- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was looking into the firebombing of Dresden a bit and noticed that even at the time, questions were raised as to whether it should have been done. Even Churchill seems to have regretted it soon thereafter. There are obviously arguments pro and con, but I'm wondering what some of you think about it.
There was a lot of unnecessary bombing in the last months of the war Dresden was one of them. For example there is a small town near where I live, (pop. 800 or so) that was bombed in April of 1945. This town has nothing but farmers. I talked to one of the people who lived there about it and he says there were not even any troops in the town when it was bombed. I have read elsewhere that much of the bombing in the last 4-5 months of the war was simply to get rid of excess ordnance, and from what I have read about the targets picked, I tend to believe it.
Is not having any troops present really that relevant? Isn't destroying the population part of total war strategy? Why is the Dresden bombing controversial while the Blitz isn't?
Is not having any troops present really that relevant? Isn't destroying the population part of total war strategy? Why is the Dresden bombing controversial while the Blitz isn't?
I think the idea/argument is that the degree of bombing was disproportionate to the number of military targets, and so what the Allies did constituted a type of psychological spear through the Germans' hearts, meant to inflict feelings of hopelessness on them, presumably so that they would surrender. The story raised by scout seems to support this.
what the Allies did constituted a type of psychological spear through the Germans' hearts, meant to inflict feelings of hopelessness on them, presumably so that they would surrender.
Isn't that a (one) way to win a war?
Given that no later then January 1945 it was a forgone conclusion that German military strength was rapidly waning and there was no way they could win the war in the face of both Allied and Russian strength, what strategic purpose did terror bombing serve? The evidence indicates that terror bombing never worked in the first place. There was no moral collapse on the home front of any country bombed in WWII similar to the German experience of 1918. In fact, there is no evidence that terror bombing of any country in any war has had the desired effect. There is even argument as to whether the strategic bombing of Germany was effective. Do not forget that the Germans most productive months for war material were March and April of 1945.With the above facts, the terror bombing of German towns and villages in the closing months of the war appear to be more an ordnance officers method of clearing his books than any militarily effective campaign. You cant have all these bombs, bombers, and flight crew just sitting around after all. The bombing of Wurzburg in March, 1945 is a perfect example of pointless bombing.
Several decades after WWII, a fighter pilot told me when he did strafing runs after the bombers, he could see bodies stacked like cords of wood waiting for burial, and the stench of burnt human flesh permeated his oxygen mask and nearly caused him to barf.Aside from the "Bomber" Harris revenge theory, I have read that the hope was to clog the roads with refugees.Another was that the allies believed Dresden was an important communication center for the Wehrmacht.Fighting to win or survive total war is not for the tender hearted. Better to apologize for collateral deaths and damage after victory than to lose for trying to avoid civilian casualties and beg for mercy after defeat.
Here is an image of glorious Dresden in 1900 – the “cultural capital of Germany“.
Dresden Zwinger 1900 [Public domain or Public domain], by Photoglob AG, Z?rich, Switzerland or Detroit Publishing Company, Detroit, Michigan, from Wikimedia Commons
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
