Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 13

9.1 Hague IX article 5
last entry in archive 12 (see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 12):
 * There are now over twenty citations in the case for section, which finally gives this issue the attention it deserves.--72.94.89.101 08:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Systematical attack on civilians
last entry in archive 12 (See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 12
 * If you have the sources to defend your claims, why not try to contribute to the article then?--72.94.89.101 18:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal obligations
Colonel Javier Guisández Gómez is not "As a professor writing on behalf of the Red Cross" --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * what is he then?--72.94.75.178 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He describes what he is in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

11:27, 17 Oct 2006 PBS (Glad to see 72.92.119.89 that you have read the Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State article which to date I am the sole editor, but it is OR to link the findings to the Dresden raids) -- There is nothing to link the "Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State" article to this article. Just as they say that their findings are specific to those two Atomic bombings not to all atomic bombings, so their analysis of area bombardment is complicated and without an expert to confirm it, any linking of the two specific A-bomb raids to the Dresden is Original Research, unless you can find a source which makes the link. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

11:47, 17 Oct 2006 PBS (→Legal obligations - Reduce this to a paragraph as the arguments are presented in the link and none of them are specific to Dresden) --  May as well put in only the general point and leave the rest out as they are covered by the link instead of repeating information already in the link. The whole point of moveing the section out of this article into the area bombardment article was because of the size of this article. It seems silly to drag that information back into this article piecemeal when the article is so large already --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Debate over bombings
I think that the current structure of the debate part of of this article: or the alternative I have been working with: is an impediment to the development of the article because the headings force the argument along legalistic not moral lines. I think that these headings frustrate those who wish to highlight that although the strategic bombing campaigns may (or may not) have been lawful, there is a legitimate moral dimension to the debate. I think that we should take a leaf out of the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and use headings closer to theirs: The last two sub-sub headings have been added during the last few months and may or may not be suitable for this article. I would be interested to read what other editors think. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Was the bombing a war crime?
 * 5.1 Legal obligations
 * 5.2 Notable mainstream opinions
 * 5.3 The case for the bombing as a war crime
 * 5.4 The case against the bombing as a war crime
 * Was the bombing a war crime?
 * 5.1 Legal obligations
 * 5.2 The case for the bombing as a war crime
 * 5.3 The case against the bombing as a war crime
 * Debate over bombings
 * Support
 * Opposition
 * Inherently immoral
 * Militarily unnecessary
 * This certainly is an option, but if you take a look at the case for article now, I don't think it drifts too far from the war crime focus...and if not focusing on that, debunking the Allied claims. Yes it is - has - been limiting, but I think it just may work now. Alternatively, at second glance the case against does seem to be broken into several parts already, sans the titles to announce these jumps.--72.92.119.89 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For example: Maier, Charles Targeting the city: Debates and silences about the aerial of World War II(PDF), International Review of the Red Cross Volume 87 Number 859 September 2005, is a good article which covers this debate from the moral/imoral perspective and as a template is a much more constructive stratagy than simply is it or is it not a war crime. The majority opinion is that it was not a war crime, but the moral question is far more evenly balanced and would make it much easier to present a balanced POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The case for the bombing as a war crime
The indented text is taken from "The case for the bombing as a war crime" the version of the text [06:57, 15 October 2006 72.94.75.178] and added to the page during 15 October by the IP address 72.94.75.178 --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Reproduced Soviet wartime poster celebrating a cooperative bombing of Berlin. Historians such as Jörg Friedrich argue that the Allied attitude towards the Dresden bombing was similar to that which is shown in the caricature.]]

1)This is speculation no source linking the two --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 1) this is precisely what Friedrich is contending and if not him, any rational person who defends the war crime position. the example serves its purpose well.--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a result of the trial, the Telegraph announced that the German court had in effect validated the opinion that the bombing of Dresden was indeed a holocaust.

2) 72.94.75.178: This is nonsense as the last sentence in the previous sections says "the Hamburg public prosecutor's office decided that Udo Voigt's description of the 1945 RAF bombing of Dresden as a "holocaust" was a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech because defamation of the Jewish dead was not the primary aim of his argument." That is a long way from "validated the opinion that the bombing of Dresden was indeed a holocaust", because as you will of course be aware an older less often used meaning of holocaust is conflagration which is also another word for firestorm, but unless one is a neo-Nazi the word holocaust is not used as an alternative for firestorm in writing about such events in the 21st century. -Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 2)I took this part out of the article already.--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite this suggested relativity, the governments of the former Allied powers have consistantly defended their actions in Dresden, as well as their terror bombing campaigns as a whole.

3) Terror Bombing is an old Nazi propaganda term and has no place in such a sentence. Further the section reasons for the attack make it plane that the primary object of the attack was to destroy communications, not to sap the moral of the German people. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 3) That is your opinion, Mr. Shearer. What you think about the term "terror bombing", especially when it was referred to in this context by both the Allies and the Axis, is of little relevance. For the sake of NPOV I can understand your concern, but just remember that neutralizing language is also part of minimizing a complete understanding of what any horrific event, whether it is the bombing of Dresden or another city or any other potentially inhumane experience. I am pretty sure you are aware of this or you should be.--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless as to whether or not the rules "standardizing" aerial bombardment were in place at the time, Simon Jenkins argues that a mass assault, directed primarily at civilians, simply constitutes a crime against humanity.

4) This link is not made in the Simon Jenkins reference for the sentence. What he wrote was "Everything I have ever heard or read about Dresden convinces me that it was a crime against humanity". And what was in the section before IP 72.94.75.178's edit on the 15 October was "Others, such as Simon Jenkins, introduce 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." Which is much closer to what he wrote, than the above. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 4) I apologize for this one, it obviously got lost in the mix of massive reordering. However, I did not say that the source had indicated this. Look at the way the sentence is set up. It is a stitching transition that reflects back on the overview of its legality. I have changed this entirely.--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ref: Christopher Hitchens, historian, writing for the National Post

5) This person is no an historian and there are so many factual errors in his article that it is not a Wikipedia Wikipedia reliable source --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 5) Yes, he is a historian, and his point of view is just as valid as your Gomez shining knight figure (and I would argue certainly more). As for the "errors" in his article, are you sure that they are errors and instead of only being in contradiction with your personal opinion? If there are errors, I would appreciate you pointing them out. Please see the note under the division bar on Hitchens and his work.--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article on Christopher Hitchens says he "is an author, journalist and literary critic" it does not mention that he is an historian. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An internal Royal Air Force memorandum give evidence of malicious intentions amidst personal prejudices, anti-German sentiment another crucial, developing situation

6) Which internal memorandum? I would be very surprised that those fighting the Germans in World war to did not have "personal prejudices, [and] anti-German sentiment" What are you (72.94.75.178) are trying to say herem because afaict it has nothing to do with bombing Dresden being a war crime. If one is going to put forward that argument Bomber Harris put it better "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." But as this is not a secton on the morality of war but "The case for the bombing as a war crime" it has no place here--Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 6) you may be right here...another thing I have changed. However, as I continue reading your criticism, I see The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. If that is really the way you feel about it, unconditionally throwing yourself behind the words of man named "Bomber", why not take Goebbels at his word while you're at it?--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Dresden, the seventh largest city...

7) This is from a briefing paper read to some of the airmen before the raid, but 72.94.75.178 what has it to do with war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * point 7) what does this have to do with war crimes, you ask? It is yet another example that demonstrates Dresden is clearly an attack on civilians, above all else.--72.94.75.178 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My reading of it is different and as this briefing is already mentioned briefly in the "reasons for the raid" section, I am removing. BTW you have not provided your source for your edited version of the Group briefing paper:
 * "Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also [by] far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter, with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter... but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most...and to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do."
 * Here is the same Briefing papaer provided by From Longmante in The Bombers page 333:
 * "Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany ... is also far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got ... At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into a industrial city of first-class importance and ... is of major value for controlling the defence of that part of the front now threatened by marshal Koniev's breakthrough. ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most ... to prevent the use of the city in the way of a further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do."
 * As you can see selectivly picking sentences from the briefing paper can be used to present different POVs, so I do not think that the unsourced version (72.94.75.178) added to the text presents a non NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fate of Dresden actually dates back to the aftermath of a British raid on Hamburg that killed approximately 48,000 civilians in July 1943

8) No it did not. One could just as easily argue that the fate of Dresden actually dates back to the aftermath of a German Blitz on Rotterdam in the summer of 1940, or any other arbitrary event.--Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * These results were apparently not good enough, and Winston Churchill urged for British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" that would become known as firebombing.

9) It was the Germans who developed the techniques of firebombing see the article on the Coventry Blitz --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using the Dresden soccer stadium as a reference point, over 2000 ...

10) The allies did not use Dresden soccer stadium as a reference point, The did not "dropped loads of gasoline bombs every 50 square yards out from this marker", It is not true that "For the next eighteen hours, regular bombs were dropped on top of this strange brew", each raid had a mixture of ordinance. One can do that for almost every sentence in the quote, So  "Mickey Z an associated colleague of Howard Zinn" is not a Wikipedia reliable source. But leaving that aside, yes the intention Allied intention was to crate was to create a firestorm if they could, but no evidence is presented that it was a war crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What evidence are you looking for? The Allies decided what constituted warcrimes after the war, based on their own perception of events. What Z's description does is highlight the cruelty of the bombing, which in combination with the rest of the article, is paired with the Allied nonchallant attitude and likely intentions to drive home a point. If the Anglo-Americans had indeed tried to turn as many germans into "human soup" as possible...how is that not a war crime? I don't mean to draw the comparison because I do not forward it, but here are some key words that might bring to mind an event that was a war crime: "kill as many as possible", "targeting innocents", "no regrets, intentional"...Do I have to point you in the direction of Nuremberg once more?--72.94.75.178 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am looking for Citations that use verifiable reliable sources this is not one and should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The early Hague convention of 1907...

12) Again I say to you (72.94.75.178 ) produce a source for this speculation on Hague. (see above for link to archive 12 on this subject) --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

13)I think it is far too difficult to try to edit out all these criticisms so I am going to revert the changes made by 72.94.75.178, and hope that we can reach a compromise on the talk page before such major changes to the text are made --Philip Baird Shearer 20:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have explained again and again what you fail to see as a argument defending the war crime position with endless patience. However, if you can't grasp the logic after my tireless efforts, that is your problem, not mine. I'm sorry Philip, but I am running out of patience here. Your complaints only touch upon why wikipedia does not generally have analytical "opinion sections" dealing with every topic. However, we have opened pandoras box with the idea to introduce points of view, so you and I must live with it, or it goes entirely. Some of your comments, however, I am in agree with.


 * I have made many of the changes I felt were warranted and eliminated some of the less than necessary points that we were disputing. Note the rewording on the Hague section. Also, please tell me what else you would like to call Gomez, or simply change this yourself. You are right about Micky Z, I have tried to cut him out of the article except for the quote that demonstrates precisely why some think the bombing was a crime against humanity. As for the soccer stadium quote, can you disprove this? Hitchens can be found here
 * He is a historian, among other things, but I took out the appellation for the sake of controversy. You will find that I used his opinion only as an opinion in the article anyway, not to source fact but instead to detail what some think. --72.94.75.178 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

13:51, 18 Oct 2006 PBS (→Th cs fr th bmbng as a wr crm -poster wrds ar OR, (2)Not sure that this is true needs a src. (3)Src says ", in fact all boming of civilian targets" Not a "decision to bomb non-military targets")
 * The caption linking the case for the bombing as a war crime and a Soviet poster of bombing Berlin is Original Research
 * Who says that "the governments of the former Allied powers have consistently defended their actions in Dresden, as well as their "strategic bombing" campaigns as a whole." I can not remember the last British or American Governments defended the action of their World War II bomber forces in bombing Dresden. As far as I am aware the last time the British Government minister did so would have been 1945.


 * "However, the decision to bomb non-military targets" What is a military target in a total war? because as you will be aware the German government announced they were fighting a total war long before the Dresden bombings. At no time did the Allies decide to bomb targets which were not in some way contributing to the Axis war effort. If they did then please provide a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

13:52, 18 Oct 2006 PBS (→The case for the bombing as a war crime - Removed unreliable source see talk page) -- See above, the description of the bombings is not accurate and therefore the source is not a reliable one. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

13:54, 18 Oct 2006 PBS (→The case for the bombing as a war crime - removed unsourced (WP:V) and a statement which does not say that anything about "The case for the bombing as a war crime")  See "Regarding the effects on non-partisan victims, Roy Akehurst," --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

13:58, 18 Oct 2006 PBS (→The case for the bombing as a war crime - Does not say it was "targeted" against civilians) -- As far as I am aware neither the RAF or the USAAF ever used their heavy bombers for "targeting civilians" although they did use them against civilian private property which it can be argued is "against civilians". If you have a source that says the heavy bombers were used to target civilians then please produce it along with a source that says it was a war crime to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

16:09, 18 Oct 2006 PBS (→The case for the bombing as a war crime - This sentence and the next one are not raising issues about the Bombing of Dresden and should be removed) -- Please explain why these two sentences are pertinent to whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. "Some historians are of the opinion that many small German residential districts were destroyed for no reason other than as live target practice for new bomber crews.[73] Regarding such claims, it is known that in the event of excessive cloud cover, standard orders were to abandon primary industrial targets and instead unleash the payload onto city centres, regardless of their military importance.[74]" Also the second sentence makes no sense unless it is only referring to the USAAF as the RAF bombed at night and and did target city centres anyway. If Richard G. Davis is referring to the USAAF then it should says so, also the citation must include a page number. For the reasons given in this paragraph I will delete the two sentences unless an explanation is given and the text of the second sentence is fixed. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the Allies knowing about firebombing has to do with with war crimes but reduced the paragraph to the essentials and removed comparative death tollshey are nothing to do with the bombing of Dresden and if it was a war crime. In the next paragraph there is no mention of the RAF targeting civilians in the source. Further there are no arguments presented in the paragraph that anything which was done was a war crime. BTW the telegraph source used also quotes Beevor to balance their article which is not done in this paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Bomber Harris quote, Yes of course he killed people every day, in this he is probably not referring to the enemy but to his own subordinates and it has nothing to do with whether the Bombing of Dresden was a war crime. AFAIK Harris never justified his actions by saying he was only "obeying orders" if you, 72.94.75.178, have a source that says he was a war criminal and that he used this as a defence then please present it otherwise it is unsourced speculation. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Philip's changes to my new text
While I agree with a number of your changes, at times you are knee-high in tautological contradiction as well as other "do as I say, not as I do" twaddle. Lets take a look here:


 * Please leave out the personal comments as they do not help with the building of a consensus on this article. Sorry, Philip. It seemed a devilish trick to yank a request from the end of the sentence and join that sentence with the next one, which already had a source listed. Maybe you didn't mean it, but it seemed a very wikipedian thing to do - not on your behalf and I'm not saying you did it purposely. However, I can definitely see someone pulling this trick and I'm sure its been done before when nobody was watching! wiki criminals--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I did that (and I know I have done it in the past) was because the source covers the requested fact.--Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using is not the best way to reuse an already cited refence. If the first use is moved or deleted it will not be possible to work out what the original source was where the source is given as 'Ibid'. Please read Footnote to see how to use a reference more than once in an article. If a citation is to be used more than once, then name the first one, then when you want to use the source again all you have to do is place at the end of the second sentence that needs the same citation. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Apologies.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

927-30. It that Article 25 of the 1907 Hague Convention on "The Laws and Customs of War on Land", prohibiting “bombardment of towns ... which are not defended”, and Article 26, requiring “the commander of an attack '''aside from the grammar, the other section has better. Again, the misuse of a source in Gomez. His personal conclusions are not, as mentioned before, a final word that should be pushed onto the reader as a general scholarship consensus.'''


 * Not sure what this is referring to because I deleted the paragraph which referred to these articles. Revision as of 11:47, 17 October 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State, it was decided by the District Court of Tokyo that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused "such severe and indiscriminate suffering" that these instances violated the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war. In this decision, the court found that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, governing land and sea combat, also applied to the act of dropping an atomic bomb, despite the fact that the court did not rule on legality of use of nuclear weapons per se. '''Nice try on the [OR] section, but in an outline of a court finding that makes no particular claim towards dresden, it is not.


 * "but in an outline of a court finding that makes no particular claim towards dresden" is why it should not be in a section about "Was the bombing [of Dresden] a war crime?" --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that I am making no particular unsourced as to whether it proves or disproves the case of dresden as a war crime. It is simply something that is related because:
 * the court decided that sheer destruction and inhumanity were important in the its decision
 * but there was no conclusion made regarding nuclear weaponry.
 * The court, like the Greco-German tribunal, also found that the 1907 Hague of sea and land did apply to the rules for the skies.''
 * Thus, within the court of law, related rulings should be taken into effect; our audience is the judge and it is only fair that they have access to all material related to the legal status of aerial bombardment bar none.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need for this to be true as the information is available via a link and the section in the link is considerablely more detailed than it can be here. It was originally moved out of this article because of space considerations because it applies to all World War II bombings, not just Dresden or even just the Allies' campaigns. Further there are other sources which bring a NPOV to the Greco-German tribunal and Shimoda which are in the link article but which do not need to be presented here, all these additional arguments are not specific to Dresden and can be missed out saving space in the Dresden article which was the reason for moving the section out in the first place. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To follow up on your comment in the history "gomez's claim is misrepresented...what about geneva? also, it is important to briefly mention the other two, independent findings. others, see talk" I have picked the wording deliberatly:
 * During World War II there was no posititive international humanitarian law (specific agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument) governing aerial bombardment.'
 * and given two sources. Note that one of them is Shimoda which says "No general treaty respecting aerial bombardment has been concluded". The wording "posititive international humanitarian law" can be found in both sources Gomez "The absence of positive law ...", and "On the strength of this fact, the defendant State argues that the question of violation of positive international law cannot arise, since the use of an atomic bomb was not expressly prohibited by positive international law inasmuch as there was neither a customary rule of international law nor treaty law-prohibiting its use at that time." As you can see the term is not contensions and means what is described in the article.
 * Also at the time of World War II nothing in the Geneva Convention (1929) effected the conduct of Aerial Bombardment apart from the capture of enemy air-crews. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous: Some are of the opinion that many small German residential districts were destroyed for no reason other than to serve as "bomb-fodder" source: Hitchens

Yours: Some historians are of the opinion that many small German residential districts were destroyed for no reason other than as live target practice for new bomber crews.

Not only is it practice... Its also for new crews..

Hitchens choice words: bomb-fodder.

How reliable of a source are you, Mr. Shearer? This sort of thing has happened on multiple occasions.


 * IMHO The use of "bomb-fodder" is not encyclopaedic. Hitchens also says "as practice for bombers" and as for new crews there are 60 references to such raids (see Google [OTU site:http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand]) for "operational training units" (OTU) in RAF No. 91 Group and RAF No. 92 Group (source The Thousand Bomber raids, 30/31 May (Cologne) to 17 August 1942). --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed RAF Group Briefing notes as the heavily edited version has a slanted POV. yes, its called an argument. lol I don't follow this at all. a note from the desk of the bombing parties and you still are grumbling. I don't know what you are getting at here or with your decision to remove the comment of those who took part in the bombing. You ask how it is related. Only by his choice words that it isn't justifiable.--72.92.15.61 02:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the source you are using for the edited version of the RAF Group Briefing? As I have pointed out above such heavy editing makes the use of the briefing as a source to make a point unreliable. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your current source? "See: Frederick Taylor, epilogue" mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about the bombing comparison being a little unfocused, but I find it cute that this indictment:

Some have accused the Allies of incinerating German cities in 1944 and 1945 simply because they could. It certainly does not appear that the Allies were unaware of the horrific effect of firebombing. Over a year and a half prior, Winston Churchill had urged British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" in lieu of a raid on Hamburg that killed between 45,000 and 48,000. Critical to the devestation during the July 1943 bombardment was firestorm effect that Churchill praised as a success. In all fairness, the Germans had utilized these methods during the Blitz in 1940. However, as historian Richard Rhodes states, there were only 20,083 civilian deaths during the entire Battle of Britain compared to the 45,000 Germany suffered during one instance in Hamburg. --72.92.15.61 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

has been replaced with this comparative nonsense:

Some have accused the Allies of incinerating German cities in 1944 and 1945 simply because they could. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.--72.92.15.61 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

this completely takes the meaning out of the paragraph in a section that is precisely an argument to indict the Allies.--72.92.15.61 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it not true that the "the Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz"? If so then why do we need the rest of the information which has nothing to do with whether using such methods were a war crime. I would remove the whole paragraph completly because I do not think it has anything to do with whether the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. However I am trying to meet you (72.92.15.6) half way but for this to work there has to be give and take on both sides. BTW why have you not created a user account as from your editing style you are not a new member of the Wikipedia community? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * also in the paragraph you (72.92.15.61) wrote "However, as historian Richard Rhodes states, there were only 20,083 civilian deaths during the entire Battle of Britain compared to the 45,000 Germany suffered during one instance in Hamburg." so you do not think it "comparative nonsense", but if it is not, why is "the Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz." "comparative nonsense" ? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored your posting back into the text above and indented your comments under my comments. There was no need to create yet another section to reply to my comments to your initial comments. This is not usually how Wikipedia talk pages (or internet news groups) are structured and it makes following a thread difficult. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I still find it extremely confusing and difficult to follow. I suggest that such a volumous and lengthy discussion should be written in colors. As for your comment, it is "comparative nonsense" because the numbers speak for themselves and omitting them - and suggesting the opposite - is deceitful and misleading. As for everything else, it has already been explained at length and I do not feel the need to repeat things like it was "Apfel, not Voigt" and the opinion of the Guardian - or whatever it was - should not read as the opinion of anyone other than the guardian. Another, the NPD is NPD, not NPDG, and so on and so forth. I've said all of this before. --72.94.204.107 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The bias of the article was clear when I first approached it to find sentence after sentence reading: "controversial revisionist says...x" (i.e. Friedrich) or maybe they aren't "controversial" or "revisionist", but the individual making these statements is always identified. There is no problem with this, except the pro-Allied often simply states "it was x" without the acknowledgement that only one individual source is saying "it was x". An obvious effort of manipulation. (i.e. Taylor and the Bulge statement or the Manchester Guardian's opinion of the Holocaust of Bombs appellation or Gomez, the Red Cross spokescrank)...Again and again and again...I see you have now signed in and reverted again, and you have left comments, so I will respond on the fly. 1) what is your argument about Zezima? It is his opinion I am adding, not factual citation. If you noticed, the introductory statement have evolved to make this clear. If you do not like it as it stands now, make it clearer or suggest something yourself. 2) I did not mean to eliminate the link to aerial bombardment and international law. I was certain it was still there. --72.94.204.107 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Use red if you like I don't mind, but please make sure that you indent (as not all people are colour sighted). I do not think that placing you replies in a block at the end of the section helps because if makes it very difficult to follow individual threads. For example you have mixed up "comparative nonsense" and NPD in the same paragraph, while placing them indented (in red if you wish) under my comments above in the threads would make it much easier to follow. So I will not respond to these comments here but in the threads above if I think it helps to build a consensus. However to your point on mentioning the people who are making war crime accusations was recently covered on Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II which was in response to something you wrote, so I presume you have already read it, but I will repeat it here for those who are following this thread and have not done so.

See WP:V and Reliable sources the latter has a section called "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" it "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues."and Citing sources in the section "When you add content" "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion."

The views that conventional area bombing in World WAr II was a war crime (and not just morally questionable) is not one which is widely held in the English speaking nations. For this reason any article on en.wikipedia which states that it was a war crime should contain the name of the person or organisation who are making the accusations because they are "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known." (WP:RD "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence")

Also most of claims the section "The case against the bombing as a war crime" are from one source with some details added from other sources and the main source, which is claiming it was not a war crime, is mentioned by name at the start of the section, most of the other sources are used to fill out details of the claims made by the Military of the United States and as such are not making claims that it was not a war crime. For things like "the fear of a Nazi breakout similar to the Battle of the Bulge may have weighed on the minds of Allied planners" we can add "According to Frederick Taylor" if you like but the text was placed there independently of Taylor as a reference (and I altered the wording to be closer to what Taylor says), I only retrofitted the reference because you asked of one personally I did not think that fact it is controversial enough to need a reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate the fact that when I point out the things I have fixed, you steal them from my version without the slightest consideration for the other work I have done, despite the fact that I have labored over your edits and incorporated most of your additions. I have also considered many of your suggestions. By the way, I found on the aerial bombardment word for word the unneutralized passages about Gomez and company that I fixed on here before we decided to throw them out completely for the sake of space.. What kind of outfit are you trying to run here? By the way, I mean by citing Taylor's introductory chapters exactly what that suggests. --72.94.204.107 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

We are both editing things at the same time at the moment. If you had only made changes to the legal section I would probably have left the words alone, but you made lots of changes in your initial edit. If you are going to use a book as a reference then please see WP:CITE and quote page numbers. As the book in in the references you do not have to mention it by name but can add a link to references. I have not put the page number for one Taylor quote when I mentioned a whole chapter, (to do with the incomptence of Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann, who BTW had a secure bombproof shelter built for himself), but that is different from specific references. BTW you wrote "Frederick Taylor, epilogue" when from what you have written above I think you mean "Frederick Taylor, prologue", which is why I was confused and asked the question! --Philip Baird Shearer 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant prologue. --72.94.204.107 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without addressing question and issues raised on the talk page makes it difficult to reach a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Goodness! Speak for yourself! There are so many mistakes in the version you keep changing to and they have all been addressed. I would lock this article if I was aware of how to do this, because I think you are abusing your power over this article. I am serious now. We have worked cooperatively on this for months, and I agree with many of the changes we have made, but your current objections are not registering as "valid".--72.92.110.194 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If all the mistakes in the version I keep reverting to have all been addressed, I do not understand why you object to me reverting to it. Oh I see there are many mistakes and they have not been addressed. In that case please list them and I will try to fix them if I have not already pointed out to you why I do not think them mistakes.

"I would lock this article if I was aware of how to do this..." Please see Protection policy, "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism". It is because I keep to these policies that I am not abusing my power. Also please note that I have alrady posted a Requests for comment/History and geography to try to expand this discourse to try to build a consensus, but unfortunatly to date few have joined in. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis politicians
Neo-Nazis politicians <--there are no neo-nazi policians in Germany, as there can't be by law. --> in Germany promote the term "the bombing holocaust" for the Allied aerial bombings, especially for the Dresden


 * In the source ("Casualties of total war" in the Guardian) "But acknowledgment that Germans were victims as well as perpetrators is not the goal of the neo-Nazis planning to demonstrate in Dresden against what they provocatively call "the bombing holocaust"." --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * perhaps it is true that: if neo-nazi, then marching...as well as if NPD-supporter, then marching...however, that does not lead to the conclusion that if marching, then neo-nazi, which appears to be the jump made if refering to Neo-Nazi parties. As stated above, there are no Neo-Nazi parties in Germany, they are illegal. The same sort of logical relationship applies to the NPD and Neo-Nazis. Even if the Neo-Nazis were all for the NPD, NN > NPD does not imply NPD > NN.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The far-right politician Udo Voigt, the chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NDPG), said that Allied bombing of Dresden was a "Holocaust of Germans" in a speech to the parliament of Saxony on January 22, 2005 '''According to Mr Apfel, it was a "Holocaust of Germans". read the source you quote.'''
 * You are right. But were is a source for what Voigt said? ... we have to find a source for that --Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He hasn't said that directly, not to my knowledge. In my opinion, it appears the comment got falsely attributed in the numerous edits that this page has gone through. btw there is no NPDG, its simply NPD.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apfel said it in Parliament an so was protected by parliamentary privilege, Voigt repeated the statements outside parliament hence the investigation of his words. "His [Apfel's] outburst was covered by parliamentary privilege but Mr Voigt applauded and repeated the statements elsewhere."


 * Is it "Bombing holocaust" or "holocust of bombs" apart from the English source the Guardian article which uses the term "Bombing holocaust", here are two German sources which use Bombing holocaust:
 * Sueddeutsche Zeitung 09 April 2005 Kein Verfahren gegen NPD-Chef wegen "Bomben-Holocaust" -- No Prosecution against NPD Chief for "Bombing Holocaust"
 * Der Stern, 21 January 2005 Bombenholocaust von Dresden -- "Dresden bombing holocaust" (this English article for the translation of the term


 * What is your source for "holocust of bombs"? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,339833,00.html Der Spiegel, with reporting by Carsten Volkery of Feb. 2005 in Dresden --72.94.204.107 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that source two points: So I think the statment should stay --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The most common expression in English (and it appears German sources is bombing holocust, and I think we should use that expression instead of "holocust of bombs"
 * 2) Like the Guardian source, it also claims that politicians in the (German acronym NPD) are neo-Nazis


 * I have stated the logical breakdown as to why they cannot be considered Nazis. They could call them dunderheaded bag ladies or sterling germanic defenders and I would not blink either way. Logic wins. I have included your "bombing holocaust" point as well as mine. --72.92.110.194 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The two given souces (the second of which you supplied) state:
 * The neo-Nazis of the National Democratic party are an odious bunch. English guardian
 * What parliament got instead was one of the most embarrassing outbursts yet from a right-wing, neo-Nazi party whose leader calls for the creation of a new German "Reich."German Spiegel

So the sentence is cited and there is nothing original or supprising in stating that the NPD as Neo-Nazi. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is it that you do not understand? It does not matter who calls them neo-nazi, they cannot be neo-nazi by law, or Apfel, Voigt, Mahler - the whole bunch - they would all be arrested. Perhaps you do not understand how things run in Germany, but its really as simple as that. There is no "if it quacks like a duck..." argument here, and for you to continue arguing about something you know nothing about ( NPDG -->NPD) is both a waste of your time and mine. On a side not, I am really surprised how easily you are cooed into accepting the press at its word...I am getting tired of repeating myself, but again, I am not interested in the opinions of the the press, merely their report of events. They could be calling the CDU, SPD or NPD a party of wankers for all I care. --72.92.110.194 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Cleaver quote
I like the absurdly long sentence that avoids the problem of citing the assumption that Holocaust of Bombs is a misuse of the holocaust appellation. Clever, but where's the source?

m...But its primary meaning is now so closely linked to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews that such etymology appears to be in bad taste." It seems you are passing off Cleaver's view as the assumption we all are supposed to make. Unacceptable and, in lieu of ''your source, yet another contradiction in your frustrations over invalid sources. It is unacceptable to pawn off this view in such a manor.


 * The source was German ruling says Dresden was a holocaust by Hannah Cleaver in the Daily Telegraph 12 April 2005 which was at the end of the quote. I find it interesting that an IP address can know that I have "frustrations over invalid sources". Please leave out the personal comments as they do not help with the building of a consensus on this article.


 * I think that you missed the point twice here, and the one time it was my fault. I see the source for the quote about Cleaver's view on the "misuse of the phrase bombing holocaust." However, at no point in time did it say in the bombing of dresden article that this was Hannah Cleaver's opinion. Instead, it read as if this was a wikipedia conclusion we should be making.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We seemed to have reached a compromise on this one:
 * Hannah Cleaver, writing in the Daily Telegraph. makes the point that "Strictly speaking, the word 'holocaust,' which comes from the ancient Greek for 'burnt', might seem apt for Dresden, much of it immolated by the fires started by the RAF's incendiary bombs. But its primary meaning is now so closely linked to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews that such etymology appears to be in bad taste."

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

violation of the Holocaust denial laws

 * I like the absurdly long sentence... This is in regards to the statement I did not copy verbatim and was obviously unclear about. Apologies. It is not in reference to the Cleaver impression of the phrase "bombing holocaust" but to the assertion that "some germans consider this to be a violation of the Holocaust denial laws. This is not what the article says exactly, and to suggest that the German people see this appellation in the same light as Cleaver is not only unsourced, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate either. Off the cuff, I don't think Cleaver has many friends in Saxony.--72.92.116.74 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly they did (and probably still do) othewise there would have been no investigation into the statments. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your version (72.92.116.74http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_hr.png Horizontal line (use sparingly)--72.92.110.194 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)) is:
 * Others have suggested that the appellation holocaust of bombs should be considered a violation of German law which forbids Holocaust denial.[citation needed] In an evaluation of these charges in April 2005, the Hamburg public prosecutor's office decided that Udo Voigt's description

and it needs a citation because it changes the tense of the original. The original with ephasis added show that the view was held before the ruling:
 * ''Some Germans considered the term a violation of German law which forbids Holocaust denial, but in April 2005 the Hamburg public prosecutor's office decided that Udo Voigt's description of the 1945 RAF bombing of Dresden as a "holocaust" was a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech since defamation of was not the prime aim of the argument.

but is no longer held. This version does not need a citation because there would have been no investigation unless some had considered it a a violation. Add the had infront of considered if you wish to emphasise the meaning. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My citation has shown that a proportion of the population either takes no issue over or supports the bombing holocaust phrase. If your claim is that the Germans feel this should be a violation of Holocaust denial laws you need to do the same.--72.92.110.194 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No I do not, because I am not claiming how many just that some did. If none had then there would not have been an investigation. This is not an article or a section on the NPD but Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime and the article is already far too large, so additional details of the type you are suggesting should not be in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * at this moment, off the top of my head, I cannot name a single German who feels the way you identify. Lets not pull a double standard and cite that the article is too long. Nonsense, this is completely pertinent, and you need to list a source, not only for the simple fact that I question this claim but because the you are using the very weasel word - some - that you have so heartily objected to.--72.92.110.194 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not whether you can name a single German -- I would not expect you to be able too -- It is the logic of the sentence which is important, namely that unless some Germans had thought Voigt statements were a possible violation of the law the Hamburg prosecutors office would not have looked into the matter and made the statment they did. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your logic, but with some..., the suggestion is that this extends to the general public, not rival politicians with much to lose if the NPD continues to grow or certain interest groups, the press or the BRD establishment. For example, if I said that some Germans do not take offense to the Bombing Holocaust phrase, the first thing that is going to cross your mind - I'm sure - is the neo-nazi contingent and the sheer impossiblity that everyone takes offense to the phrase. However, I have provided a source in a recent newspaper survey that indicates a fair percentage of the population - regardless of their politics - does not take offense. As for "thinking it should be a violation of Holocaust denial legislation", I see no reason why you shouldn't be held to the same standard. I suggest that if you wish to make this claim, you find the source to support it. I am of the opinion that this should not be difficult to find.--72.92.110.194 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Zezima

 * I have made many of the changes I felt were warranted and eliminated some of the less than necessary points that we were disputing. Note the rewording on the Hague section. Also, please tell me what else you would like to call Gomez, or simply change this yourself. You are right about Micky Z, I have tried to cut him out of the article except for the quote that demonstrates precisely why some think the bombing was a crime against humanity. As for the soccer stadium quote, can you disprove this? Hitchens can be found here
 * He is a historian, among other things, but I took out the appellation for the sake of controversy. You will find that I used his opinion only as an opinion in the article anyway, not to source fact but instead to detail what some think.--72.94.75.178 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The initial pathfinders of No. 5 Group RAF used the stadium as a location point (presumably because it would show up clearly on their H2S radar systems). No. 5 group then sector bombed (different headings and timings for each aircraft). The assigned starting aiming point for the second wave (No. 3 and 6 Groups RAF) was the Altmarket but as that was already on fire the master bomb-aimer moved the target indicators southwest to Loebtau and Friedrich and then to Suedvorstadt (with the Hauptbahnhof), then Johnannsadt. AFAICT the RAF dropped close to 342,000 4 pound stick incendiaries (including about 30,000 of the nasty ones with anti-handleing exposive in them) but no petroleum bombs. Ignoring those USAAF bombers who bombed Prague by mistake, the USAAF attacking the next day at around noon, they and aimed at the Friedrichstadt marshalling yards (from a height of 28,000 feet), and, because of cloud smoke etc, some waves bombed using H2X radar (so no use of the Norton bomb sight for those bombers). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Zezima is not reliable source, Not only is he not a profesional historian specalising in WWII, but as I have shown, his text which you have included as a quote is not even accurate. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 'As for Zezima, I previously explained to you what you can do this this quote and the fact that he condenses time in his reporting of the raids and fails to say who did what specifically, I feel, is not important. You claimed that they did not make use of the stadium, but Taylor says that they did...of course, in another context. Like I said, it seems Zezima condenses this in a way that might not be entirely clear, but all I see from your argument is a focus on the small points in an effort to remove a damning description of the bombings brutality. Perhaps the description he leaves us with would help you better understand why this is such a sour issue outside of the, I imagine, the UK or US. I don't think the latter cares very much one way or another. --72.94.204.107 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that this page has been refactored, you can clearly see that I am not saying that none of the waves of bombers used the stadium, but that most did not, etc. This is an encyclopaedia we should not be including quotes from sources which do not fulfil WP:V. Because he is not an historian he is not citing his sources, and because some of what he says is wrong clearly wrong, we (nor most of the people reading the page) are not in a position to be able to tell which other parts are true and which parts are false. For this reason he should not be used as a source. This is very different from the Friedrich statements because he is an acknowledged historian who holds a minority (revisionist) point of view, but one that has been acknowledged as a point of view by professional historians, which range partial from agreement with him, through to the usual repudiation that happens in academic disputes. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You did not mention the soccer stadium, but some historians do. I remember the description in one of the books (was it Taylor?). I feel if we argue that it was a "crime" along the lines of "indiscriminate human suffering", we must demonstrate precisely why, other than the simple Genocidewatch quote. Your account is so concerned with technics and time scales that it sounds like we're in a science lab or examining a terrorist mail-order. That is precise, but it does little as far as document the experience. I have come across some first-hand accounts but Zezima does what we need this particle point to do, tie the impact of the bombing back to its logistics, thereby commenting on both (perhaps simplified as Zezima's) simultaneously.--72.92.110.194 04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is not just simplified, there are parts of it which wrong. This is not a source which can be trusted. If it can not be trusted, then it is impossible to know which parts are true and which parts are not. For example "over 2000 British Lancasters and American Flying Fortresses dropped loads of gasoline bombs every 50 square yards out from this marker" is false history. What is the source for this statement "Seventy percent of the Dresden dead either suffocated or died from poison gases that turned their bodies green and red." what is the source for this "The intense heat melted some bodies into the pavement like bubblegum, or shrunk them into three-foot long charred carcasses. Clean-up crews wore rubber boots to wade through the "human soup" found in nearby caves." what is the source for this "other cases, the superheated air propelled victims skyward only to come down in tiny pieces as far as fifteen miles outside Dresden."? Further if I look through the article
 * "England's Bomber Command" It was not England's Bomber command.
 * "635,000 dead German civilians." Source for this number? No range given!
 * "Day or night, the great number of shells falling where they were not aimed easily debunked the myth of precision" They were not shells.
 * "As a result, the city's population swelled from its usual 600,000 to at least one million." what is his source for this number?
 * "An internal Royal Air Force memo described the anti-communist plans as such" How does he know that it was an anti-communist it is open to several interpretations and to most aircrews at the time Uncle Joe was a friend (remember just a few months later most of them would vote for a labour government)
 * "Beside the stream of refugees, Dresden was also known for its china and its Baroque and Rococo architecture. Its galleries housed works by Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens, and Botticelli." This could have come from Gobbles himself. There is no NPOV that the city was also a manufacturing centre for arms and materiel, a railway hub, and a regional command centre.
 * "The Allied firebombing did more than shock and awe. The bombing campaign murdered more than 100,000 people-mostly civilians-but the exact number may never be known due to the high number of refugees in the area." Claims of over 100,000 dead put this reference into the David Irving and Gobbles camp. Enough said. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To begin, history never is an objective affair, even if you want to lie to yourself about the existence of ultimate "truth". I have to laugh at admission that one of the reasons you object to Z's article is there is no NPOV. If you seriously think the world of scholarship operates along the lines that Wikipedia tries to maintain (NPOV)...I think you would be surprised to find Irving is not the only one guilty of abusing our trust and his position as an authority on matters related to the war. In any case - and getting to the point - I have removed Z's commentary, only because I feel that you have provided an adequate explanation of your objections and yes, I also have a problem with some of the other claims he makes in his article. However, I was willing to look past this because his description of the "first-hand account" at Dresden, with all its descriptive language, is actually akin to what survivors have reported. As mentioned earlier, he is able to bring everything back into the larger context, which is why I favored his account of the inhumanity over that of the victims themselves.--72.92.110.194 05:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Long thread
I would have left these considerations in the thread, but I cannot find their source and it is extremely long already. If you would like to relocate my comments here to where you feel fits best, by all means... --72.94.204.107 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done--Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have refactored it, added some sections so we can start to drill down on our differences. If you do not like the refactoring of the page then you can revert it and I'll try again. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * looks fine--72.92.110.194 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal considerations

 * OK 72.94.204.107, we seemed to have reached partial agreement on this. Junk the arguments as they are expressed in far more detail in article and sectiom Aerial area bombardment and international law. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This leaves us with two versions Yours:
 * ''The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. The only considerations made in regards to aerial assault involve the dropping of projectiles from balloons and even here only a mutual and temporary ban was recognized by those in attendance.
 * ''For details on the treaty obligations of the belligerents of World War II engaged in aerial bombardment see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945.

and mine:
 * The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. During World War II there was no posititive international humanitarian law (specific agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument) governing aerial bombardment.[67][68] For details on the treaty obligations of the belligerents of World War II engaged in aerial bombardment see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945.

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Incase you think that claiming that "positive international humanitarian law" is a "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known", I have provided two sources, one of which is Shimoda, which should cover that issue. So please explain what is unnacceptable about this sentence to you. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because similarly, particularly in regards to Nuremberg, the Allies decided that certain policies were arbitrarily in effect. At Nuremberg, the Allies simply created the charges as they pleased. Regardless as to whether this was justified, the status of present law did not seem to matter. In the West we have this notion of the finality of the court, so stating that "no law" (by means of technicality) "was in effect" gives the point more merit then the victors gave technicalities that should have served as counterarguements (i.e. not signing the Geneva agreement).--72.92.110.194 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about the status of current law, we are talking about the status of positive international law governing the conduct of aerial bombardment during World War II and specifically in 1945 over Dresden. I am not sure of the point you are making about not signing the Geneva agreement, what agreement are you talking? As I have already pointed out the only Geneva convention which would have impacted on aerial warfare was the Geneva Convention (1929) [BTW see who created that article and is the main contributer to date :-)] which governed the treatment of downed aircrews as POWs. I don't see what the Allies did or did not do at Nuremberg is an argument against stating that in 1945 there was no positive international law governing the conduct of aerial bombardment. Two verifiable reliable sources have been given to support the sentence. It is not a technicality it is a fact which a Japanese court that found against the United States conduct of aerial bombardment mentioned as a relevant piece of information. Just before the section we have a section with a number of none experts mentioning that they think that the Bombing of Dresden was a war crime. I think that mentioning that positive international law governing the conduct of aerial bombardment during World War II, is a relevant fact that people who read this page are entitled to read.--Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">That is precisely what I am talking about (laws governing World War II conduct) and I have not even mentioned current law. I mentioned Nuremberg because it was an interpretation of "World War II law" and demonstrated arbitrary designation over what was "legal" and not. AS for Geneva, I was referring to the decision that even if Geneva was a legal code signed only by certain parties, it was decided, without legal basis, that those who waged war in a conflict that involved these parties was also subject to Geneva's guidelines, even if they did not explicitly take part in the agreement. The allies are, from a certain point of view, notorious for this same sort of "interpretting" at nuremberg. I need not list a specific example, this was the underlying functionality of the court. --72.92.110.194 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we live in a word where the Allies won the war, so yes the basis of much of the development of international law after World War II is based upon the United Nations and its subsidiaries, and the United Nations were the Allies of World War II. However that has nothing to do with that fact that before and during world war II there was no Positive International Humanitarian Law about aerial bombardment. As I said before I have given two sources one of them is Shimoda. BTW at Nuremberg when Doenitz was on trial for unrestricted submarine warfare it was for the breaches in positive international law that he was found guilty. So that Goering was not tried of strategic aerial bombardment while waging a war of aggression, it was probably because there was no positive international law on aerial bombardment. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Yes, but you are selling short the reader of all the background information that leads to this conclusion; it is too affirmative and conclusive given all the controversy that surrounds the subject, and there are too many implications in this "blanket statement". That is why I supported the idea to link directly to the appropriate page that would discuss these matters, rather than just extract what (you or I) deem "most important". This appears to be what you think is important, and I have already conceded my chosen details. --72.92.110.194 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is give a brief summary of what the section in Aera Bombardment says, in a way that gives a brief (two sentence) NPOV. "Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II. The absence of positive international humanitarian law does not mean that the laws of war did not cover aerial warfare, but there was no general agreement of how to interpret those laws." seems to me relativly balanced. What is it that you object to? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW 72.92.110.194 before you revert a page please look carfully at the sections which are not in dispute. I see no reason for you to remove the slight picture re-arrangement introduced by a third party, my link to Anthony Trollope and the error in the References section where the bullet point to Bergander, Götz is broken --Philip Baird Shearer

After all is it not more pertinent than "The only considerations made in regards to aerial assault involve the dropping of projectiles from balloons and even here only a mutual and temporary ban was recognized by those in attendance." and if we are going to go minimalist one could reduce the whole paragraph to "For details on the obligations of the belligerents of World War II engaged in aerial bombardment see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945." but I think that a brief NPOV summary of the link section is better --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

72.92.110.194 changed the article to read:
 * The only immediate considerations made in regard to aerial assault involved the dropping of projectiles from balloons. In the years to follow, there were several attempts to orchestrate a reconvening. Although the physcial content of the Hague Conventions was not altered until after World War II, there had been various legal interpretations regarding the meaning, extension and binding of the original conference.

I don't think the balloon part is reverent because it was only it was only temporary. The current words do not mention that and so I think are misleading. "there were several attempts to orchestrate a reconvening" Conferences were reconvened (see The Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare 1923). The physical content of the Hague Conventions" is not an accurate statement because the physical content of Conventions are not changed, it would usually be a new treaty which in part altered the meaning of the old one. Also in this case the Draft Amsterdam Convention of 1938 it was not a Draft Hague Convention. "the Hague Conventions was not altered until after World War II". Although there was a new Hague Convention in 1954, the Hague Conventions on aerial warfare were not added after World War II. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">I am aware of all of these details, but a reconvening is useless if nothing is accomplished. Perhaps I was not clear enough. "....physical content..." is precisely what needs to be conveyed. Certainly, they are not working with the same piece of paper, but I am trying to demonstrate that, while its close relative of 1954 was not issued until...1954, several rulings existed in between, but did not affect the actual print from the original conference. --72.92.110.194 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As new considerations arose, attempts were made to orchestrate an amending of the Articles. The Articles were not updated until they were reissued after World War II. However, in the period in between, there had been various legal interpretations regarding the meaning, extension and binding of the original conference.

What does "amending of the Articles" mean? What are the Articles? what does "extension and binding of the original conference" mean? Please explain to me what is wrong with my wording:
 * Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II. The absence of positive international humanitarian law does not mean that the laws of war did not cover aerial warfare, but there was no general agreement of how to interpret those laws.

so that I can try to improve it as you do not think it suitable. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">I'm not sure why you object to what I have, or what your confusion regarding the use of "Articles" is all about. --72.92.110.194 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo

 * was a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech since defamation of was not the prime aim of the argument

Shouldn't there be something after "defamation of"? Andjam 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the article tends to deterriorate the more some people run around deleting things they fail to understand with their single-track minds.--72.94.204.107 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some video
I was reading some article a while ago saying that there was some video that uses footage of people from Dresden just after the bombing and use them for some kind of propoganda (maybe for liberation of a concentration camp). Does anyone know about this? Because I think it should be mentioned in the article. Kingjeff 05:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
I noticed that the page is listed on RfC and decided to comment as a neutral party. It appears that the destruction of Dresden was a typical war crime, and quite disgusting at that. It should be put on the same footing as the destruction of Coventry, Tsarskoe Selo, Novgorod, etc. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

David Irving
A link in Further reading to David Irving's web site is unacceptable because it violates Wikipedia's WP:V policy. See Evans expert testimony in "Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt" :
 * Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.(Holocaust Denial On Trial: General Conclusion paragraph 21)

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) <font color="#800000">Did they say pictures? Nope. Case closed. --72.94.204.107 04:39, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

The case is not closed. Why do you want to include a link to site put out by such a person? in this case the link is to an advert for his book on Dresden which is unacceptable. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Well I do wish THIS site had more pictures... --72.94.204.107 11:50, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of pictures reproduced on this page. Most of them have been deleted for copyright reasons. This is a problem across Wikipedia. Pictures tend to copyrighted to someone and the GNU Free Documentation License clashes with personal copyright. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unclear reference
In the article text:
 * He argues that by January 1945, the Germans had clearly lost the war, yet between January and March, it is known that the number of sorties over Germany had actually increased, suggesting an intention to target civilians

A PDF version of the cited source for this sentence is "Richard G. Davis, Bombing of the European Powers: a historical digest of the combined bomber offensive, 1939-1945 (Alabama: Air University Press,2006), 324-339." But AFSICT the source does not cover any of these claims on the given pages of 324-339. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">It is a combination of two references, Friedrich and Davis. It was originally two sentences, but after the 13252352352363246347 edits and 2463246372375345 reversions, I am not surprised at all that original concepts get distorted, citations misplaced, etc. Needless to say, if you even bothered to look (no) my version does not have this problem.
 * <font color="#800000">>:O you are seriously testing my patience now. --72.94.204.107 04:39, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked your version of the text and you use two reference, but AFAICT the www.au.af.mil is being used for "number of sorties over Germany had actually increased", but I can not find that in the 25 pages which are given as a reference. That is not to say it is not there just 25 pages is a lot to read when most of it seems to be about bombing places other than Germany. Also the pages in the PDF file do not correspond to the book pages, which can lead to confusion. I would have thought that that factoid could be found in one page if it exists in that reference. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">I will check that as soon as I can. I shouldn't even be on here right now, realistically. Much to do. --72.94.204.107 11:49, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop
<font color="#800000">Okay, this has to stop. For no appropriate reason, you revert to your archaic version and then make a million changes (some that I agree with) that also affect my version, which is constantly updated to include your new findings. I would love to incorporate the references, etc. that you have unearthed, but if you seriously think that I am going to go back and painstakingly sort through your last version, reincorporate everything that is pertinent over and over again to compensate for your lack of consideration, you are sadly mistaken. I have tried in earnest to work with you, but Philip, contrary to your behavior, you do not own the article, and I will not tolerate you erasing all my contributions dating back to the summer, precisely what you intend to do. --72.94.204.107 04:39, 02 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This cuts both ways, I do not see what I am doing as a lack of consideration for your POV any more than I consider what you are doing as lacking consideration to my POV. I am assuming that the edits you are making are in good faith, and I am sorry if you do not think I am also trying to edit in good faith. I am incorporating such changes that you make, that I consider valid into the version that I am editing. I think the big changes that you try to make to the page makes it difficult for us to reach a consensus. I suggest that you stick with my current version (as it is closer to the original text and incorporates your changes to date that I agree with) and that we go through the changes you want to make one by one, over a number of days, until we reach consensus on each one. After all there is no hurry over this, it is largely a difference of nuance. As the RFC request does not seem to have resulted in any constructive criticisms, I suggest that if we work through each of the differences in turn, without making edits to the rest of the article if we can not reach agreement to two different versions of a sentence or two then we can ask a third party to contribute to that specific point. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#800000">Beautiful. We'll just look over edit by edit that I have already explained at great length and run them by you once again to see if they fit into your opinion of events. I consider what you are doing as lacking consideration to my POV. Considering these are edits that I made, considering the fact that I am deleting very little material that you have contributed (I have incorated most, except for obvious POV issues which are fixed) and considering the fact that this is largely a section that you have done squat with, I hardly think this is a fair compromise. Why don't you try to work off of my version for once? I think it is a gross overstatement that you have incorporated my work into your version. --72.94.204.107 12:04, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dehousing"
the RAF had decided long before, from analysis of the damage to British cities during the Blitz that dehousing people was a more effective way of damaging war production than killing people or attempting to destroy the factories.
 * <font color="#800000">Tell that to the lady who watched her child get sucked up into a tornado of fire, or the people who melted into the pavement. While I'm sure that you have a source, that just sounds ridiculous! Its the means to an end, no matter how you sugar-coat it.


 * <font color="#800000">I can't wait until I begin to read sentences on the Holocaust page, like "The Holocaust was the attempt by the Nazis to create an ethnically homogenous, like-minded community that would identify with the same state." Again, this totally ignores the means to an end, which was the callous murder of several million minorities and others that stood in the way. I'll take a "stab in the dark" and assume that nobody in your family died or was closely associated in any way with Dresden. LOL. --72.94.204.107 11:47, 02 November 2006 (UTC)


 * War is a nasty brutish business with a logic all of its own. You have rejected my suggestion that we alter the text to look at the moral issues. Instead the article is constructed on a narrow legal issue of was it a war crime. Killing the refugees was never the intention of the western Allies, because live refugees from the fronts (and those made so by reducing their homes to rubble) used up more enemy resource than dead ones. It is a complete reversal the the humanitarian argument: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.", but it does have a brutal logic, which was the British thought within the laws of war. It is the same logic that says treat you prisoners of war well, not just because the Geneva Conventions bind the state to do so, or because it is the humanitarian thing to do, but because a POW is no longer an enemy combatant and encouraging them to surrender, rather than forcing them to fight to the death, is a better strategy because it allows the enemy to be defeated faster with fewer friendly casualties. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW in the words of Max Hastings "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. Bombing represented a sincere, albeit mistaken, attempt to bring about Germany's military defeat." --Philip Baird Shearer 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">And I completely disagree. The above is simply dripping with Wilsonian nonsense about teaching other countries not to dabble in war. If you buy that baloney, that's fine, this is an issue of who you think is telling the truth, and my inclination is their arguments suit their interests. I don't want to turn this into an off-topic discussion. However, Max Hastings' argument as to why Dresden was a war crime (like yours), is not going to be very strong. --72.94.204.107 2:10, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

War is a nasty brutish business with a logic all of its own
 * <font color="#800000">War does one of two things: either it is no excuse and it does not pardon anyone from anything (gentleman's war), or alternatively, it pardons everyone of everything. --72.94.204.107 2:12, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead the article is constructed on a narrow legal issue of was it a war crime
 * <font color="#800000">It does this only briefly, but not in the case for or case against sections. Both examine the term very liberally, and I have no problem with this. --72.94.204.107 2:14, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection
<font color="#800000">Some companies have policies of making returns, claims or reissues so difficult that people simply give up because it is not worth it. And yes, this is their ultimate, unstated goal in dealing with such matters. I think it is a shame that this is how I am ultimately being treated on Wikipedia, with the irony being that none of you can lay claim to the ownership of this project.

<font color="#800000">This is hardly an issue of "mine over yours". Yours is essentially mine without anything I have labored over so that people can get the full story, not some weak, biased "war crime" argument constructed - ADMITTEDLY no less - by someone who has no desire to demonstrate that Dresden was a war crime. How absurd that someone who has no desire to demonstrate that Dresden was a war crime is entitled to craft the article and block the constructive edits of others. --72.94.204.107 3:44, 03 November 2006 (UTC)

The case for the bombing as a war crime: First paragraph
First paragraph, version by 72.94.204.107
 * The governments of the former Allied powers have consistently defended their actions in Dresden. However, the bombing of civilian targets ( [1] Terrorism and the Protection of Cultural Heritage'', August 2005, Copenhagen. IFLA Conference http://www.museumbeveiliging.com/terrorism.pdf ) and an awareness of the devastation known to be caused by firebombing are held by some supporters of the war crime position to have established their case on a prima facie basis. This goes without even mentioning the lack of military necessity, lack of industry in the city's core ([2] http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1265990,00.html ) - it was not a garrisoned city either ([3] http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1265990,00.html ) - Dresden's cultural significance or any potential ulterior motives within the Allied camp.

I could not find the in source [1] any reference to "The governments of the former Allied powers have consistently defended their actions in Dresden" which is what have been asking for -- See above.

As to the second one the RAF had decided long before, from analysis of the damage to British cities during the Blitz that dehousing people was a more effective way of damaging war production than killing people or attempting to destroy the factories. (I can give you a cited reference to this if you are interested). So if the reference is just to establish that civilian property was the target of the RAF, I am not sure one is needed as I don't think that it is contentious. But if it also is implying that the USAAF was also targeting civilian property in Dresden, that is contentious and should have a specific reference.

Who are the supports who claim that targeting civilian property in World War II was always war crime? Or who has claimed that it was in the case of Dresden?

The final clause says "or any potential ulterior motives within the Allied camp." What does that mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">The prima facie part was there before I even touched the article. I merely refactored it into my reconstructed intro. Ulterior motives means out of Cold War considerations (getting the Soviets to Berlin first) or the wish to reduce Germany to an agrarian nation, escalation of the Anglo-German rivalry etc. etc. etc. I have included an explanation of the term ulterior motives but I have reworded the intro anyway. Essentially what the opening paragraph serves as is an overview of what the rest of the se3ction will cover. It became a matter of one or two word descriptions and ulterior (i.e. hidden or not revealed) certainly seems to apply. In other words, the argument used to pardon the bombing (in case against) may look nice in a historical perspective - but are these "justifications" actually considerations that were made before the attack? They soften up the destruction with the idea that somehow it was Dresden's fault for somewhat locally producing shields and gun sights, Dresden's fault for not understanding that the Wehrmacht might use the city in its defense plans, and who could forget, the Gauleiteer for not preparing those who flocked into the city.


 * <font color="#800000">Do you disagree that the Allied governments deny the "war crime" position and defend their actions? MAybe this is the same eye-rolling you are doing when I ask for a source that says the Holocaust-Dresden connection is considered a war crime by "some" I have stated why this is not implied as you seem to think it is. However, when the US Military prepares a tribunal to explain its actions, that is on behalf of the nation it represents, no?. --72.94.204.107 11:47, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

It whether I deny or affirm that the "The governments of the former Allies have consistently defended their actions in Dresden." As I said before (higher up this page) I am not aware of any Allied government defence of the attacks apart from those put forward in the 1940s. That is not to say that one or more may have (although I seriously doubt that the Soviet Union did), it is just to say that I have no knowledge of such and that I would like a verifiable source for the claim. BTW One possible way of finding a recent British defence would be to look for HMG's advice to Betty on issuing an apology, and any corresponding House of Commons statement on that advice. I had a quick look using Google but could not find any. In many Commonwealth countries, as in the U.S., these historical issues tend to be left to historians. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last editthat: "Despite this, the governments of the former Allied powers have not to date denounced the decision to bomb Dresden.'' Still needs a source. For several reasons:
 * how do you know that they have not, the Soviets probably did!
 * It is a trick of rhetoric to alter a positive assertion into a negative one. It could just as easily be written that: "Despite this, the governments of the former Axis powers have not to date denounced the decision to bomb Dresden"
 * It implies to the casual reader that the Allies have something to denounce which is not necessarily true, as you are aware, for more than one reason.--Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Then throw in another verb. Are you really at odds with this statement? This article has more citations than at least three quarters of Wikipedia articles. Alternatively, we could say "western allies", as this is really what I thought was the effort to convey. Obviously the British have yet to denounce the bombing and the US position is clear. There is no "trick", as you allege, as denouncing and supporting are two very different ideas and imply two completely different positions. We can delete it until one of us grabs a source, but I didn't think this was controversial at all. --72.94.204.107 11:47, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do because it is a sentence similar to "Do you still beat you wife?". It implies that one still does and it can not be refuted with a simple yes or no. In this case the sentence sets up the premise that the US or British governments ought to "denounced the decision" when it is not at all clear that that is the correct thing for them to do. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">How about: Despite this, the governments of the U.S. and U.K. have not acknowledged that the bombing was a war crime. While the idea is not to suggest that the Allies "ought" to denounce the decision, keep in mind that Athis is an argument for the bombing being a war crime. Thus, Bit is perfectly fair to say that, despite condition x, y and z, the Allies have not acknowledged the bombing as a war crime. --72.94.204.107 00:47, 02 November 2006 (UTC)

No for the reasons I listed before!

As for your most recent comment in the history. "rv to lysy...please do not work on the article until we have reached a consensus. it is not fair for me to honor this cease-fire of sorts while you run through and change things as you please". Leaving aside the small changes to other sections, (I only recently saw the undefined template and thought it might improve the look of the section. and the two references would be useful for the description of the number of building hit (11 churches; 6 chapels; 5 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics;) that are of a type that Hague IV, Article 27, stated "all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible"), My edit of the first paragraph we were discussion was an attempt in good faith to put the first paragraph into a format closer to what you want, and as I saw it covered what we have discussed here and agreed so far in what I think is more rounded prose -- By all means change one paragraph in the article. Then if I do not find it acceptable, I'll edit it an explanation on the talk page. {I may also wish to make changes to the text, but if I do I will keep to the same compromise}. If after a few of times around the loop we have not agreed, then one of can ask for a third party opinion of no one else has already joined in the conversation on the talk page. So please edit the fist paragraph taking in to account what we have said here, and lets see where we go from there. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Well how about you make another proposal then! Keep in mind point A and B above. I still want to work off of my article, not yours. My objections begin with the use of contemporary, which you clearly ignored despite my clear explanation and then to the neo-nazi issue which I have explained at length. --72.94.204.107 09:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep to one thing at a time and come back to those two once we have settled this one, or if you prefer choose one of the other issues and we will look at that one first and come back to this one afterwards. I have suggested a new first paragraph, you reverted it, why not put your preferred prose in place and I'll edit your changes if I am not happy with them. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Okay, I have a name now. Its the first thing I spotted, it means bleach free. So, lets proceed. I think the intro should introduce the points that will be focused on, a summary for the lazy, if you will. So, I propose:


 * The bombing of civilian targets and an awareness of the devastation known to be caused by firebombing are held by some supporters of the war crime position to have established their case on a prima facie basis.you can put a fact request here if you want, but I doubt anything is going to turn up. I think it could be argued that Jenkins has this sort of view, because he does not support Dresden as a war crime on any other groundsThis goes without even mentioning the lack of industry in the targetted city core - it was not a garrisoned city either - the lack of a military necessity, the cultural significance of Dresden or overall discrepancies in the Allied justifications for the bombing.--Sin cloro 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Has to be "civilian property" not "civilian targets". The other thing as mentioned higher up the page "overall discrepancies in the Allied justifications for the bombing" because its meaning is opaque. I am not sure why you reversed the paragraph I put in because it seems to me to be making the same points:


 * ''The bombing of civilian property and an awareness of the devastation known to be caused by firebombing are held by some supporters of the war crime position to have established their case on a prima facie basis.


 * ''They would point out that the methods employed by the Allies, were intended to create a firestorm if possible, and that the Allies were able to surmise that if a firestorm ignited, it would probably lead to a loss of life far in excess of that justified by military necessity, for the city was not garrisoned and the majority of the industry was not in the centre which was the target of the attack.


 * ''Further just as cities like Rome, Athens, had been declared open cities in part to spare them from destruction, the Allies should have taken into consideration the importance of Dresden as a cultural centre when initially contemplating its destruction.

Perhapse you could explain what it is that you object to in the above text. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">There is no way that I can give you "Civilian property". That is absolutely absurd. Targetted property? This is not why anyone argues that Dresden is a war crime, aside from the cultural significance angle. I think it has more to do with people melting and choaking in the throes of an agonizing death. The city became a giant inferno. I think you tend to forget this when you get locked away in a discussion about whether the Hague used this word or that word, or other technicalities that I imagine matter very little in the midst of the "raid". It probably [would] lead to a loss of life far in excess of that justified by military necessity


 * <font color="#800000">Are you arguing for Dresden as a war crime or against here? Lol, I really can't tell. First off, nobody ever said military necessity justified anything. Secondly, part of the argument in the "war crimes" section is that there wasn't any "military necessity"...its February 1945 for crying out loud! Also, I do not think that the open cities comment adds anything in particular, other than the suggestion that its Germany's fault for not doing this to "save" Dresden. Why Lysy was unable to see this obvious problem in trying to sort out something we can agree to, I have no idea. Your tone is so casual and nonchalant, as if we were talking about eating krimpets or something. Remember, purpose of this section is to give a convincing argument as to why this is a "war crime"...but I think this whole process is contradictory to all logic, because your disposition regarding the bombing is painfully obvious. In an article section that is specifically about a point of view, this is counterproductive. Almost like an abortionist forced to argue a pro-life position. --Sin cloro 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The British and Americans targeted property they could not target civilians from the hight they were bombing and the ordinance they were carrying (even if they had wanted too).

Of course there was military necessity. The Dresden raid was primarily a interdiction strike at the railways to help the Soviets. The last battles of the war were yet to be fought on the Eastern Front and a lot of Allied soldiers on both fronts were going to die assaulting the German home land. The estimates Allied casualties on the Eastern Front during the last months of the war some, before the Dresden raids but many after are: As you can see the the two offensives after the air raids for which Dresden was potentialy a rail conduit were the last two, for which the Allies suffered over 400,000 casualties.
 * Budapest Offensive (October 1944-February 1945): 320,082 casualties
 * Vistula-Oder Offensive (January-February 1945): 194,191 casualties
 * East Prussian Offensive (January-April 1945): 584,778 casualties
 * Vienna Offensive (March-April 1945): 177,745 casualties
 * Berlin Offensive (April-May 1945): 361,367 casualties
 * Prague Offensive (May 1945): 52,498 casualties (for sources see Talk:Prague Offensive)

The major difference between was it or was it not a war crime, and also the moral question, depends on whether the force and tactics used were in excess of military necessity. (BTW thanks you have just prompted me to write a wikipedia article on military necessity).

For the open city question, please read what I have written carefully. I have not suggested that the Germans needed to declare the city an open city. I have said that given that such a concept was used by both sides in the war (Paris 1940, and Manila are two more examples, but they were not declared open because of their cultural significance) the Allies should have taken into consideration the importance of Dresden as a cultural centre when initially contemplating its destruction. This is another way to introduce you Hague article 27 point, without the need to specify it and have to source it. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Military necessity is a matter of opinion. Put it this way: the conditions existed for which the allies could say there was a military necessity. There certainly was a military situation, but that says little about the necessity of an attack on a beleaguered and largely defeated force that, from an Allied point of view, may or may not have considered integrated Dresden into the defense. The point is the war was clearly decided. Using casualty numbers to suggest that these battles were important does little to change the overall picture, though day after day of talking with you here, I'm beginning to see why you feel the way you do about Dresden. --Sin cloro 10:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">Regarding open cities, you are correct in saying that you do not declare that the Germans should have taken action to announce Dresden as an open city. However, any responsibily in such a declaration ultimately rests with the Germans, and while I think that you raise an interesting point in mentioning that this was something at the Allied disposal - making an offer to the Germans that would save Dresden in exchange for its acknowledged neutrality - i think this takes things out of context. Maybe we can introduce it later, when I hope to introduce - as you mention - the Hague articles as they relate to the discussion. For now though, I'm trying to be ACAP - as compatible as possible - and work on this line by line. --Sin cloro 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">I'm also open to negotiate on how you would like to present Michael Zezima. Take a look at the page to see my first suggestion. --Sin cloro 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because "military necessity" is a matter of opinion that there is the controversy there is. One lot believe that destruction of Dresden was really necessary, and it is unfortunate that so many people died. While the other lot says the military benefits disproportionately small for the destruction, pain and suffering it caused. The open city question is not that the German authorities should or should not have made the city open one (because the Nazis were not gentlemen), but that many German civilians thought that there was a gentleman's agreement over it, and people who argue today that it was a culturally significant city are expressing a similar view in they think that the allies should have considered that when they were planning the raids.

I have made some changes to the text, not as many as I would like to do, but see if you can live with them. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We had an edit clash, so my paragraph may seem odd. By all means, mention Zezima's POV as you have in paragrah 2, but please do not quote him or use his justification for that POV because it contains so many factual errors. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">As for Mickey Z, I just wanted to see if you agreed with my comment about shock and awe and his comparisons, as well as his commentary on its inhumanity. I just thought he should at least be mentioned, but I have no intentions to go back to him. --Sin cloro 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font color="#800000">I think we can discuss open city when we get to it! Lets keep the opening paragraph as simple as possible and just introduce the main ideas we will then cover in depth later. You're introduction suggests that there was a military necessity and the question of whether or not it was worth the suffering surfaces. A valid point. However, it could also be argued that there was no military "necessity" as I explained above. Your introduction does not acknowledge this view, and I think this view offers a much stronger addition to the introduction. Keep in mind that both ideas are covered in the arguments that follow much later in the section, but I think "lack of a military necessity" is just as much a part of the argument as is "disproportional to military necessity". Your thoughts? --Sin cloro 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First Hands Accounts as Part of Argument?
<font color="#800000">I also forward the idea that the first-hand accounts are valid to be introduced as evidence of a "war crime". As Genocide Watch's President, Mickey Z and Jenkins point out its inhumanity as their primary reason for the "war crime" position, this simply supports it. Another reason would be that one of the things Shimoda took into account was the sheer suffering which this clearly documents. You made a good point when you broke the arguments in two, and unintentionally explain why this is so. You write: While the other lot says the military benefits disproportionately small for the destruction, pain and suffering it caused. There are two ways this can be examined in a favorable "war crime" context. You could aim to show that the military benefits were small (or, as mentioned above, even nonexistant - i.e. lack of military necessity) or that the pain and the suffering was great. The latter begs the question "how great?" Well, you can certainly cite figures and say that x number of people died or you can show how they died, the sort of inhumanity-angle that Shimoda takes into account (essentially, atomic bombs were a more efficient extension of firebombing) --Sin cloro 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#800000">PS - why don't you pick a color to write in so that your contributions get the same visual attention as mine? And what was that format you were experimenting with before I reverted to Lysy?