- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
But they started it,what you liked to live under an Nazi regime
They started it? That's the extent of your argument?
Are your parents aware that you're on the computer?
and help to keep the site free for all
Did the Archbishop of Canterbury just apologise for bombing the Nazis?
- Thread starter AHILL
- Start date
They started it? That's the extent of your argument?
Are your parents aware that you're on the computer?
Ok Viv what's your argument about why they shouldn't have bombed Dresden ?,their was a very good reason,the city itself had three big rail links,the Russian were advaceing on two fronts at great cost to their solider,the argument for the raid was to destroy those 3 rail links,and quite literally to destroy the will of the people to keep fighting,up to this point the war brought on by the Germans had cost millions of life's.
To most people at that time anything to bring war to an quicker end was seen as fair game,we did not live in theses times.
Plus the fire bombing of Tokyo alone cost over 250,000 lives was that wrong,then the atomic bombs were they war crimes,or did the allies have a right to bring the war to an end the quickest way possible ?
It was an military attack fair and square,it's alright for us to sit in judgment,who were not around at the time,I will say it again the only people guilty were Hitler & the German people who followed him,and brought untold misery on million of lives.
You start total war,expect it to be return on you.
- Messages
- 928
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Glad to see another TP thread railroading towards disaster thanks to a hint of politics.
I believe the point the Archbishop was making is that it is sad and regretful that the incident happened, and that it's still a raw wound people are struggling to move on from many years later. That's it. Not apportioning blame. The saddest thing is that the world has learned very little from these atrocities (on both sides, that much is pretty undebatable), and sad, needless loss of life continues.
I believe the point the Archbishop was making is that it is sad and regretful that the incident happened, and that it's still a raw wound people are struggling to move on from many years later. That's it. Not apportioning blame. The saddest thing is that the world has learned very little from these atrocities (on both sides, that much is pretty undebatable), and sad, needless loss of life continues.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Goodness me a moment of intelligent reflection on TP, well I never.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Actually I'm pretty certain the RAF bombed German cities first, not that its relevent, for most the blanket firebombing of Dresden is today considered a controversial act of war. Although Dresden was not the worst, operation Gomorrah by the allies, firebombed Hamburg killing almost 43,000 civilians. Its worth putting that into context with the blitz which lasted approx 8 months resulted in the loss of 40,000 civilian deaths.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Were there good targets in Dresden? Certainly.
Wasrit necessary to carpet bomb the city to destroy them. No.
We didn't do it that way because we had to. We did it that way because we could....because we saw killing tens of thousands of civilians as nothing more than giving Gerry a bit of a spanking.
Wasrit necessary to carpet bomb the city to destroy them. No.
We didn't do it that way because we had to. We did it that way because we could....because we saw killing tens of thousands of civilians as nothing more than giving Gerry a bit of a spanking.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In 1939 Germany invaded Poland, and were given fair warning that unless they withdrew, war would be declared on them. They didn't pull out and therefore war against Germany was declared.
A war of that scale could and was only conducted on both sides by the support and consent of the entire population. That support included manufacture of weapons and supplies to troops fighting. Therefore what would be regarded as civilian targets were perfectly lawful, as indeed they would be now in those circumstances. Work in industry supporting manufacture of weapons and support for troops made German civilians fair game. The same way as they saw attacks on our industrial base as acceptable.
The assertion that Dresden was a war crime is therefore total cobblers, in exactly the same way that bombing London and Coventry wasn't.
Put bluntly, Germany and the German population knew the likely consequences, even if they started off believing that fat twit Goering, that no enemy bomber would fly over the Germany, they soon learned. I don't see anyone complaining that the Luftwaffe committed war crimes for turning the East End of London into a firestorm.
And lastly, bombing industrial targets was the aim. It was a sad fact of life that neither sides bombers were accurate, and what would take one aircraft now, would take a main bomber force effort in 1944. In order to save Allied lives, some Germans lost theirs. Given the choice which the Allies were at the time, it was the only reasonable option.
Yves Geza
Urchin
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm saddened to the point of anger at the revisionism of @ghoti and others in this thread.
Turns out that I couldn't agree more with @simonblue who has posted while I was typing.
I was only born in 1956, but eleven years earlier, in 1945, my father was on Active Service and my mother was working for the War Crimes Commission. And before that they'd lived through London's Blitz. They went on to have many German friends of their own age, and acquaintances with unrequited Nazis who would sing the Horst Wessel Song late at night after a few drinks, but they would never have dreamed of apologising for the razing of Dresden and neither would I.
In 1945 it was the sixth year of a total war. Dresden was every bit as valid a tactical target as Coventry had been five years earlier. In 1940 the Luftwaffe had attempted and failed to ignite a complete firestorm. The difference is that five years later, the tactics and bomb loads of aerial bombing had improved.
Equally, the depravity of the Nazis and the complete complicity of the German people was very well known and had been for several years, even if the final audit had not been completed.
@simonblue has rightly made the point that you don't stop fighting a war just because you're winning; that the swiftest conclusion is the kindest and the least bad! That's a lesson we should remember as we lurch around terrorist conflicts today, trying not to offend or alienate the other side who do not always share the same delicate sensitivities.
Perhaps the simplest, most eloquent explanation of my feelings comes from a Spike Milligan truism from "Adolf Hitler My Part in his Downfall". I extemporise his story how he went on guard duty wearing a blue chalkstripe suit, lemon shirt and pink tie.
"Gunner Milligan, what the hell are you doing? Why aren't you in uniform?"
"I can't wear uniform, Sir, it's dangerous! ... Germans shoot at it on sight!"
And vice versa. I do not think the British people of 1945 were remotely upset if their leaders ordered the destruction of Dresden. I do not think we have the right to change that view now on their behalf.
Turns out that I couldn't agree more with @simonblue who has posted while I was typing.
I was only born in 1956, but eleven years earlier, in 1945, my father was on Active Service and my mother was working for the War Crimes Commission. And before that they'd lived through London's Blitz. They went on to have many German friends of their own age, and acquaintances with unrequited Nazis who would sing the Horst Wessel Song late at night after a few drinks, but they would never have dreamed of apologising for the razing of Dresden and neither would I.
In 1945 it was the sixth year of a total war. Dresden was every bit as valid a tactical target as Coventry had been five years earlier. In 1940 the Luftwaffe had attempted and failed to ignite a complete firestorm. The difference is that five years later, the tactics and bomb loads of aerial bombing had improved.
Equally, the depravity of the Nazis and the complete complicity of the German people was very well known and had been for several years, even if the final audit had not been completed.
@simonblue has rightly made the point that you don't stop fighting a war just because you're winning; that the swiftest conclusion is the kindest and the least bad! That's a lesson we should remember as we lurch around terrorist conflicts today, trying not to offend or alienate the other side who do not always share the same delicate sensitivities.
Perhaps the simplest, most eloquent explanation of my feelings comes from a Spike Milligan truism from "Adolf Hitler My Part in his Downfall". I extemporise his story how he went on guard duty wearing a blue chalkstripe suit, lemon shirt and pink tie.
"Gunner Milligan, what the hell are you doing? Why aren't you in uniform?"
"I can't wear uniform, Sir, it's dangerous! ... Germans shoot at it on sight!"
And vice versa. I do not think the British people of 1945 were remotely upset if their leaders ordered the destruction of Dresden. I do not think we have the right to change that view now on their behalf.
Tringa
Numpty of the Day'
- Messages
- 5,837
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In my opinion, expressing regret and sorrow for something like the bombing of Dresden or similar bombing raids on English cities is reasonable and right. Who would not at be upset/have compassion for the deaths of many hundreds of innocent people?
However, the comparatively recent move for present day organisations/Governments to apologise for events that happened many years ago seems to me to be stupid.
History has context - things were different then. We would not do similar things now and to apologise for the actions carried out in the past is meaningless. I see it as an attempt by the organisation that is apologising to appear better in the public eye.
Dave
However, the comparatively recent move for present day organisations/Governments to apologise for events that happened many years ago seems to me to be stupid.
History has context - things were different then. We would not do similar things now and to apologise for the actions carried out in the past is meaningless. I see it as an attempt by the organisation that is apologising to appear better in the public eye.
Dave
In fact, most of Dresden's heavy industry on the outskirts (the ostensible "target") was left untouched while the city centre was completely destroyed in the most horrific way. Children burned alive - not as "collateral damage" but as the target of the operation.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, let's just get this correct. Churchill actually said:
'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.'
However, Zeppelin raids in ww1, the bombing of any number of cities, towns, the flattening of Stalingrad? Of all of the destructions and numbers killed (of which there were many) Dresden stands out purely because of the result. Incendiaries are included in the mix in many raids, but there's many causes to the firestorm.
There was a huge negative response at the time from "British people". Many of whom thought the destruction of Dresden was an utter horror. Even Churchill acknowledged the bad PR (see quote above from Byker).
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Selective? 450 us bombers went back the next day to continue the attack and a further 450 attacked industrial targets to the South west. Dresden was the command and control centre for the area, and as such was an important target with the soviets approaching.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No Ghoti (Is that meant to be fish by the way?), the target was industry. The difference was that even after 6 years of bombing no one had a bomb sight that was as accurate as now. The average hit rate on a target was horrifically low, hence the heavy raids of 100's and sometimes 1000 aircraft. It was the only way to have any chance of hitting a target. Sometimes those targets were missed, it happens, no one could accurately give weather conditions over a target, no one could compute the exact point of impact of a bomb.
In total war, which WW2 was, sadly the civilian population is as much in it as those in uniform. The deaths were unfortunate and if the allies wanted to save lives of their own, unavoidable.
As a side issue, I lived in Germany for 3 years in the 70's. The area of north Germany was given a good seeing too by the RAF & USAAF during WW2. The Germans didn't hold a grudge, so most of this self flagellation over the bombing effort is misplaced.
In fact, so much was it not held as an issue, that when an RAF Lancaster, EE109 was found in a canal in Hanover the German Civilians bent over backwards to help the RAF Police investigator on what happened,. Including the lady who's house it hit on the way down. She made the Investigator and his son numerous cups of coffee, while they dug about in the bits. My dad and I enjoyed those coffees very much.
In total war, which WW2 was, sadly the civilian population is as much in it as those in uniform. The deaths were unfortunate and if the allies wanted to save lives of their own, unavoidable.
As a side issue, I lived in Germany for 3 years in the 70's. The area of north Germany was given a good seeing too by the RAF & USAAF during WW2. The Germans didn't hold a grudge, so most of this self flagellation over the bombing effort is misplaced.
In fact, so much was it not held as an issue, that when an RAF Lancaster, EE109 was found in a canal in Hanover the German Civilians bent over backwards to help the RAF Police investigator on what happened,. Including the lady who's house it hit on the way down. She made the Investigator and his son numerous cups of coffee, while they dug about in the bits. My dad and I enjoyed those coffees very much.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You do like twisting things to suit your view...
Go on, when did Churchill say that, also I provided that quote as you said Churchill said it was a terrorist act.
Last edited:
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is not true. Bombing in WW2 was an inaccurate affair with most bombs not falling within 5 miles of their targets. 60 RAF planes in the first wave mistakenly bombed Prague ! Furthermore, it was not a case of giving Gerry a spanking. It was a tactic throughout the war to inflict casualties, de-house people, destroy water mains, gas mains, electricity supplies and sewers etc. and to attack again a few hours later so as to destroy firefighters and their equipment. The aim being to disrupt and exhaust enemy resources.
In your quote Churchill admits that the bombings were to increase terror, but were carried out under other pretexts (industrial attacks). He then acknowledges that there were serious questions over these tactics.
So he explicitly says that the primary role of the Dresden bombing was terror. To terrorise the civilian population. And that justifications of industrial targets were "pretexts".
It's right there in your quote.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bomber command had been targeting areas to affect morale since early 1942. Dresden wasn't a change in tactics, but a continuation. Add to the mix that it was also the areas command and control centre and with the soviets approaching it became a target of significant importance.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But he said is two weeks before the end of the war, about a tactic that had been employed since early 1942, not at the time as you implied, along with a lot of the population.
Tell me ghoti, have you been in the armed forces?
Yes, but Dresden was SO indiscriminate and senseless that it became the point that the British public started to react negatively. The bombing of Dresden represented a change in mood in the UK - the first time the public started to question the conduct of our military. Churchill is acknowledging that in your quote. He's acknowledging the bad PR. And admitting the attacks were not about targeting industry (the "pretext") but were about terrorising civilians.
Irrelevant.
What did I imply? I said Churchill admitted they were acts of terrorism. And he did. As your quote demonstrates.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
I respect your service, and that of anyone who has. But one does not have to have served to study history or to hold an opinion. Nor should that opinion be summarily dismissed simply because they never donned a uniform.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Terrorism is political, ideological or religious violence by non state actors. Theres a significant difference.
Both sides were attempting to inflict terror on the civilian population to break the morale of the people (v1 & v2, zepplins in WW1 etc) It still happens today. Burn someone alive in a cage?
Both sides were attempting to inflict terror on the civilian population to break the morale of the people (v1 & v2, zepplins in WW1 etc) It still happens today. Burn someone alive in a cage?
Burning someone alive in a cage is disgusting terrorism too. I'm amazed that some people on here seem to think by arguing that the bombing of Dresden was senseless and evil that I'm somehow excusing the blitz or the holocaust or burning people in cages. Truly bewildering reasoning.
And terrorism has never been clearly defined, but a unifying, umbrella, definition is the sewing of panic or fear among a civilian population in order to try to force political change. Which is the tactic Churchill acknowledges. Even if Dresden wasn't "terrorism" by your modern, niche definition - it was morally equivalent to my mind.
And "well, everyone was doing it" is hardly an excuse unless your age consists of a single digit.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not at all, but it's a simplistic view by those without experience that think that we can conduct conflicts without casualties, the techno war. Some it appears have grown up on Gulf war footage of precise airstrikes, but even these generally have consequences. See drone strikes with a large blast radius trying to take out targets in vehicles in residential areas.
Ghoti calls it irrelevant whether he's served or not. On the contrary I'd say that if he had, he wouldn't be soiling the memory of those who have, who played their part in protecting this country and values. Irrelevant, not when he's declaring his happiness at those who died doing their duty. Poor show in my book
At the time of WW2, especially towards the end of 6 years of war, the cost was immeasurable, both in terms of lives lost, lives affected through the number of wounded and the financial costs. Both sides were trying to end the war quickly. Did you know we didn't pay off the last of the loans to the US from ww2 until the end of 2006?
Last edited:
I'm under no illusion that we can conduct justifiable warfare without expecting any collateral damage. Of COURSE innocent people will be caught up in just wars.
There's a huge difference between civilians being caught up in legitimate military exchanges, and actively slaughtering civilians as a tactic, though. The former is sad but unavoidable. The latter is vile and evil brutality.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
I wasn't aware of the year, no...but I knew it wasn't only recently (in the grand scheme).
I understand that military conflict of any kind is bound to result in collateral damage. It's unavoidable.
In the case of Dresden, I simply believe that the easiest way of attempting to destroy the desired target was to effectively try to eradicate the city, and I believe that that was the wrong thing to do.
No more no less.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But that is the point. You can't apply modern thoughts and morales to the situation of the time, you have to look at what the influences and reasoning's were at that time.
Bombing of civilian targets to inflict terror in the population started in WW1 and had been an acceptable policy of the Germans throughout WW2. Bomber command started in earnest in early 1942 and Bomber Harris thought he could win the war with that tactic by the end of 1944. Part of it was in retaliation and also as an accepted practice at that time. Add that into the strategic command centre of the area, plus industrial targets and thats why it was targeted.
You can't say that they just deliberated decided to burn Dresden as a one off, it had been going on for 3 years against other targets. A mix of high explosives to knock things down and incendiaries to make the rubble burn was the accepted efficient way to demolish a target and stop the need for the continuous return visits, risking aircrew (a valuable resource).
So thats the explanation. yes it was terrible, but no more terrible than other attacks in ww2 or other wars. Only the scale changes. Pick any conflict and I could name you something similar. Highway of death in Irag? As someone mentioned, the affects of teh Atomic bombs dropped are still being felt 70 years on.
Since this is a photo site, the Tate modern has a very good exhibition currently Time Conflict Photography, showing the effects of conflict over time
But you have your strong opinion and no matter what is explained you won't change - so I wont bother anymore.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But do you differentiate between a civilian, say working in a shop selling baby milk, and a civilian working in a factory making tanks? Do you, and can you make that distinction? Should you ignore anyone not wearing a uniform simply because they are not military?
The supply of weapons, and that includes both the means of manufacture and the manpower to do so, in a total war makes civilians legitimate targets. Either way a smoking hole where a factory was, or the absence of a workforce due to bombing has the same effect, it stops weapons being made. That saves your own forces lives. It's harsh but, thats warfare.
- Messages
- 9,192
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think that the saying two wrongs don't make a right applies
the nazis were awful and had to be stopped but bombing civilians deliberately has to be wrong
military targets of course have to be targeted
I like to think that we would be better than that if it ever happened again
the nazis were awful and had to be stopped but bombing civilians deliberately has to be wrong
military targets of course have to be targeted
I like to think that we would be better than that if it ever happened again
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Try reading about Stalingrad, Juelich, how about the firestorm in Tokyo where the houses were made of wood and paper, Hamburg, Berlin, Coventry in 1940, London's East End, indiscriminate attacks by V1's and V2 rockets? As I said tactics at the time based upon capabilities.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
I have.
I agree with most of your posts Gramps, but if we are to apologise for the bombing of Dresden, then where does it all start and end?
Firstly, I demand that the Germans apologise for the "practice attacks" on Guernica in Spain, during the Spanish Civil War, when they were trying to see how good their JU87 Stukas and Heinkel 111's would be against Europe.
I would also like to see the US apologise for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ultimately left tens of thousands more dead than the raids on Dresden, Cologne and the like.
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I've spent several minutes reading this thread and just can't believe some of the utter tripe being spouted........
It would seem that the actions that took place in the 40s are being judged and graded against how those actions might take place now with modern technology, communications and reconnaissance.
We were at war with a country who's forces outnumbered and out gunned us, a country that had a regime to take over Europe as well as having a genocide "project" in full swing, led by a complete fruitloop who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. We had to make every mission count.
Now, if that happened today I'm sure we wouldn't even need to send waves of bombers over to take out some industrial targets. Perhaps just a few cruise missiles would do the trick and there would be little collateral damage.
This simply wasn't an option back then, the industrial targets needed to be wiped out and wiped out properly. With the potential loses during a mission like this we simply couldn't afford to go in half cocked and risk needing to do it again.
Let's not forget that propaganda was happening in both countries, our media vilified the Germans and vice versa so to a point it was two countries at war, not just their armies. If there hadn't have been total obliteration of Dresden, there would have been a strong chance that the war effort in that area would have been operational again. Now we'll never be sure if that would have happened or not but in the scheme of WW2 I believe it was an important part of how we're not all "spricht Deutsch" now.
This is of course my opinion and those who disagree with it are more than welcome to, however there's not a hope in hell I'll ever agree with some of the opinions that have been aired in this thread..... ever!
It would seem that the actions that took place in the 40s are being judged and graded against how those actions might take place now with modern technology, communications and reconnaissance.
We were at war with a country who's forces outnumbered and out gunned us, a country that had a regime to take over Europe as well as having a genocide "project" in full swing, led by a complete fruitloop who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. We had to make every mission count.
Now, if that happened today I'm sure we wouldn't even need to send waves of bombers over to take out some industrial targets. Perhaps just a few cruise missiles would do the trick and there would be little collateral damage.
This simply wasn't an option back then, the industrial targets needed to be wiped out and wiped out properly. With the potential loses during a mission like this we simply couldn't afford to go in half cocked and risk needing to do it again.
Let's not forget that propaganda was happening in both countries, our media vilified the Germans and vice versa so to a point it was two countries at war, not just their armies. If there hadn't have been total obliteration of Dresden, there would have been a strong chance that the war effort in that area would have been operational again. Now we'll never be sure if that would have happened or not but in the scheme of WW2 I believe it was an important part of how we're not all "spricht Deutsch" now.
This is of course my opinion and those who disagree with it are more than welcome to, however there's not a hope in hell I'll ever agree with some of the opinions that have been aired in this thread..... ever!
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of the 120,000 who served with Bomber command, 55,573 lost their lives, usually shot down in flames. Around 10,000 escaped to be taken prisoner. Only around 27% survived the war unharmed, only the Uboat fleet suffered higher casualties. Which is why I knew he hadn't served, glorifying in the deaths of servicemen carrying out their duty.
Ghoti likes to use Churchill, so here's another quote:
"All your operations were planned with great care and skill.
They were executed in the face of desperate opposition and appalling hazards, they made a decisive contribution to Germany's final defeat.
The conduct of the operations demonstrated the fiery gallant spirit which animated your aircrews, and the high sense of duty of all ranks under your command.
I believe that the massive achievements of Bomber Command will long be remembered as an example of duty nobly done."
For historians, and those interested, the Butt report of 1941, described how bombers failed to hit the target. Churchill (again) recognised the importance of the report - "this is a very serious paper and seems to require urgent attention" - and subsequent historians have considered it amongst the greatest intellectual contribution to strategy in wartime Bomber Command.
I've found a transcript here: https://etherwave.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/butt-report-transcription-tna-pro-air-14-1218.pdf although it's also available in the national archives.
It was impossible with the technologies available in the early 40s to even find the desired targets by night, let alone hit them. Bombs, too, often failed to explode, and a crew who were able to bomb accurately might have 40% of its bombs not explode. The explosive of the day, Amatol, was not as powerful as German explosive, and the charge : weight ratio (i.e. the weight of actual explosive against the metal of the bomb itself) was also less than loads dropped by the Luftwaffe.
The aerial bombing directive of Feb 1942 ordered Bomber Command to target German industrial areas and the "morale of... the industrial workers". At the same time, Professor Frederick Lindemann, the uk govts chief scientific advisor, produced a memo arguing that from the analysis of the reaction of the British population to the Blitz, the demolition of people's houses was the most effective way to affect their morale, even more effective than killing relatives. Given the known limits of the RAF in locating targets in Germany and providing the planned resources were made available to the RAF, destroying about thirty percent of the housing stock of Germany's fifty-eight largest towns was the most effective use of the aircraft of RAF Bomber Command, because it would break the spirit of the Germans. After a heated debate by the government's military and scientific advisers, the Cabinet chose the strategic bombing campaign over the other options available to them. (sorry easier to cut and paste from Wikipedia)
Harris mounted the first 1000 bomber raid (1046) on Cologne on 30/31st March 1942, which set the scene for future raids, including Bremen on 25th / 26th June 1943, "Operation Gomorrah" at Hamburg over 4 days and nights at the end of July 1943 created a firestorm, possibly the inspiration to the Dresden attack. Dresden is always a controversial subject, was it needed, was it bombed to appease Stalin, or to take out the command and control as the soviets advanced towards it. The war was coming to a close, and opportunities were taken to try to end it quickly by both sides.
A point always missed is the disruption of telephone and teleprinter landlines. This forced military communications traffic onto wireless, and the RAF listening stations and Bletchley Park intelligence made good use of the information gained this way.
It's difficult (although easy it seems for some) to judge by todays standards. All wars are futile, all loss of life pointless and the only real solution is discussion. However the human race isn't programmed that way, we're quite an aggressive species adapt at killing things and each other.
Last edited:
