The bombing of Dresden

[Comrade B]

If you actually think that the bombing of the city of Dresden can be justified, please explain.

[Sentinel]

Terrorbombing of civilians (workers) is utterly despicable and can't be justified, ever. Who voted for option 2? :confused:

[spartan]

Well the old British justification for it was that the Germans created a wind that came back at them as a hurricane.

Personally though terrible one can't escape the fact that it shortened the war and thus prevented lots more suffering, which would have been been inevitable had the Soviets had to fight for it (and the fact that it crippled Dresden's war industries thus severely hampering the Nazi war machine from fighting on).

Does that make it justifiable?

I don't really know (personally i would say no), but is anything in war justifiable?

Is it the bombing itself that you oppose or the fact that Dresden was targeted for it's industrial base which meant that worker's and civilians would inevitabley be killed?

Personally i think it was wrong because though it achieved it's strategic ends (Dresden was after all an industrial city which had war factroies contributing to the Nazi war effort, however futile) it did it at the cost of horrific civilian casualties (Dresden was also a point for refugees from eastern Germany moving west to escape the revenge seeking Soviets) at a point in the war when such things were completely pointless due to imminent Nazi defeat.

This is how the US air force defended it (From Wiki):

A USAAF report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort.


A report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) analyzed the circumstances of the raid and concluded that it was militarily necessary and justified, based on the following points:

1. The raid had legitimate military ends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_necessity), brought about by exigent military circumstances.
2. Military units and anti-aircraft defenses were sufficiently close that it was not valid to consider the city "undefended."
3. The raid did not use extraordinary means but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
4. The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
5. The raid achieved the military objective, without excessive loss of civilian life.

The first point regarding the legitimacy of the raid depends on two claims: first, that the railyards subjected to American precision bombing were an important logistical target, and that the city was also an important industrial centre. Even after the main firebombing, there were two further raids on the Dresden railway yards by the USAAF. The first was on 2 March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2) 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945), by 406 B-17s, which dropped 940 tons of high-explosive bombs and 141 tons of incendiaries. The second was on 17 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_17), when 580 B-17s dropped 1,554 tons of high-explosive bombs and 165 tons of incendiaries.

As far as Dresden being a militarily significant industrial centre, an official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_High_Command)'s Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with material. Dresden was the seventh largest German city and by far the largest unbombed built-up area left and thus was contributing to the defense of Germany itself.

According to the USAFHD, there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers supporting the German war effort in Dresden at the time of the raid. These factories manufactured aircraft components, Anti-aircraft guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_mm_gun), field guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun) and small guns, poison gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare), optical components (Zeiss Ikon A.G. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss), Germany’s largest optics manufacturer), gears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear) and differentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_%28mechanical_device%29), electrical and X-ray apparatus, electric gauges, gas masks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_mask), Junkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_%28Aircraft%29) aircraft engines, and Messerschmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt) fighters cockpit parts.

The second of the five points addresses the prohibition in the Hague Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_%281899_and_1907%29), of "attack or bombardment" of "undefended" towns. The USAFHD report states that Dresden was protected by antiaircraft defenses, antiaircraft guns and searchlights, under the Combined Dresden (Corps Area IV) and Berlin (Corps Area III) Luftwaffe Administration Commands.

The third and fourth points say that the size of the Dresden raid — in terms of numbers, types of bombs and the means of delivery — were commensurate with the military objective and similar to other Allied bombings. On 23 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_23), 1945, the Allies bombed Pforzheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pforzheim_in_World_War_II) and caused an estimated 20,000 civilian fatalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage); a raid on Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) on 9-10 March caused civilian casualties over 100,000. The tonnage and types of bombs listed in the service records of the Dresden raid were comparable to (or less than) throw weights of bombs dropped in other air attacks carried out in 1945. In the case of Dresden, as in many other similar attacks, the hour break in between the RAF raids was a deliberate ploy to attack the fire fighters and rescue crews.

In late July 1943, the city of Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg) was bombed in Operation Gomorrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gomorrah) by combined RAF and USAAF strategic bomber forces. Four major raids were carried out in the span of 10 days, of which the most notable, on 27-28 July, created a devastating firestorm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm) effect similar to Dresden's, killing approximately 40,000 people. Two thirds of the remaining population reportedly fled the city after the raids.

The fifth point is that the firebombing achieved the intended effect of disabling the industry in Dresden. It was estimated that at least 23% of the city's industrial buildings were destroyed or severely damaged. The damage to other infrastructure and communications was immense, which would have severely limited the potential use of Dresden to stop the Soviet advance. The report concludes with:

The specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings were in keeping with the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany. The Dresden bombings achieved the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians.

I must say that i do find it ironic that the Nazi propaganda ministry issued a press release stating that Dresden had no war industries and described it as a "city of culture" and yet as the paragraph emphasised in the above quote proves, a guide to Dresden in 1942 obviously thought differently as did the German Army High Command's Weapons Office in 1944.

[Lost In Translation]

Personally, I think that any attacks on civilians cannot be justified. However, I think the British and the Americans take the words 'All is fair in love and war' too seriously in this case.

[Trystan]

Terrorbombing of civilians (workers) is utterly despicable and can't be justified, ever. Who voted for option 2? :confused:

I did.

[Winter]

The bombing of Dresden is comparable with the Atomic bomb being dropped onto Japanese cities. Sick acts of terror that only effected civilians.

[communard resolution]

You would have to be one of those lunatic Anti-Germans to think of the Dresden bombing as a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_%28communist_current%29

[Comrade B]

(and the fact that it crippled Dresden's war industries thus severely hampering the Nazi war machine from fighting on).
Dresden had no military industry, it produced food.
The US likes to pretend that there was a war industry there, but it is false.

I did.
Why?

[spartan]

Dresden had no military industry, it produced food.
The US likes to pretend that there was a war industry there, but it is false.
It wasn't just the US who thought this but the Germans themselves:


As far as Dresden being a militarily significant industrial centre, an official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_High_Command)'s Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with material. Dresden was the seventh largest German city and by far the largest unbombed built-up area left and thus was contributing to the defense of Germany itself.

The bombing of Dresden was terrible and wrong, but coming out with lies about it not being an industrial city contributing to the Nazi war effort is stupid and has it's basis in Nazi propaganda lies (who had their own agenda in doing so).

[Sentinel]

I did.


So, how about justifying your vote then? What was achieved with children burning alive in the cellars as the phosphor from the firebombs ran down there? Also, do you support the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan as well?

[Invader Zim]

Probably not, but in a time of total war, which the second world war was, it is futile to complain that 'x' event was not justified.

[Comrade B]

No time is ever a time of total war. You have the choice to kill civilians at any time. By the justification that you may return an evil with an evil, the allied forces might as well have begun a genocide killing all native Germans (though they did get their fill of this while deporting the Germans from Poland, first generation or not).

[communard resolution]

You can justify just about anything by saying it's total war.

[Invader Zim]

No time is ever a time of total war.

Well thank you for that, but what is your point? That total war is a shitty situation to be in? Well yeah, but thats what the situation was, like it or not.


You can justify just about anything by saying it's total war.

Well, not really. You can explain why events occured, by pointing to an enviroment or total war, but that doesn't justify or condemn them; it is simply the way it was.

[communard resolution]

Well, not really. You can explain why events occured, by pointing to an enviroment or total war, but that doesn't justify or condemn them; it is simply the way it was.

Got you. The question remains whether certain acts were necessary, even regarding the circumstances.

[Comrade B]

Well thank you for that, but what is your point? That total war is a shitty situation to be in? Well yeah, but thats what the situation was, like it or not.
I didn't say it is a shitty thing, I said that you cannot use total war to justify something. The creation of total war is a choice by the leaders, and no one else. It is like justifying the holocaust by saying, "well yeah, it was fascism."

[Invader Zim]

I didn't say it is a shitty thing, I said that you cannot use total war to justify something. The creation of total war is a choice by the leaders, and no one else. It is like justifying the holocaust by saying, "well yeah, it was fascism."

Actually what you said was, "No time is ever a time of total war." Which, is just false.

As for the issue of justification, like I said, this has nothing to do with 'justification', and the question of was 'x' act justified, is an entirely pointless question.

[F9]

Of course and it cannot be justified.Killing innocent people is huge "crime".When fucking capitalists-imperialists have wars the one that pay are the poor people who go innocent.

Fuserg9:star:

[Comrade B]

Actually what you said was, "No time is ever a time of total war." Which, is just false.

As for the issue of justification, like I said, this has nothing to do with 'justification', and the question of was 'x' act justified, is an entirely pointless question.

What I said is that total war doesn't just happen, someone must conciously decide, we will return evil with evil. No one is forcing you, it is a choice.

[spartan]

What I said is that total war doesn't just happen, someone must conciously decide, we will return evil with evil. No one is forcing you, it is a choice.
Well if we didn't fight Hitler's fire with fire we would have soon become a province of the third reich (and everyone knows what that would have entailed).

No one wanted war with Hitler (which is why he was appeased) but not confronting Hitler earlier on when he was weaker led to us facing a much stronger Germany by the time we eventually were forced into fighting them (after they invaded Poland who's freedom we had guaranteed).

This meant that not only was the war fought between basically equal powered countries, but also meant that Germany's superior tactics led it to a quick and easy victory over most of it's opponents early in the war.

Most wars after the first world war were a total war by nature unless it was just a small scale regional conflict fought between disorganised armies with inferior equipment.

A major war nowadays simply cannot avoid being a total war.

No one "decides" to make it that it just develops into it by the very nature of the forces fighting and the tactics they employ (total war ensures a total victory for the winning side).

[Sentinel]

The conscious, calculated bombing of working class civilians during wartime is a crime against humanity!

During the Nürnberg trials, the USSR wanted to accuse Hermann Göring, who was the commander of the Luftwaffe, for terrorbombing, but the Western allies disagreed. The terrorbombings of Dresden and other German cities are the reason to this.

Fucking despiceable.

[Dimentio]

I think that justifications are a two-sided sword. By demanding that the US and the UK should act "fair", we are forgetting that they in themselves are incarnations of state power and therefore of total unjustifibiality, no matter how benevolent they are.

The state is an organism which is based on the deliberate administration and subjugation of human beings, and is therefore unjustifiable by its nature. Such abominations like Dresden, Auschwitz, Magadyr and the Killing Fields are just the logical conclusions of the kind of structure which the state is perpetuating.

[Comrade B]

Well if we didn't fight Hitler's fire with fire we would have soon become a province of the third reich (and everyone knows what that would have entailed).

How did killing civilians prevent this? The bombing of Dresden was about revenge.


No one wanted war with Hitler (which is why he was appeased) but not confronting Hitler earlier on when he was weaker led to us facing a much stronger Germany by the time we eventually were forced into fighting them (after they invaded Poland who's freedom we had guaranteed).
The world was forced to fight him, but not target civilians.


Most wars after the first world war were a total war by nature unless it was just a small scale regional conflict fought between disorganised armies with inferior equipment.
Total war is when everything is a target, you use any means to achieve victory. Assassination, terrorism, gas. In the invasion of Iraq, not one of these has been used on Iraqis (though one could argue that attacking the people of Iraq was terrorism on an international scare)


A major war nowadays simply cannot avoid being a total war.\
Name a recent war that became ruthless civilian murder that is not considered an atrocity.

[spartan]

How did killing civilians prevent this? The bombing of Dresden was about revenge.

I wasn't referring to Dresden, I was referring to total war.

I agree that Dresden was terrible but it was the only German city with an industrial base that was left practically untouched by the allied air forces.

That doesn't justify the bombing of it but it puts it into context a little.


The world was forced to fight him, but not target civilians.

It's the nature of the beast known as total war I am afraid.

Civilians can work in factories and keep armies supplied, therefore in the minds of military commanders they are justifiable targets for killing as less civilians means less workers, which means less workers to produce goods for their countries army, thus rendering it less strong when compared to the army of the military commanders.

Total war is when everything is a target, you use any means to achieve victory. Assassination, terrorism, gas. In the invasion of Iraq, not one of these has been used on Iraqis (though one could argue that attacking the people of Iraq was terrorism on an international scare)


Name a recent war that became ruthless civilian murder that is not considered an atrocity.

They aren't proper wars fought between two sides of equal strength though are they?

They are conflicts where a bigger power wants the resources of the smaller power who are resisting their overtures (which is why it eventually becomes a "war").

They are also confined to a small area/region.

[Invader Zim]

What I said is that total war doesn't just happen, someone must conciously decide, we will return evil with evil. No one is forcing you, it is a choice.


So when you said, and I quote, "No time is ever a time of total war", you didn't mean what you actually said, but something completely different? I see.

[Comrade B]

So when you said, and I quote, "No time is ever a time of total war", you didn't mean what you actually said, but something completely different? I see.
Please don't give me bull shit.
Would you like me to say it another way?
You cannot justify the killing of civilians by saying a situation is total war because someone must conciously decide, we will return evil with evil.
No one is forcing you, it is a choice. saying it was total war a stupid excuse.

[Invader Zim]

You cannot justify the killing of civilians by saying a situation is total war because someone must conciously decide, we will return evil with evil.

Nobody here is justiying it, rather attempting to explain it.

To say it again, but this time forgive me if I don't re-write it: -

"You can explain why events occured, by pointing to an enviroment or total war, but that doesn't justify or condemn them; it is simply the way it was."

The study of history is not about condemning historical actors nor is it about attempting to justify their actions. It is about explaining them, and for leftists it is exploring the enviroments which shaped their conciousness.


saying it was total war a stupid excuse.It isn't an excuse; it is the way society was in the midst of the bloodiest most brutal war in the history of humanity.

[Random Precision]

It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like “Poo-tee-weet?”

[Revolution 9]

In my philosophy class, I roleplayed as Sir Arthur Harris in a mock trial of Harry Truman for dropping the atomic bomb. It was an interesting legal/ethical discussion.

Although I don't agree with the bombing of Dresden, it is justified. The goal of the Allies was the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. Mass bombings are perhaps the best method of achieving that, as they completely destroy all kinds of industries and demoralize workers.

I mean, we even saw this in Japan, which was supposed to be fanatically against surrender. They were actually planning to surrender before Truman dropped the bomb because the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities completely destroyed any shred of morale left.

How can a country wage war without workers who want to work, without consumer goods to satisfy the workers, and without capital goods to build anything?

[Dr Mindbender]

Im in 2 minds...

i checked the dates on wiki and apparently the bombing happened only a few months before the nazis were going to surrender anyway.

I suppose the real question is was dresden of any military value as some sources claim? Could the nazis have battled on had the dresden bombing not happened?

While i am disgusted by the wanton killing of civillians (especially working class ones) one could argue either way the blow in german morale assisted the allied victory.

[bayano]

I voted that it bares no justification, with a caveat. It helped increase a history of bombing against working class non-combatants; it resembles too much Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the dozens of other Japanese cities that were bombed, and there's a double standard; and on a basic level it was a slaughter of non-combatants by imperial forces (not imperial against germany necessarily, but imperial nonetheless)

I should say, though, that I do have a tendency to support rebellious massacres, principally by the oppressed, against oppressors (like Nat's Revolt, for example).

And, I do tend to make chants like "Another Dresden" during anti-nazi protests. Mostly to be provocative.

[black magick hustla]

Its not a question of "justification". There arent justifications in capitalist wars for us communists. The only position "justified" for us is opposition to all imperialist wars and taking an intransingent, revolutionary fatalist position.

[Lenin's Law]

While i am disgusted by the wanton killing of civillians (especially working class ones) one could argue either way the blow in german morale assisted the allied victory.

What? The bombing of Dresden did nothing to assist the allied victory. The war was over by that time and everyone knew it; the German army had been exhausted and the Allied troops were closing in on the German homeland, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians did not change the military situation at all and if anything, would probably make the people less likely to go against the Nazis as a confused, frightened, scared people who have just seen their homes burned and loved ones killed are apt to turn to their government for security than go against it.

Haven't we learned this already from the NATO balkan campaigns and the sanctions against Iraq?

[Sprinkles]

Bomber Harris do it again and all that reactionary shit, voted No of course.

Communists shouldn't think the murder of proletarians and civilians by capitalist states are more justifiable simply because they feel they're sticking it to the Nazis that way. The Allies were just as eager to commit criminal acts of war.



If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The bombing of Dresden cannot be justified.
It's a war crime, as are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[RadicalRadical]

No it was a war crime, so it is not justifiable.

[Plagueround]

And, I do tend to make chants like "Another Dresden" during anti-nazi protests. Mostly to be provocative.

That just makes you look like a giant douchebag.


As for the people that voted it was justified, anyone who thinks the bombing of Dresden has any "justification" should not consider themselves a revolutionary leftist of any kind. If you feel compelled to explain the military reasoning behind it (as flimsy as it may be), that's one thing, but please, don't come here talking about it being justifiable in any sense.

[Tower of Bebel]

The bombing of that city was an act of terrorism. It prevented Germany from attempting another social revolution because it was dependent on supplies from the "Allies".

Dresden and many other cities that were bombed were not targeted because they were important zones of German industry. As if the whole of Dresden was even bombed! They bombed the city, not the industrial zone! The city itself was a temporary stop for thousands of refugees from the East.

Only in 1945 did the German arms production really cripple. That was because the war was lost... the German army was disintegrating and no weapons could be delivered since many units did not even exist anymore. The only thing that helped ending the war through bombing was the destruction of German military vehicles, railways, roads and units. The large scale destruction of German cities was an act of terror, nothing more nothing less. When bombings reached their full capacity the German war industry also reached its full capacity!

[ROM]

The nazi's were were horrible killers of millions but not all of Germany had thier support. The people suffered for the cause just as they did when Germany bombed Poland,London and many other cities. It's a shame the innocent always suffer.
IT WAS ALL OUT WAR but that's not a justification. How about Hiroshima and
Nagisaki the truth in the US BOMBING WAS NOT THE LIE THET TEACH US
which was to save troops in the invasion but Rather to end the war quickly
before RUSSIA came in from the North and declare it as a satellite. NO EXCUSE.

[Revy]

I voted no. It was a crime against humanity just like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It's just one of many reasons to show why the Allies didn't really care about "humanitarian" goals of defeating fascism. It's good of course that the Axis didn't win. But regardless who won, the working class of all countries lost.

[Comrade Rage]

The bombing of Dresden bears no justification
None whatsoever. This bombing had no strategic importance whatsoever, it was little more than a terror campaign waged against German civilians. I believe in nothing short of the harshest treatment of Nazis, but this crossed the line into fullfledged barbarism against civilians.

[redguard2009]

The Western Allies did officially adopt a terror campaign whose specific aim was to target German civilians and kill as many of them as possible in order to cripple Germany's manpower. State terrorism if there ever was any.

But the side of me which despises Germany and the complacency in which most Germans of the time lived with the criminality of their regime justifies their deaths. How many of those were card-carrying members of the Nazi Party? How many voted for Hitler in 1933? How many volunteered for service in the Wehrmacht? How many cheered Hitler's armies as they devestated Europe?

[Junius]

But the side of me which despises Germany and the complacency in which most Germans of the time lived with the criminality of their regime justifies their deaths.

How cute when Maoists blame imperialist wars on the working class.


How many of those were card-carrying members of the Nazi Party?

Probably quite a few; can you blame workers for joining a party in face of losing their jobs or being disadvantaged? You are deluded in thinking that people had simple black and white choices. I assume you hold an American citizenship - or some other Western Citizenship. Are you going to renounce it because America has invaded countries? No...because it would be socially disadvantageous and change nothing.


How many voted for Hitler in 1933?

From memory, the polls gave Hitler 37% to Hindenburg's 53%. Hitler got in via back-door power deals with liberals and conservatives.


How many volunteered for service in the Wehrmacht?

Yes, patriotism exists. Who are you going to blame - the people who encourage it, or the people whom fall for it? The USSR was fiercely patriotic too, for example, the motto of 'Kill a German.'


How many cheered Hitler's armies as they devestated Europe?

How many former communists cheered on Allied armies and opposed class struggle - when the Allies were doing what any imperialist nations were doing - protecting their economic interests?

[redguard2009]

oh noes left communists runrunrun


Probably quite a few; can you blame workers for joining a party in face of losing their jobs or being disadvantaged? You are deluded in thinking that people had simple black and white choices. I assume you hold an American citizenship - or some other Western Citizenship. Are you going to renounce it because America has invaded countries? No...because it would be socially disadvantageous and change nothing.

Being born in a country which affords me automatic citizenship is not comparable to standing in line at the local Nazi Party headquarters, committing my personal information, waiting 4-6 weeks for my party card to come in the mail and attending countless party conventions, gatherings and Hitler speaches. I mean, come on, that's quite a stretch you've drawn there.

[Sprinkles]

How many voted for Hitler in 1933?


From memory, the polls gave Hitler 37% to Hindenburg's 53%. Hitler got in via back-door power deals with liberals and conservatives.


Yep, Hitler never received more than 37 percent of the national vote*. In the election of 1932 the NSDAP won 230 seats in the Reichstag, which although large, isn't a majority when there are 608 seats in the Reichstag in total. It was Hindenburg who appointed Hitler as chancellor and effectively put him in control of the state.

Figures from the official site of the Bundestag / German parliament:
http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/history/factsheets/elections_weimar_republic.pdf

*which of course also excludes the people who either did not or could not vote.

[Junius]

Being born in a country which affords me automatic citizenship is not comparable to standing in line at the local Nazi Party headquarters, committing my personal information, waiting 4-6 weeks for my party card to come in the mail and attending countless party conventions, gatherings and Hitler speaches. I mean, come on, that's quite a stretch you've drawn there.

The only stretch of the imagination here is you condemning German workers to death merely because they happened to live in a country which was on the losing side of the war. Do you think Iraqi workers should be bombed by US planes merely because they 'idly sat by' whilst Saddam gassed various groups? What a joke you Maoists are.

[redguard2009]

You silly people and your "workers are absolutely infallable" dogmatism. Yes, workers supported the Nazi Party (now you're going from "they joined the Nazi Party because that was the only way to survive" to "happened to live in Germany" -- make up your mind! Were they active supporters of the Nazi regime or victims of circumstance?); infact, the Nazi Party could not have become what it did without the support of German workers. Of course, we could believe that working men and women by and large are completely incapable of any political inclusivity (unless its of the socialist variety), but doing so would undermine intelligence. Workers are fully capable of being "bad" people; they are capable of being fascists, of being racists and violently supportive of imperialism (the majority of US troops in Iraq are working class -- are they bereft of responsibility for their own actions in support of the imperialist invasion simply because their parents made no more than 5 figures?)

The fact of the matter is, the Nazi Party, aka the National Socialist German Worker's Party, would not have become what it did without its immense support base from German workers. Its methodology and intent were quite clear; Hitler and his cohorts were quite forthcoming on their ideas of racial purity and the oppression of cultural and ethnic groups; his demonization and persecution of jews inparticular was embraced by most of the population.

You'd do well to realize that movements like the Nazi's were not the product of a small group of tyrannical despots conspiring in a dark room to control an unwitting population. Hitler was no dark lord of the sith enacting secret plans -- the goals of German fascism were quite clear and embraced by the majority of the population.

[Junius]

You silly people and your "workers are absolutely infallable" dogmatism. Yes, workers supported the Nazi Party (now you're going from "they joined the Nazi Party because that was the only way to survive" to "happened to live in Germany" -- make up your mind! No one said the workers were infallible.

I did say that they are not to blame - its rather like someone looking at capitalism and going 'Ah! Its your fault you are poor since you haven't overthrown your masters!' If you accept that the cause of imperialism is capital, then its entirely incorrect to blame a working class for it.

And a further question: what was to be gained by dead German workers - do you think that this was some sort of justice? Do you think the use of the atomic weapon was justified in Japan as retributive justice for Japanese workers 'supporting' the war?


Were they active supporters of the Nazi regime or victims of circumstance?);I think this is a useless question; the majority of workers and peasants of Russia in 1914 patriotically supported the war - so did various communists. They latter overthrew the autocracy and the war-leaders. The point is whom such positions serve - the imperialism and racism of Nazi Germany certainly did not end up serving the German workers or any working class. Nor did the bombing of Dresden.


infact, the Nazi Party could not have become what it did without the support of German workers.Nothing can happen without the 'support' of the working class. The system would collapse in an instant if such 'support' was withdrawn. The point is, we don't live in a system which allows for post-fact judgments; the German workers were not asked whether they would like to gas every Jew, communist or homosexual. A party came to power on the back of a failed revolution which attributed blame to a race rather than capitalism - a campaign of indoctrination followed and a ruthless police state set up. By judging their society from our standards you are taking a completely idealistic and unmaterialist standard.


Workers are fully capable of being "bad" people; they are capable of being fascists, of being racists and violently supportive of imperialismAnd your solution to this: the enemy is the working class!

Who do you think promotes racism? Whom do you think supports imperialism? Whom do you think it ends up serving?

Incidentally, your position is not anti-imperialist at all - it calls for Allied imperialism in Germany as some sort of retributive justice as if the Allies were bombing 'morality' into civilians.


(the majority of US troops in Iraq are working class -- are they bereft of responsibility for their own actions in support of the imperialist invasion simply because their parents made no more than 5 figures?)Only a bourgeoisie individualist moralist would argue that we are in some sort of social vacuum where our material conditions do not influence the choices we have to make. Being poor is a very decisive factor in whether someone will join the military or not. In the US at least, a significant portion of soldiers are homeless and come from the lowest social-economic backgrounds. It is arrogant of you to put blame on them for a system which gives them little choice. Step into a person's shoes and you step into their mind.

[redguard2009]

Bourgois individualist moralist, chauvinist capitalist labelist raaagh!


Step into a man's shoes and you step into his mind.

Funny you would mention this; some years ago I fervently entertained the idea of signing up with the military for that exact reason. I went so far as to attend a recruitment meeting and hand in my application form. The only reason I am not in uniform now is that I did not give the necessary personal ID documents, after realizing that being poor as fuck is no justification for becoming an imperialist soldier.

Only an idiot would argue that the act of picking up a gun and killing (or being willing to kill) in the name of imperialism is not a choice but one dictated by "condition"; if that were the case then the US military would be completely overwhelmed with the millions of poverty-stricken legal age Americans who want to join up for the economic benefits.

Joining the military is a choice. Joining the Nazi party is a choice. Lynching blacks is a choice. Your dogmatic views on the infallability and eternal innocence of working people (any morally wrong or unjustified view held by a worker is obviously not his fault but forced upon him, unwillingly, by the establishment) is annoying and just leads to a complete and dangerous misassesment of reality.


Incidentally, your position is not anti-imperialist at all - it calls for Allied imperialism in Germany as some sort of retributive justice as if the Allies were bombing 'morality' into civilians.

No, it calls for retributive justice as if the Allies were bombing napalm into civilians. Well, not napalm, but standard high-explosive.

Of course, I started with "part of me" feeling this way, but your belligerence and antagonism is pushing me towards totally embracing the idea of wanting every "hun" to burn in the Dresden firestorms. I'm not going to let you push me into moral obscurity; I maintain that the Bomber Harris campaigns were state-sponsered terrorism aiming to murder civilians en masse, and that the majority of the German people were active supporters or, at the very least, passive supporters of the Nazi regime and its criminal acts, which they had atleast some knowledge of. I maintain that there is a big difference between living in a society whose leaders are engaging in some specific negative act, and being an active participant and supporter of that act by signing up with that society's military, joining the leaders' political party, and taking part in rallies and speaches that glorify that aforementioned act. And lastly, I think you trying to draw some connection between unavoidable exposure and sub-active participation is stupid.

[Leo]

Funny you would mention this; some years ago I fervently entertained the idea of signing up with the military for that exact reason. I went so far as to attend a recruitment meeting and hand in my application form. The only reason I am not in uniform now is that I did not give the necessary personal ID documents, after realizing that being poor as fuck is no justification for becoming an imperialist soldier.

Only an idiot would argue that the act of picking up a gun and killing (or being willing to kill) in the name of imperialism is not a choice but one dictated by "condition"

Ah, you western maoists with your liberal moralism...

If conditions dictate it, if you actually need the money desperately enough to leave your home and risk your life, you do it. It ain't nice but neither is life under capitalism in general.


if that were the case then the US military would be completely overwhelmed with the millions of poverty-stricken legal age Americans who want to join up for the economic benefits.


Where do you think they are getting their soldiers from then?


Joining the military is a choice. Joining the Nazi party is a choice.

And this is exactly liberalism. Yeah right sure, everything is a choice and classes, social relations, conditions, threats don't determine anything...


Lynching blacks is a choice.

This example is different from the others. Still though, racism is, rather than being a choice, a social disease.


No, it calls for retributive justice as if the Allies were bombing napalm into civilians. Well, not napalm, but standard high-explosive.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Dresden-pile-of-bodies.JPG

Well fucking done then, no?

And funny how it was justifiable to join the US army for you when they were killing millions of people in firebombing and nuclear bombing, but now it's not in Iraq.


, and that the majority of the German people were active supporters or, at the very least, passive supporters of the Nazi regime and its criminal acts

Four hundred and fifty thousand Germans were murdered in concentration camps. The trees on the roads from Stalingrad to Berlin were full of hanged deserters, hundreds of thousands of soldiers tried to desert.

And the majority of the American people were active supporters or at the very least passive supporters of the American regime that committed horrible crimes during the war, and even probably the majority of the Russian people were active or at the very least passive supporters of the Soviet regime which committed horrible crimes during the war. When getting involved with imperialist war, the ruling class has to unleash nationalist and militarist hysteria to make it easier for itself to recruit soldiers in mass. This was no different during WW1. If you have doubts to whether Lenin and his comrades started whining, blaming the working class and bragging about their moral purity, I would suggest you to check the wiki article on what happened afterwards.

It is not the Germans who are responsible for Hitler’s crimes. They were the first, in 1934, to pay for Hitler’s bourgeois repression with 450,000 deaths, and who continued to suffer this merciless repression even when it was exported abroad. Neither are the French, the British, the Americans, the Russians or the Chinese responsible for the horrors of a war they did not want, but which their rulers forced on them.

Millions of men and women died slowly in the Nazi concentration camps; they were savagely tortured and now their bodies are rotting somewhere. Millions died fighting in the war, or were struck down by a ‘liberating’ bombardment. These millions of corpses, mutilated, amputated, torn apart, disfigured, buried in the ground or rotting in the open, these millions of dead, soldiers, women, old people, children, all cry out for vengeance. And they cry for vengeance, not against the German people, who are still paying, but against this infamous, hypocritical, and unscrupulous bourgeoisie, which did not pay for the war, but on the contrary profited from it.

We blame the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat...

[redguard2009]

For too long I've entertained you far-left cronies and your simplistic ideas that the entirety of human existence and everything that entails, from our choice of breakfast cereal to toothbrush colour has been pre-determined for us by some magnificent class character, and that all of human action, however horrible and murderous it is, can so easily be reasoned away as a by-product of our economic status.

No, sir, being poor, and being a victim, does not justify something as wretched as joining the military and victimizing others, nor does it justify complacency with murder, any more than a rapist is vindicated of his crimes because he too is a victim of rape.


We blame the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat...

:rolleyes:

[Pogue]

I think it's really hard to say because of the fact that it may have been neccesary to win a war which had already claimed thousands of lives but then again theres the argument that it didn't do much good. Its hard because Nazism had to be stopped and perhaps drastic measures had to be taken but then again, was this too much and at a time when it wasn't necesary? I really don't know enough about it so I voted other, I'll read up on it more before posting my true opinion.

[redguard2009]

It was probably no more useful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. It was little more than a kick-in-the-gut-while-you're-down sort of thing, played on an unimaginable scale.

[Sankofa]

It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like “Poo-tee-weet?”

Am I the only one that noticed this totally awesome and cleverly placed Kurt Vonnegut plug in the midst of all the debating? :3

[Comrade B]

Am I the only one that noticed this totally awesome and cleverly placed Kurt Vonnegut plug in the midst of all the debating? :3
I saw it too, I am a huge Kurt Vonnegut fan, I would recognize that bird noise anywhere, haha

[#FF0000]

For too long I've entertained you far-left cronies and your simplistic ideas that the entirety of human existence and everything that entails, from our choice of breakfast cereal to toothbrush colour has been pre-determined for us by some magnificent class character, and that all of human action, however horrible and murderous it is, can so easily be reasoned away as a by-product of our economic status.

Oh. Okay, so we can assume that criminal activity being more common among the working class is because the working class is full of bad, immoral individuals, and not because of the fact that the conditions they live in make crime seem like a good way to go, then?

I really don't like this attitude you have that the German people are to blame for Hitler for not being active enough. It's not only callous and ignorant, but ridiculously illogical. Am I directly responsible for the way my government exploits my class?

I also have to wonder what exactly you have done to somehow absolve yourself of the crimes your leaders have committed.

[Foxtrot]

The question of just how innocent the civilans were springs to mind; as it was they who carried Hitler and his fascist bastards into power, and they who fought for him. after all, the evil of the Nazis was so massive, and so immense. the means may have been unsavory, but it all contributed to the final destruction of the Nazi state.

[Comrade B]

The question of just how innocent the civilans were springs to mind; as it was they who carried Hitler and his fascist bastards into power, and they who fought for him. after all, the evil of the Nazis was so massive, and so immense. the means may have been unsavory, but it all contributed to the final destruction of the Nazi state.
People are not guilty for believing their leader's lies. If we were to say that all those that supported Reagan are deserving of being incinerated, we would be seen as sick fucks. Reagan is the one guilty for lying to the people, as was Hitler.

I would have to say, most of the people that supported the Nazis didn't even know what the fuck they were supporting.
The Nazi's largest percent of supporters were the children who had been brainwashed by the Hitler Youth and all the other programs for maintaining their power.
Adults were either keeping quiet as to not be handed over (often by their own children) to the Nazis, or they probably didn't know of exactly what was happening to the enemies of their government. It was about nationalism, not genocide to these people.

Also, the war was won by the time Dresden was bombed.
The only reason for the bombing of Dresden I can see was to 'get them back' for bombing London, which is a horrible reason. Shooting a man's family for them shooting your family doesn't make you better than the person that did it first.

[Foxtrot]

From where do you gather the assumption that the german populace did not hate jews and communists? and besides, i am not blaimng ht epople. i am merely fueling discussion.

[Gleb]

People are not guilty for believing their leader's lies. If we were to say that all those that supported Reagan are deserving of being incinerated, we would be seen as sick fucks.

We would be seen as sick fucks because that's what we would be. Sick fucks. That's best word I can find for people who think it's ok to bomb city if we assume that there's lots of people who are voting for the wrong guy.

[Comrade B]

From where do you gather the assumption that the german populace did not hate jews and communists?
Once the Nazis were removed from power, it didn't take long to end this hatred.
Once my grandfather became a POW, you can trust me that he never said anything remotely right wing again. He was still a grumpy old German stereotype, but he sure as hell wasn't a fascist.

[Invader Zim]

I think some people here need to put down their copies of Hitler's Willing Executioners, and give the matter a bit of a re-think.

[PostAnarchy]

I consider the bombing of Dresden to be a terrible, imperialistic action that should be deservedly condemned by all revolutionaries.

[Liberte ou la Mort]

Hitler didn't build any four engine bombers because he knew that they were a waste of time. Russia concentrated on tactical rather than suppression bombing because it also knew that it did little good.

The amount of time and resources that it takes to create a four engine long distance bomber is much better spent on tanks and troops and aircraft to support the tanks.

I think Dresden was an atrocity. I'm not sure what the people in Auschwitz thought about it but I think I could take a guess.

It's very easy to look back on these sorts of things and cast judgment with the benefit of hindsight.

[Sasha]

I'm not sure what the people in Auschwitz thought about it but I think I could take a guess.

well i do know, my family was there and they were wondering why the fuck nobody came and bomb the cremetoria and gaschambers while by that time the allied forces knew what was hapening over there.

i voted no justification by the way.

[Invader Zim]

well i do know, my family was there and they were wondering why the fuck nobody came and bomb the cremetoria and gaschambers while by that time the allied forces knew what was hapening over there.

i voted no justification by the way.

Historians have actually discussed that at length. There are also several conflicting opinions. Richard Breitman wrote a book called Official Secrets, which revealed that the British and Americans knew about the holocaust in detail from the decrypts of German cyphered messages. He argued that this information could have bee used, as you suggest, to destroy the train lines, the gas chambers, etc. However, journalist and intelligence historian Michael Smith attacked that argument in an article called 'Bletchley Park and the Holocaust', in an edited volume called Understanding Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century: Journeys in the Shadows, Len Scott and Peter Jackson (eds.).

There is also a book by historian W. D. Rubinstein called The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis', which argues that not a single jew could have been saved who wasn't. Obviously that seems a ludicrous argument on its face, and doubtless it is, such dogmatic and uncompromising positions usually are. But some of the arguments do hold at least some water.

[Das war einmal]

It is not justified at all, but understandable, that is the filthy face of war. When the Red Army arrived in Germany they raped a lot of women, dispicable as that is, I have not heard of a war yet where there were no violations of human rights on civilians.

The idea about the bombings on Dresden and other German cities was that the civilians would rise up against their Nazi government, but it served there cause more or less.

[Das war einmal]

If anything else, this is just another example of why all revolutionaries should work to prevent war from happening ever again.

[Killfacer]

It was stupid in that we had already won the battle of britain and were in the ascendancy, however if we were being bombed at the time i would see it as justifiable. It wasn't stupid because by bombing the industrial heartland of Germany crippled their war efford.

The British bombing of cities during the Battle of Britian is what drew Hitlers attention away from the battered RAF and on to our cities. This allowed the RAF to recouperate and eventually defeat the luftwaffer.

[PRC-UTE]

Probably not, but in a time of total war, which the second world war was, it is futile to complain that 'x' event was not justified.

basically this. and what's more, the number of casualties is often exaggerated. it's curious to pick out this one massacre.

[Invader Zim]

As stated, the second world war was a period of total war. A total war is the point when a war reaches the scale when an entire societies resources are employed in the prosecution of the war. In such a war that includes the civillian population. That is because in such a society everyone contributes to the war effort. All employment was divided into two broad categories, necessary and non-necessary. The necessary trades and positions, which contribute to the functioning of society and the war, were 'protected', the rest were not and those employed were either conscipted into the armed forces or tranfered to work deemed necessary.

As such, in total war, killing civillians does and did impact the oppositions ability to fight a war. Furthermore it is also a war of attrition, both in terms of resources, but also in committment to fighting the war. Killing a nations people indiscriminately was thought to sap that nations will to continue fighting. On the same lines, destroying a city is a demonstration of power, the purpose to instill fear.

[Cumannach]

The question is not strategic justification it's moral justification, only a part of which depends on strategy.

No it was not justified as the Soviets had already dealt the fatal blows to the Nazi war machine.

[Invader Zim]

The question is not strategic justification it's moral justification, only a part of which depends on strategy.

No it was not justified as the Soviets had already dealt the fatal blows to the Nazi war machine.

On the contrary, it is the only question. Complaining that acts of attrocity occuring during a period of total war is akin to complaining that jumping into the sea makes you wet. It is the nature of the beast.

[Cumannach]

Well complaining that capitalism is exploitative and unjust and unfit for society is also like complaining that jumping into the sea makes you wet. It's just the nature of the beast.

We're 'complaining about' or rather condemning the very existence of 'total war', which is brought about and carried on by conscious, intentional decisions.

[Invader Zim]

Well complaining that capitalism is exploitative and unjust and unfit for society is also like complaining that jumping into the sea makes you wet. It's just the nature of the beast.

We're 'complaining about' or rather condemning the very existence of 'total war', which is brought about and carried on by conscious, intentional decisions.

Well that isn't what your post states, nor what this thread is about; and that is whether the bombing of Dresden was justified. And that question is, of course, an irrelevent one when one considers the period. In a war which had already cost tens of millions of lives, and would continue to do so unless it finished, ending the war victoriously as swiftly as possible was considered of tantamount importance. And as far as the stratagists of every nation was concerned, if that cause was aided involved potentially killing thousands in bombing raids then it was justified. Morality didn't factor, it was an irrelevence. And asking, from the vantage point of today, if the bombing was morally justified is to miss the point entirely.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The bombing of Dresden is comparable with the Atomic bomb being dropped onto Japanese cities. Sick acts of terror that only effected civilians.

Yeah I have to line up with the majority on this one.

Does anyone have some reliable figures for the deaths caused? [not neo-nazi massively blown up figures but reliable ones]

Is it true that they only bombed it to "shock and awe" the red army with a show of strength?

[-marx-]

No justification IMO, terrorist tactics that kill civilians are fucking bullshit!

[ibn Bruce]

Civilians are civilians and not legitimate targets, ever. I voted 1.

I don't know if I believe it is possible for there to exist anything except total war by the way. I think it is a false distinction. Wars have always affected entire populations and involved entire economies. Simply because the Imperial powers had the ability to push the wars away from their home bases, does not mean that such wars were any less 'total', it simply means that one side had more ability to act with 'totality' than the other. Look at the '100 years war' as a perfect example. Or the wars in classical Greece for that matter.

[Invader Zim]

I think it is a false distinction.

You think incorrectly.


Wars have always affected entire populations and involved entire economies.

The issue is not that a war effects people, but rather that the entire economy and population are directly geared towards fighting the war. I could write a lengthy post explaining why, but most of it would be repetation of previous posts.

[ibn Bruce]

You think incorrectly.

Look at the 100 years war, how civilians were targeted systematically by the British. Look at what happened to cities that resisted siege. Look at how an entire town was needed to support a single mounted Warrior. Look at how civilian populations were drafted into Medieval armies. Look at New Kingdom Egyptian uses of drafted soldiers in their armies. All wars involve whole societies. Simply because there is an apparent separation between the conflict and those on the 'home front' does not mean that that is not a constructed separation.

The idea of total war sprung out of some romantic notion that at some point in time, wars were simply a bunch of good ol' chaps going into a field somewhere secluded and slugging it out in an all together gentlemanly manner. The nature of supply in the ancient and medieval world meant that that is a false idea. Civilians have and always will, suffered for wars, entire societies are always mobilised, it is just that one side is winning and the other side is not. Ask the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s if war was anything BUT total for them.

[Killfacer]

Look at the 100 years war, how civilians were targeted systematically by the British. Look at what happened to cities that resisted siege. Look at how an entire town was needed to support a single mounted Warrior. Look at how civilian populations were drafted into Medieval armies. Look at New Kingdom Egyptian uses of drafted soldiers in their armies. All wars involve whole societies. Simply because there is an apparent separation between the conflict and those on the 'home front' does not mean that that is not a constructed separation.

The idea of total war sprung out of some romantic notion that at some point in time, wars were simply a bunch of good ol' chaps going into a field somewhere secluded and slugging it out in an all together gentlemanly manner. The nature of supply in the ancient and medieval world meant that that is a false idea. Civilians have and always will, suffered for wars, entire societies are always mobilised, it is just that one side is winning and the other side is not. Ask the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s if war was anything BUT total for them.

I think it is referring to ability to bomb cities from long range.

[Bitter Ashes]

The scale of the bombing was absolutly inexcusable. I can understand the strategic nessity to attack the supply lines of the enemy, but this was just carpet bombing of residential districts. That definatly puts it on par with when the IRA let off those bombs in English busy shopping centres, or when the Al Queda bombed the tube. Only difference between those incidents and Dresden was the scale.

[Invader Zim]

Look at the 100 years war, how civilians were targeted systematically by the British. Look at what happened to cities that resisted siege.

Targeting civillians is not, by an stretch of the imagination, the definition of a total war.

And you are wrong to asume that 'Total War' is a purely 20th century notion, certainly elements of earlier wars, the Thirty years war springs to mind, were akin to that of total war. But it is ludicrous to say that there is no such thing as 'total war', do you suppose that the Falklands war is comparable in either scale or national mobilisation to say, the First World War, or the Peninsular War and the invasion of the Río de la Plata?

[Bitter Ashes]

Total war is where the entire national production and purpose is to suppose warfare. Every factory churning out arms and military equipment. Every farm to feed not only to feed civilians, but every solider. Every drop of oil to military vehicles, or for the production/distribution of military supplies. Everyone who can fight is trained to fight.
Total and utter militarisation in other words. It's only ever happened in the UK during WW1 and WW2. Even the feudal system wasnt on that scale.
What I think the term you were looking for was a war of attricion (sp?). The basis of that is to systematicly destroy everything and anything that could ever make even the smallest dent in the enemy's war effort. Any farm that feeds the enemy. Any factory that supplies them. Any truck that delivers to the enemy. Any civilian that may one day be able to fight you. So, you reduce the cities to rubble, sow the earth with salt and butcher anyone you see without mercy.
As you can see. This strategy has almost completly the opposite effect as total-war. This is not a new strategy at all, however, before total-war it was nessicary to follow it so ruthlessly. As a general rule, the level of attricion has been in direct proportion with the level of militarisation of the enemy, although there can be other factors too such as individual acts of barbarism, or outright hatred instilled into the troops to terrorise the population.

[ibn Bruce]

The Assyrians practiced Total Warfare, where the entirety of their society was dedicated to it, as did the Spartans, the Mongols, the Pre-Islamic Arabs and so on and so forth. Usually Total War is distinguished by the lessening of the distinctions between civilians and combatants. I however believe this is a false distinction. War is war, for those fighting it, it is total, simply because we have improved capabilities in fighting it does not mean it is any less total. Looking at Iraq I also do not believe that any more care is taken with civilian targets now than ever.

The Assyrian empire dedicated their entire culture to warfare. When they finally sacked Babylon, not only did they kill everyone in the city, they also dismantled all the buildings, burned them, sowed the ground with salt and thorns and then changed the course of a river to flow over the City. What is that if not total war? Their entire populace was mobilised to fight, as were the Babylonians in the defence of their city. Simply because carpet bombing was not a factor does not make it less than total.

I did not say that total war was a 20th century thing, rather I said it was an idea that was coined in the 20th century to describe the devastation during the 1st World War. However I believe that it is a useless term, as it does not describe anything in particular unless the assertion is scale, in which case civilian casualties don't really play a factor.

Actually, a simpler thing to ask than this is:

Please describe what defines Total war and how the example of the Assyrians or the many other Militaristic societies were exempt from the term?:D

[Invader Zim]

Please describe what defines Total war and how the example of the Assyrians or the many other Militaristic societies were exempt from the term?

I don't know a lot about the Assyrian empire, but why could the definition of total war not apply to their society?

And you haven't addressed my questions.

[Bitter Ashes]

*Takes her hat off to Ibn Bruce*
VERY validly stated about those other civilisations! :)

[Femme_Fatale]

the bombing of dresden was a tragic event, there were many refugees there at the time. Women, children and the elderly filled the city, they were completely helpless and miserable people who probably had no support for a man who led their country into such a ruin. When the british forces bombed Dresden, those who survived rushed to the riverbanks, away from the burning city... where they were bombed by the Americans on the next day! this couldnt be justified under any circumstances. When Hamburg was bombed there were more civilian casualties in that city alone than in England. And Germans didnt bomb Oxford, as British and Americans chose to destroy such great facilities in Germany >=(

[RedAnarchist]

Mass murder of civilians is wrong, especially when that act is collective punishment for the actions of their government.

[JohannGE]

Mass murder of civilians is wrong, especially when that act is collective punishment for the actions of their government.

I couldn't agree more.

Harris wanted to test out theories he had learned from studies of German bombing in Spain. He was on a mission to prove something and didn't seem to care how many died in his experiment. Neither the civilian casualties nor his own bomber crews.
"the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories""The RAF Aircrew's nickname for Harris, "Butcher" or "Butch", was not given as a comment on the morality of his bombing policy. It was meant, at least semi-affectionately, to refer to his seeming indifference to the losses his aircrew were suffering."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Travers_Harris

A war criminal!

[dez]

collective crimes bear no guilt.
Specially if your group controls the world after you did it.


I recall of Mcnamara saying in a documentary that he was a war criminal for what he did in vietnam (he helped in dresden too) and would never be trialed for it.

[Armand Iskra]

That is the tendency of a warmonger, to condemn the enemy to death including its civilian population.