God Fearing Atheist

Our good friend Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"), head of Bomber Command, stated on a number of occasions that the attack on Dresden was nothing more than a terror bombing. This was the direct result of Directive No. 22, which stipulated that the air campaign be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers".

seanie

And Dresden was never part of the military-industrial complex. It had virtually no military or industrial targets. It had previously been left pretty much untouched for precisely that reason.

But by that stage of the war all the legitimate targets had already been bombed to buggery. The reasons for the scale of the attack on Dresden were primarily;

1. Civillian terror. The horror of the attack would cause terror and panic throughout Germany. This would swell the number of refugees fleeing from the towns and cities which would hopefully disrupt and impede the German's already haemorrhaging war effort.

2. A warning to Stalin. The end of the war in Europe was clearly in sight and so thoughts were turning to the post-war settlement. Stalin was clearly a threat given the fearsome fighting machine the Red Army had become. The Soviets were advancing on Dresden. Destroying it utterly demostrated the destructive capacity of the Western allies. "You have a fearsome army but just see what our air force can do."

3. An experiment. Dresden was a largely untouched, tightly packed, medieval wooden city. It provided a perfect opportunity to see just what could be achieved through the use of incendiary bombs. The ideal opportunity to create a firestorm.

Vorkosigan

1 & 2, but 3? I don't think that will really hold, seanie. By that time there had been numerous firestorms and everyone knew what incindieries would do; that's why they dropped them.

Vorkosigan

seanie

There had been Hamburg and some smaller targets. But to some extent they were accidental. With Hamburg they didn't anticipate a firestorm. It just happened.

But having seen the destructive effects of a firestorm, Dresden provided an opportunity to set out to create one. To see how much damage could be wrought if you really tried.

I doubt that was in Churchill's mind. But Bomber Harris had a professional, technical interest in seeing what could be achieved. He wanted to explore a particular tactic.

God Fearing Atheist

Right. And even had it been an industrial center at one point, by February 1945, those targets would have long been rubble.

Primal

The bombings were more then justified. It is war. The Nazis were a threat that we didn't want to rise again and that we wanted to get rid of ASAP.

Lets say you were an allied soldier and they refused to bomb Berlin and certain areas, softening up positions before you went in to battle, would you be ok with it?

Would you be okay if they increased YOUR chances, as a soldier of getting shot because they didn't want to hit military targets?

As a soldier what would you prefer? And who is the government supposed to be more loyal to, our own troops or enemy civilians?

Cities, factories and houses represent centers of production. They ARE often times military targets because hurting them hurts the military. You will notice that in Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" Speer was very worried about the bombing of ball bearing factories during the war, because they were only produced in a few key areas and if the factories were bombed germany could not make any more tanks. Had the allies hit ball bearing plants, the war would have been over in a far shorter time.

Speer also advised that generals hit russian plants to destroy russian production, the russians keep in mind had poor aa. If the generals had listened(they preffered more military targets) the Soviet Union wouldn't have produced as many tanks or guns and probably would have lost.

The fact is war is ruthless and war is brutal. War is not fun. War is not supposed to be a fun match where only soldiers get hurt. Were that the case we could have a war every month for show.

Sometimes you have to hit civilians in a war. They are acceptable targets i.e. the end justifies the means. That is what situational morality is all about, saying "killing civilians is wrong no matter what" is absolutism.

To quote Asimov "Never let morality get in the way of doing the right thing." This is an important statement that means sometimes its ok to do some otherwise immoral things if they in the end help the greater good. Meaning its sometimes ok to kill civilians, in lets say bombing germany, if that helps reduce the german army to rubble, end the nazis and end the war.

Primal

Dresden if more an exception then the rule in world war 2 allied bombing campaings. I researched it a little and yes it was worthless as a center or industry or military base.

But there were other reasons for bombing it: 1) To lower german morale. 2) To try and aid the soviet advance via distracting troops i.e. having more defenses pulled to dresden and other civilian towns. 3) To hamper troop/supply movement. Dresden did contain rail lines, which were bombed as well as potential housing for german troops passing through.

This is somewhat of a grey area for me, but remember it is a war. The allies had to try and help the soviets any way they could, the consequences of decisions are not always obvious/clean cut, etc.

Mistakes do happen but you do not abandon a principle or strategy on the basis of a few draw backs, or back down completely from less then decent actions if they help your side win against an evil and ruthless foe.

As for being an "expiriment" I really doubt that. Such was never part of the orders and it seems unlikely that a general or politician would ever order an air attack just to test a weapon. Such a statement is mere speculation.

I would also like to point out that the bombing of Dresden was actually requested by Stalin, so it is unlikely it would have served as much of a warning.

Arbogast

Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" - brought up by Primal


Havent read that in 10 years, but that is a very good book to help understand WW2. Good book to bring up Primal.

seanie

Well yes and no.

Stalin had certainly requested more assistance from the western allies to help his advance. However he never asked for entire cities to be flattened. That was Bomber Harris's own special contribution.

The plan for Dresden was drawn up by him long before.

It was only in the run up to Yalta that Churchill gave authorisation for it. He wanted to strengthen his hand in the negotiations on the post-war settlement. To impress upon Stalin the RAF's military capability. And whilst we didn't want to offend Stalin by refusing help we didn't exactly want to make things too easy for him. Everyones' thoughts were now on the post-war situation. The alliance was just beginning to fracture.

As it turned out the weather delayed the attack till after Yalta but the British went ahead anyway. But Stalin was hardly going to be pleased with the results. He wanted reparations from Germany post-war. He didn't want to inherit a landscape of desolated cities, with no assets, that he'd bear the cost of reconstructing as the occupying power.

So no. Dresden wasn't down to Stalin. That was a post-war excuse to shift some of the blame for an action that horrified many. Including most in the USAF and RAF bomber commands. That's why Harris was shunned after the war. And why Dresden was the last large bombing.

It even turned the stomach of Churchill;

God Fearing Atheist

Racio has argued that that memorandum was an attempt to set up the Chiefs of Staff following the public outcry in Europe.

Churchie is also quoted as having said about Dresden after the war: "I thought the Americans did it. Air Chief Marshal Harris would be the person to contact."

When things get hot, just deny involvement!