Dresden Massacre

[RED ARMY FACTION]

What is the dresden masacre and why did it occur

[Jazzratt]

It was a firebombing against a civilian city ordered by Winston Churchill during world war 2. It was horrific and if you want to find out more look it up on wikipedia or something. It's fairly famous although I'm not surprised that a number of people haven't heard of it - I guess people feel uncomfortable teaching anything that portrays the allies as anything other than glorious-nazi squashers. I guess part of it comes from the idea that all of Germany was pretty much "fair game" because they were all eeeevil nazis.

It's a perfect example of why "the left" should never get involved in imperialist wars, no matter how seemingly justified.

[Red Icepick]

It should be noted that Dresden was only a culmination of an already out-of-control bombing campaign. Sir Arthur "Bomber"/"Butcher" Harris is one of the biggest war criminals of the war. I think it's actually quite fair to put him aside Heinrich Himmler. Many historic cities were completely reduced, their populations slaughtered and most often with little or no military value.

The RAF targeted the working class population of Germany with their bombing campaign. The idea was that the will for the Germans to continue to fight could be broken if you massacred their families from the air and rendered them homeless, and if all of your factory workers are dead, how can you continue to fight? It actually proved inneffectual as German production actually managed to rise. The United States ran a parallel bombing campaign that targeted oil refineries and production facilities(as opposed to workers' houses) which proved pretty successful and was much more human. Although the US did participate in helping the British bombing campaign, including Dresden. Basically for the most part, the British bombed neighborhoods at night while the US bombed factories and facilities during the day.

The upper classes in Germany were never targeted. The rich neighborhoods were untouched. The IG Farben Corporation also wasn't bombed because it was still something of a business partner with Standard Oil. Germans actually used IG Farben buildings to take cover from air raids because they knew they weren't to be bombed.

Also, don't be fooled into thinking that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the US's only war crimes against Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo was much worse(so was Dresden). Every major Japanese city except Kyoto was already reduced to ashes by B-29s dropping napalm. Those two cities were actually left alone by conventional firebombing because they wanted to test the destructive power of the atomic bomb against them.

That's how capitalists wage war. The Soviet Union never carried out any strategic bombing against anyone. It fought its enemies on the field of battle and won without having to slaughter women and children.

[RED ARMY FACTION]

there are rumors a hidden meaning of RAF for red army faction is because the royal air force were the only ones dropping bombs on the nazis.
i do not beleive this lol.

Out of curiosity did the british use surgical bombing in germany as the yankee scum did in vietnam

[Red Icepick]

there are rumors a hidden meaning of RAF for red army faction is because the royal air force were the only ones dropping bombs on the nazis.
i do not beleive this lol.

Out of curiosity did the british use surgical bombing in germany as the yankee scum did in vietnam

No, it was an area bombing campaign. The USAF practiced surgical bombing. Incidentally, so did the Nazis with their Stuka dive bombers, the smart bombs of the day. The British reached the conclusion that only area bombing was effective, something the USAF did against the Japanese as well.

In Normandy, the Brits did a good job with their Typhoons attacking German convoys, but the RAF high command always was annoyed to have to attack the enemy as opposed to working-class civilians. The RAF genuinely believed in area bombing and were the only ones to thumb their nose at surgical, precision bombing.

[ComradeOm]

The USAF practiced surgical bombing

What? That may have been the intention (in that the USAF attempted to bomb specific installations rather than cities) but there was absolutely nothing "surgical" about the US bombing campaign. US authorities considered a bomb to be 'on target' if it landed within a thousand feet of its intended destination. IIRC less than 20% of bombs fell within this extremely generous definition

[Richard Nixon]

The Soviets did not carry out startegic bombings because their air forces were in worse capacity then the American and British Air Forces. However on the ground they commited many atrocities (like the Katyn Massacre) and allied with the Nazis for two year! Also are you claiming that the Allies and Nazi Germany were morally equivalent?

[Brother No. 1]

and allied with the Nazis for two year!

You should really know the difference between a non-agression pact and a formal alliance. If non-agression pacts are viewed as being 'allied' with a nation then this means the USSR was 'allied' with japan since 1939 up untill 1945. So tell me where did the meetings take place for this alliance? how did it get set up? do you have any proof to this? when did the USSR join the axis?

Also are you claiming that the Allies and Nazi Germany were morally equivalent?

Lets see....a nuclear bombing on two civilian citites, execution of 11 million people, fire-bombing civillains cities that had no influence of military actions nor presence, killing civilains just for the sake of them 'being the enemy',allowing one nation to counqer another to move it towards a certain direction of their interest and so much more.

Morally equivalent: pretty much.

[narcomprom]

The official intent of the Dresden bombing was to demoralise the population. Motifs agreed upon by historians today were to test newer armaments such as temite bombs on a larger scale at the dusk of the war.

In leftist circles you'll also hear the opinion that the bombings of Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin were meant to cripple the economy in what was to become the Soviet sector.

@BrotherNo1
don't feed the obvious and clumsy troll.

[ComradeMan]

Let's take a step back...

War is always terrible and always causes suffering.

Having said that, no one asked the Nazis to destroy Warsaw, Rotterdam, Plymouth, Coventry, Hull, London and so on...

I learned about Dresden at school, I don't think there was any attempt to cover it up either, just as we learned about Hiroshima and Nagasaki too.

Re the Soviets, they weren't all roses and sunshine either. I know many Polish people who have a great deal to say about the Soviet liberation and I have heard the most horrific stories, albeit unverifiable, of what went on in the areas they liberated. In my own family some were involved in Poland at the end of WWII and had no time for the Soviet "liberators".

But as they say, the first victim of any war is the truth... the lies of the victors and the lies of the vanquished...

Nevertheless, in the case of WWII what were people supposed to do? No one is saying that England was an angel of Churchill a saint, nor De Gaulle nor later the Americans. But had they not got involved we would not be discussing these things on this board today. The Italian partisans were "leftists" that got involved for example...

[rednordman]

No one is saying that England was an angel of Churchill a saint, nor De Gaulle nor later the Americans....

Im sorry but if you live in the UK they very much do say that. I think that alot of people from the UK on here could back me up on this too.

There is something with the british populus that simply cannot be in the wrong, no matter what. Even if they commit attrocites, there is always some kind of 'it needed to be done for the common good' type of excuse to make it ok.

Not only is this in reference to WW2, but also British imperialism. You would be in shock at the amount of people who really do see the old british empire as a modernising force in India, and totally ignore the huge death toll as a result, aswell as the obvious poverty they have in India today. They actually believe that if India was still part of a British empire than it wouldnt be as poor.

Correct me if im wrong, but you are from Italy, right? Dont take this the wrong way, but I do think that because of the history of Italy in WW2, Italians have a better and more cynical view point of the war. In other words, you see things more clearer and as they really were.

In the UK, there is still this attitude that anyone who questions Britians history, is a bit of an objectivist traitor who secretly hates the west and freedom, or is simply jealous of the UKs history.

It manifests itself in other ways too. Its like when soliders die in afganistan, there is usually a parade for their coffins and funeral. This is fair. Recently however, there have been alot of marches around the UK. The general philosophy behind this is that everyone can pay there respects to the troops. In reality i think its more to do with this childish attitude that the army simply cannot accept that not everyone is going to worship them and agree with the reason for why they are at war.

Its like they are parading more and more, to try and rectify their sheer disbelief that not everyone loves them.

I know this because everytime there is a march, there is always this strange kind of anticipation in the air, just waiting for someone to object (anti-war and muslim groups) so they can have someone to hate and be offended by. It gives the media a field day also.

[Drace]

According to Wikipedia, the original estimate of casualties was 250,000 but later studies suggest 40,000-50,000.
I'm wondering if the number was reduced to be in favor the US actions.

Here's a question though.
How many civilians in total died from US bombings? How does it compare to the Soviet Union?

[ComradeMan]

Correct me if im wrong, but you are from Italy, right? Dont take this the wrong way, but I do think that because of the history of Italy in WW2, Italians have a better and more cynical view point of the war. In other words, you see things more clearer and as they really were.

LOL!!! I take the point, but there are other things that irritate me about Italy and the war. Did you know that no one was ever really a fascist? You can't find an ex-fascista anywhere- in fact Italy was entirely populated by oppressed partigiani. When you see those old films of the Duce and all the people saluting him I wonder where they went? LOL!!! Not one to be found.... catch me? Okay, I'm exaggerating but...

L'italiano corre al vincitore... Enzo Biagi (if I am not mistaken).
(The Italian runs to the side of the winner...)

Of course in Italy we sacked Mussolini and declared ourselves allies and thus we also won in a sense. Then we managed to expiate the entire blame on the King of Italy and found a republic.... LOL!!!

If you are interested try and find a film by Bernardo Bertolucci, "Il Conformista" (1970) starring Stefania Sandrelli amongst others. It will give you a great insight....

Re Britain: there are always going to be nationalists in every country with a narrow view on history, but as my Grandfather used to say to me, never expect more than a grunt from a pig!

[rednordman]

LOL!!! I take the point, but there are other things that irritate me about Italy and the war. Did you know that no one was ever really a fascist? You can't find an ex-fascista anywhere- in fact Italy was entirely populated by oppressed partigiani. When you see those old films of the Duce and all the people saluting him I wonder where they went? LOL!!! Not one to be found.... catch me? Okay, I'm exaggerating but...

Funnily enough, I have heard the same thing from other italians. That being that you only really had Rome that held a huge support for fascism. The rest of italy was either moderate or socialist.

[danyboy27]

dresden was an horrible event, but so where the attrocities commited by virtually all parties involved in that bloody war.

who really care how many dead from iroshima or dresden or the soviet purges?

a human being killed is already too much.
or to cite the IWW: an injury to one is an injury to all.

all the parties involved in that war where killing, looting and raping the working class.

this is precisely what is important.

[rednordman]

dresden was an horrible event, but so where the attrocities commited by virtually all parties involved in that bloody war.

who really care how many dead from iroshima or dresden or the soviet purges?

a human being killed is already too much.
or to cite the IWW: an injury to one is an injury to all.

all the parties involved in that war where killing, looting and raping the working class.

this is precisely what is important.

Indeed it was a colossal own-goal in the history of humankind. And an own-goal scored from all sides of the war. At least it managed to get rid of a nazi superpower however. In this, i think many lives where spared.

[Edelweiss]

No tears for Krauts.

[danyboy27]

No tears for Krauts.

i assume kraut was a term to design the german soldier and nazi party member.
i doubt many kraut died in those bombing.

[ComradeMan]

@Drink.Your.Milkshake

I have to question the historical facts here...


Churchill ok'd the bombing of Dresden to provoke Nazi Germany into bombing London, thus saving the British air fields which were a week away from total obliteration. Hitler had stated previously that no British city would be attacked. Then again, as we know through hindsight, talk was particularly cheap with that guy.


Dresden occurred on February 13 1945. This was 4.5 years after the end of the Battle of Britain roughly ending in October 1940, the Blitz was more or less over by May 1941 before the US had entered the war and marked the first major setback for the Nazis. The V1 indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian targets commenced on June 12 1944, the V2 on September 8th 1944. I don't think you can argue this from a historic point of view.
The major bombing was over, the Luftwaffe had been destroyed and by February 1945 the war was already lost for the Nazis.

The Soviets were not far from Dresden and the US-GB & Allies wanted probably to make an example to show the Soviets of their air superiority and strike power.

Many contend that without the RAF, England would have been under Nazi rule by the end of 1941, the US would have had no launchpad with which to send troops into Europe and the Nazi empire in Europe may well have survived long after 1945. Although this, of course, is conjecture.

I don't think so. Had the Battle of Britain been lost and the invasion taken place then Europe would have been under Nazi hegemony. Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces on one front not two and things would have been very different. The Battle of El Alamein was also fundamental and this was July 1942, so had Britain lost the Battle of Britain it would have been all over in Europe.

Furthermore, the US only entered into the conflict in December 1941, after the Battle of Britain had been won.

Unfortunately, in light of the above facts the historical conclusions that then follow are all invalid. I think people have got their dates and facts mixed up.


Dresden was unecessary in that stage of the war- as usual innocent people carry the cost.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

@Drink.Your.Milkshake

I have to question the historical facts here...


Churchill ok'd the bombing of Dresden to provoke Nazi Germany into bombing London, thus saving the British air fields which were a week away from total obliteration. Hitler had stated previously that no British city would be attacked. Then again, as we know through hindsight, talk was particularly cheap with that guy.


Dresden occurred on February 13 1945. This was 4.5 years after the end of the Battle of Britain roughly ending in October 1940, the Blitz was more or less over by May 1941 before the US had entered the war and marked the first major setback for the Nazis. The V1 indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian targets commenced on June 12 1944, the V2 on September 8th 1944. I don't think you can argue this from a historic point of view.
The major bombing was over, the Luftwaffe had been destroyed and by February 1945 the war was already lost for the Nazis.

The Soviets were not far from Dresden and the US-GB & Allies wanted probably to make an example to show the Soviets of their air superiority and strike power.

Yeah, sorry, ive got my history wrong on this one - im thinking of Berlin, 1940, not Dresden. Fair cop.

Many contend that without the RAF, England would have been under Nazi rule by the end of 1941, the US would have had no launchpad with which to send troops into Europe and the Nazi empire in Europe may well have survived long after 1945. Although this, of course, is conjecture.

I don't think so. Had the Battle of Britain been lost and the invasion taken place then Europe would have been under Nazi hegemony. Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces on one front not two and things would have been very different. The Battle of El Alamein was also fundamental and this was July 1942, so had Britain lost the Battle of Britain it would have been all over in Europe.

Furthermore, the US only entered into the conflict in December 1941, after the Battle of Britain had been won.

Unfortunately, in light of the above facts the historical conclusions that then follow are all invalid. I think people have got their dates and facts mixed up.


Dresden was unecessary in that stage of the war- as usual innocent people carry the cost.

agreed. Previous post deleted given the historical inaccuracies rendering it totally irrelevant.

btw - i stand by my "this is, of course, conjecture" comment, though. Any theorising on events that never actually happened is conjecture by its very nature.