Dresden Bombing. Holocaust?

Hi Chandernagore,

Indeed, I could ask any human being to define "monster", but as you chose to use the word I am asking you.

You haven't read Taylor's book. That is absolutely apparent from the complete ignorance you have displayed thus far of its contents. Why else do you keep asking basic questions about it? Indeed, if you did read Taylor, you might be pleasantly surprised to learn that there is much in there with which you might agree.

As I have said twice on this thread before, I can lead you to sources, but I cannot make you read them. You will just have to do some of the work yourself. I cannot be expected to do it all for you. If you had any real interest in this subject you would follow the sources up yourself. Purely as a matter of interest, what books HAVE you got on Dresden?

I am not dodging any issue. If I have the information, I will tell you. If I haven't, I am quite happy to give you any source at my disposal. But if I have nothing more I will tell you and you will just have to do a little work yourself.

Who said Taylor was "authoritative"? He is merely the most authoritative available at present. As we live in the present, his is book we should be reading if we have any real interest in the subject.

You should not value my analysis above Taylor's book. Taylor did the research. He is the authority. I just read his book. It is therefore far more important that you read Taylor than take note of my analysis.

I see no evidence that Hamburg's "symbolism" was more important in Harris's mind than the multiple targets in the city. So far that is only proven to be in your mind. And anyway, what particular "symbolic" value did Hamburg have? The Beatles played there, but twenty years after the war. The song "Lili Marlene" was set there, but this was hardly likely to be in Harris's mind. It has a famous red light district. Do you think it was this symbol of depravity that Harris was aiming at? What is this supposed iconic symbolism that Hamburg represented to Harris?

Nope. Taylor did not fail to assess the damage to Dresden's industry. Read his Chapter 25, "City of the Dead". After going through the specific damage to a number of factories, and revealing that almost two hundred factories suffered damage between 13 and 15 February, the second to last paragraph begins "The degree of destruction and disruption of industry in Dresden was major......" (He then goes on to say something with which you would very much agree, but which I will allow you to find out for yourself when you finally bother to get a copy of Taylor's book).

Nope. Taylor doesn't detail the production of each individual factory. Why should he? Again, if you really want to know you will just have to get off your backside and research the source I have given you twice before: "Oberkommando des Heers: Liste der Fertigunskennzeichen fur Waffen, Munition und Geralt." (Berlin 1944, reprinted 1977 and 1999).

Nope. I don't want you to do any analysis at all just yet. Your analysis is of little value until you are in possession of the necessary facts upon which to base it. What I want you to do is get yourself better informed on the subject before trying to analyse it. Until then you are just masquerading as an authority on Dresden. You have presumably got away with it so far on this forum because it is unlikely that many Romanians will be in a position to contest your so-called "analysis".

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Nope. I am no particular authority on Dresden either, but at least I have consulted the latest book on the subject. It is by Taylor.

Hi Chandernagore,

I would much rather the whole debate was conducted in both a rational and a civil manner, so please don't ask me to intervene with Dragos on your behalf over some of the language you resort to that raises the "heat level". In my opinion that only reflects poorly on your self control and doesn't worry me at all.

I object to the factual inaccuracies in many of your posts, which have far wider and more damaging implications for public knowledge of this subject.

Furthermore, in principle I approve of firm, clear and early intervention by moderators so long as they don't get trigger-happy.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Dragos,

Yup. I have always agreed that there is a moral argument to be made against the late area bombing of the Dresden sort.

However, many of the supposed facts raised against Dresden are spurious (i.e. the supposedly enormous casualty figures, the supposed lack of military targets, etc.) and much of the continuing debate is politically generated by neo-Nazis spuriously trying to equate the Allied bombing campaign with the likes of Auschwitz. Chandernagore would not appear to be one of these, but he has repeatedly used many of the same spurious facts they do and is therefore inadvertently doing their work for them.

There is much that was questionable about Allied bombing policy and it should be critically analysed, but it must be critically analysed from the point of view of the best available facts.

Cheers,

Sid.

That was pretty lame

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 03, 2005 02:31 pm

I don't want to seem a harsh critic of Sid (I enjoy his posts) but I would like to warn him about something: the fact that some people say that some allied acts can be qualified as "monstreous", doesn't mean that their detractors should simply suppose that they are trying to lift the blame from Auschwitz. The fact that we don't discuss Auschwitz here (apart from the rules....) is purely an effect of the clear moral and factual circumstances that surround that case, while in Harris' case, the discussion is still open to new discoveries, arguments and ethical stands. On a side note: Offering a nazi crime whenever someone tries to prove an allied crime is not a great way to win arguments or friends...

Do you want me to teach you English now, Sid ?

I have read large excerpts of his books, read his commentaries , read his interviews and debated a lot on him. I disagree with many of his conclusions and I question his methodology. I'm not going to rush on any very authoritative source that you cite just because you can't engage in a discussion on your own, Sid you can understand that. If I give you a list of books that I happen to own you're not going to get them either just because somebody pretend you're an illiterate if you don't.

But Sid, you direct people toward sources that you did not consult yourself. It's an incredibly dishonest attitude.

Then simply tell me what Harris said to Churchill. You can't because you don't know. You cite a source that you never consulted. Hurry it is still time to correct it, Sid !

You of course. scroll back a bit.

Aha. He's the most authoritative. You can make that comparison because you did read all the others sources ? Or because it's the only one you read ?

You would have to ask Harris. He had the brilliant idea. Perhaps he was misinformed.

Excellent we are making progress ! Now I'm 100% sure that you have one book in your library : the book of Taylor.

Now this is only the beginning. Taylor does not know what the factories produced and why all these factories would be geographically situated inside the bombed city center (not an ordinary situation for industries)

Because he pretends that they produced war material. He should be able to substantiate the claim.

Beware Sid, this is a racial statement. You might not get away with this.

Yes I am now aware that you have read one book. It is an information that I duly note for future reference.

oh, by the way, I have the latest book on Hitler. Its a big piece of shit but it's the latest book. Do you want to read it ?

come on Chandernagore, quit it.

do you not know that a good quarell is one without the use of bibliography?
alos, it would help if the one you are quarelling with it actually enjoys it as much as you

Yeah, we need more discussions like this :

Hello Harry , did you hear about the lastest controversy ? it as about
Kharkhov 1942 Anatomy of a disaster - David Glantz - Sarpedon p 110-111

Deary me Bill don't tell me you you believe such crap. Let me direct you toward a source I didn't read : The Fall of Berlin - Antony Beaveor - Viking press - p 241-245 ha ha !

Maybe I interject, Harry ? : Barbarossa - John Keegan -Mc Donald 28-30

Not very authotritative Bill, you fail to notice that The Rape of Nanking - Iris Chang - Penguin 149-150

Harry, shut up and swallow this, from my latest book : The Forgotten soldier - Guy Sajer - Brassey's Inc - picture 9



This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 03, 2005 05:24 pm

Actually, it's pretty sad. You (Indrid) and Alexandru are just messing around and goofing off, so you don't really care what happens to the site. Unfortunately, Chandernagore is driving away well-informed contributors because whenever he gets stuck in an argument he literally tries to annoy everyone to death and takes it to personal levels. Just look at his last two posts.

First he asks for references - not one, mind you! - but 2 or 3, along with a transcript of the relevant passages

Then he pretty much says or implies that other sources don't matter - his opinion is the only thing that counts for him. Way to show an open mind!

When all else fails and he gets desperate and nervous, he just shifts to personal attacks (see his last post), trying to demean and turn his opponent's arguments or methods into mockery.

I've been quietly reading this thread, and even though Dresden is not within my realm of interests, a couple of things became quite clear:

Whether you agree with Sid's conclusion or not, he clearly shows a great, great deal of knowledge on the subject. He has also shown a lot of patience and refrain.

As to Chandernagore's arguments, most of them are a big, steaming pile of shit. (Please note, I'm not speaking about our good friend Chandernagore, who I'm sure is a grand person, but rather of his arguments, which are rather shitty and lack basis)

Like I said earlier, you (Indrid) and Alexandru may not care what happens to this forum, but people like Chandernagore are quickly turning educated and well-informed writers (perhaps some are/were even professional historians) away from this site, and Victor and Dragos should certainly care about this fact.

I honestly don't know how Sid found the patience to explain the same logical arguments several times just to have them waved away with a mockery or with a "I don't need books to tell me how to feel" type of argument. That may be valid enough in an elementary school, but hardly in real life or academia.

Actually, I would like you to refrain from using my name in this derogatory tone. If you have something against Chandernagore or Indrid, just say it, but don't include me just because I posted several things on this thread (and on the subject, may I add). I think people here are confusing good, clean fun with moronic behaviour. Let me tell you, mabadesc, as well as to all the other members, that I am not your moron. I'll never be, I never was.

I understand that this post is aimed at Indrid. How come I am mentioned there, twice, closely associated with him? Is it maybe because I make you feel good thinking about how smart you are in comparison with people like us, that seem not to care about your values?

One more thing: the one thing I detest more than close moderator control is a moderator-wannabe that asks for help in a public post instead of a PM...

This post has been edited by Alexandru H. on June 03, 2005 06:46 pm

well Mabadesc i have to admire your dedication - i cannot remember a person that wrote me such a long letter. too bad it is useless, IMO. first and last becasue you ask of academic standards. i must tell you that i am a graduate of the Political Sciences Faculty and only one month awayy from graduating the Master Degree in International Relations. so i guess i have proven that i belong in the "academia" as you mentioned. and coming from that, i can tell you with honesty that i never seen so many morons, ignorants, assholes, ass-kissers, mediocre pieces of anthropological manure as i have in the academic world. and you know what causes it mostly? the fact that the only way a unimaginative ass can evidentiate himself in front of other mediocre teachers is by bullying the vocabulary and twisting the minds of those who actuallt can THINK by using endless source of mindless reference. this is academia, a bunch of inept unimaginative people devouring without reason each and every book that they think that might give them the edge in front of others like them. is this the dialogue you want me and Alex to use here? ( by the way, i do not know why you picked on him)

i am sorry, that is just impossible; try the Imbecile Resort for that; the fact that each and every discussion must turn into a battle of references is stupid and useless; stop being the slave of "what other people have said". try thinking for a while, you will be amazed. also, Chandernagore has a very big fault in this, he tried to be funny while being right. BIG Mistake!

so a few people can't take it? so they will be upset and leave? well, this is a very girlie attitude on a WAR forum, don' t you think?

"A DAY WITHOUT BLOOD IS LIKE A DAY WITHOUT SUNSHINE"



ps: sorry for the offtopic, Victor and dragos

This post has been edited by Indrid on June 03, 2005 06:58 pm

This isn't going anywhere nice. I suggest everyone to drop their aggressive tone or the topic will be closed down.

Chandernagore and Indrid, references, sources and the likes, in a historical debate matter very much. One cannot have access to information all over the world first hand. I don't think that any of us would have time to go through BA on their own and extract the information they want. There are regular historians that did that and this is why, instead of dealing with primary sources, we use references. Breathing archive's dust and going through old documents with rubber glothes isn't very fun, trust me, I did it.

Alexandru H., if you want to question any moderatorial decisions, you have the Comments & Suggestions section and you are invited to do it there in the future.

Only if you are willing to apply your own criticism filter to them. I attempted to challenge the arguments of Taylor as presented by Sid (because Sid didn't present any argument of his own : he would repeatedly fall back on Taylor like the Pope on the Holy Bible).

I tried to do it on a slow methodical manner, starting with general ideas but I never managed to lift the conversation because Sid would not respond, he would raise the shield of Taylor again and again, refusing the dialogue, the debate of ideas. So continuing was rather pointless. I shifted to a lighter tone because derision is a powerfull method of making people think about a given behaviour. Well, I was not equally successfull with everybody but I did not do it to harm.

I agree 100% with Indrid. We use to say by here that's it's better to have a head "well done" than head "well full". Bad translation of course, but I think you get it. Interesting debates do not happen when the best people can do is to throw references at each other.

I apologize to all who I might have hurt. I think that I will not get back further into this debate. Most of what I wanted to say, I already did in some form in this folder and another one (Tokyo bombings).

I can sum it up this way. In every decision making of this amplitude, a human being worth his salt should find an optimum way : a compromise between the absolute need to defeat a terrific political regime, and the human requirement to do it in a balanced, proportionate, even compassionate way. Bomber Harris had none of these qualities. He was after the civilians to score a point on a grand strategic theory. A firestorm on a city center is not the way to take out factories or a railway.

By the time of the Dresden raid whatever trickle of military equipment could be produced at the gates of Saxony could no longer play any significant role in the war and could hardly be transported to the armies who needed it (the rolling stock was as good as finished). It didn't warrant a horrible death for tens of thousands of non-combattants, a huge number of them completely innocent children. It was an atrocity utterly disproportionate with the results. The last days of the Reich were already scheduled for April-May. Dresden didn't change anything to that. Not by one day. Not by one hour.

Bomber Harris must feel alone in hell. I pity him...

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on June 04, 2005 09:11 am

Hi Alexandru H,

If you read my earlier posts you will see that I make a similar point. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between neo-Nazi revisionists attempting to rehabilitate the Nazis by trying to equate Auschwitz and Dresden and those who are not neo-Nazis but blindly accept the purported facts the neo-Nazis use because they have a natural revulsion against civilian deaths.

One of the code words used by neo-Nazis trying to imply an equation between the so-called "Holocaust" of the Jews at places like Auschwitz and "the large scale slaughter or destruction of life, often by fire" (a dictionary definition of the word "holocaust" in English) in Dresden is the use very word "holocaust". It is contained in the title of this thread.

Chandernagore would seem to be amongst the latter category of people who have a reasonable revulsion against civilian deaths but use unreasonable arguments not supported by the facts in the case of Dresden. I had to ask Chandernagore directly whether he was trying to equate Auschwitz with Dresden. He said no, quite rightly, because they are two very different issues, of which Auschwitz is undoubtedly far more monstrous. I accept his denial and that is on record earlier in this thread.

My problem with Chandernagore is that he holds other opinions about Dresden without offering anything substantive to back them up or, worse still, without making any effort to get the necessary sources. Taylor's book is at least a year old. Chandernagore dismisses it but hasn't read it. He might be pleasantly surprised if he did. He would certainly be better informed.

Absolutely. While Auschwitz is a clear cut issue, there is plenty of scope for new discoveries, arguments and ethical stands on the Dresden issue. The latest "new discoveries" are represented by Taylor's book. Would you not, therefore, advise Chandernagore to at least read it?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Chandernagore,

If that is what it takes at the third time of asking to find out what you mean by "monster", then yes, I would be happy if you would teach me English. You introduced the word "monster". What do you mean by it?

It is patently obvious that you have no grasp of Taylor and have never seen the book. Your entire knowledge of it is second hand through the internet. This is no substitute for (1) reading Taylor's book and (2) if you are then suspicious of it, following up the sources he gives.

If you will now not give details of a single book you have on the subject of Dresden, I think it reasonable to assume that not only have you not read Taylor, but you haven't read any other book on the subject either. Why are you either avoiding sources or concealing them? As long as you do that you can have no credibility on this subject.

Is there something wrong with directing you towards sources I have not read myself? If you ask a question that I do not have an answer to but instead put you onto a source, do you consider this "dishonest"? Why? If you are going to charge everyone who offers you help with being "dishonest", nobody is ever going to have any incentive to assist you.

I have already told you the essence of Harris's reply to Churchill, and I have given you the sources for it, as you requested. If you now want to know the exact words you will have to go to the Public Records Office and do some personal reaearch yourself. Remember, it is not me that is questioning this issue. It is you. The responsibility is yours to follow this up. As I have now said four times, I can lead you to sources, but I can't make you read them.

Nope. I never said Taylor was simply "authoritative". If I had, I am sure you would have come up with details of the exact post. Taylor is merely the most authoritative publication we have currently available. He is currently most authoritative because his bibliography indicates that he has not only consulted the earlier English- and German-language publications on Dresden, but done primary archive research in both Britain and Germany as well.

Er, no. We haven't established that Harris attacked Hamburg because it was "symbolic" to him. All we have is your claim that he did. I would again ask you for your source for this, but last time I did you said that you yourself were!

In case you haven't noticed, it has never been any secret that I have Taylor's book in my library.

Yup. Taylor does know what the factories produced. The details are in the source that I am now giving you for the fourth time: "Oberkommando des Heers: Liste der Fertifgunskennzeichen fur Waffen, Munition und Gerat." (Berlin, 1944, reprinted 1977 and 1999.) Just the title alone tells you that all were engaged in the production of weapons, munitions and other apparatus for the High Command of the German Army.

Nor does Taylor state that they were all inside the city centre. That is another of your personal inventions.

Taylor does substantiate his claim by providing numerous original German documentary sources and, it if you read his book, numerous eye-witness accounts as well. Short of having been personally in Dresden at the time, Taylor could hardly offer more primary sources! If you have any doubts about these sources, it is up to you to follow them up. They are all there in black and white in the book, in the conventional manner used by all responsible historians in every country.

Getting desperate now, are you? Trying to imply that I made a racial statement regarding Romanians? I think that resorting to such a low blow is about as conclusive an illustration as it is possible to have that you have lost the argument.

Cheers,

Sid.