Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snowyowl9

Did you watch this on the bbc.

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952971/BBC-s-insult-hero-pilots-Veterans-rage-Dresden-coverage-attacks-Britain-worse-Nazis-ignores-RAF-s-sacrifice.html

One presenter even referred to the Dresden bombings as a ‘war crime’

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558176/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-denies-apologising-Dresden-bombings

THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury has provoked controversy by appearing to apologise for the British bombing of Dresden during the Second World War.

There maybe more coming out that people don`t want to hear or believed happened,but if it caused controversy it must be pretty well worth watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough one, certainly one of those things classed as a necessary evil.

 

For Bomber command, civilian deaths meant nothing. Dresden was a major transport hub being used by the Germand armoury to pour in reinforcements against the Soviet advances. Yes, the bombing wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome of the war but it may have allowed the war to be ended a little sooner, and so by saving allied lives in the process.

 

It is not right to compare strategic bombing with the concentration camps and gulags.

 

The comments by the above individuals are misjudged and ill informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was of course always controversial but according to the Geneva Convention that was signed afterwards it would now be seen as a war crime. I'm not sure if there's any argument around that today.

Reasons for war crimes can be more than just a targeted destruction of an ethnic group (genocide). You can attempt to justify them in other ways and they can have a 'greater good' sort of logic behind them whilst still being war crimes at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst lambasting the BBC it's worth remembering that until 2012 there was no memorial to mark the sacrifice of 55,573 aircrew from Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries of the Commonwealth

 

The controversy over the tactics employed by RAF Bomber Command during the Second World War meant that an official memorial to the aircrews had been delayed for many years. Despite describing bombers as "the means of victory" in 1940, British prime minister Winston Churchill did not mention Bomber Command in his speech at the end of the war.

 

640px-RAF_Bomber_Command_Memorial%2C_Gre

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command_Memorial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, people are far too soft these days. 

 

If there were an actual war that had lasted 6 years today, you'd soon put aside such concerns and demand victory at all costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough one, certainly one of those things classed as a necessary evil.

 

For Bomber command, civilian deaths meant nothing. Dresden was a major transport hub being used by the Germand armoury to pour in reinforcements against the Soviet advances. Yes, the bombing wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome of the war but it may have allowed the war to be ended a little sooner, and so by saving allied lives in the process.

 

It is not right to compare strategic bombing with the concentration camps and gulags.

 

The comments by the above individuals are misjudged and ill informed.

And Hitler certainly didn't think about sparing the civilian poplulations of Britain's towns and cities when he went for the military infrastructure. My mother's home in Weymouth was hit by incendiaries - and people a few streets away were bombed out - from a raid that failed to get to Plymouth because of bad weather and the crews had orders to drop their munitions wherever they thought they saw a chink of light that might indicate that there was a town beneath them. This was some time before the beginning of construction of the Mulberry Harbour on the beach, so it was sheer spite, not strategic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think it pathetic to apologise for things that were done in wars of generations ago.We may as well ask the Queen to apologise for the Norman conquests! I think that 99% of young people have no real idea of some of the atrocities during ww2 and bombing was just part of the big picture.I actually forgot myself the details of Dresden but I understood 'Bomber harris'was the man who thought the war could be won by bombing and it was actually Dresden that took away his way of thinking from the leaders at the time and after targeted military bombing became more important.I do believe the americans bombed Dresden as much as we did in daytime raids.It may also be noted that it was accidental that civilian bombing started,Hitler did not target civilians here,it was a few planes that became lost that accidentally bombed London and we bombed Berlin in retaliation,that started bombing of cities in ww2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Hitler certainly didn't think about sparing the civilian poplulations of Britain's towns and cities when he went for the military infrastructure. My mother's home in Weymouth was hit by incendiaries - and people a few streets away were bombed out - from a raid that failed to get to Plymouth because of bad weather and the crews had orders to drop their munitions wherever they thought they saw a chink of light that might indicate that there was a town beneath them. This was some time before the beginning of construction of the Mulberry Harbour on the beach, so it was sheer spite, not strategic. 

With respect to civilian casualties Britain suffered 60,000 against Germany's 3.8 million and two wrongs don't make a right..however by 1945 loss of life had become a by product of a brutal war ...had the devastation at Dresden happened in 1939 or 1940 there may have been a massive outcry by 1945 it was the norm. Also by Feb 1945 Dresden was crammed full of refugees fleeing the red army and held no strategic value..the German armed forces were at this stage of the war were crippled completely outnumbered on all fronts and incapable of taking any offensive operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this and you will see plenty of evidence to confirm Dresden as a ligitimate target...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Whether Dresden was a legitimate target is irrelevant.. although even in this article there is plenty of evidence the city had little or no strategic value ... whether it was a war crime given the context of what happened to other cities or civilians in the later stages of the war I would say no...more an error of judgement perhaps.. a crime of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether Dresden was a legitimate target is irrelevant..

 Eh? It's completely relevant.

 

It was a major transport hub with railways running North-South and West-East. There is an eye witness account from a POW who saw the military using it in large numbers.

 

That is massively relevant and legitimises the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no such things as 'crimes' in total war. Humans are just animals and we do all the same types of things as them, some worse, some better.

 

I live near Coventry and still hear lots of stories from the older folk of the Blitz there too, suffering was universal, the German people just reaped what they'd sown, because you can bet your life practically every single one hated the British just as much as we hated them, and hatred makes people do the most disgusting things to each other.

 

My gran (who lived through both wars )told me something very true and scary. She said "once my generation is gone, the ones who lived through the evil of war, the next war will come" and look where we stand today, staring down the barrel of the Russians.

 

Forgive the past, but never forget!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no such things as 'crimes' in total war. Humans are just animals and we do all the same types of things as them, some worse, some better.

 

I live near Coventry and still hear lots of stories from the older folk of the Blitz there too, suffering was universal, the German people just reaped what they'd sown, because you can bet your life practically every single one hated the British just as much as we hated them, and hatred makes people do the most disgusting things to each other.

 

My gran (who lived through both wars )told me something very true and scary. She said "once my generation is gone, the ones who lived through the evil of war, the next war will come" and look where we stand today, staring down the barrel of the Russians.

 

Forgive the past, but never forget!

 

This. After 6 years of war i doubt many politicians were thinking about how this would effect German relations in the future, for all they knew it may be that Germany would fight to the death rather than surrender. In total war where the objective is to take the country itself your objective is really to mow down as many as you can and hope that they surrender. 

 

Actual war won't come with Russia (i.e. in Europe or Russia itself) but fighting in a third party like Ukraine even directly is very possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Eh? It's completely relevant.

 

It was a major transport hub with railways running North-South and West-East. There is an eye witness account from a POW who saw the military using it in large numbers.

 

That is massively relevant and legitimises the target.

 

Nonsense. Utter rubbish.

 

If it's a transport hub then bomb the railways instead. Better yet - bomb actual military targets and fuel depos rather than carpet-bomb civilians as was clearly done.

 

Britain lost the high-ground a long time ago (if it ever had it in the first place even...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Hitchens nails it here:-

 

A lot of British people do not want to know what we did in our bombing of Germany, and as a result  remain in a deep and self-imposed ignorance. That ignorance allows them to remain ignorant of the he extent of the bombing (thinking that Dresden was the only serious incident for instance) .they are also uninformed about its true character, continuing to think that our main targets were military and industrial, rather than domestic. Knowing so little of its true character, they can then pretend to themselves that nothing truly bad was done, and even it was, that the mass murder of the Jews somehow excused it. If these barriers fail, they can claim that critics of the bombing are German propagandists trying to excuse the Holocaust. Or they can say that people such as I are attacking the RAF bomber crews, which I specifically refuse to do.  

 

As I know to my cost, from various futile exchanges I have had with people who refuse to listen to facts and logic about the British bombing, many even to this day simply do not want to know what happened in the Dead Cities of Germany, many have a deluded belief that the civilian casualties were an unintended side effect of striking at military targets, many believe (wrongly) that the bombing of German cities in some way ‘saved’ Britain from invasion ( a danger which, if it ever existed, was in no way reduced by bombing) or contributed importantly to winning the war (which they did not, in reality do, as Hitler had already lost the war in the USSR before the major bombing started) .

 

It is arguable that they may have shortened the war by diverting aircraft and artillery from the Russian front, but it is equally arguable that they may have lengthened it, by depriving our anti-submarine forces of aircraft, and by diverting men and manpower to the destruction of cities and people, who could have been better used in attacking military and industrial targets.  

Had they done so, of course, they would have achieved a similar diversion of artillery and aircraft from the eastern front. This rapidly becomes counterfactual and speculative, as it involves such things as the earlier development of long-range fighter escorts, consideration. But in truth it is a diversion from the moral argument – could it ever possibly be right to deliberately bomb civilians from the air?

 

One solution to this is to apply a presumption of mass guilt to the German people. They must have known, we are told, what was being done by Hitler. I cannot tell if this is so. The industrial mass-murder of Jews took place outside Germany, and it was never publicly stated as an aim. Yet rumours must have reached civilians from the combat zones and the districts in conquered territory where the murders were taking place. I think many knew, and many did not, and many suspected. The outrage of Kristallnacht in 1938 must have warned anyone in any doubt that the National Socialists were ready and willing to murder Jews for being Jews. Whether you could deduce the existence of Auschwitz from that , I am not so sure.  The human mind would be inclined to think it impossible, unless presented with actual evidence.

 

As we know, certain people, either pitiable or disgusting, refuse to this day to believe the extermination camps existed, in spite of incontrovertible evidence and eyewitness testimony.

 

But I think we must exclude babies and children from this calculation.  Yet they were not excluded from the bombing.

 

Then there is the question of whether they could have done anything about it. Once again, they could have done so. But how many of those who say ‘They should have protested’ would have done so themselves in that society? The threat of losing a job is usually enough to silence most forms of dissent in modern Britain. How much more effective would be the threat of torture, imprisonment and death, made against you and your family?

 

As I repeatedly point out, many Germans continued to resist, and to vote against Hitler long after most of us would have gone quiet, when the Brownshirt terror was already unleashed.. The English channel , which saved us form these dilemmas, is not a moral quality allowing us to claim superiority. It is just a physical fact, which saved us from being tested.

 

Maybe you think that failing to protest, even in such danger, is a sin of omission so serious that those who committed it, and their children, deserved to die in firestorms.

 

Well, that is a point of view, But those who believe it must be careful to apply the same stringency to themselves, and to their own acts of cowardice, probably known only to themselves.

 

We know for certain from the dispassionate official post-war bombing surveys that the effects on the German economy were far smaller than those imagined and claimed by the advocates of ‘dehousing’.

 

AS for ‘giving them some of their own medicine’, we also know that the British raids on Germany were far larger than those by Germany on Britain (Germany never had any equivalent of the Lancaster bomber) , and that wartime surveys showed that people who had experienced German bombing were *less* keen on bombing Germany in return than those who had not experienced it. The question of ‘who started it’ is also a good deal more complicated than we like to think.  AS for the argument that ‘you weren’t there, you couldn’t know’, Bishop George Bell of Chichester (an unimpeachable patriot, by no means a pacifist and an early and principled opponent of the Nazis well-informed about events inside Germany)  was ‘there’, experienced bombing himself and still opposed it. Indeed, he and those like him were in a minority, but the fact that he did and said what he did and said, shows that it was possible be ‘there’ and oppose it.

 

I often think that the expression ‘War Crime’ gets in the way of our understanding. If you don’t want to lose a war you must fight with ruthless violence. Almost every effective act of war ( I say ‘almost’, in case there are exceptions I can’t think of)  would be a crime in civilian life. The only excuse is self-defence or justice, and – if we knew how terrible war was going to be – most of us would set the bar of justice a good deal higher than we do. I’m still not a pacifist – I tried that in my teens and found it impossible to sustain. But I am harder and harder to persuade of the need for war except in direct self-defence . Well-prepared and thoughtful deterrence, on the other hand, is a moral act of great value.

 

 

 

 

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/dresden-bombing-of/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get a grip Germany bombed most r citys to bits, He nails nothing apart from if you lived in a British city at time you might think different

Bloody insulting

 

Where to start? My family's library destroyed along with a few citys r gone, a few books remain in r possession, All you get to see 

 

deleted pictures you had enough time to respond 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get a grip Germany bombed most r citys to bits, He nails nothing apart from if you lived in a British city at time you might think different

 

Bloody insulting  

 

Emotional argument. Not a single counter-point made. Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Overy wrote a book called "The Bombing War". Looks like something that people here should read.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bombing-War-Europe-1939-1945/dp/0713995610

 

 

 

Hitchens writes (excerpt):-

 

 

On p.322, we learn that Arthur Harris admitted that his bomber offensive only started seriously in March 1943. This is important because so many people like to claim that the bombing ‘saved Britain from invasion’,  or ‘won the war’ or was ‘the only way we could strike back’. Yet the invasion had been cancelled I September 1940. Russia and the USA had joined the war in 1941(making German eventual defeat inevitable) but for nearly three years after Dunkirk, this ‘sole weapon’  had barely begun to be used.

 

What is more, the decisive battle of Stalingrad, after which the victory of the USSR over Germany was pretty much assured, had ended with a Soviet victory in February 1943, Von Paulus and his armies had been marched off to prison camps before Harris’s offensive even got under way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wish to make a point either for or against bombing Dresden.

 

This one of a (very rare) set of photographs taken by my father. It is rare because it was uncensored, and because he was serving with a CANUK attachment to a sort of Commando unit. Ordinary Brits were not allowed access to film but the Canadians (not sure if overtly or covertly) did have.

 

It could have been Dresden, Coventry, Paris or any one of a thousand cities across Europe. It is what the aftermath of conventional bombing can look like

 

It was in fact Hamburg.

 

hamburg1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think some make an error in comparing what happened in Dresden 70 years ago on more modern sensibilities is wrong. It was total war. In the article above the apologist trys to argue that the Germans did not bomb the Uk on anywhere near they same scale as the other way round as some how making the Allies bad. Nonsense.

 

If Germany had developed a large 4 engine bomber with the capacity of a Lancaster or B52, they would have used it, end of story. The fact was their bombers had to be used in the defence of the East supporting the army, and they quite simply did not have the resources.

 

If the strategic bombing had not happened and the War lasted into 1946 with an extra 75,000 allied dead, would that have been ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be seen in the context of the time. Would it happen today? Almost certainly not. Should we apologise for it? No. Should we regret it? Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why regret it?

 

If two powers are at war then the consequences of war are clear, the complete decimation of your country. We've become too used to offensive operations where the UK has been in no real danger, if the UK was being bombed every so often too then a lot of the population would damn well be calling for the enemy to be crushed. You do what it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...