The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

Not the War Office, the War Cabinet. Proposed by Bomber Harris and approved by Churchill. Saturation bombing of that type doesn't really need satnav precision. Unquestionably they targeted the city (as a communications centre) and not the industrial complexes outside the city. It was a civilian rather than military or economic target. As such it was probably a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention then in place. By any measure, Germany had lost the war by that time so there was no danger of the allies losing. Did it shorten the war in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki did? Probably by a few days. Prufrock makes a good argument IMHO FWIW, although I'm not sure what it all proves.

Worthy likes the Germans. They commit bombing attrocities yearly with towels on sunbeds and he likes them.

Okay, I'm joking. Now then:

An argument for what Monty? Pru's arguments are based on hindsight, general morality issues and one town (specifically). Now whilst I fully endorse his anti-war propaganda, ( and also can't condone the Dresden thing, although we won't mention the American contribution) there was a war on at the time. It's okay to say the Germans were in retreat, but they hadn't been in retreat bombing English towns like London, Liverpool, Coventry etc. These cities weren't giant armament producing areas, but densely populated areas; so much so that thousands of kids were evacuated to the countryside to avoid the slaughter. They also weren't bombing anything but soldiers in the Dunkirk retreat were they? (I won't bore with recollections of this, but it should be read about along with the treatment by the Germans of the captured servicemen.)

So, we agree that war is useless, but lets keep the opposition in perspective before flagellating ourselves to death with guilt over one unsavoury incident in a six year world war. Six years in which some of us didn't know if our fathers were ever coming home again. Mine did, but a lot weren't so lucky. My father wouldn't even speak about Dunkirk, ever. The Germans were great ones for worrying bout Geneva conventions on war. Let's just keep a sense of proportion hey and hope it never happens again?

Anyone for voting?

[Bruce Rioja]

This country has done great things, it has done terrible things (I had an odd moment the other day when I met a guy from Dresden, and without thinking, just said, 'Sorry').

Did he say anything about Coventry?

"And here ist za bill"?

[Worthy4England]

Not the War Office, the War Cabinet. Proposed by Bomber Harris and approved by Churchill. Saturation bombing of that type doesn't really need satnav precision. Unquestionably they targeted the city (as a communications centre) and not the industrial complexes outside the city. It was a civilian rather than military or economic target. As such it was probably a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention then in place. By any measure, Germany had lost the war by that time so there was no danger of the allies losing. Did it shorten the war in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki did? Probably by a few days. Prufrock makes a good argument IMHO FWIW, although I'm not sure what it all proves.

Worthy likes the Germans. They commit bombing attrocities yearly with towels on sunbeds and he likes them.

Okay, I'm joking. Now then:

An argument for what Monty? Pru's arguments are based on hindsight, general morality issues and one town (specifically). Now whilst I fully endorse his anti-war propaganda, ( and also can't condone the Dresden thing, although we won't mention the American contribution) there was a war on at the time. It's okay to say the Germans were in retreat, but they hadn't been in retreat bombing English towns like London, Liverpool, Coventry etc. These cities weren't giant armament producing areas, but densely populated areas; so much so that thousands of kids were evacuated to the countryside to avoid the slaughter. They also weren't bombing anything but soldiers in the Dunkirk retreat were they? (I won't bore with recollections of this, but it should be read about along with the treatment by the Germans of the captured servicemen.)

So, we agree that war is useless, but lets keep the opposition in perspective before flagellating ourselves to death with guilt over one unsavoury incident in a six year world war. Six years in which some of us didn't know if our fathers were ever coming home again. Mine did, but a lot weren't so lucky. My father wouldn't even speak about Dunkirk, ever. The Germans were great ones for worrying bout Geneva conventions on war. Let's just keep a sense of proportion hey and hope it never happens again?

Anyone for voting?

Looks like we're still on the same side of the fence Tango

Germany had not lost the war - the same week Dresden was bombed Germany launched the highest number of the war so far, of long range V2 rocket attacks on the UK. Yes they were losing the war and never going to win it from probably much earlier than Feb 45. Sorry Monty though, if someones fighting me and still hitting me, I'm going to carry on hitting them back. Especially when there's evidence that they were working on Sarin and other nerve agents as part of their munitions programme to go inside the V2.

[William the White]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

[Worthy4England]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

Auschwitz had already been liberated by the time Dresden was bombed methinks...

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe so, but I've heard the testimony of many a survivor seeing planes flying over asking "why don't they bomb here, do they not care about us?"

[TANGODANCER]

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

Tango has already declared on the uselessness of all wars. They happen regardless and hindsight is like a crime investigation team; a crime has to be committed before they move in. The "you" factor hardly applies, except to those who made decisions. Small consolation, but perhaps our intervention prevented the Master-race plan from taking over the western world. Would that have been in any way preferable?

[William the White]

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

Tango has already declared on the uselessness of all wars. They happen regardless and hindsight is like a crime investigation team; a crime has to be committed before they move in. The "you" factor hardly applies, except to those who made decisions. Small consolation, but perhaps our intervention prevented the Master-race plan from taking over the western world. Would that have been in any way preferable?

To make it absolutely clear - i am not a pacifist, and, if any war, in the whole history of warfare, was worth fighting, then that against Hitler surely was.

But bombing Dresden, even in the context of that war, was evil and barbaric.

[William the White]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

Auschwitz had already been liberated by the time Dresden was bombed methinks...

Three weeks earlier - i accept. But does that invalidate the point i'm trying to make? What are your priorities - terror bombing of German civilians or dislocation of the holocaust? It's a polemical point, i admit, those weren't the only two choices. But the pursuit of one tactic and the neglect of the other imperative leaves a stain.

[TANGODANCER]

Three weeks earlier - i accept. But does that invalidate the point i'm trying to make? What are your priorities - terror bombing of German civilians or dislocation of the holocaust? It's a polemical point, i admit, those weren't the only two choices. But the pursuit of one tactic and the neglect of the other imperative leaves a stain.

Yes, it does. The persecution and killing of six million Jews and Gypsies leaves a much bigger one methinks. Add to that the amount of others who died fighting Hitler's legions. Maybe more could have been done (in hindsight) to pevent it, but we weren't the perpetrators. Lets lay the blame where it belongs for that.

[William the White]

Three weeks earlier - i accept. But does that invalidate the point i'm trying to make? What are your priorities - terror bombing of German civilians or dislocation of the holocaust? It's a polemical point, i admit, those weren't the only two choices. But the pursuit of one tactic and the neglect of the other imperative leaves a stain.

Yes, it does. The persecution and killing of six million Jews and Gypsies leaves a much bigger one methinks. Add to that the amount of others who died fighting Hitler's legions. Maybe more could have been done (in hindsight) to pevent it, but we weren't the perpetrators. Lets lay the blame where it belongs for that.

How was i not doing that? The Nazis are responsible for the holocaust. the Allies for the war crime of dresden. There - blame laid where it belongs. One crime was greater than the other - in motivation, in numbers killed, in ideology behind the events. It isn't remotely possible for you to think i was drawing an exact paralell between these two events.

[Worthy4England]

Well, I asked for sources, you provided some, fair do's. I can't say I haven't read these things previously, I have, but my initial point was that it was the War Office who gave the orders, not the servicemen or the British public. No one can ever sanctioned any form of killing as right, but in a kill or be killed situation such as war, I suppose some rational thinking goes out of the window in favour of not losing. Every member of the British public regarded Hitler and his gestapo as animals after revelation of what they were doing to the Jews, so maybe that affected some thought and consciences more than just a little. As for right, what's ever right about war? There's no difference between a shopkeeper and his family in Dresden than one in Birmingham, Manchester, London or Coventry is there?

If so. perhaps bombing the railway lines to Aushwitz - which Jewish organisations were pleading for - would have made more sense than bombing the civilian aeas of Dresden. The war Cabinet preferred mass terror. Tango will doubtless come in with the argument that there was a war on. But history's assessment needs to go beyond the subjective. Did the bombing of Dresden prove to be a powerful way of advancing the war effort? Was it worth the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths? If you cared about the Jews why did you do nothing about the camps you knew about (even if you weren't aware of the full horrors)?

Auschwitz had already been liberated by the time Dresden was bombed methinks...

Three weeks earlier - i accept. But does that invalidate the point i'm trying to make? What are your priorities - terror bombing of German civilians or dislocation of the holocaust? It's a polemical point, i admit, those weren't the only two choices. But the pursuit of one tactic and the neglect of the other imperative leaves a stain.

There were many things going on at the time Dresden was going on as the 40-odd pages of war office notes covering the period will attest to. The raid at Dresden get's about a paragraph saying that it had occurred and about a week later gets about half a page on summaries of what the impact had been.

I accept your point that making a choice between X and Y as you present them, might in the cold light of day, 60 years after the event somehow might make more sense - in the cold light of day, 60 years after the event. At the time Dresden, was Germany's largest "untouched" city - if any location was likely to become the "administrative Capital", it was probably Dresden.

At the time, this spent and beaten force were still lobbing long range bombs onto London. At the time, we were still at war, no peace had been declared. At the time, I wasn't there to take a decision, don't know the information that led to the decision, so it's really difficult for me to draw any conclusion as to whether it was the best decision at the time it was taken and on the information available. I'm sure the people taking the decision would have been delighted to have the benefit of being able to spend 60 years considering it and also to have the benefit of understanding, after the event, the impacts it may or may not have had...

[Lord Kangana]

Anyhoo, just to lighten the thread with a little comedy moment:

CBI to attack Gordon Brown's "economic vandalism" in relation to the 50p/£ tax increase.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... alism.html

[William the White]

Worthy - I agree with you.

The judgement of history is sterner than that taken in hot blood, under the terrible pressure of events; it's considered, with all the benefit of hindsight, and that's why it's so important. It isn't faced with immediate, urgent choices, though it analyses them, it's cold, no lives (usually) depend on it (though, that said, historians in totalitarian regimes, particularly stalin's soviet union, found themselves in cellars with a pistol to the head for making the wrong call).

Historians don't exist in the past they are describing, analysing and assessing - that is their strength, not their weakness.

That is what gives us the faint possibility of learning from history.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Tango, the good point Prufrock made was that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, which specifically targeted civilians. Furthermore, Churchill et al knew it at the time and did it anyway. Granted Hitler and his gang committed crimes against humanity at a far worse level, but this not change or even justify the fact. The average Brit had no more control over what Churchill did than the citizens of Dresden had over the Nazi conduct of the war, so I don't blame the country for decisions its leaders make in time. I just feel it is wrong to condone Dresden on the grounds that it was nowhere near as bad as what the Nazis did to the Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc. Nor do I feel there was much military justification for what was done, as opposed to the raid on Peenemunde (in answer to Worthy's V2 concern). Interestingly, about the same number of people were killed in the Dresden raid as British people were killed by German bombing in the entire war - which gives some scale to the raid..

[TANGODANCER]

Tango, the good point Prufrock made was that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, .

So where do we actually stand with all this? Are "War Cimes" not amongst the biggest jokes of all time? It's okay to blow one another to smithereens as long as you obey the rules for doing so? A sniper killing somebody who probably doesn't even know he exists is fair? Tanks, planes, bullets, what the hell's the difference if they die? Who has ever observed rules in war better than ourselves? Did prisoners of war over here suffer attrocites, torture and starvation? They more than likely got asked, "Would you like a cup of tea old chap?" What did we ever have that compared with Belsen, Auschwictz, Colditz etc?

See, What I don't quite understand is Pru's moral outrage at something that happened in a war that ended forty four years before he was born? I like Pru and respect his intelligence, but I don't feel that anyone dying in Dresden was any worse than someone dying in London. The pain and loss are no less in either case. Who apologised to us? We all need to accept this is a part of history none of us had control over and, whilst we can regret it happened we can't bring back the dead either of our own or those who, at that time, were our enemies. Let's put it to bed.

[Lord Kangana]

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

Or "they started it" is not a defence.

[TANGODANCER]

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. Or "they started it" is not a defence.

Oh, I should imagine it is really when you think about it.

[Worthy4England]

Tango, the good point Prufrock made was that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime, which specifically targeted civilians. Furthermore, Churchill et al knew it at the time and did it anyway. Granted Hitler and his gang committed crimes against humanity at a far worse level, but this not change or even justify the fact. The average Brit had no more control over what Churchill did than the citizens of Dresden had over the Nazi conduct of the war, so I don't blame the country for decisions its leaders make in time. I just feel it is wrong to condone Dresden on the grounds that it was nowhere near as bad as what the Nazis did to the Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc. Nor do I feel there was much military justification for what was done, as opposed to the raid on Peenemunde (in answer to Worthy's V2 concern). Interestingly, about the same number of people were killed in the Dresden raid as British people were killed by German bombing in the entire war - which gives some scale to the raid..

Monty you are picking an event out in isolation. Up until 1942, most of the Allies Air strategy was around air to air/ air to sea targets and trying to defend against attacks. In 1942 just prior to "Bomber Harris" taking command, the strategy was developed whereby we would try and cripple Germany into a surrender position. At this point, Germany were certainly not out of the war.

There was also a report that suggested at the time (contrary to your view of precision) that less than 30% of sorties flown got within 5 miles of the target (later analysis which considered aircraft lost to enemy action, aircraft "just getting lost", equipment failure etc. put the figure at nearer 5%). I think people get confused by watching smart bombing on CNN these days and assume a level of accuracy that didn't exist.

This is part lead to the dehousing strategy that was operational from March 42. At that point, the Allies were struggling to get a foothold anywhere on the European mainland, in a war that had been going the best part of three years. Salerno didn't happen until Sept 43 and the BEF @ Dunkirk had proved unsustainable in 1940.

The view was taken, not lightly, that the strategy to go on the offensive and disrupt Germany's supply capability would include "firestorm" and "dehousing" and was not unsurprisingly, the Allies replicating what Germany had been doing since 1939 when it attacked Weilun in Poland using the same tactic. Other than to get Germany looking "inwards" at it's homeland all other attempts to get on mainland Europe had failed. It started with the raid on Cologne (first major offensive), Dresden was at the tail end of that strategic direction formulated 3 years earlier to dehouse people as the tools of "means of production".

The Geneva Convention is a noble principle - but only if both sides abide by it. If someone has taken my eye out and I had at my disposal the means to stop them taking my other eye out (to use the eye for and eye analogy), sorry, but I'm going to use it.

Maybe we should have just stuck to the Queensbury rules as the Germans made their way up mainland Britain? Had they surrendered when it was so obvious to people on here that they were beat. We'd have stopped bombing them.

[Lord Kangana]

If I may interject here, you seem to say that this was the only strategy considered. It most certainly wasn't, nor was it the best. It was vehemently opposed and criticised at the time of its inception, and continued to be so during and after its execution. The forcefulness of Harris's personality is one starting point, the other is the need to be seen doing something. The sad truth of it is that we wanted to avoid First World War level casualties (both ourselves and the Americans), and put simply we allowed the Russians to bear the brunt of the casualties whilst the bombing campaign was used as a propoganda weapon. It was already accepted that it was both obsolete and a waste of resources in military circles, and a needless extention of war to the civillian population.