ForumGarden

The Bombing of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony took place in the final months of the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force helped commit this war crime.

(See First Reply.)

Yet today they're coy about bombing selected targets in Syria.

This was total war, the modern day notion of war crimes arose from the second world war and the legal structures, international court of human rights, court of human rights and the like stem from that era. The US does not recognise the authority of the international court when it comes to it's own armed forces so for them to constantly bang on about such atrocities is a bit hypocritical ro say the least.

WW2 was total all out war for survival and not to put too fine a point on it the Germans started terror bombing civilians first so tough **** don't start a war and then complain when people fight back. The german are in no position to protest about bombing attacks especially since they would have done the same thing had they had the capability. As it was the UK has the dubious distinction of being the first and si far only nation to suffer attack from ballistic missiles. There is little doubt Hitler would have used Nuclear weapons had he developed them first.

The british get the blame for Dresden but the daylight raid by US bombers due to take place before the night attack was cancelled due to bad weather American forces attacked the next day which somehow gets overlooked.

V2 rocket attacks on London during World War II - YouTube

I doubt very much contemporaries had very much sympathy.

There's no such thing as limited warfare no nation should go to war just because they are powerful enough they don't have to worry about being attacked. If it wasn't for the overwhelming superiority of western fire-power we would be keeping out of it. If it wasn't for oil we would be totally indifferent to what is going on. We turn a blind eye when it is an african or south american nation slaughtering their own people. Indeed the right dictator can buy arms as much as they want.

Excellent response gmc and without a single cuss word.

One could make a logical case that the bombing of a purely civilian target such as Dresden meets the definition of an act of terrorism, as did the bombing and U2 attacks on London.

Wandrin;1435298 wrote: One could make a logical case that the bombing of a purely civilian target such as Dresden meets the definition of an act of terrorism, as did the bombing and U2 attacks on London.


The U2 attacks on London were mostly a series of hit and miss with more misses than hits ... Dresden was saturation bombing ...

jones jones;1435324 wrote: The U2 attacks on London were mostly a series of hit and miss with more misses than hits ... Dresden was saturation bombing ...


But the targets were purely civilian with an attempt to scare the general civilian population of the countries. That is the primary goal of terrorist attacks.

Wandrin;1435326 wrote: But the targets were purely civilian with an attempt to scare the general civilian population of the countries. That is the primary goal of terrorist attacks.


Somehow I doubt that the destruction of Dresden was in response to the U2 attacks on London.

Thought this thread needed a picture of Betty Grable

Bruv;1435337 wrote: Thought this thread needed a picture of Betty Grable
That's out of order.

Back to topic...

Why Did Britain and US Bomb Dresden in 1945?

jones jones;1435324 wrote: The U2 attacks on London were mostly a series of hit and miss with more misses than hits ... Dresden was saturation bombing ...


I believe the attacks were V-1 and later V-2 bombs.

V-1 was an unguided jet-powered bomb that was launched from France. It basically flew until it ran out of fuel, and crashed.

The V-2 was Rocket powered. The first attempt at ICBM. They were few, and basically a last-gasp by the Nazis to scare the allies into giving up.

(Though there is little doubt that had the Nazis actually succeeded in developing a nuclear Fission bomb, the V-2 would have been the preferred method of delivery.)

Most of the actually destruction in the UK was caused by Luftwaffe bomber attacks.

Why the Allies decided to go for civilian attacks on cities like Dresden so late in the war has been a question left unanswered for more than half a century.

I don't believe it was simple revenge for the London bombings.

oscar;1435338 wrote: That's out of order.


WW2 Pinups

Bruv;1435341 wrote: WW2 Pinups


That is also out of order.

Sure is.

:yh_rotfl

Wandrin;1435298 wrote: One could make a logical case that the bombing of a purely civilian target such as Dresden meets the definition of an act of terrorism, as did the bombing and U2 attacks on London.


Not one I would argue with that was indeed the intent of the bombing from both sides. The intention was to bomb the civilians in to submission the british were deliberately targeting civilian workers as well as their factories no one has ever claimed otherwise. Precision bombing was just not possible at the time so area bombing was used instead. The british raids were constructed using a mix of high explosive and incendiaries to create fire-storms, they both used delayed action bombs so that they went off and killed the fire-fighters and would be rescuers. The germans called them terror flieger or terror fliers and civilians were not averse to lynching captured airmen if they got their hands on them, which is also viewed as a war crime - killing prisoners after they have surrendered.

Don't see why we should feel guilty about it just because we were better at it than the germans and they hadn't surrendered yet. It was total war nothing nice about it at all be it dropping bombs and being home in time for breakfast or using a flame-thrower on a pillbox.

One could make a logical case that using unmanned drones that tend to also take out large numbers of civilians is an act of terrorism.

I don't disagree, gmc. War is nasty. I think the citizens who vote in politicians who are always looking for excuses to get into another war are out of touch with what war feels like up close and personal. Don't even get me started about drones blowing up buildings full of people because one person inside might possibly someday do somethings that someone doesn't like.

Wandrin;1435353 wrote: I don't disagree, gmc. War is nasty. I think the citizens who vote in politicians who are always looking for excuses to get into another war are out of touch with what war feels like up close and personal. Don't even get me started about drones blowing up buildings full of people because one person inside might possibly someday do somethings that someone doesn't like.


I don't think it is so much we elect politicians looking for an excuse to go to war as that once there there is this kind of club/group mentality takes over and they forget that an individual representative does have a voice and a chance to influence things. All the politicians we look back at and remember were the ones that could persuade and lead. In an atmosphere where the party machine wants people to tow the line it's harder to speak out. Don't actually have any suggestions to make it's just the impression I have. Over here anyone can stand as an MP the difficulty is getting people to vote for you butb that's how ukip and the like creep in but for an independent it is pretty difficult.

To give my flippant Betty Grable comment some context

Dresden Death Toll ..................... Between 22,700 and 25,000

Hiroshima Death Toll.................. Acute effects killed 90,000–166,000

Nagasaki...................................... 60,000–80,000 .............................in first two to four months

Iraq Death Toll...............................Take your pick from several over 100,000 up a million plus

And there was cynical old me thinking you were just trying to wind up the chosen one and sabotage his thread. :p

oscar;1435392 wrote: And there was cynical old me thinking you were just trying to wind up the chosen one and sabotage his thread. :p


Come on now.......would I do such a thing ?

I'm just coping with an image of BONO flying over london. I've always seen him more as a zeppelin (except filled with hot air) than a ballistic missile.