later by neo-nazis (living in the West) and communists.
 * It was only a few months before the war ended.
 * many refugees found their death
 * As said, Dresden was at 7th place when it comes to citizens. Not too big but big enough to remain in memory.
 * Lage parts of the city were destroyed, among them many historical or cultural places. 2/3 of over 200,000 flats were more or less destroyed.
 * Due to wrong numbers (remember the propaganda) it became a symbol of destruction, just like the quite offensive but thought-provoking comment abouve about the 9/11 attacs in New York. Less than 4000 deaths made GWB start two wars. But that's not the topic here ...

And finally: Maybe it's just that people care about the topic and discuss it to keep the propaganda out of the article. NPOV, you remember?

Just a request: Don't balance out one war crime against another - it doesn't work and it only gibes the victims. (By the way, I've used this coloured box to make it easier to see what my comment is, since it's pretty large. I hope it worked.) --32X 02:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Impact of the attack
The first paragraph of the section Impact of the attack "Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden,..." is not sourced.

This was raised by me at the end of last year, see: Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 10.

As no one has come forward with a source for the numbers, I think it a good idea to replace them with Taylor's (As I have that as a source), unless someone has an alternative. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I made the changes yesterday. Numbers now based on Frederick Taylor Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 pages 408, 409, and USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February 1945 Bombings of Dresden Paragraphs 25 and 26
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of focus
If you like the two pov's to counter the other, throw it in the negation column. Simply because you "don't like it" is no reason for a revert, this section lacked focus and I think I provided it with that.--155.247.166.28 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph was balanced POV before you started messing with it. As to your comment "this section lacked focus and I think I provided it with that." lets see if others agree, that three different editors have reverted what you are doing suggests otherwise. I suggest that if you want to make changes make small ones and wait to see the reaction, if no one objects then make more. No article on such a controversial topic is ever good enough not to need change, but large changes are likely to be resisted. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 155.247.166.28 you are adding treaty obligations into the article which are already delt with in the link included in the article see:
 * For details on the treaty obligations of the Allies see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945
 * We used to have almost all that section in the Bombing of Dresden article, but it took up too much space as the Bombing of Dresden article is already much bigger than it ought to be, so it was moved out into another article which needed such a section --Philip Baird Shearer 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, there is no reason for a section entitled "case for" to include lengthy rebuttals that are largely off topic. I would have a field day with the "case against" section if that were the case. As for the changes, read what has actually been altered...this has been more or less a reshuffling, putting supportive views within the supportive column and eliminating irrelevant details. Furthermore, you are the only one who has reverted the current version, I have been building off of this for the past few hours and I cannot use sandbox because this computer has a tendency to freeze. I'm not sure what your objection is to the inclusion of the Hague. Should I alter the pulled quotes? Excuse me for signing on annonymously. --155.247.166.28 01:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Three-revert rule states: ''that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. '' --Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW why do you use the Hague Naval and not Hague Land? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say it more closely resembles the aspect of potential surprise bombardment and there also is a greater potential to strike unintended targets due to port industries. Other than that, no real preference. Are you happy with the changes? I think I liked the introductory segment better too. It introduces the topic much better.

No I am not happy with the change and here are some of the reasons why: There is more, but these are some of the reasons I am reverting your changes. Lets talk them through here first, before changes are made to the page.
 * 1) Weasel words and not a citation in site:
 * Some have argued that the bombing of Dresden was a "war crime" through an evaluation of the literal meaning of this appelation. No document exists governing aerial bombardment strategies from the era, but the absence of a direct military presence in the centre of the Dresden and the devastation known to be caused by firebombing are regarded by supporters of the war crime position as establishing their case that this was a war crime on a prima facie basis. They contend that these points are sufficient in themselves, without considering the absence of military necessity, the civilian death toll, and Dresden's cultural significance.
 * Others have introduced scales of morality to further their arguments, suggesting that a mass direct assault on civilians, which is argued to be the case in Dresden, simply constitutes a crime against humanity.
 * 1) Not one citation to back up the argument.
 * Still, no indictment regarding the bombing can be made, at least in legal terms, without proof of a deviation from the protocols governing wartime conduct. This is a problem for those who argue that the bombing of Dresden was a violation of terms which predate World War II. The Hague Conventions undoubtedly show the bombing of Dresden to be a crime - if the same events had transpired following an instance of naval or land-based bombardment. However, the Hague Conventions were adopted before the rise of air power and whether their prohibitions applied to air attacks had not yet been clarified in any ratified convention. The Conventions only went so far as to outline the terms of balloon-aided aerial assault and it did not take into account elements of technology which would make waiting and warning periods, as part of wartime conduct, obsolete. Nevertheless, the guidelines set at the Hague Convention were twice used to condemn Germany's practice of unrestricted submarine warfare, even though no Article specifically addressed submarine conduct. Likewise, just as airplanes were not taken into account, the same argument could be made that based on preexisting conditions for naval barbardment and siege warfare, the same would be expected amidst the possibility of aerial bombardment.
 * 1) Selective POV use of a quote second half missing:
 * "necessary measures must be taken...to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes." (Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); October 18, 1907. In the Avalon Project at Yale Law School)
 * 1) slective use of Hague when there is already a link to a secton with a much more detailed analysis.
 * "if for military reasons immediate action is necessary, and no delay can be allowed the enemy, it is understood that the prohibition to bombard the undefended town holds good...and that the commander shall take all due measures in order that the town may suffer as little harm as possible."(Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); October 18, 1907. In the Avalon Project at Yale Law School)

BTW 155.247.166.28 your admission in the history "(restored parts of introduction section, other minor changes)" is a violation of 3R rule but I will not enforce it or ask a neutral third party to enforce it. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) weasel words are where? this is exactly what the article is already composited of, except for the introduction, which briefly summarize the kinds of arguments for it being a war crime, as evidenced above...in the War Crime? section


 * 2) Not one citation to back up the argument: 


 * 3) PBS wrote slective use of Hague when there is already a link to a secton with a much more detailed analysis. not sure why this is relevant...what is on the Hague in the current version is brief and demonstrates the points already made. If it is part of the argument against, it should be mentioned in the argument against.


 * As for the other changes, really some of them have nothing to do with arguing for or against a war crime.


 * Germany is peaceful today....as if that was relevant
 * Professor SADFAS thinks that Book Y is not good. that is an opinion, irrelevance abound.
 * Other small word choicings that reveal POV.


 * -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.28 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 September 2006   (UTC)

1) Examples of weasel words: Some have argued, by supporters of, They contend that these points, Others have introduced scales

2) Putting in links to the primary source for Hague is not what is needed. What is needed as a citation is an analysis that "The Hague Conventions undoubtedly show the bombing of Dresden to be a crime - if the same events had transpired following an instance of naval or land-based bombardment." I do not think the Hague should be interpreted that way. You do. But it does not matter what we think what matters is that you find a citation which backs up the argument that "The Hague Conventions undoubtedly show the bombing of Dresden to be a crime because a cited source in the artcle states:
 * "In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property..". 

3) I agree that the sentence in the article "For details on the treaty obligations of the Allies see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945" and the quote after it could be moved up to another section, as I said above "No article on such a controversial topic is ever good enough not to need change,..." However placing chunks of the Hague conventions into the text without a cited source to back up the legal significance of those chunks is not acceptable under WP:V.

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some have argued, by supporters of, They contend that these points, Others have introduced scales
 * ...these are weasel words in another context but not as they are used in this section. If the statements in the "bombing a crime?" section were placed after each of these "weasel word" textual introductions there would be no problem.


 * The problem here is this is not a classical argument that can be supported by facts but ultimately resorts to point of view, like an abortion or some other sort of political argument like gay marriage is bound to. Simply because these arguments come from government sources or mr. "I editorialize-out-the-wazzoo-but-its-okay-because-I-repeat-yankee-rhetoric" does not change this fact. Though he has lost his credibility, Irving has done research on a much grander scale and has a more extensive bibleography, but continuing...


 * I think we are justified to include a point of view section in this article, but in actuality, both the "pro and the con" are entirely moot points because "pro" uses documents regarding bombing protocols that were outdated and limited to another realm while the "con" uses an argument based on protocol conjured up after the event. And even then, what is essentially the U.S's argument is not based on fact, it is opinion. This is a far too controversial subject to briefly summarize here, so I won't even attempt it.


 * As for citing the argument that the Dresden bombing, by its nature, would have been a violation of the terms of Hague land and sea verbatim I do not think this is WP:V at all. The article clearly states the context that this is being viewed in and the pulled quotes from the Hague Conventions later in the section demonstrate why this is so - the culture site argument and the "little harm as possible" argument.


 * And by the way, where is the citation for this? One single account is used to show an autobiographical account, and all it says is they were to be deported:


 * During February 1945 several hundred remaining Jews still resident in Dresden were destined to be sent to their deaths in concentration camps. The chaos following the bombing provided many a chance to escape, while others were put to work in rebuilding the city, thus the bombing may have saved several hundred potential Holocaust victims.


 * "thus the bombing may have saved several hundred potential Holocaust victims"
 * are we making an evaluation of the value of certain civilians here? this is very politically charged language, not to mention there is a grand assumption behind the entire claim. It is as speculative as, say, "and thus, if the Allies hadn't bombed Dresden....." but this is why the POV section is so controversial, because that is ultimately what either argument comes down to.--155.247.166.28 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words and Double Standarts: Controversy pt. 2
I did not write the article. I have contributed to it, and over time I have become more rigorous with using and requesting citations, (See for example above). I think that this a something that all experienced editor of Wikipedia start to do when they have edited a number of controversial pages, because without that rigour lots of incorrect information is included in pages this causes Wikipedia to lack credibility with the wider reading public. It is trying when someone insists on citations for facts one thinks are obvious, but generally it creates much better articles. For example I have recently been contributing to the Terrorism page section Pejorative use where user:Jayjg has insisted on much more rigorous citations than were originally in the document ([See this diff]) I think the section "Pejorative use" is now much better than the initial version (which I restored after it had been deleted), because Jayjg insisted on these citations and the removal of uncited information.

So if you think that sections like the Holocaust are not well enough sourced you can of course add fact to the sentences which are not sourced and/or query them here on the talk page. But justifing the insertion of unsourced assertions and weasel words just because there are some already in the article is not IMHO the way to go to improve the article --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have split this discussion into another subheading and eliminated the cut and pasting of the entire article in the previous section. I hope you do not mind. We have much in common with our organizational quirks I see. On to your argument.


 * ...justifing the insertion of unsourced assertions and weasel words just because there are some already in the article is not IMHO the way to go to improve the article
 * Again, the opinions in the section above the one I tweaked are cited. The opening statement in the "war crime" section, which could use a fact request, was not an addition of mine and it was in the article before I edited it - which you keep reverting to btw. I do not think it should be deleted, but again, a fact request would be suffice, even though I'm not sure this is a debated point...isn't the prima facie basis essentially how the argument is structured?


 * In any case, you simply have not justified your complete elimination of ALL my work, and the areas you question have been revamped. As for the reordering of statements already in the text, remember the heading of this discussion here is - or was - lack of focus. I find it interesting that after reading as the article stood after my edits, you objected to some things that were in the article before I touched it yet brought to your attention only after I moved them somewhere else in the argument.


 * My primary concern was to A) reorganize the argument so it is presented in a less scattered manor and b) show exactly what could be claimed in reference to the hague.


 * The latter was stated, but not sufficient enough, 'especially in lieu of the argument against section having a point by point analysis of the Allied/U.S. government's claims.' Point by point there is an analysis of the government's argument, based on principles it had a large role in preparing and even then, in the AFTERMATH of World War II - sort of like the Nazis writing a section on humanitarian law to pardon to Holocaust. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but lets not pull a double standard here allowing an argument to be explained while the other is not. I have added a fact request for the fear of a Nazi breakout...may have weighed on the minds of Allied planners.


 * This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, in reference to "b)" (do we need to source seemingly logical deductions?) because I don't really have a problem with this assessment. Then again, I could definitely see how this is an argument through an assumption utilizing the narrative of history unfolding to prove a point, just as you question the unsourced argument that if a "Hague air" existed in the same vein as the "Hague land" or "Hague naval", Dresden would be a war crime. How can you disagree with that? That is far less controversial a position than the Nazi breakout position because it says write in the text of the Conventions what is supposed to occur.


 * In any case, I pretty much started from scratch on some of the areas we talked about and I left your changes, and Guinnogs intact. Also, a source on the Harald Jaehner quote would be nice and I find little reason to believe there was anything "standard procedure" about Allied firebombing protocol except it was...Allied bombing protocol. A comparison to itself is useless, unless someone - a verified source is explicity making this claim. This recent addition was removed. Lastly, your objection to weasel words is peculiar in light of the "some Germans view this as a violation of Holocaust denial rules..." I can't even remember what the original said, but it was ridiculously pov-ed...I changed it to "some", added a Fact request and it still reeks of bias. --155.247.166.28 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Berlin and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities
The article currently contains the following unsourced assertion:
 * On February 3 1945, the Allies bombed Berlin and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities

Yet Antony Bevoor states in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Penguin Books, 2002, ISBN 0-670-88695-5, Page 74 that about 1000, died in a USAAF raid that day and the Bomber Command war diary for Febuary 1945 does not list a raid on Berlin either the night of the 2/3 or the night of the 3/4.

So I think a this example should go unless a source can be provided. A better comparison might be to mention Pforzheim where there was a documented 17,600 to 20,277 people killed. Or to mention the rescue of 23,000 trapped people after the Bombing of Braunschweig in World War II highlights the lack of Dresdens civil defences. --Philip Baird Shearer