Jump to content

Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archive

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1

% of Dresden and Germany "bombed to ruins"

Removed:

85 % of Dresden and 80 % of Germany was bombed to ruins during the last year of the war. !

Other than stylistic NPOV improvements, I would like to know is this is true. For example, I seriously doubt that 80% of the total land area of Germany was "bombed to ruins", so I would like to know what the author really intends to say. A citation would be nice. --mav 06:08, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In 1965 I worked with a PhD in Mathematics who claimed that he had worked on the mathematics of firestorms. They developed a mathematical model. The fire-bombing of Japan was expected to be very expensive in men and materials, so it was very important for it to be as effective as possible. Also there was the question of the optimim height, and other conditions, for the detonation of the A-bombs to be considered. The allies needed to test their mathematics against reality. What they needed was a target with tightly packed narrow streets and buildings with a lot of wood in their construction. The medieval town of Dresden best fitted that description. He claimed that was the main consideration for selecting it as a target - a practise run for Tokyo, a useful experiment for the "A" bomb.

He told me other things which made me believe him, such as the optimum conditions for detonating an A-bomb were under cloud (reflection), over water (reflection again, the steam produced enhances the explosion, and subsequent implosion, draws more air in to fan the flames, carries fall-out. Best effects are over a natural depression, which acts as concave mirror, bouncing the heat back in off the clouds. This all fitted with the selection of the ports of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --anon.

I am from Dresden and a Dresden history maniac. I am rather sure that the number of killed people is rather exactly 70.000. Neonzais or Churchill fans often claim 300.000, but this cannot be true, as well as 35.000 must be too few. The number is often used for propaganda. Still, it is hard to estimate the number of killed refugees (already included). There were 600.000 refugees in the city. The city is rather big when measured by area, bigger than Munich which has many more citizens. It was NOT completely destroyed (but the center was, this is still very visible today), and it was even much less destroyed than other German cities, a lot others had no stone on the same place as before after the war. The special things about Dresden are three for me: the known beauty, the rather tiny miltary importance (material on the front in those last weeks, militaric facilities in the north of the city were not even hit, only some optical industry and traffic ways, the city was not really defended.), the planned fire storm in the streets. In 1945 the city center was more populated than now. In my opinion the writers made a very good job because it is rather hard to write a good text out of so much nonsense which is to find in the web. "There are reports that even civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by British and American aircraft." Yes, this happened in the Great Garden city park and on the river meadows, but not in big amount. Many stories from people are just not true because they had no clear mind. This was not planed I guess. There are also stories that Jewish people in Dresden had been warnt. This is also probably not true at all. "Btw, the higher casualty estimates don't sound unreasonable. The lower estimates would require there have been only one death per dwelling in the central city, which seems unlikely." So I come to 70.000. Only 30.000 people could be identified. Many burnt I guess. On the other hand I know a completely destroyed district, and I know that many people survived there. Many had not enough fresh air in cellars (because of the fire outside on the streets) and died .Dresden was already attacked in 1943/44 (only some few streets) by the way. User:NetgutuDD

The article says "some" people consider the bombing of Dresden to have been a war crime. Would it be possible to add a few names to this?

On David Irving: That he lost his libel trial doesn't make it neutral to mention his holocaust revisionism as a way to discredit him. He is controversial, but the subject at hand is not the holocaust, or WW2 at large, it's Dresden. David.

Actually it does have to do. In the investigation of his research done as a defense against his lawsuit, one of the books studied in detail was the one that he wrote on the bombing of Dresden, and the historian that researched found that already at that time was doing biased research, including documents he knew to be false as so on. In this case the bias was to try to emphasize as much as possible the damage on Dresden, as a way of showing the the allies as guilty as the germans of exceses in WWII. It is an attitude seen often in holocaust deniers:on the one hand they try to minimize the damage inflicted on the Jews, on the other hand they try to emphasize the damage made by the allies and the suffering of the Germans, in order to make the actions by both sides morally equivalent, and the Holocaust to lose its significance. --AstroNomer 18:34, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

bad taste to remove the view that the bombing was a war crime

I find it bad taste to remove the view that the bombing was a war crime, which is backed by all articles related. Just read the Hague Conventions. Furthermore, it is bad taste to just revert without even dealing with typos that were pointed out. Get-back-world-respect 03:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again the term war crime was deleted. But details about the discussion of the end of the war is added although the interested reader can find it at the appropriate place. The dispute is mentioned, if we also want to mention the reasoning of the counterparts we need both, which is too much detail for this article. The Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung was restored, although very few readers will ever have heard of it - it is not even a term Germans are today familiar with - and although it ads no relevant information. The argument is about total war, completely irrelevant where Hitler spoke about it. Or would September 11 have been legitimate had George W. Bush before spoken about Total War against Islam in NY? Get-back-world-respect 13:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree w GBWR on this. Sam [Spade] 17:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


What was the "war crime" that was allegedly committed and who committed it? Remembering that bombardment of enemy territory is allowed by laws and usages of war and that not one person from Axis or Allied side was put on trial at Nuremberg for assault by aerial bombardment of enemy territory. Philip Baird Shearer 13:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intentional targeting of civilians has always been a war crime. Sam [Spade] 14:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that that is true that targeting any civilian is a war crime. It is in land which a Power occupies, (GC4), but which treaty or custom gives a total ban on targeting any enemy civilians in enemy held and defended territory?

If a person is doing any economic activity which aids the enemy war effort then are you sure that they are not a legitimate target? For example it is standard in many armed forces for snipers to work in pairs. One to spot and one to shoot. If a civilian uses field glasses to spot for a military sniper are they a legitimate target? What if they are the person who polishes the lenses of the person who spots for a military sniper? If a cook cooks a meal for the military sniper, do the have to be wearing a uniform to be a legitimate target? The cook, the polisher and the spotter are aiding the sniper to kill the enemy. Where do you draw the line? In a total war when well over 50% of the economy is engaged in the war effort then there must be a lot of civilians who are in the words of the WWII song "And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil/ that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob/ that's going to win the war.".

The targeting civilian property is not a war crime. For example are ships of the enemy merchant marine carrying supplies useful for an enemy war effort a legitimate target? How about docks?. What about the factories that produce the war material which is in the ships? What about the infrastructure which supports the factories? What about the houses of the people who work in the factories?

It was much easier in earlier wars, or a wars in Third World countries who do not have a large manufacturing base to make distinction between these things.

But leaving all that aside civilians were not targeted in the Dresden raid. It was not British Government or RAF policy to target civilians. Government and private property useful to the war effort was targeted and that is not a war crime. Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can clealy say that civilians were not intentionally targeted. However, what we need is any evidence of contemporary claims that these actions were considered "war crimes". Saying that they would be "war crimes", now, using 21th century morality and laws is not the same as saying that they were "war crimes" when they happened. Certainly there was an outcry after they were described as a switch in strategy to "terror bombings", after which press conference both the U.S. and Britain quickly denied that any change in strategy or targeting had actually occurred from other city bombings. This is probably the root of why this particular bombing was choosen as the object of German and later Soviet and even later "neo-Nazi" propaganda. Rmhermen 17:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
We can say that civilins were intentionally targeted as it was part of the Arthur Travers Harris plan to demoralize by killing as many as possible. There was a prominent discussion in Germany about a book calling the bombings, particularly those of Hamburg war crimes. Many people did not like the book because of allegedly inappropriate language using in the context of the bombings words that are taboo because they are restricted to the description of the holocaust. However, there had been an outcry when "bomber Harris" got some reward from the Queen although his actions are considered war crimes by many.
Regarding the "total war": Total war is a propaganda term coined by the Nazis as far as I know, not a legal term that legitimizes anything. The law at the time explicitly outlawed deliberate bombings of civilians as well as unnecessary destruction of their property. Both was done excessively. You can make your own philosophy about the morality of such actions. You cannot deny that the opinion that the bombings were war crimes is reasonable and that those responsible should have been tried. Get-back-world-respect 21:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"The law at the time explicitly outlawed deliberate bombings of civilians as well as unnecessary destruction of their property." -- I'm pretty sure this is wrong. As I undersetand it, the law at the time outlawed the bombing of cities that were uninvolved in the war effort or declared neutral (IE, open cities). Dresden was not only a critical rail junction, but it was also a communication center. Thus, it was a legal target under the law of the time. →Raul654 21:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
The sentence you quote does not contradict that it was legal to bomb military targets in a city. But the strategy was to kill civilians and destroy civilian houses in the city. This broke the law. Get-back-world-respect 21:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Get-back-world-respect just because you would like it to be true does not make it so. "We can say that civilians were intentionally targeted as it was part of the Arthur Travers Harris plan to demoralize by killing as many as possible" Their property was deliberately targeted (they were not), what is you primary source for saying that Harris changed a policy which had been agreed at Cabinet level? BTW their property was defined as a legitimate economic target. In the February 16 SHAEF press conference there was no allied change of policy (which could not be made at such a low level) in it was stated that "the avowed purpose of heaping more confusion on Nazi road and rail traffic, and to sap German morale". At no time did the Allies change policy and sanction killing none combatants

I am not sure who first used the term "total war" but Churchill said as much in his "I HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER" speech (June 18, 1940) "...There is another more obvious difference from 1914. The whole of the warring nations are engaged, not only soldiers, but the entire population, men, women and children. The fronts are everywhere. the trenches are dug in the towns and streets. Every village is fortified. Every road is barred. The front line runs through the factories. the workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage...".

I would appreciate it if you would stop using weasel phrases "are considered war crimes by many". Also as I have asked you before, please reply to points made to you and do not answer obliquely because it makes it very difficult to agree on anything. For example do you agree that there are times when civilian property may be a legitimate target in a war, e.g. merchant ships carrying war supplies? Philip Baird Shearer 23:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your theories about total war are legally irrelevant, the Hague Conventions defined targeting of civilians and their property as illegal. Their property was deliberately targeted but they were not is a joke, is it? For sure the Allies were utterly surprised and quite desperate about the fact that they later found out to have killed tens of thousands in firestorms. You can call it a weasel wording that many consider the bombings of civilians a war crime. It does not change the fact that there is a considerable debate about it that needs to be reported. Whether I think that there are cases when targeting property of civilians is legitimate is irrelevant, the law is relevant and the discussion about unnecessary atrocities. Get-back-world-respect 10:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have just done it again. Instead of saying Yes or No to the question For example do you agree that there are times when civilian property may be a 'legitimate target in a war, e.g. merchant ships carrying war supplies? (legitimate includes legal), you have gone off at a tangent. The question I have asked is relevant. You saying that the targeting of enemy civilian property in enemy held and defended territory is forbidden under the Hague conventions. Please state which article in the convention you are referring to.

Here are some which point the other way:

  • Art 23 To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. The allies argued that destroying property by arial bombardment assult was an imperative and necessity of war.
  • Art 25 The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. Germany was protected during World War II by fighter bombers and lines of anti-aircraft guns and radar as defence against bombers.
  • Art 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. Private property is not mentioned as part of all necessary steps should be taken to spare.

The term weasel words is a Wikipedia expression and is not ment to be a joke it is a technical term. Perhapse you are not familar with the section of the style guide (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms) which says

This is a blatantly biased statement:
"Montreal is the coolest city in the world."
This is a half-hearted attempt to give it the appearance of a neutral point of view:
"Some people say Montreal is the coolest city in the world."
Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have?

You can find your way to that page via the Wikipedia:How to edit a page. The section Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Tips on editing Wikipedia articles says Please use a neutral point of view, and please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work.

So I will repeat my question which article in the Hague Conventions states that "targeting of civilians" or targeting "their property as illegal" when they are in enemy held territory? Please don't shot gun lots of paragraphs, just the most relevant article which explicitly forbids it. Philip Baird Shearer 12:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As you well know, the label "weasel terms" is very controversial. As I showed above, there is considerable debate over the question whether the bombings were war crimes. You support this yourself by writing that the allies argued that destroying property by arial bombardment assult was an imperative and necessity of war. If there was no doubt no arguing would be needed. Not mentioning an important debate is much more harmful than what you call "weasel words". You think that the articles point the other way. I do not.
Art 23 To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. Targeting civilian houses is not "demanded by the necessities of war" but a terrorist strategy. Feel free to disagree, but do not try to censor others.
Art 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. Burning down whole cities in firestorms is in outward ignorance of the law to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected. Again, feel free to disagree, but do not try to censor others.Get-back-world-respect 23:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I dispute the neutrality of the sentence "This idea (that the bombing is questionable because the war was close to its end) seams appealing with hindsight, however the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes." Again, the interested reader can find details at the appropriate place. The dispute is mentioned, if we also want to mention the reasoning of the counterparts we need both, which is too much detail for this article. The wording (seams (sic!) appealing with hindsight, however the records show) makes a judgment the reader should decide upon on his own. Get-back-world-respect 19:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason the Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II page is protected at the moment is because of the argument over three paragraphs in two sections. The controversial sections are in :

Dresden compared with other bombing targets in Germany

This is the text of one of the paragraphs with the line you removed emboldened:

So Dresden suffered fewer casualties than Hamburg (but was a smaller city), and a lower proportion of the population died than in the bombings of Darmstadt and Pforzheim and the bombing had a smaller psychological impact at the time than Hamburg. However this does not reduce the horror of bomber warfare. [1]
When interrogated in July 1945 Albert Speer said of the initial Hamburg fire-storm:
"We were of the opinion that a rapid repetition of this type of attack upon another six German towns would inevitably cripple the will to sustain armament manufacture and war production. It was I who first verbally reported to the Fuehrer at that time that a continuation of these attacks might bring about a rapid end to the war."
something he repeated to the camera in the World at War series. However he went on to say:
"The powers of resistance of the German people were underestimated and no account was taken of the fatalistic frame of mind which a civil population acquires after numerous air raids." (Webster and Frankland, Strategic Air Offensive, Volume IV, p. 383)

User:Get-back-world-respect Given this information are you willing to leave the statement in? If not why not?

User:Rmhermen Given that this is covered in the previous paragraph are you willing to let the phrase be dropped? If not why not?

Unles we have scientific studies about the psychological effect on the population we cannot present statements like the bold one as facts. Furthermore I dispute the relevance of the comparison with Hamburg. Just because one crine is seen as more lethal, atrocious, "effective" or whatever changes nothing about others. What would you say if articles about concentration camps had paragraphs like "XYZ compared with other concentration camps
So less people were exterminated in XYZ than in Auschwitz (but was a smaller camp), and a lower proportion of the population died than in the crematories of Buchenwald and Dachau and the camp had a smaller psychological impact at the time than Auschwitz. However this does not reduce the horror of the holocaust."
Think about it. Get-back-world-respect 23:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So User:Get-back-world-respect do you think that Albert Speer was wrong and did not know what he was talking about? Philip Baird Shearer 00:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do you want to base encyclopedia articles on the judgment of Nazis? Have you thought about the concentration camp? Get-back-world-respect 00:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Althought this is not the Usenet newsgroup I think it is appropriate to invoke Goodwin's Law. Philip Baird Shearer

The comparison shows how cynical the article paragraph is. Replying without any arguments is even more cynical. Get-back-world-respect 00:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This paragraph is presented as a summary "So Dresden suffered fewer casualties than Hamburg (but was a smaller city), and a lower proportion of the population died than in the bombings of Darmstadt and Pforzheim. The bombing had a smaller psychological impact at the time than Hamburg. However this does not reduce the horror of bomber warfare." This implies that all points should be summarized in the paragraph including the pyschological one. However, on closer examination, the relative casualty rates Dresden, Darmstadt and Pforzheim are not mentioned elsewhere. This could be fixed be adding a longer discussion of relative destruction (the information appears to come rom a table on [1]) or by removing the word "So" in which case the psychological statement is unneccessary. Rmhermen 16:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
What is the point of that paragrapg altogther? If helpful at all it would be relevant in an article Allied bombing campaigns in Germany, not in an article about one of the bombing campaigns. Or do you want to triplicate it in Bombing of Darmstadt in World War II, Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II, and Bombing of Hamburg in World War II? Get-back-world-respect 00:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Was the Dresden bombing justified?

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for his controversial actions. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000. (february 1945 570,000 plus 60,000 refugees). Others point to the fact that Dresden was a city engaged in Total War (as called for at a rally of the "Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung" in Dresden) which had been declared a "Fortress" by Hitler and was a legitimate target.

User:Get-back-world-respect deleted the sections highlighted and replaced them with this:

Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000. (february 1945 570,000 plus 60,000 refugees).

Lets slice it down to remove as much of the problem as possible starting with the 'second emboldened sentence. There are three option:

  1. leave it in.
  2. modify it to something like this: "Dresden had been declared a "Fortress" city by Hitler somthing he did for many cities about to be invested by the Russians"
  3. take the sentence out.

User:Get-back-world-respect Do you hold strong opinions on this or are you willing to go with option 1? If User:Rmhermen agreed to option 2 would you? User:Rmhermen Do you hold strong opinions on this or are you willing to go with option 3? If User:Get-back-world-respect agreed to option 2 would you?

As I already explained, the "Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung" is a term not even many German users are familiar with, using it in an english language encyclopedia is inappropriate. Nazi propaganda terms like "fortress" are irrelevant here. The "total war" argument is already dealt with in another paragraph of the current version that was last edited by Rmhermen, so I wonder why you bring this one up again. Get-back-world-respect 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The designation of Dresden as a fortress is clearly relevant and bears further explanation; however, I can not find online when it occurred (or any reference to "Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung" on Google.) More information is needed here. Rmhermen 16:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
"Fortress" was used as a propaganda term, not a military one. It is therefore of no relevance. Get-back-world-respect 00:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Three of many cities which were designated Fortresses and behaved as such: Konigsberg, Buda, Pest; there were many more Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Now for the first phrase:

Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for his controversial actions.

or

Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

But please consider this as an alternative for the above:

Many cities have not regained their pre-war populations. Most large cities in Britain are smaller now than they were a generation ago. Some of it may have been due to war damage (which cleared slums), some due to voluntary slum clearance. Without some sort of detailed analysis how does one know, that if Dresden's population is lower now than it was pre-war, that it is directly linked to the war damage and even if it is, what is the point of mentioning it in this paragraph? Why specifically Harris? Why not anyone else in the decision making process or the operation like the British Cabinet, or the commanders of the bomber wings, or the individual bomber crews? It would be possible to replace the sentence with "Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been elevated to the peerage at the end of the war for his controversial actions". It is as true statement and no more or less relevant and POV than the one expressed it the two sentences above.

As this is controversial subject why not reduce the paragraph to:

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945.

Which although expressing a POV is probably one which both sides of the argument can live with.

I am absolutely ok with mentioning that Harris gained a lot of support in the UK for his controversial actions. But we also need to mention those who say that the bombings were war crimes he should have been accountable for. It caused an uproar in Germany when Harris was rewarded some honours by the Queen (in the nineties I think). As was clearly established in the Nuremberg Trials, an individual cannot excuse its crimes with orders it received except for special cases like when it can show that it would have been killed had it not executed the order. I am completely ok with not singling out only Harris but writing that the whole British cabinet was responsible for the actions as well. The decline of the Dresden population should be mentioned. The readers can draw their own conclusions about the causes or even better check the article Dresden where such developments should be addressed in more detail. I do not consider it particularly helpful if someone who attempts a mediation lets his his own strong support for one side harm the negotiation. Get-back-world-respect 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have no problem with the version not mentioning Harris. Numerous higher ranking officers (American, British and perhaps even Russian) were involved in determining bombing policy and even in the choice of Dresden as a particular target. The fact that it has not regained its population should be put in context if kept. Rmhermen 16:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

The final paragraph over which there is a dispute is:

version 1

Another charge is that the Allies knew the war was almost over. This idea seams appealing with hindsight, however the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over and to think otherwise was viewed as complacency after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes.

version 2

Another charge is that the Allies knew the war was almost over. This idea seams appealing with hindsight, however the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes. Defenders of the bombing also see the action as legitimate in a Total War.

By the time of the Dresden bombing the Battle of the Bulge had been over for a month with the Germans were back beyond their start positions. The Allies had not yet crossed the Rhine and the Soviets had started the first phase of their last big offensive. So I would suggest that the whole paragraph is removed as the bombing was not done a tactical mission to aid the the Allied land offensive.

I see no reason why the argumentation should not be mentioned in short. I oppose the excessive presentation of one side without presentation of the reasoning of the other as in the current version. Get-back-world-respect 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell GBWR keeps removing "This idea seams appealing with hindsight, however the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over and to think otherwise was viewed as complacency after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes." Not supporting version two. I have no problem with version one or two shown here, which clearly establish that the Allies were not winding down the war effort yet. The paragraph doesn't claim that the bombing was a tactical one (after all this is "strategic bombing") The point it makes is that the Allies did not think the war was over yet. Rmhermen 16:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
"Seems appealing with hindsight" is clearly not neutral. Therefore removed. Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as can tell there are three people who are disputing this paragraph: what do they think remove the whole lot or go for version one or two?

It is necessary to get these items agreed so that the page can be unprotected. So let's try to do it :-) Philip Baird Shearer 23:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to this discussion, particularly in light of the new books by Frederick Taylor and Hermann Knell. I've only read portions of Taylor's book, but so far, he seems to me as much as an apologist for the Allies as David Irving appears for the Nazis. Let me preface this by stating I am an American of partial German/Jewish ancestry, and that my paternal grandfather's family were Dresdners. So I have read much about this subject which, even though it happened many years before my birth, feels very personal to me.

Taylor's tedium notwithstanding, the crux is this: The drunken megalomaniac Churchill enabled the mass-murdering Arthur "Bomber" Harris to destroy one of the world's most beautiful and culturally important cities partially because it WAS jam-packed with refugees near the War's end. Why didn't they use the RAF's firepower to destroy the rail-lines to Auschwitz and Trebrinka? Or even the camps themselves, as some survivors have wondered. And what could possibly jusify the purely evil raid on Würzburg, Tiepolo's city, three weeks before the War's end. Churchill seemed to take great pride in his amaturish painting, yet he seemingly didn't care if Raphael's (and Dresden's) "Sistine Madonna," whose emblematic putti we now see everywhere, was burnt to bits. Dresden was called the "Florence of the Elbe." Yet the Nazis, for all their wanton destruction, were careful to spare Florence itself on their retreat, blowing up the cities bridges, yes, but only blowing up the entrances to the great late-Medieval Ponte Vecchio, with the ancient houses that line that bridge remaining intact. And Truman, when told of Kyoto's historical importance and beauty, ordered that that medieval Japanese city remain unbombed. Kyoto's and Dresden's histories and wartime fates form a distinct and disturbing parallel. Let us not forget that young Winston served in the Boer war and observed first-hand the creation by the British of what we now call "concentration camps." Who knows what impression this made on the 20th century's most overrated personage?

I have no other conclusion to offer other than bring these points to light for other readers. The British goldsmith in Coventry who forged the new crucifix for the rebuilt Frauenkirche in Dresden made a beautiful gesture by doing so, especially by using medieval nails recovered form the ruins of the Luftwaffe-destroyed Coventry Cathedral (Dresden, of course, was more than avenged). An even greater gesture would be to tear down the memorial statue to that monster Harris. Both Frederick Taylor's and Hermann Knell's books serve the discourse, a discourse that needs to be plumbed much further. This page is a very good start.Mark Hänser (EdM Harvard University, BFA Massachusetts College of Art) 17:27, 08 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No Agreement Yet

I have Reverted to last verson before ("protected" please resolve disputes on Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II)) because there is no Agreement Yet. Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do not revert to versions that are clearly not neutral, e.g. because of wordings like "seems appealing with hindsight". It seems to me as if there was consensus about Harris not being the only one responsible for the actions some regard as war crimes. Get-back-world-respect 00:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not whether it is neutral it was the place were the page was protected. If it had been protected at that 17:13, 16 Oct 2004 I would have reverted it to that position. All that is going to happen if any one modifies what you have written is that it will be changed again and the edit war will get hot. It is better that we agree a formular of words on this page or otherwise it will be protected again. Philip Baird Shearer 14:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing special about the version that was protected. Its not protected anymore, and we are editing the article. You are counter concensus. Please stop insisting its your way or no way, thats an attitude contrary to the M:Foundation issues of the project, and to the concept of group editing in general. Pages change, and this is not your page. Sam [Spade] 19:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I agree that there is nothing special about the protected version. It has many things wrong with it So I suggest that we agree to a change to a new base page on which changes can be made. For this reason I suggest that we poll on the three sections which are in dispute and go with the majority decision. Philip Baird Shearer

Reverting with the only excuse that the version that was protected once should not be changed is absurd. Get-back-world-respect 00:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll on page changes

Please see the discussion immediately above. The page was protected because of repeticious edits on three paragraphs.

A Poll of course does involve people being honest and not casting two or more votes via proxy names. Have a look at Talk:Unlawful combatant as an example.

Cast upto 4 Votes, Place #~~~~ under the option you want. If you want to make a comment about a vote then place it at the end under comments. I suggest that the poll is open for 48 hours, but it could be held open for longer if enough people ask for it in the comments section.

If there are two options that carry the same number of votes, then the option with the lowest vote will be removed and we will reopen the poll for that vote only. If all three have the same then we remove the disputed text (Option 3 in each case).


Dresden compared with other bombing targets in Germany

Vote A Option A1

So Dresden suffered fewer casualties than Hamburg (but was a smaller city), and a lower proportion of the population died than in the bombings of Darmstadt and Pforzheim and the bombing had a smaller psychological impact at the time than Hamburg. However this does not reduce the horror of bomber warfare.


Option A2

Dresden suffered fewer casualties than Hamburg (but was a smaller city), and a lower proportion of the population died than in the bombings of Darmstadt and Pforzheim. However this does not reduce the horror of bomber warfare.


Option A3 Remove the paragraph

  1. (see comments) Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sam [Spade] 12:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sarge Baldy 16:39, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:27, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dresden compared with other bombing targets in Germany 2

The disputed sections are in bold.

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for his controversial actions. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000. (february 1945 570,000 plus 60,000 refugees). Others point to the fact that Dresden was a city engaged in Total War (as called for at a rally of the "Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung" in Dresden) which had been declared a "Fortress" by Hitler and was a legitimate target.


Vote B Option B1 controversial

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. Some feel that Air Marshal Arthur Harris should have been held accountable for his controversial actions.


Option B2 War crimes

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. Some think that Air Marshal Arthur Harris and others should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000. (february 1945 570,000 plus 60,000 refugees).
  1. Sam [Spade] 12:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sarge Baldy 16:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Option B3 Remove everything after 1942-1945

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945.
  1. Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option B4 War Crimes

The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area-bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. Some think that those responsible for the bombings, among them Air Marshal Arthur Harris, should have been held accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000. (february 1945 570,000 plus 60,000 refugees).
  1. (see comments)Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Volksausschuß

Vote C Option C1 Volksausschuß

Others point to the fact that Dresden was a city engaged in Total War (as called for at a rally of the "Volksausschuß für Nationale Verteidigung" in Dresden) which had been declared a "Fortress" by Hitler and was a legitimate target.

Option C2

Dresden had been declared a "Fortress" city by Hitler somthing he did for many cities about to be invested by the Russians"


Option C3 Remove the sentence

  1. (see comments) Get-back-world-respect 00:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sarge Baldy 16:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Final paragraph in dispute

Vote D Option D1

Another charge is that the Allies knew the war was almost over. This idea seams appealing with hindsight, however the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over and to think otherwise was viewed as complacency after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes.


Option D2

Another charge is that the Allies knew the war was almost over. However the records show that the Allies viewed the war as far from over after the shock of the German counterattack in the Ardennes. Defenders of the bombing also see the action as legitimate in a Total War.


Option D3 Remove the paragraph

  1. Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option D4

Another charge is that the Allies knew the war was almost over. Defenders of the bombing dispute this and also see the action as legitimate in a Total War.
  1. (see comments) Get-back-world-respect 00:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sam [Spade] 12:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:44, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Sarge Baldy 16:47, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I set up this Poll suggestion. Philip Baird Shearer 21:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option A3 As explained above. Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option B4 The fact that the user who set up this poll "forgot" the fact that it was already pointed out that Harris should not be presented as the only one to be held accountable again shows his lack of neutrality. The expression "Latter-day analysts feel" ignores the fact that the bombing was already controversial when it happened, that not only analysts but even British politicians shared the doubts and that many ordinary people hold the opinion, "feel" and "analysts" do not match. Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option C3 As explained above, the Volksausschuß is a term not even Germans are familiar with, Fortress was just used as a propaganda term and its military connotation is misleading here. Get-back-world-respect 00:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Option D4 Again, leaving out this proposal shows the lack of neutrality of the "mediator". The closeness of the end of the war is an important issue here. It is not neutral to present facts supporting the view that the Allies did not realize how close the end of the war was while ignoring facts supporting the other view. Get-back-world-respect 00:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am glad you are entering into the spirit of the thing. I have absolutely no problem with you adding additional options. I hope you do not mind me moving you comments into the comment section as it keeps the voting section cleaner. I did not include:

  • B4
    • The only difference in substance between B4 and B2 is the wording "some feel" and "Some think" as no one has yet voted for B2 I have struck it from the list in favour of your option. so that any vote between B2 and B4 is not split
    • to answer your comment on B4, I did not forget BUT I would argue that Harris should not be mentioned by name, instead either everyone or no none should be singled out. But we can debate that once this poll the page is unprotected and the basic wording is agreed.
  • D4 sorry in D2 I took what you wrote literally higher up the talk page "Seems appealing with hindsight" is clearly not neutral. Therefore removed. so I have struck out D2 for the same reason I struck out B2. I hope that meets with your approval.

C3 I do not think fortress was "just" a propaganda term (see my new comment in text above)Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both B2 and B4 seem acceptable to me. The only problem is that they suggest that the World War II started after February 1945. That's the only logical conclusion one can draw after reading that the Feb. '44 population is pre-war. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have not put a vote anywhere, but I feel that many of the problems derive from the use of weasel words: some feel others thinks, etc. If comprobable names were given, this would have a favorable effect in the npov of the article. I also agree with the the detail ponted out by Halibutt. --AstroNomer 19:36, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I second what AstroNomer has said in the paragraph above about npov. I have asked that the protection be taken off the page at 21:45 UTC. So I assume somone will be happy to take the last version and put in the agreed changes from the poll shortly after that time Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amount of destruction and new pictures (not used yet)

I uploaded Image:Dresden1945.jpg, Image:Dresden1945-2.jpg and Image:Dresden1945-3.jpg (city destruction map) Most recent official number of killed people: 35.000, official numbers changed between 25.000 and 160.000 in western Germany. The east nearly always used 35.000. destroyed inner-city: 15 square kilommeters with 90% and more destroyed completely. city population not significantly warned by bommber warning sound signals because that technology was no longer working. The radio warned anyway. There were 222.000 flats in total. 75.000 of them totally destroyed, 11.000 strongly hit, 7.000 hit, 81.000 slightly damaged. Source: altes-dreesden.de (in German, private website) The many villa quarters (some of them situated in the most expensive living area of Europe in those times) were hit much less than bigger inner-city houses of the plain working class population. NetguruDD (sig added by Sam [Spade] 10:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC))(Images linkified by Chris 73 Talk 00:40, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC))

I found another serious source which I trust. http://www.geschichtsthemen.de/dresden_1945.htm (German) It looks scientifically made to me, all sources are explained.

It offers the following numbers: all together dead people found 02/1945 untill 04/1945: 25.000, war-dead people found in later years 10/1945-09/1957: 2.000. No registration of burried people 05/1945-09/1945. number of missed people: 35.000, about 10.000 of those 35.00 missed ones were found alive. The estimated number of killed people for 02/1945 is 40.000. It is said in this ttext that often left wingers want less, and right wingers want more to be the new official number.

The guessed number of refugess within the city for 02/1945 is 200.000 according to that text. Long time it was estimated to be even 500.000 and more but the refugees (really very very very many, I saw balancd films about in the today´s TV.) were told to quickly leave Dresden. The guessed number of 200.000 actually in the city was given by the refugees adminstration. NetguruDD 11:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who do you think warned the refugees? Get-back-world-respect 23:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden/Archive_2&oldid=1232406304"