"War means fightin' and fightin' means killin."
Posted on 02/15/2007 5:43:06 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden
By Marshall De Bruhl
Random House, $27.95.
One of my favorite talk radio hosts recently interviewed a member of the evangelical Christian left who expressed sentiments -- to call them arguments would be an overstatement -- against the war in Iraq. The conversation, fairly typical of such exchanges, went something like this:
“When have you been in favor of the United States actually using military force?”
“Well, I guess you would have to say World War II was what you would call a good war."
“What about Dresden? You bring up Abu Ghraib all the time, are you OK with Dresden?”
“Well, horrible things happen in every war, I guess. That’s the problem with Just War theory."
And on it went. Somewhere along the line, majorities on both the right and left have accepted the notion that the Allied bombing raid on the German city of Dresden in February 1945 was tantamount to a war crime. This, in turn, works for the rhetoric on both sides. Conservatives can skewer liberals who use a small incident to justify their opposition to recent wars by throwing Dresden in their faces; while the Left is all too willing to believe the worst of Western militaries in every case.
Even many conservatives who defend the nuking of Hiroshima — and not just those in the Buchanan Brigades — accept that Dresden was an atrocity. Over the years, the politically correct version of Dresden has nearly become the official story.
The rationale behind the conventional wisdom of the Dresden raid as a war crime usually rests on the following assertions:
1. Dresden was not a military target; the bombing solely targeted the civilian population. Critics note the number of museums and cultural treasures of the “Florence of the Elbe,” as if the city were an island of peace and culture in a sea of Nazism. Often mentioned is the number of refugees who had flooded into a city largely ignored by bombers.
2. The war was all but won by the time of the raid, and thus was completely unnecessary. This assumes that Winston Churchill, Arthur “Bomber” Harris and Gen. Spaatz just wanted to kill a large number of German civilians while they still had an excuse.
3. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Taking a page from some discredited German bestsellers of the 1950s, novelist Kurt Vonnegut-- who witnessed the bombing as a POW-- famously claimed that more people died in Dresden than in atom-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. The raid, indeed, played a key role in his best-selling Slaughterhouse Five.
4. The Dresden raid was a unique event. Despite the Blitz and the “around the clock” bombing of German cities, critics contend that this was a cold-blooded experiment in incendiary bombing that removes it from the context of the raging “total war.”
But Marshall De Bruhl begs to differ. In his forcefully argued and remarkably clear-eyed Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden. De Bruhl sifts through mountains of primary sources to vividly recreate the mission and, most importantly, puts the event in its proper context.
De Bruhl spends most of his book detailing the escalation of the air war in Europe that led to the Dresden raid. Ironically, the first blow was struck when German bombers got lost and mistakenly hit London. Churchill ordered that Berlin be struck in retaliation. Ironically, Churchill’s action led to Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to concentrate on London rather than airfields, which probably saved the Royal Air Force and its ability to defend home turf in the Battle of Britain.
This, however, does not mean that cities were not valuable military targets. As De Bruhl points out, German industry was located in cities, and the so-called “precision bombing” of targets -- with American assertions that a B-17 could put a bomb in a “pickle barrel” -- was mere posturing. In reality, American daylight bombing was only marginally more accurate than British night bombing, though it bore a far greater cost in airmen’s lives.
America's celebrated Norden bombsight and advances in technique over the period of the air war merely meant that progress was made from less than one out of five bombs hitting near the target to just under half.
In short, the only way to stop war-supporting manufacturing in a German city was to bomb in such a way that the whole city paid a heavy price.
De Bruhl answers each of the major myths about the Dresden raid.
1. Dresden was a manufacturer of armaments and a communications center for the Nazis. Yes, the city was filled with refugees and museums. However, it also had many factories of war material. The chaos from the Dresden raid pulled German troops away from the Eastern and Western fronts, and no armaments were manufactured in Dresden after Feb.14, 1945.
2. The war was still on when Dresden was bombed. It’s easy to say in hindsight that the Germans were all but defeated, but the Dresden raid came a few short months after the Battle of the Bulge. Before that surprise setback, “Christmas in Berlin” had been a common battle cry.
3. Civilian deaths, while numerous, are greatly exaggerated by the activists. The chaos of war makes counting difficult, but casualties have been “estimated” at up to 250,000. De Bruhl argues that 25,000 is a more realistic figure, with 35,000 the maximum. At least 50,000 residents worked in producing war material.
4. The Dresden raid was the deadly culmination of a steadily escalating air war against cities by both sides. The Dresden raid was only unique in its effectiveness, not its methodology. The Allies’ air superiority had led to such a pounding of German cities that debate had begun in some quarters over the morality and necessity of “morale” bombing. However, the German V-rockets and the terror they brought ended that debate. In fact, Churchill considered “morale” bombing the only appropriate response as the German rockets had no other purpose than civilian deaths.
Far from being the cold and calculating experiment painted in some accounts of Allied generals seeing how many civilians they could kill for the sheer hell of it, De Bruhl writes that the targeting of Dresden was partially a quirk of the weather.
Operations had been planned for massive bombing to support the Soviets on the Eastern Front on the day of Feb. 13. These missions were scrubbed because of weather — but skies cleared over Dresden long enough to allowed for a rare one-two punch of American daylight and British night bombing. This doomed Dresden, which had seldom been bombed because it was in the eastern part of Germany and was known as “Germany’s bomb shelter” by many of the refugees from the Red Army who were streaming into the city.
De Bruhl illustrates the uncertainties of precision bombing, and undercuts the notion that Dresden was a premeditated atrocity. For instance, the commander of the second wave of British bombers widened the target area on his own because the first wave had been unusually — and unexpectedly -- effective.
So while the wave of American B-17s, which hit the next day, might seem like overkill in hindsight, knowledge in wartime 1945 was not exactly comparable to the instant satellite reconnaissance we take for granted today. In fact, 150 of the B-17s bound for Dresden bombed another city on the bend of a river, the Czech capital of Prague by mistake.
Of course, De Bruhl reminds us that even as Lord Haw Haw’s propaganda broadcast accused Gen. Spaatz of war crimes for the Dresden raid, thousands were being systematically exterminated in concentration camps in the Reich. But then as now, liberal elements in British Parliament and press picked up on enemy accusations and began wringing their hands. Their tears were shed over the abandonment of “precision bombing” — an outcry that led Churchill to begin to backtrack in private memos until Harris brought him back into line.
Bomber Harris remained publicly unapologetic. He was convinced that the bombing helped to shorten the war and save the lives of Allied soldiers.“I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British grenadier,” he defiantly declared.
The mythology of Dresden was solidified by Vonnegut in the liberal mind. Witnessing the awful firestorm and slaughter was a defining moment in his life -- though leftist Vonnegut ironically draws on “The Destruction of Dresden,” a 1963 book by Holocaust denier David Irving. De Bruhl effectively deconstructs both writers.
To add injury to injury, De Bruhl concludes, Dresden fell into Soviet hands, and Germany’s most beautiful city was rebuilt very slowly, often with “ugly socialist architecture” (what P.J. O’Rourke calls “Commie concrete”) with much of the city left in rubble.
That is changing today, De Bruhl writes, as freedom is finally alive in Dresden, with surprisingly little antipathy to outsiders. On the 50th anniversary of the raid, Dresden’s mayor said it best, putting the blame where it really belongs: “We started the fire, and it came back and consumed us.”
Icebreaker review from Amazon.com
The History Book of the 20th Century, November 19, 2005
Reviewer: Arkadiy Dubovoy (Virginia) - See all my reviews
"It is safe to assume that if you have not read Viktor Suvorov's Icebreaker (or, at least, are not familiar with his ideas), you don't understand the last 85 years of the world history.
Viktor Suvorov was trained as a military intelligence officer at the time when soviet military intelligence was the best in the world (probably still is). In the late seventies Suvorov defected to England, where he wrote several books about soviet army and intelligence. By all accounts (friends and enemies alike), Viktor Suvorov possesses encyclopedic knowledge about military theory and history, particularly the history of World War II. His knowledge and analytical ability are astounding.
Published first in the eighties, Icebreaker was the first in Suvorov's series of historical books. By the year 2000, it was translated into 27 languages and published more than 100 times. Icebreaker is a book about communist preparation and execution (however poorly, but not for the lack of trying) of the biggest crime in the history of mankind, World War II. Because of that, in addition to its historical value of showing communist conspiracy as a true cause of WWII, Icebreaker is probably the best, most convincing anti-communist book ever written. Suvorov neither uncovers any secrets, nor does he simply catalogue the crimes. He analyzes communists' own words and innumerable well-known facts to show communism as the darkest, most evil episode in the human history.
Before you start reading this book, however, keep in mind several important things.
First, this relatively small book is an overview of many very complex political, historical, and military events. The most important of the ideas had been expanded by the author in his later books (see below). The sheer number of dogmas and controversies Suvorov takes head on is mind-boggling, and this is why the author must occasionally abbreviate his arguments. As a result, the book may seem cursory to unprepared readers.
Second, Icebreaker was written in Russian and intended for Eastern European readership. In order to be immediately understood, the book does assume certain cultural background, i.e., familiarity with the history and cannibalistic rituals of communist regimes. I am not implying that western readers will not understand the book, to the contrary, I think that an interested western reader will benefit enormously from reading this book.
Third, Icebreaker, when it became available, was an instant tremendous success in the former USSR and all Eastern Block countries. In Eastern Europe Icebreaker became de facto 20th century European history textbook and the basis of common popular understanding of the events leading to WWII and its immediate aftermath. It would be foolish to disregard the opinion of people who actually lived through the events . . . ."
Good luck trying to get a copy - they go for several hundred dollars. FYI
So then you do believe that we started WWII not the
Germans.
The Germans were simply defending their homeland from our viscious attacks on their civilialns.
That the real threat was the Russians and even though they had not attacked anyone and had no army on the march that we should have gone to war with them instead of Germany.
You need to get out more often.
Maybe get a little fresh air once or twice a week.
But at the very least stop with the nonsense you are posting about us, the west, the free countries being the problem.
You got that right. Its ridiculous the way we dont tout our successes in the war on terror.First thing on my list is the anti American news media constantly counting the causalties every day with relish. 5th column types to be sure.
I spent last week with a guy from Dresden, and he never brought the bombing up.
He was here buying $$millions of American manufactured products.
Thanks for the answer. I've read that David Irving is a Dresden Liar and Holocaust Denier.
I found this commentary on Irving's book by following footnote #13 of the Wikipedia article you first mentioned on this thread.
Irving’s account of the bombing of Dresden manipulates and invents material, misinterprets documents, and gives weight to unreliable documents. He also gives undue weight to eyewitness testimony when it suits him, and falsifies statistics in order to put the behaviour of the Allies and particularly Churchill, in a negative lightThere are some very useful footnotes on the Wikipedia page that you originally cited.
Here's more information, from footnote 29, of your Wikipedia article
...The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. "It is incorrect," it said, "to describe David Irving as a historian....
You've got that right. Destroying enemy morale is a key part of waging effective war. The Islamists know this and it's become their key advantage against the west.
Never heard that one but it certainly is more appropriate coming from a man who was on the right side.
There were key war materiel plants scattered in and around Dresden. The Kurt Vonnegut revisionists always omit this fact when disparaging the reasons for destroying the city.
As to killing women and children, have you ever read the Book of Joshua? I can imagine you would see in Communism the same "Jewish barbarism" your hero Voltaire (and probably Revilo P. Oliver as well) found in the Bible and Talmud.
Go back to Original Dissent or Liberty Forum or whatever "Jewish bankers rule the world" forum you came from.
The man was an American and, imo, that's that.
You're not one of those FReepers who are still picking a 140 year old scab are you?
Actually, Suvorov points out that Stalin helped Hitler due to Stalin's assessment that Hitler would plunge Europe into another war - Hitler's code name was Icebreaker. Per Suvorov, Hitler's big mistake in WWII was the invasion of Poland which established a common border with the Soviet Union - necessary for Stalin's plan to conquer Europe to succeed. You won't see or hear about this version of history since many in Hollywood liked communism and "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
To recap - tactical bombing was ok - terror attacks on civilians is not IMO. The Communists' plan triggered WWII - the person responsible for Hitler and the millions of deaths was the Communist Party and Stalin. If your neighbor buys a vicious dog and releases it your neighborhood where it attacks people - who is ultimately responsible - the dog (Hitler) or the planner (Stalin)?
No.
You will notice that I have quoted the Air Marshal in the Foreword and Prime Minister Winston Churchill - direct sources on the historical record. I also excerpted F. J. P. Veale's book on "Advance to Barbarism" who cited Air Secretary Spaight. Demonizing Irving to discredit the quotes will not change the quotes.
In Irving's defense, Irving was the first to detect the Hitler forgeries that "establishment" historians had accepted as "genuine" - so much for Irving not being a historian. If you don't want to believe Churchill or Spaight on terror bombing - or Saunders on Dresden being a great tragedy, that's your option.
Joe Goebbels asked the German people if they wanted "Total War" and they said 'Ja.'
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
You are full of it. One word : Guernica.
I wonder if the struture of the city, the location of its main buildings, etc. and the weather had much to do with the inferno? I dont know much about the specific geography of the city, but is it possible that some natural features of the topography would have caused a fire bombing to escalate because of wind direction and the concentration of fuel for the fire?
Anyone out there with a sense of this?
Dresden was a good lesson on why supporting and propping up madmen and evil ideologies is bad for your health.
How come no one ever mentions the Nazi bombings of Warsaw or Rotterdam?
Of course it was a tragedy. All war is a tragedy.
I can't put much stock in what Irving says, since he continued to lie about the number of deaths at Dresden and denies the holocaust.
It's very apparent that Irving's got an agenda. Even the footnotes to the article you posted show that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.