Was Dresden a mistake?

A place to relocate messages and threads that should be deleted.
ljadw
Supporter
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:46 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by ljadw »

mellenthin wrote:
ljadw wrote:A city was a military target,in fact,in a total war, everything is a military target .And,terror attacks were legal in WWII.
The meaning of terror attacks is to terrorize (=scare) the civilians,and,as the civilians were a legitimate target,.........
If,after the attack on DresdenGermany had capitulated,everyone would say (Germans including) that Dresden was,from a moral point of view,a very good thing,because it saved the lives of a lot of people.
A city as such is not a military target. Certain installations are. The raid on Dresden did not intend to have germany capitulate. The attack as it was, was massive overkill. It was also a PR victory for Germany.
As the installations are located in the city,the city is a military target,unless you think the installations could be bombed without damaging the city .
The aim of the raid on Dresden was to force Germany to capitulate .That was the aim of al raids (the Douhet Doctrine,you know? No,you don't know 8) -
The PR victory for Germany (if there was one:no body did care:the general opinion was :the more Krauts killed,the better)did not prevent the German defeat .
lwd
Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by lwd »

mellenthin wrote:... A city as such is not a military target.
It may or may not be depending on just what's in it.
Certain installations are.
They can be but if there is a broad military presence in the city there becomes little difference between "certain installations" and the city as a whole.
The raid on Dresden did not intend to have germany capitulate.
Was any single raid really intended to have that effect? Or even most battles? This is completely irrelevant.
The attack as it was, was massive overkill.
Perhpas. The results was certainly impressive and no further raids were required.
It was also a PR victory for Germany.
Was it? And just what did this victory buy them or cost the allies?
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

ljadw wrote:
mellenthin wrote:
ljadw wrote:A city was a military target,in fact,in a total war, everything is a military target .And,terror attacks were legal in WWII.
The meaning of terror attacks is to terrorize (=scare) the civilians,and,as the civilians were a legitimate target,.........
If,after the attack on DresdenGermany had capitulated,everyone would say (Germans including) that Dresden was,from a moral point of view,a very good thing,because it saved the lives of a lot of people.
A city as such is not a military target. Certain installations are. The raid on Dresden did not intend to have germany capitulate. The attack as it was, was massive overkill. It was also a PR victory for Germany.
As the installations are located in the city,the city is a military target,unless you think the installations could be bombed without damaging the city .
The aim of the raid on Dresden was to force Germany to capitulate .That was the aim of al raids (the Douhet Doctrine,you know? No,you don't know 8) -
The PR victory for Germany (if there was one:no body did care:the general opinion was :the more Krauts killed,the better)did not prevent the German defeat .
The city itself is not the target if you intend to destroy a factory or other target within the city. There will always be civilian casualties but these will be much lower in an attack that is not a terror attack. Firebombing a city causes extremely high civilian casualties. The attack on Dresden was not meant to have Germany capitulate. There was no prospect of that.
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

lwd wrote:
mellenthin wrote:... A city as such is not a military target.
It may or may not be depending on just what's in it.
Certain installations are.
They can be but if there is a broad military presence in the city there becomes little difference between "certain installations" and the city as a whole.
The raid on Dresden did not intend to have germany capitulate.
Was any single raid really intended to have that effect? Or even most battles? This is completely irrelevant.
The attack as it was, was massive overkill.
Perhpas. The results was certainly impressive and no further raids were required.
It was also a PR victory for Germany.
Was it? And just what did this victory buy them or cost the allies?
There is a massive difference between a, attack against a point target of military importance within a city and a terror attack where you intend to cause massive firezs all over a city as in Dresden. The latter causes huge numbers of civilian casualties. The protests which followed the Dresden raid made even Churchill express doubts about this type of raids.
ljadw
Supporter
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:46 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by ljadw »

Protests ? What protests ?Maybe from people who were disappointed that no more Germans were killed? 8)
And,why should any one protest? Public opinion did not care about Dresden (if people knew about the existence of the city)
I know of 2 protests:bishop Bell and R.Stokes(a labour MP)
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

ljadw wrote:Protests ? What protests ?Maybe from people who were disappointed that no more Germans were killed? 8)
And,why should any one protest? Public opinion did not care about Dresden (if people knew about the existence of the city)
I know of 2 protests:bishop Bell and R.Stokes(a labour MP)
First putting into doubt the protests and then admitting their existence within one posting is not very smart :shock:
User avatar
Hans
Associate
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 4:50 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by Hans »

Mellenthin,

"Practice" is spot on. Pity YOU in the WEST can't get it right.

- Hans
Was haben wir für dich gewollt
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

Hans wrote:Mellenthin,

"Practice" is spot on. Pity YOU in the WEST can't get it right.

- Hans
The practice of precision guided munitions works extremely well. Point targets are taken out with the minimum of collateral damage.
lwd
Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by lwd »

mellenthin wrote: There is a massive difference between a, attack against a point target of military importance within a city and a terror attack where you intend to cause massive firezs all over a city as in Dresden. ....
Of course there is a difference. That doesn't make either one neccessarily a mistake or a war crime. Indeed from the evidence at had there was a military presence "all over" the city of Dresden. It was a legitamate target. The fire storm may have been overkill but there was no certainty that there would be a firestorm either. Even at that point in the war attacks that deep into Germany were hardly without risk and one big attack may well have been the most efficient way to neutralize Dresden.
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

lwd wrote:
mellenthin wrote: There is a massive difference between a, attack against a point target of military importance within a city and a terror attack where you intend to cause massive firezs all over a city as in Dresden. ....
Of course there is a difference. That doesn't make either one neccessarily a mistake or a war crime. Indeed from the evidence at had there was a military presence "all over" the city of Dresden. It was a legitamate target. The fire storm may have been overkill but there was no certainty that there would be a firestorm either. Even at that point in the war attacks that deep into Germany were hardly without risk and one big attack may well have been the most efficient way to neutralize Dresden.
There was nothing in Dresden of such military importance that absolutely had to be taken out,paerticularly at that time of the war.Anyway that was not even the intended purpose of the raid. Firebombing was always directed at the population and the way it was conducted ,could lead to extremely high casualties. Raids with HE directed at point targets would never kill as much because people in air raid shrelters would be relatively safe contrary to raids with firebombs which could cause firestorms and then people would suffocate in the shelters. The area attacks were something the US Airforce was always against in Europe. Its type of attacks worked better and did not cause excessive civilian casualties. The terror attacks by the RAF were always intentionally misrepresented as a attacks against military targets to avoiD protest.
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by phylo_roadking »

Moderator's Note - All posters please adhere strictly to the rules of the War Crimes Section; I've just culled an offtopic thread and will continue to do so now for the duration of this discussion.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by phylo_roadking »

There was nothing in Dresden of such military importance that absolutely had to be taken out,paerticularly at that time of the war.
Strange that - given that in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with material. And I take it you missed the bit at the start of the thread about there being barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot? Or what Col. Cook said about Dresden the night before the raid? - "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."

Are you for instance in saying that stopping the Germans transferring Wehrmacht divisions from West to East against the Red Army via the transport nexus that was Dresden...was NOT a military necessity?

And to return to the question of Churchill's letters to Charles Portal - here's the one he finally sent -
28.3.45
TOP SECRET 10 Downing Street,
Whitehall.

PRIME MINISTER'S
PERSONAL MINUTE
SERIAL No D.89/5

GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE.

C.A.S. (copy sent)

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.
W.S.C.
1.4.45
Let's read that very carefully again -
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's immediate war effort.
Where's the concern for public opinion over the bombings????

Well, some readers would say it's HERE in the first version of that...
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction
But once again - let's look closely at that, shall we?
I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction
And lo and behold, what do we have at Dresden?
"I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."
...."military objectives" AND "communications behind the immediate battle-zone"!

Dresden couldn't actually sit any more precisely right within Churchill's expressed target parameters in even the first "concerned" version of his letter!
The terror attacks by the RAF were always intentionally misrepresented as a attacks against military targets to avoiD protest.
In briefings Bomber Command crews were ALWAYS given a strategic aiming point - anything from a major factory in the middle of nowhere to a small but significant railway junction within a built-up area; the MAN diesel engine factory at Augsburg on the famous raid of 17th April 1942, for instance, or the Henri Paul transformer plant at Le Cruesot, the Paris-Juvisy/Aulnoye/Rouen/Noissy/Ste. Chappelle rail marshalling yards, the 348 aircraft sent against the Wehrwuxcht armoured vehicle repair depot at Mailly-le-Camp, the Fiat Works in Turin on 28/29th November 1942, etc. etc.

And by 1945 they were able to target VERY effectively, with the advent of effective target marking, first by the designated Lancaster/Mosquito Pathfinders of the PFF, No.8 Group Bomber Command, then eventually the lowflying Mosquitoes of the FNFS immediately preceeding massed raids...and of course by then the RAF had OBOE.

There are plenty of RAF briefing sessions recorded on film (with sound) where crews are being given specific targets on the ground...and there are ANY number of literary sources confirming this - Enemy Coast Ahead by Guy Gibson for one is at my elbow.

Yes, in Dresden the initial aiming point was a sports stadium...but aiming points HAD to be chosen to allow for windage I.E,. the drift of ordnance as it whistles down from several thouand feet. And of course - even at night BC heavies had to bomb from well over 5,000 feet - because HC "cookie" bombs could through debris as high as 5,000 feet! In this case, both the stadium and the nearby railway station were right in the heart of the city IIRC.

And in this case SO were the Americans for the daylight raid afterwards...from
COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
FEBRUARY 1945
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/us ... eb.45.html
“461 B-17s are dispatched to hit the marshalling yard at Dresden”
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
mellenthin
Supporter
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by mellenthin »

phylo_roadking wrote:
Strange that - given that in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with material. And I take it you missed the bit at the start of the thread about there being barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot? Or what Col. Cook said about Dresden the night before the raid? - "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians."

Are you for instance in saying that stopping the Germans transferring Wehrmacht divisions from West to East against the Red Army via the transport nexus that was Dresden...was NOT a military necessity?
This is a very feeble attempt at justification after the fact as fireraids executed by the RAF were always terror attacks aimed against the population. When you attack point targets you use mainly HE and the aiming points are not the residential areas. The attack against Dresden was not intended and not executed to take out point targets. Do not try to come up with the transport of troops to the eastern front as you do not need to burn a city to take out a railhub. Transport and other point targets were attacked all the time including in Dresden but they were not fireraids and did not .cause massive civilian casualties.In addition, there was no important movement from the western front to the eastern front through Dresden that absolutely had to be stopped. That is an invention.
What is most interesting in your posting is the not mentioning that the attack on Dresden was mainly a fireraid. Not surprising at all.
A real attack against point targets would have caused significaltly less casualties as in this type of raid the population was relatively safe in the shelters. The raid on Dresden AS IT WAS EXECUTED was a clear mistake as there was no justification for the massive civilian casualties which were avoidable. The protests were therefore not surprising. There are not many that will still defend this type of raid.You may choose to do so at your peril.
Not surprising also that this type of raids is now illegal.
ljadw
Supporter
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:46 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by ljadw »

1) that this type of raids is illegal today ,is irrelevant:today PC is reigning
2) there was no possibility in WWII to choose between a precise bombardment,and area bombings:both could result in massive civilian losses
3) No one did care about enemy civilian losses :you can't wage war without killing enemy civilian losses :without British civilian losses,Coventry was not possible
4)Enemy civilian losses were justified :if the crew of a Panther was a legitimate target,why should one spare the civilians who were producing the Panthers,the railway personnell that was transporting the Panthers,ammunition and supplies,the farmers who were producing food for the workers and the crew of the Panther,etc....
5)If one allied/German soldier was spared by the death of 100 German/allied civilians,then it was legitimate to attack/no to spare these civilians .
6)As no one (German or allied )was condemned for air attacks,the air attacks were legitimate .
7)As it was impossible to destroy marshalling-yards,without spare the inner cities,saying that the marshalling yards of Dresden could be destroyed without damaging/destroying the city,is nonsens .As you know,the allies were not able to destroy the marshalling-yards of Kortrijk,Merelbeke,Leuven ,etc,without incurring the risk of damaging these cities.In fact,these cities were damaged/destroyed,but the damage to the marshalling-yards was insignifiant .The same happened in Dresden,Rouen,etc.
The distinction ,in wartime,between civilians and military,is a theoretical and Jezuitical one .
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Re: Was Dresden a mistake?

Post by phylo_roadking »

This is a very feeble attempt at justification after the fact as fireraids executed by the RAF were always terror attacks aimed against the population.
Constantly repeating the same mantra does not actually mean it'll be accepted, you know.
When you attack point targets you use mainly HE and the aiming points are not the residential areas.


The RAF's aiming point at Dresden was NOT a residential area, as you've been told.
The attack against Dresden was not intended and not executed to take out point targets.
Do not try to come up with the transport of troops to the eastern front as you do not need to burn a city to take out a railhub.
You have to DESTROY the railhub - which cannot be guranteed by precision bombing AT NIGHT. Have you no knowledge of the entire Butt Report episode in 1941???
Transport and other point targets were attacked all the time including in Dresden but they were not fireraids and did not .cause massive civilian casualties.
BY DAY, yes; Dresden was not a daylight raid by the RAF, the RAF abandoned daylight heavy bomber raids in 1939.
In addition, there was no important movement from the western front to the eastern front through Dresden that absolutely had to be stopped. That is an invention.
Kindly prove that with sources. Remember - and all posters have ALREADY been warned - there is a VERY different standard of evidence required in the War Crimes Section of Feldgrau, any statements like that that cannot be supported WILL be deleted.
What is most interesting in your posting is the not mentioning that the attack on Dresden was mainly a fireraid. Not surprising at all.
What is most interesting is your apparent lack of knowledge of the evolution of Bomber Command bombing tactics during WWII. You don't seem to be aware that as a result of the Butt Report into its excreble performance at precision night bombing up to 1941, Bomber Command ceased operations for a time while new doctrines were evolved that it COULD carry out sucessfully.
The raid on Dresden AS IT WAS EXECUTED was a clear mistake as there was no justification for the massive civilian casualties which were avoidable.
Once again - constant repetition of the mantra is absolutely NO guarantee that anyone accepts it. Instead, kindly prove with sources that none of the military targets in Dresden existed...
A real attack against point targets would have caused significaltly less casualties as in this type of raid the population was relatively safe in the shelters.
The Heavy Bomber Force as a whole could not and did not carry out this sort of attack after the Butt Report in late 1941, except in certain and VERY wellknown exceptions like CHASTISE.
Not surprising also that this type of raids is now illegal.
Kindly prove with references to convention-establishing legal cases and international treaties that this is in fact true.
You may choose to do so at your peril
Pardon?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Locked