Dresden Bombing. Holocaust?

No, but it did address your questions, and it did address issues of morality, humanity, and non-violence against innocents, which is not a grace to be given or withheld at the will of those temporarily in a position to exert force over defenseless people. Values apparently held extremely high at the time by the US leadership.

What I'm talking about is the significant similarity : the option to murder them. We 're not talking about Germans taking care of their civilians but about Allied options are we not ?

Ah, yes. The open city right in the middle of the enemy country.

Let this fantasy down already

In this same line of thoughts maybe the Soviets should have proposed Hitler the Honors of War during the battle of Berlin. You know, to spare the civilian lives and the courageous garrison in face of certain death. The Fuhrer would have been allowed to drive out the fortress in a Mercedes with his shining saber at hand to fight another day in Bavaria

Yeah, sure.


This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 10, 2006 11:05 pm

Hi Imp,

The population of Dresden were not defenceless. They were poorly defended. This was not the responsibility of the Allies. It was the responsibility of the German government.

I am all in favour of "morality, humanity and non-violence" towards innocents. What is more, there was, as I have mentioned before, a legal device to separate such innocents from the war - the "Open" city.

Had Dresden been declared "Open" and all military related production been suspended, all military personnel withdrawn and all military movements through it stopped, then the city might reasonably and legally be considered as out of the war and no longer a legitimate target.

But this did not happen, did it? It had at least 127 war-related factories, nearly 20 army barracks and depots, administered 8% of German military manpower and had 28 troop trains passing through it daily at least as late as October 1944.

Only the German government could declare Dresden "Open", but it did not do so. This kept the innocents amongst Dresden's population in the firing line.

It is quite clear from British parliamentary records that the morality of Dresden's bombing troubled many in Britain, but nothing similar seems to have troubled the Nazi government as far as its own responsibility for the catastrophe was concerned.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Chutzpah,

You raised the killing of prisoners in relation to this thread, not me. If you don't want the fallacy of the comparison to be exposed, don't bring it up.

Yes, an "Open" city, right in the middle of an enemy country. It was no fantasy. International law had provision for the "Open" city. The Nazi government chose not try this option anywhere in the Reich, not just Dresden. Not only that, but it occupied Budapest partly to prevent the Hungarian government declaring its capital "Open".

The Nazi government considered no risk or sacrifice by the German civilian population too great in order to buy it a few more days or hours in power. Dresden's population was just one of many that paid a terrible price for this.

Cheers,

Sid.

By the way the bombing was done, the target was mostly the workers, not the factories, and this leeds to the ideea that everybody was an enamy, even inocents.
So the allies were not protecting in any way innocent enamyes, this way nobody can be judged of warcrimes...

Hi cipiamon,

As I have mentioned before, the protection of Dresden was the responsibility of the German government, not of the Allies.

If the German government couldn't protect the city by main force, it always had the option of declaring Dresden "Open". It failed to do so.

In these circumstances, if the Western Allies were to avoid the risk of killing any of Dresden's innocents, they would have had to leave 127 war factories turning out equipment that would kill Allied soldiers, nearly 20 army depots and barracks turning out tens of thousands of soldiers trained and equipped to kill Allied soldiers, and railways intact to transport both to the front, where they could find the Allied soldiers to kill.

But of course, if this applied to Dresden, it should apply across the whole Reich. In which case almost the whole of German war industry, almost every German army depot and every communications hub in the entire country would have been immune to attack for fear of killing German innocents. In other words you are willing to see Nazi Germany survive by using its own population as human shields.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge - King of Spin and Dodge

sez..

Not so fast, dear Sid. First show there is a fallacy. Of course you can't because there is none.

Soooo. What about the similarity in options ?

Yes it was. During history cities were only declared "open" upon becoming front line with enemy ground forces, a condition lacking in Dresden. The concept of open city vastly predates the development of air warfare and made absolutely zero provision for it.

The conditions for any sort of control were non-existant in Dresden therefore the whole idea was null and void. This was pointed out several time but in your alternate reality world logic is conspicuously absent.

Thanks for making my point. See posts above.

You reject the war crime qualifier and you say there is a morale point to be made. But when one makes that morale point you reject that as well and dump all the responsibility of terror bombing on the nazi leadership. How convenient. Its not me, it's never me.

Typical anglo-saxon worldview.

This post has been edited by Chutzpah on June 12, 2006 12:26 pm

So you agree with those things in principle but if in practice they lead to the killing of your people or soldiers, it is pretty clear they are surpassed by bigger considerations, and are not worth the price. Congrats Sid, those are exactly the thought processes of a terrorist. It's not an insult, they really do express their opinions using the same mechanisms.

take care

Chutzpah, as you know, name-calling is not allowed here. Try to avoid it or do it elsewhere.

Hi Chutzpah,

I have already shown you the fallacy in trying to equate the killing of prisoners in one's own custody, who are one's own legal responsibility to protect, and the killing of civilians deep within the enemy's territory living and often working in and amongst war factories, military barracks, and military communications hubs.

If the killing of civilians occurred in an "Open" city, then you might have a point. But at Dresden it didn't, did it?

Why was this? Because the German government made no attempt to declare Dresden, or any other city or town in Germany, "Open".

Yup. The concept of the "Open" city predated aerial bombing. So what? Does this somehow prevent a city not in the immediate front line being declared "Open"? No. The obstacle was the Nazi German government, that never once even declared a city that was in the immediate front line "Open". It was infinitely more likely to become a "Festung"!

No possible control of an "Open" city? In this context, that rather presumes that Nazi Germany lacked the integrity to be trusted not to abuse an "Open" city. I am not altogether sure I agree with you there, but it certainly is a possibility. But surely, that only tends to reinforce my point that the Nazi government was the problem?

What about the International Red Cross? It inspected thousands of POW camps across Germany already. What about the League of Nations? Its Swedish delegate had administered Danzig between the wars and ensured it did not contribute to German military production. Germany also managed to find a good number of neutrals to take part in the Katyn enquiry during the war. I think you objection on this point is spurious. When it was convenient, Germany was quite capable of enlisting neutrals.

I rather think that the German decision to prevent Budapest being declared an "Open" city rather reinforces my point, don't you? It shows that the German government was alive to the possibility of "Open" cities but was determined not to allow resort to them.

Nope. I have never said that the Nazi German government was entirely responsible for area bombing. However, in seeking to assess the moral responsibility for the likes of Dresden it is undoubtedly the party primarily responsible. It decided that Dresden was more useful with 127 war factories, nearly 20 army depots and as a major communications hub than as a an "Open" city legally immune to air attack.

And there is no doubt that the British felt some sort of moral responsibility in this matter that over rode their legal right to keep bombing German cities and towns as long as they contributed to the German war effort through war factories, army barracks and as military communications hubs. That was why they stopped doing it several weeks before the end of the war. Perhaps this was, to use your words, "a typical Anglo-Saxon worldview". It certainly wasn't a typical Nazi German worldview, was it?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Not at all. Terrorists acknowledge no legal constraints. Whatever one's view on the morality of the Dresden bombing, it was at least technically legal.

Sid.

I see, back then disregard for morality, humanity, and non-violence to civilians was legal. And if we think about it real hard in terms of factories, optical devices and danger for soldiers, it was actually the right thing to do.
You miss the point that when morality, humanity and non-violence to civilians are left aside, the law is but a mere piece of paper, in our case conveniently inexistent at the time. In today's case, existent, but still a mere piece of paper for the terrorists that use the same thought mechanisms you used. The ...... regime is evil, we cannot fight their tanks, airplanes, apaches etc. without losing a lot of people, the evil regime uses its own people to hide behind while its troops do crimes in ......., we have to break their morale etc. etc.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 12, 2006 03:14 pm

Not Dresdeners; nevertheless, fitting to the topic.



Gen. Dénes

Hello Sid, maby is true that the city suported the german war-machine, but is not normal to declare your cityes open if you are fighting, and don't forget that in thouse times bombing raids cold not be stoped. The "defence" were not so efective. It was just the ideea. You could bomb any city in the reach of bombers. What could it do to the allied losses ? a few b17 or liberators... they were verry used to that, no problem there.

So you can imagine any combatant power using his civilians as human shields, if they are still shoting their high alt. AA is no problem for the bombers, they are bombing it anyway.
The main ideea here is that the allies won the war and possed as saviors and judged the germans as criminals of war for killing innocent civilians. Well actualy the allies did too.

To avoid the killing of the inocencent was an option, but they were not so strong to make it, desperately, they used any weak point of the germans, if they could throw a big gas bomb over Germany to win the war they would done it. Otherwise they would lose more of theyr soliders, you know the story... what can't be conquered easyly must be sacrified.

Sir,

I called Sid the "King of Spinning and Dodging".

No name calling here. In fact, I believe this is quite a compliment. He's very proficient at it ! A sure quality in nitpicking debates of the sort we're having here.

You decide, however.