was it ok to destroy Dresden?

[Zebra]

i dont think so

what do you think?

 

[Zebra]

it was in February 1944

 

[westwall]

i dont think so

what do you think?

Nope, Dresden had no major military production so in my opinion was not a legit target.

That was "Bomber Harris" exacting revenge for the Luftwaffes attack on Canterbury, and a host of other cities that likewise had no military significance either.

 

[Eman623]

It was necessary.

 

[Zebra]

It was necessary.

no

 

[Eman623]

no

Agree to disagree.

 

[Meathead]

i dont think so

what do you think?

Been there. I understand Dresden was quite beautiful. Seems soulless today.

 

[Zebra]

Nope, Dresden had no major military production so in my opinion was not a legit target.

That was "Bomber Harris" exacting revenge for the Luftwaffes attack on Canterbury, and a host of other cities that likewise had no military significance either.

so it was

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nope, Dresden had no major military production so in my opinion was not a legit target.

That was "Bomber Harris" exacting revenge for the Luftwaffes attack on Canterbury, and a host of other cities that likewise had no military significance either.

Yes, Harris had a dim view of breathing Germans at the time.


Britain and the US bombed cities late in the war in both the ETO and PTO as cities had value. Destroying those cities damaged plants and made plant workers' absent because they were homeless. Interestingly, in 1945 the USN and RN were actively bombarding Japanese train areas, coal areas, and towns within reach. Thats weird to think about, getting up in the morning go to the train station and a damn battleship blows you up.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Without looking it up...wasn't that the city that was destroyed by fire ?

IMHO...it wasn't OK now...but back than it was.

One of the __________ (can't think of the word) is to demoralize the enemy.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Thats weird to think about, getting up in the morning go to the train station and a damn battleship blows you up.

Happens to me everyday.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Happens to me everyday.

And twice on Tuesday!

Sorry forgot to link.

 

[my2¢]

I went with "It was ok" but I only say that because without all the facts I don't want to 2nd guess the matter.

My gut feeling though is that it wasn't any more proper than the krauts bombing London.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Nope, Dresden had no major military production so in my opinion was not a legit target.

That was "Bomber Harris" exacting revenge for the Luftwaffes attack on Canterbury, and a host of other cities that likewise had no military significance either.

What you are saying is factually untrue. During WWII, Dresden did have several factories producing military materials for the war effort. So, it was a legitimate target.
As the bombing itself, there were "no" precision bombs, rockets, or missiles back then. What was called "carpet bombing" was the method in the 1940's. The German's used the same method in bombing London. It just wasn't as massive as was the US's ability when they entered the war.
What's happening here is just another example of "presentism," knowing what we can do now and looking into the past to judge how things were done then. It's stupid.

 

[Zebra]

Yes, Harris had a dim view of breathing Germans at the time.


Britain and the US bombed cities late in the war in both the ETO and PTO as cities had value. Destroying those cities damaged plants and made plant workers' absent because they were homeless. Interestingly, in 1945 the USN and RN were actively bombarding Japanese train areas, coal areas, and towns within reach. Thats weird to think about, getting up in the morning go to the train station and a damn battleship blows you up.

can you also vote for it?

 

[Zincwarrior]

can you also vote for it?

EDIT: got it now. Yes I voted.

 

[Zebra]

I am sorry - what? can you clarify?

in the poll above

 

[Zebra]

3 against destroying Dresden
2 for it now

 

[Zincwarrior]

3 against destroying Dresden
2 for it now

Its the past and a terrible time in history. I support what they did for the reasons they did it at the time it was done. There are strong arguments that Dresden in particular did not need to be firebombed, but also strong reasons of ending the war as quickly as possible.

Frankly this is February 1945. Germany should have surrendered long before that. To not do so, and go through the death spasms it received as the Allies had to grind through it, is itself an absolute war crime.

 

[Mack The Finger]

My gut feeling though is that it wasn't any more proper than the krauts bombing London.

The Gerries bombing London was pure terrorism.