Bombing of Dresden - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

El_Zoido · #91 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42 Regular

It wasn't always possible to hit purely military targets without hitting everything around them.
Daylight precision bombing was extremely costly when attacking the most heavily defended central war material factories, striking at the numerous smaller industries spread around the city could often do more to halt production of strategic materials than hits on the main factories.

The destruction of a small factory which produced an ecceptionally strong wood glue prevented the germans from deploying a highly advanced Wooden Wonder Bomber similar in design to the British Mosquito Bomber.
When the Germans tried a substitute glue the Bombers fell apart in the air.

Lack of the proper bearings forced the Germans to use solid bearings on their Tanks road wheels, shortening service time between major overhaul of the suspension and giving the Tank a distinctive sound which gave away its position in combat. The Tank factories were near immune to bombing but bombing the bearing plant reduced the number and effectiveness of their tanks.

Destroying Rail switching stations in cities hampered rail traffic hundreds of times more effectively than cutting rail lines. Tanks had to be moved by rail in order to reach the front with bearings intact.

Near as I can tell every strike on a German or Japanese city could be justified by the amount of war material production in that city, or presence of a Military command center.

The Mosquito Bomber I mentioned earlier was used with some success in bombing German Military targets in cities while avoiding civilian casualties, but that was a remarkable machine.

That sounds all so simple... justifications justifications...

But since when is it not known anymore that the British bombing strategy was to hit civilians as a way to demoralisation and terror?

After several years of bombing raids the german war production reached a peak in 1944... this alone should be the most obvious sign that bombing cities (targeting civilians) was a very poor strategy if you wanted to hit targets of importants for the war effort.

The Area bombing directive of the British Air Ministry from February 1942 clearly ORDERS the Royal Airforce (and thereby Allied Strategy) to target civilian moral.
It was also clarified that this order means that not factories & military installations would be targeted, but cities and buildup areas.

I don't know what kind of an image you have of german war production... but this country was extremly industrialized... there was simply nothing major build in cities that was not produced in 10-times higher outputs in some factories outside of a city.

Just think of the reaction to the equally justified german airraids on Coventry... it was very clear and publicly stated that the Airraids on German cities were acts of revenge for this...

42 Regular · #92 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008

Quote:

I don't know what kind of an image you have of german war production... but this country was extremly industrialized...

Yep, and like the small town I live in which produces anchor chains and tank tracks within the city limits about three miles from my highschool, plus Jet engine components and mainy other materials used in military applications.

The Upholstery firm a half mile from here made seats for military aircraft during WW2.

War Materials are manufactured by a huge number of sub contrators spread throughout any industrialized nation, access to rails is a common factor.

Halting production of a single component built by a small subcontractor can halt production of a major weapons system.
I was once asked to pick up a single 18 inch square box at a small air field at midnight. The box held a bunch of small threaded shockmounts with rubber end caps.
I was later told the company had used the wrong formula in the rubber, and since the threaded metal portion was of a special alloy the rubber had the be stripped and replaced. The company was in such a hurry because they were being fined ten thousand dollars a day.
The shockmounts were for a guidance system.

The company is about two miles from the center of town in a mixed commercial/residental area.

As towns expand they expand around the older factories.
These mixed zone properties are worth several times what standard residental properties are worth.

As noted there were 110 active wartime industries in Dresden, and the City of dresden website says it was fully integrated into the German War Effort.
Dreseden was a justifiable military target.

El_Zoido · #93 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42 Regular

Yep, and like the small town I live in which produces anchor chains and tank tracks within the city limits about three miles from my highschool, plus Jet engine components and mainy other materials used in military applications.

The Upholstery firm a half mile from here made seats for military aircraft during WW2.

War Materials are manufactured by a huge number of sub contrators spread throughout any industrialized nation, access to rails is a common factor.

Halting production of a single component built by a small subcontractor can halt production of a major weapons system.
I was once asked to pick up a single 18 inch square box at a small air field at midnight. The box held a bunch of small threaded shockmounts with rubber end caps.
I was later told the company had used the wrong formula in the rubber, and since the threaded metal portion was of a special alloy the rubber had the be stripped and replaced. The company was in such a hurry because they were being fined ten thousand dollars a day.
The shockmounts were for a guidance system.

The company is about two miles from the center of town in a mixed commercial/residental area.

As towns expand they expand around the older factories.
These mixed zone properties are worth several times what standard residental properties are worth.

As noted there were 110 active wartime industries in Dresden, and the City of dresden website says it was fully integrated into the German War Effort.
Dreseden was a justifiable military target.

Yet after Bombing german cities for several years this halting didn't really kick in.... nor was it the set goal... the official target was civilian moral => killing many civilians & destroying their homes => creating terror and hoping the germans would end the war like in 1918... or the dutch after the bombing of Rotterdam...

As nice as your little war ecconomics is, it was incredible inefficent nor was it the set goal of the bombing raids.

Besides:
2 miles from the center of the town... that is hardly the highly populated historic city centre with incredible uncommercial 1000 year old buildings, historic buildings, museums, churches,... usually found right in the middle of european cities...

Those are areas without even the typical 18-19th century block structure... with workshops behind the streetside building... just very dense with small streets and buildings side by side...

Köln/Collogne before and after the War

You can argue that there was some kind of war production, but it was far from anything critical.
Of course there was Industry in cities... but Allied bombing raids went right for the centeres of the cities... that tells me, the industry was not the major goal there...

Why is it so hard to face the past without trying to defend every single thing? is it impossible to say it was wrong?

You know, shooting partisans/civilians in order to break resistance also makes sense somehow... but you don't see me defending the Wehrmacht/SS for that... plus it too was incredible contra-productive...

Wallaroo · #94 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

That sounds all so simple... justifications justifications...

But since when is it not known anymore that the British bombing strategy was to hit civilians as a way to demoralisation and terror?

After several years of bombing raids the german war production reached a peak in 1944... this alone should be the most obvious sign that bombing cities (targeting civilians) was a very poor strategy if you wanted to hit targets of importants for the war effort.

The Area bombing directive of the British Air Ministry from February 1942 clearly ORDERS the Royal Airforce (and thereby Allied Strategy) to target civilian moral.
It was also clarified that this order means that not factories & military installations would be targeted, but cities and buildup areas.

I don't know what kind of an image you have of german war production... but this country was extremly industrialized... there was simply nothing major build in cities that was not produced in 10-times higher outputs in some factories outside of a city.

Just think of the reaction to the equally justified german airraids on Coventry... it was very clear and publicly stated that the Airraids on German cities were acts of revenge for this...

I think the allies could have won the war even if they didnt bomb civillian german targets, but only large military plants as you said. It might have taken a couple of years longer, but the german militarys worst enemy were indeed Hitler with his idotic priorities - invasion of Russia in the winter and such.

42 Regular · #95 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Yet after Bombing german cities for several years this halting didn't really kick in....

Germany could produce Tanks at one tenth the rate of US factories because of lack of vital sub assemblies.
German Aircraft had to revert to wooden tail assemblies and destruction of small glue factories cut down on production.
FW-190 fighters used tail assemblies built in ancient piano factories.

Quote:

Those are areas without even the typical 18-19th century block structure... with workshops behind the streetside building... just very dense with small streets and buildings side by side...

Which made pinpointing and striking only the workshops impossible.

Quote:

Of course there was Industry in cities... but Allied bombing raids went right for the centeres of the cities... that tells me, the industry was not the major goal there...

Rail marshalling yards and turn tables generally are inside the city limits often in the center of the city.

Quote:

You know, shooting partisans/civilians in order to break resistance also makes sense somehow... but you don't see me defending the Wehrmacht/SS for that... plus it too was incredible contra-productive...

If they shot them during combat operations or in self defense no crime was committed, only executions of captured Partizans would be a war crime, and not always then since Partizans could and did often commit crimes where execution was called for.

PS

Quote:

During World War II, Köln was a Military Area Command Headquarters (Militärische Bereich Befehl Hauptsitze) for Military District (Wehrkreis) VI in Münster. Cologne was under the command of Generalleutnant Freiherr Roeder von Diersburg, who was responsible for military operations at Bonn, Siegburg, Aachen, Jülich, Düren, and Monschau. Cologne was the Home Station for the 211th Infantry Regiment and the 26th Artillery Regiment.

The reason the city was so densely built up was it was surrounded by two fortifications, having been a major fortified city in early times.

Analyst · #96 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

I would ask you: please don't get him started. This is a serious thread about an important topic, and he will turn it into yet another "Americans are evil lunatics" thread. It has happened innumerable times, regardless of the original topic.

Sorry, I have never changed the topic of a thread. But what comes to Dresden, there were only one kind of devil - USA and GB which destroyed a civil city against all the rules of humanity. Hitler's regime was militaristic - as US regime today - but there has never been a reason to slaughter civilian population even in case of war. Today it is highly forbidden by international conventions and UN. Destruction of Dresden was comparable to the devastation in Baghdad during the last 5 yrs. There is no difference between the militarism of USA and Hitler's Germany. If you want me to give scientific links about this, I can do that.

El_Zoido · #97 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42 Regular

Which made pinpointing and striking only the workshops impossible.

That's why a moraly right person would have picked other targets.
You still have not discussed the fact that it was the primary goal to demoralize the civilan population by terror... industrial and military goals were mearly bonus targets.
They picked their targets on the basis "How good they burn" not how important they were...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42 Regular

Rail marshalling yards and turn tables generally are inside the city limits often in the center of the city.

Yet in Köln/Collogne for example all the big railway structures were about 1,5km from the historic center.... right next to the industrial area, the harbours,....

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42 Regular

If they shot them during combat operations or in self defense no crime was committed, only executions of captured Partizans would be a war crime, and not always then since Partizans could and did often commit crimes where execution was called for.

Well so while it is only right to execute "partisans" during combat operations, it is absolutly ok to kill 10.000 civilian non-combatans at night in order to destroy a piano-workshop....

The target were civilians to create terror and frustration with the war...
It was the official goal!
And perhaps in your logic that is ok because civilians are a source of manpower and thereby important in the war effort... or because there happend to be a piano workshop there that was drafted into military production...

But a basic moral understanding and even the law (which called for protecting civilian lives) tell & told everyone that it was not right.

That is why Arthur Harries's nickname within the RAF was Butcher Harries and why the strategy was highly controversial!

Tim · #98 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

That's why a moraly right person would have picked other targets.
You still have not discussed the fact that it was the primary goal to demoralize the civilan population by terror... industrial and military goals were mearly bonus targets.
They picked their targets on the basis "How good they burn" not how important they were...
...

Agreed.

It was not the only reason, and it didn't start out that way, but by the end of 1943, the intent was to do anything and everything possible to stop the Nazis - and that eventually included the complete destruction of cities, regardless of whether they were of military significance.

Wallaroo · #99 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

That's why a moraly right person would have picked other targets.
You still have not discussed the fact that it was the primary goal to demoralize the civilan population by terror... industrial and military goals were mearly bonus targets.
They picked their targets on the basis "How good they burn" not how important they were...

Well so while it is only right to execute "partisans" during combat operations, it is absolutly ok to kill 10.000 civilian non-combatans at night in order to destroy a piano-workshop....

The target were civilians to create terror and frustration with the war...
It was the official goal!
And perhaps in your logic that is ok because civilians are a source of manpower and thereby important in the war effort... or because there happend to be a piano workshop there that was drafted into military production...

But a basic moral understanding and even the law (which called for protecting civilian lives) tell & told everyone that it was not right.

That is why Arthur Harries's nickname within the RAF was Butcher Harries and why the strategy was highly controversial!

It is primary the british PM Winston Churchill that are to blame for the bombing of civillian targets in Germany. He could have said "no, this is not morally correct - we wanna win fair and square", but instead he prooved himself to be almost as big an asshole as Hitler, with almost as much blood on his hands. I hope that both of them are rotting away in hell!

Btw, does anyone know how many germans that died as a result of the airstrikes, and under WWII in total?

42 Regular · #**100** (**permalink**) 02-20-2008

Quote:

Yet in Köln/Collogne for example all the big railway structures were about 1,5km from the historic center.... right next to the industrial area, the harbours,....

Try hitting within a mile of a target from that altitude at night without any of the modern night vision equipment or guided bombs.
Bombs often drifted more than a mile from target.
Remember the British could only bomb at night, otherwise all those wooden tailed FW-190 would have butchered their formations.

Quote:

Almost a year later on 14 Jan 1943 a new directive was received which pulled the weight of effort away from German targets. The continuing U-boat threat caused the U-boat bases on the western French coast to be given priority status. Lorient, St Nazaire, Brest and La Pallice, together with the U-boat construction yards in Germany were targeted. Italian cities were also to be targeted to help force Italy out of the war.

Bombing operations
Most bombing operations were carried out by night to afford a measure of force protection against ground-based air defences and German fighter aircraft. The small proportion of daylight attacks which were conducted initially used the Blenheim, later Boston, Ventura and Mosquito. Night bombing came into its own in early 1941. The initial target set focused on oil infrastructure and ops were flown by the Wellington, Whitley and Hampden. Targeting priorities soon changed and by Mar 1941 the ports and shipyards associated with capital ships and the U boat threat were the primary target. Other targets in support of the Battle of the Atlantic were the factories and airfields which supporting the Focke Wolfe Condor reconnaissance platform which patrolled the North Atlantic.

RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Bomber Command

As the ability of allied bombers to strike deep into the German heartland developed German industry and training facilities had to turn from building bombers and training bomber crews to building interceptors.
As long as the pressure was maintained fewer and fewer resources could be devoted to bombing British towns and cities.
Also less fighter cover over harbors and other targets closer to England.

El_Zoido · #**101** (**permalink**) 02-21-2008

Well,
So you basicly say, that it is ok to kill as many civilians as neccesarry to reach a certain goal. That civilians are a legitimate target in war and "colateral damage" is acceptable aslong as a certain objective is reached ?

Because I see it as a crime to target civilian targets at war... so all you give me are different motives for a crime...

What if the Allies would have build more tactical bombers and figthers instead of going for strategic bombardment? How many Spitfires or Mosquito bombers are one B-17?
And don't tell me, that it would have taken longer that way... Strategic warfare is slow... the effects are not sudden...

I say that strategy was born in a time filled with lust for revenge and humiliation.
And after a couple of years, there was no will to change strategy because you can't simply change plane productions and tactics that easy once they are so advanced.

Analyst · #**102** (**permalink**) 02-21-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Zoido

Well,
So you basicly say, that it is ok to kill as many civilians as neccesarry to reach a certain goal. That civilians are a legitimate target in war and "colateral damage" is acceptable aslong as a certain objective is reached ?

We don't say that! However, this principle of killing civilians is common to the Americans (and Britons). US Army did the same in Germany what they do today in Baghdad.

We had a serious political analysis article today in our leading newspaper saying that the moral of Americans is at the level of Medieval people in Europe. Torture and civilian slaughtering is back on our world thanks to the American people.

And what are the civilized people in civilized countries doing - nothing. Exactly same what happened during the Hitler's times - everuýbody wants to be a good friend of the nasty guy.

Richyrich03867 · #**103** (**permalink**) 04-02-2008

Everything I have rad about Dresden is that it was chose not for military significance but rather for the purpose of boming civilians to break morale of the populace. The Blitz had the same strategic goal. I can find no justifiable reason to puposely bomb civilians. Fits my definition of terrorism.

picaro · #**104** (**permalink**) 04-02-2008

Quote:

Yet after Bombing german cities for several years this halting didn't really kick in....

The innefectiveness of the bombing campaigns wasn't really known until after the war, when studies by people such as John Kenneth Galbraith showed that was the case.

Quote:

the official target was civilian moral => killing many civilians & destroying their homes => creating terror and hoping the germans would end the war like in 1918... or the dutch after the bombing of Rotterdam...

Certainly that was also a goal as well; after all, it was easy to sell revenge after the attacks on London and the weird mostly aimless rocket attacks on England, and the news began filtering back from the Polish underground about the camps, massacres, etc.

The 'terror' bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were effective in shortening the war, there isn't any doubt, and they served another purpose in giving Stalin pause, both in Europe and the Far East. I think most nations give up moral pretenses when faced with total war, whether they instigated it or not.

The decisions made to pursue 'Total War' weren't just an Allied 'moral' failure; several countries went down that road before we got into the conflict.

picaro · #**105** (**permalink**) 04-02-2008

Quote:

We don't say that! However, this principle of killing civilians is common to the Americans (and Britons). US Army did the same in Germany what they do today in Baghdad.

This is hyperbolic nonsense. Most of the killing being done is by the 'ethnic cleansing' being carried on by Iraqis themselves.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google