Talk:Bombing of Dresden

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the 1933 election results be mentioned?[edit]

Imho yes, as they provide context that belies the myth of the "innocent" or "a-political" city. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite evidence that the city's voting record had anything to do with the allied decision to target it? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think he is just focusing on the city being not innocent. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know nor care about whether the allies targeted the city because of its voting record. However, said voting record indicates the city was just as Nazi as the rest of Germany. Unlike Hamburg (which was also severely bombed) which could actually make a case of an "anti-Nazi" city based on the 1933 election results. I hope that clears that up. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It's a red herring justified on the basis of "I don't care". Civilian casualties, as with any other human rights issue, should have nothing to do with people's political affiliation. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In particular not ones from 12 years -before- the bombing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear: There is a persistent myth on the political right in Germany that Dresden was a somehow "innocent victim" - nota bene: The city as a whole, not its inhabitants. This myth of course was replicated by Mister Vonnegut. And the election results of 1933 (the best proxy we have for the city being particularly Nazi or anti-Nazi) are totally in line with the rest of Germany at that time. As a matter of fact, Nuremberg, a city that has come to be viewed as the ultimate symbol of Nazism had a lower share of NSDAP votes in 1933 thaen Dresden did. I think it is important to dispel or at least contextualize the dominant historical narrative of the right. And all of this are well sourced facts, so that's that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That they voted in 1933 for a party promising to fix the problems of the country does not make them "not innocent", the fact they weren't innocent to begin with because -nobody- was is what does. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You really don't know much about Nazism do you? They promised to fix all the problems caused by the evul Juice. They promised to "make Germany great again" by invading other countries. People who voted for Hitler knew or could have known what he was up to. "Mein Kampf" was written in 1923 and widely available. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What Mein Kamphf says sure didn't stop things like the European ConfederationWikipedia and the German–Soviet Axis talksWikipedia from being things pushed for by actual members of the governments. That people voted for the nazis in 1933 hardly makes them not innocent, that they were people got there first around somewhere between childhood and the teenage years. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
All of this is irrelevant obfuscation. The bombing of Dresden was & is a controversial issue, both at the time & subsequently, not because of who its inhabitants had voted for but because of the significant civilian casualties, destruction of residential areas & various buildings of cultural significance, and the question of whether this was tactically justified. But (once again) we have Avenger framing the issue such that anyone concerned about the death toll & whether it was avoidable is automatically a Nazi. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by it, but is Avenger actually suggesting because a portion of Dresden civilians supported the Nazis before they came to power, their city being bombed was justified? (talk) 23:57, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

As far as I know he isn't, just that voting Nazi makes one "not innocent" --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That implies the same thing. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The common right wing myth in Germany is that the bombing of Dresden was the unnecessary slaughter of an innocent city and that it was completely against the laws of war and that it was worse thaen anything the Nazis ever did. None of this is true. I think we have established that Dresden was indeed a military target. We have also established that precision bombing was not possible at the time. All I am trying to establish with the quote of the election result (unfortunately we don't have a better proxy of the citizens of Dresden at the time being Nazis, though the eyewitness account of Victor KlempererWikipedia can also shed some light) is that the city was not "innocent" in a political sense either. From a perfect hindsight point of view, some of the bombing may not have been the wisest decision. However, much like the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people who made the decisions operated without the benefit of hindsight. And we have to understand that the only way rules of war work in actual reality is that either both sides keep to them or both sides break them. Once one side bombs cities (and the Nazis did that in September 1939 already), the other will see no compelling reason not to. This is just context, not necessarily justification. I have still not seen a compelling reason why the election result of 1933 should not matter here. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Voting for the Nazis does not make one not innocent. It's a thing people did. It's irrelevant. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
So how again is the supposed political afiliation of the civilian population relevant? There's literally no reason to bring it up unless you're implying "They were Nazi-supportive civilians, so bombing them wasn't completely wrong!" (talk) 00:23, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Sure it does. Whoever votes for the Nazis deserves what they get for it. Democracy means that people get the government they deserve. Unfortunately the few brave men and women who stood up to fight the Nazi regime were ostracized after the war ended. It took decades before people like Georg Elser were acknowledged as heroes. And in some circles Willy Brandt is still considered a traitor. People could have known, people should have known and many people did know what the Nazis were up to. The Shoa was no closely guarded secret - everybody who had a brain cell and a half knew what was happening to the Jews. And yet they were still crying "heil". I am thankful for the Americans, the Brits, the French and the Soviets that they freed us, that they freed Europe from Fascism. And everything they did to make the war even one day shorter, to have Hitler die even one day earlier was a good thing. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for being honest, at least. (talk) 00:35, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think thats enough from you for tonight Avenger. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait so you say that Dresden was an "innocent" city and that the bombing of any place in Germany should not have taken place even if it had meant that the war would have gone on for a year more? These are honest questions, ad I would like to hear your take on that... And even if you may not believe it, I am actually a leftist. In fact I have been in demonstrations that are described as "leftist extremist" in some official sources... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that you actually do believe the Germans deserved to be bombed solely because they voted for the nazis. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "leftist extremist" was very much the impression I was getting. (With some emphasis on extremist.) And as to your question, how exactly does bombing civilians help to liberate them? (talk) 00:46, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict)They voted for war and mass murder. They didn't do anything against the regime (some brave exceptions notwithstanding). People die in wars. Wars are unjust. Live is unjust. That's live. The Germans at any rate, deserved it way more thaen the good people of Rotterdam, of Coventry, of Warsaw, the Jews, the ethnic minorities killed in too many death camps to list, the Serbs killed by the Croats, the Sinti and Roma, the gay people. None of those people deserved what the Germans did to them. They did not vote for the Nazis. The Germans did. And the allied powers did everything in their power to shorten the war. They were not always right in their choose of the means to this end and they have of course made mistakes. But no, I don't cry a single tear for the victims of the bombing of Dresden. What goes around, comes around. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok then. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm surprised with you expressing such an overly generalizing/simplistic view of reality, though I do find it rather disturbing to witness (more specifically this particular view of yours explicitly justifying death and destruction being delivered onto a whole nation). (talk) 00:58, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For all the allied powers knew (and they had good reasons to believe it) taking out the substantial military capacity of Dresden was going to shorten the war. And as the murderous policies of the Nazis were common knowledge by thaen and in fact more thaen half of the victims on the European theater died after July 20. 1944, the allied powers had good reason to believe that every day counted. Hence they were entirely justified to bomb the shit out of German military plants and transport infrastructure- which happened to be located in or close to cities. Yes the concept of "moral bombing" is now utterly discredited because the Germans were in fact too fanatical, but the allied powers had no way of knowing that. They thought at least some Germans would be reachable by reason and logic. Instead Nazi commanders had cities destroyed in the waning days or even hours of the war. In Bayreuth, they burned down much of the old town just to destroy the records of their murdering and plundering. And only the Americans who freed the town stopped the fire by blowing up a house in the path of the fire. You can still see it if you look carefully. So in essence you argue for some sort of the allied powers who had vast air superiority not using said air superiority to shorten the war and bring about a swift peace. For what reason? Because you don't like that air raids look ugly from the ground? War is ugly. That's why we should be loathe to have it. But Hitler had to be stopped by war. And by goat, if the atomic bomb had been ready in 1943, it should have been dropped on Berlin. Honestly, if you had been a high ranking politician or general on the allied side, without the benefit of hindsight: What would you have done? Would you not have taken out the substantive military capacity that many cities contained? What amount of civilian casualties would have been too many? Keep in mind that the Nazis also killed civilians in air raids on your towns and cities. Sometimes after they had already capitulated. Also keep in mind what the Nazis were doing on the very day of the attacks. Would you have said: "Let's voluntarily not use one of our most efficient weapons that costs us little in casualties because maybe some historian decades from now might be annoyed at our decision?" Really? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Given im a supporter of the atomic bombings (or atleast the first one), my desire to use all means to end war as quickly are not in doubt. Nobody has denied we had good reasons to bomb the German cities. You are the only one who has said the crazy person statement of "the germans deserved it because they voted for the nazis". Shame for all those germans who didn't and still got bombed, I guess, in that worldview, but oh well. War sucks right guys?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a language barrier at work here, but what I am saying is not "each and every person in Dresden, including Victor KlempererWikipedia brought it upon themselves", it is "Dresden was not as innocent as many people claim" and "Yes, if you voted for the Nazis you did in fact vote for war. And you should have known." And most Germans quite enjoyed the spoils of war ca. 1940. But once the tides turned there was a huge crying of crocodile's tears... Well sorry, what goes up must come down. And no, I don't have much sympathy for the victims of the bombings. They are way down the list of millions and millions killed by the Nazis. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Remind me to watch closely anything you ever vote for, in the event it ever turrns south and therefor you -deserve- physical action against you in punishment. -You cannot really object.-"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You do remember the "don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper stickers, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Avenger is employing Al Qaeda's reasoning. They claim 9/11 was justified because Americans voted for the politicians who have interfered in Muslim countries. They issue ranting decrees like this (found in OBL's papers):

"It is the VOTERS, who choose their leaders who deploy their armies against Muslims, and pay billions of (their produced tax money) to Israel to massacre our brothers and sister(s).

Not surprised Avenger would see morality the same way.---Mona- (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well and the Nazis, both today and those of 1945 came up with the "innocent city" tale in the first place. So we can associate each other to hell and back. The fact of the matter is: Collective guilt is difficult to asses, but the bombs were not being thrown on the entirely wrong people after all's said and done. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The entire concept of "collective" guilt is an abomination.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well if you believe in collective entities and collective agency (as is necessary for something like e.g. the "reunification" not being just a plain old annexation) you have a hard time rejecting collective guilt. But in some seriousness, there is an old saying in German "Put them all in one giant bag, and hit the bag, you won't hit the wrong one. In my opinion this was true for so many Germans by 1945, that it is indistinguishable from collective guilt to the naked eye. With very few exceptions, all Germans profiteered and murdered and racketeered during the war in one form or another... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to you supporting indiscriminate bombings of families who have in some form or another benefited from Racism next.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Way to misrepresent may standpoint any chance you get. Look. It's clear that the bombing had a military objective first and foremost. And we all know that in wars innocent people die occasionally. But the thing is: The people in Dresden were not entirely innocent. So we need not cry for them, Argentina (which is actually where many of the surviving Nazis went). In fact, there have probably never been so many civilian dead who deserved to die and if not death thaen at least some form of punishment as there have been in the bombing of Germany. They got off lightly enough after the war, after all. The incomplete denazification of Germany was one of the biggest mistakes of world war II. It produced figures like Nobel price for stupidityWikipedia or shut up about AuschwitzWikipedia after all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that gives me an idea. How about we start calling you "shut up about Israel"? ;) (talk) 02:34, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Look at the third quote on this page. If you don't read German, I will translate it for you... The man who came this close to becoming chancellor in 1980 literally said "A people that has achieved such feats in economic development should have the right to not want to hear about Auschwitz" please also note that he said this a mere 24 years after the war when most of the perpetrators were still alive - and running around freely. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mona's Osama quote[edit]

I just got a thought: Isn't he sorta contradicting himself? I mean NYC is particularly known for not voting for the GOP. And if I recall correctly most of the "bombing Muslim countries" was done by the GOP. So according to his own "logic" (If he indeed followed it and didn't just use it for propaganda cheap shots) he should have flown the planes into a Walmart in Texas or something, right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1. I doubt he'd make such a distinction. America is America. (Would the allies have bothered waying 'how Nazi' the population of a particular city was before bombing it? No, 'Germany' and 'Japan' were the enemy. Hey, remember the atomic bombings?) 2. Is the Democratic Party really as innocent as you suggest they are? I faintly recall Clinton doing some naughty things too. (No, I don't mean that stuff.) (talk) 02:22, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict)True Clinton did some bombing to get Osama (which at the time was widely criticized as distracting from his sex live, little did we know that it was the other way round), but the scale of Iraq (Bush father) or Lebanon (Reagan) was not reached under Clinton. And in Bosnia he even came to the aid of Muslims (entirely for the right reasons and justifiedly, Bosnia was the one getting screwed over the most in the Balkan wars...) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Madeline Albright went on 60 minutes and told them that sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqi children was: "the price was worth it." Albright was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State.---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The sanctions killed nobody. Saddam embezzling aid and oil for food money did the killing. Saddam had to be removed from power. Unfortunately, the US went in without a good plan for what to do afterwards. And Nuri Al Maliki was just about the most incompetent leader Iraq could get. In my mind he bears most of the responsibility for the rise of ISIS in Iraq, as opposed to an ISIS limited to Syria only... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"The sanctions killed nobody" Madeline Albright and many others say they did. Worse, she says it was "worth the price." Your mind does very odd things with facts you find unpleasant. You sincerely remind me of a YEC, and you argue like one as well.---Mona- (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If there is x number of supplies and the government embezzles y, who is responsible for the excess deaths due to the lack of supplies? Yes getting rid of Saddam was a worthy goal. Unfortunately, the sanctions were not enough. And we all know that dictatorships, especially nasty ones, embezzle aid money. It happens in Kim-istan, it happens in Hamastan and it happened in Iraq under Saddam. Are you seriously arguing we should have left Saddam in power? The man had to go. The way the US did it without a good and clear backup plan and the knowledge that a long occupation (Germany was occupied for forty years after all) would be needed can be criticized, but we shouldn't make the mistake of making excuses for Saddam. Bush senior made a mistake when he betrayed the anti-Saddam uprising that was a consequence of his invasion. Had we gotten rid of him in the early 1990s, we might now have a stable Iraq where Sunni and Shia live in if not peace at least a comfortable arrangement. But 90% of the blame for ISIS' rise lies with al-Maliki. After all, he sent a totally demotivated (due to his policies) army to defeat a foe he underestimated. And in the end ISIS captured most of the weapons of the Iraqi army and got several deserters joining their side. A wiser president would have had a better motivated army and crushed ISIS within a few weeks. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Churchill Quote[edit]

At the "rememberance march" 2019, members of our brand new right wing party AfD (which is now gaining foothold in every German representation, blarg!) distributed a quote alleged to Winston Churchill: “I do not want to receive any suggestions how we can destroy militarily important targets in Dresden’s hinterland, I want to get suggestions how we can fry 600,000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.” source: Winston Churchill, as quoted in a Minute by A.P.S. of S.—Air Chief Marshal Sir Wilfrid Freeman—Jan. 26, 1945 in Air Historical Branch file CMS 608] See i.e. here: (warning: far right content!!!). This seems to have first appeared in David Irvings Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden. London 1995:90,293. A quick google search for Air Historical Branch file CMS 608 brings up nearly only German sites requoting David Irving. I have tried to further track this down but did not find any more sources. Any chance to shoot this one down? I even tried to involve but got no answer from them until now. Rolly (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't find anything debunking that quote, but I also can't find anything reliable that shows its authenticity either. However, it doesn't make much sense when placed in the context of the actual bombings, which targeted the city center and killed at most 25,000. I can, however, find a source that says that Goebbels doctored the initial casualty reports (20,204) with an extra 0 at the end for propaganda purposes, which is likely where the neo-Nazis' 200,000 number comes from. The fact that the number the quote uses comes from numbers deliberately falsified by Nazis makes this quote extremely unlikely to be genuine. (Source: Taylor, Frederick (2005). Dresden: Tuesday 13 February 1945. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 0-7475-7084-1. p. 423) Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks for trying. I also contacted the Air Historical Branch, perhaps they will come up with an answer. Rolly (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is very biased[edit]

If Hiroshima is an unjust massacre of civilians, the same logic should be applied to Dresden. This is anti-German racism. I rather think Hiroshima is morally justified and Dresden is morally unjust.

Many South Koreans consider Hiroshima = Dresden or Hiroshima < Dresden. Umaru16 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

미 공군의 정밀 폭격과는 달리 영국의 보복성 민간인 지대 폭격은 충분히 논란을 일으킬 정도 Unlike the U.S. Air Force's precision bombing, Britain's deliberate retaliatory civilian [massacres] caused enough controversy - South Korea's main wiki sees Hiroshima as a moral attack and criticism of it as far-right pro-Japanese historical revisionism, while Dresden sees it as a massacre. But rationalwiki actually denies the Dresden massacre, accusing Hiroshima, a righteous American decision that has no moral flaws and is absolutely necessary, of racism.
Hiroshima is non-racism, and to sympathize with Hiroshima is pro-Japanese and anti-Korean racism, but Dresden is an anti-German racist war crime. Umaru16 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's the historical truth: the U.K. conducted a malicious civilian massacre in Dresden. The U.S. made a moral decision to end the war in Hiroshima, and claiming that Hiroshima is 'racism' is a far-right Japanese nationalist view. But rationalwiki writes the exact opposite. Think of the Japanese as white and the Germans as PoCs. Germans reflect on the European Holocaust, while Japanese deny the Asian Holocaust. Umaru16 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)