Firestorm [The bombing of Dresden]

Front Page Magazine ^ | 2/15/'07 | David Forsmark

[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.”

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

From Wikipedia: Consequences
"The attacks created a firestorm and destroyed nearly the entire town. Three quarters of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and most others were damaged. Among the few buildings spared were [the arms factories of Unceta and Company and Talleres de Guernica] and the Assembly House (Casa de Juntas) and the Oak.

There are no generally accepted official figures as to the number of casualties. The military junta, who took the town three days later, gave a patently false description of the events (claiming that the destruction had been caused by Republicans burning the town as they fled) and seem to have made no effort to establish an accurate number. At an extreme low, the Francoist newspaper Arriba claimed on January 30, 1970 that there had only been twelve deaths. The consensus stands close to the 1,650 dead and 889 wounded that the Basque government of the time gave as minimum numbers. (Brey 1977)"

Per wikipedia - the Air Force had orders initially to bomb the roads and bridge to the east of Guernia to block the enemy's retreat - in other words, tactical bombing. If Guernica had armaments factories, as is shown by the above quote, those would have been legitimate targets also. Another point is that the Germans and Italians were fighting Communists who did not respect the laws of war - in fact, the Germans were angry (per Wikipedia) over the killing of one of their captured pilots by the Communists - very possibly this was a reprisal.

You still haven't dealt with the fact that the British admitted that they were the ones who started targeting civilians - the "Splendid Decision" by Air Secretary Spaight.

[smoketree]

You still haven't answered my question.
Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were justified and proper acts of war as you implied?

[DTA]

>>>>>>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<<<<

From the beginning of the war, Nazis were short of natural rubber, a strategic material and had to rely on syntetic rubber instead. One of the factories of syntetic rubber was in Auschwitz III (a.k.a. Buna).

For some rason, Buna factory was NEVER bombed, nor rail lines leading to it and from it.

Can you explain it?

[smoketree]

They didn't want to bomb prisoners.

[William Terrell]

You seem to be missing a hard, cold-hearted but absolute truth. Every single choice and decision of the leadership of a country is, without exception, directly the responsibly of its people. People are responsible for their government, either forming it purposefully (commission) or letting it form (omission).

The test of this truth is that the leadership and protectors thereof are always a tiny fraction of the population. If even a reasonable percentage of the people were to rise and say No!, with willingness to endure hardship, that leadership would vanish without a lingering odor.

That the people tend to be unwilling to place life and limb at risk to eliminate destructive leaders or governmental entities is neither here nor there, nor an excuse.

Mother Nature and natural law is not sweet, kind, fair or tolerant of violations, or does It recognize statutes of human beings trying to rise above Its base and concrete paradigms of reality.

[jpl]

I will never apologize for any act of the Allies during WWII.

Ditto. When you sow the wind, you reap the whirdlwind.

[DTA]

You missed to mention one name. Frederick Alexander Lindemann. When Churchill became PM May 10, 1941, he appointed Lindemann as his adviser (known as "the Prof") Lindemann doctrine of terror bombing of civilians followed. (called "dehousing project")

Bombing of Dresden is the jewel in the crown of that doctrine.

It is important to say that FDR in 1939 urged warring parties to refrain from bombing civillians and Britain had this policy until May 15 1940.

Something else. Rotterdam and Coventry bombing are generally taken as the halmark of Nazi savagery.

However, the USAAF and RAF bombing of Belgrade on Easter Week of 1944 (april 16,17,21,24), murdered two times more civilians than Nazis in Rotterdam (2000 vs. 900) and four times more than Nazis murdered in Coventry. Germans had 18 casualties. Communications were not hit, only civilian targets. The inscriptions "Happy Easter" found on UXO shows that bobming of civilians was planned and deliberate.

It was Lindemann's doctrine at work, with small distinction - Belgrade was the capital of an allied country under German occupation, not Hitler's ally.

[DTA]

Oops, typo. It should read: When Churchill became PM May 10, 1940,"

[smoketree]

Do you speak German?

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

My position is that targeting civilians is wrong - whether the US does it or Al Quada does it. Some posters are trying to convince others that terror attacks on civilians is ok if we do it but only wrong if others do it to us. As Voltaire said, Beware of people who can make you believe absurdities, because they can make you commit atrocities.

The absurdity that targeting women and children was ok in the terror attacks on Dresden is wrong - I disagree with Al Simmons, geronimo and the others that this atrocity can be rationalized - even Churchill could not stomach it. And Al Quada was also wrong to target civilians in the World Trade Center, IMO.

[smoketree]

So your enemy hides in the civilian population which is helping them hide.
The enemy runs out, attacks, then runs back to safety.
We die, they don't, because of your rules.
Now what? Do we give up?

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

Actually, the British faced this situation in the Irish rebellion - if I remember correctly, between 1916 and the mid 20's. Field Marshal Montgomery in his younger days was involved in suppressing the uprisings. The rule of war was that regular soldiers who were attacked by guerillas (not in uniform) were entitled to shoot the guerillas captured with arms. Further, the British conducted reprisals - notifying the civilians that hiding guerillas would incur penalties - x number of hostages shot for each British soldier killed. Unfortunately for U.S. forces today, the Germans were tried for having used reprisals in France and Italy against guerillas, just as the British did in Ireland - which means the U.S. cannot use reprisals in Iraq.

This means that instead of focused reprisals to deter those who support the guerillas, the U.S. relies heavily on bombing instead, potentially harming civilians not involved in guerilla attacks on our forces in Iraq.

There is a long discussion of legitimate military tactics and the slide towards barbarism in F. J. P. Veale's book, "Advance to Barbarism" which I do not have handy. I recommend it and "Crimes Discreetly Veiled" for its discussion of WWII history and ethics. The chapter on the French Doctor who posed as a resistance fighter to hide his activities as a serial killer and thief is particularly interesting for true crime aficionados.

[smoketree]

So from your answer if we just all read a lot of books then nobody would have time to engage in war??????
What if the book whole populations were reading was the koran and it told them to kill us?
Are you saying that the Irish wanted to rule the world and kill everyone else?
I hope you don't equate very small scale rebellions which require entirely different tactics from all out war with an enemy force large enough and determined to wipe us out and hiding in civilian areas?
Now what book are you going to recommend for what we face RIGHT NOW.

[texson66]

"Just like in that war; until someone with the stones to order bombings against Arab cities; the strongholds of terrorism, the home of their supporters, there is no point in fighting."

Amen to that! Could we also hit, accidentally of course, the NYT and other MSM sites too?

[Al Simmons]

Howard Jarvis Admirer has hit so many bases that serve as a tip-off that he is a Nazi-apologist and (probably) a Holocaust denier that I can't list them all.

These morons think they can 'fly under the radar' and start reeling people in a little at a time. I know their tactics well. The David-Irving types are the absolute lowest human scum imaginable. That's all I can say about them without risking banishment from this board.

They must be outed and GIVEN NO QUARTER BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE WHAT IS SETTLED HISTORICAL FACT.

[Al Simmons]

The Germans and Japanese sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

But much of the 'collateral damage' in WWII was not intentional, but due to the fact that the aiming systems for bombers were highly inaccurate (like 50 city blocks inaccurate)...

[Cymbaline]

The point is that if terror bombing enemy civilians is ok for the U.S. to do, the enemy, now or in the future, may decide that terror bombing U.S. civilians is ok for them to do also.

It's too late for that; Al Qaeda has already decided that terror bombing civillians is OK to do. 9/11 was nothing if not terror bombing of civilians. And it looks like Ahmedinijad believes the same thing, judging from his statements.

You're assuming our enemy is making rational decisions, which I think is a fallacy.

[investigateworld]

I believe the German's 'set the tempo' so to speak when they machine gunned refugee columns in France and streets of various cities in southern Britain.

With that said, I'm happy we are developing very accurate targeting systems to avoid civilian deaths.

[Al Simmons]

Howard, lets cut to the chase; your answer to the following questions will determine whether anyone on this board ever spends any time conversing with you:

A. Do you agree that the Nazis set up a system, beginning in 1940 or so, of 'flying firing squads' (einsatz gruppen), followed by the establishment of death camps, both of whose sole purpose was to eliminate "subhumans" such as Jews, Gypsies, as well as other enemies and undesireables en masse?

B.Do you agree that, by credible estimates, about 9 million people were thus systematically exterminated, about 5-6 million them for no reason other than being Jews?

C. Are you familiar with the Wansee (sp?) conference and do you agree that it irrefutably shows that the SS was given the job of systematically exterminating all European Jewry?

D. Have you heard the actual audio of Himmler's 1943 party speech in which he openly admits the existence of the extermination program and commends its executioners for being 'hard' enouhg to do such a job? And do you agree that it is a legitimate recording?

Your answers (or lack thereof) will help us to decide whether you should be engaged in rational debate or shunned as a pariah.

Well, are you man enough to meet my challenge?

[DTA]

>Do you speak German?<<<

No, I do not. Perhaps some other Freepers can help you. If you have relevant sources in German, Google ca translate them.

Something else strike me. You call the inmates of Auschwitz extermination camps "prisoners". I find it objectionable because it implies that Auschwitz was a prison. it was not, it was Nazi extermination camp.

Some two million people from all over Europe perished there. Many would be saved if the rail lines and railway depots leading to Auschwitz were destroyed by aerial bombardment. Without the synthetic rubber, there would be no tires for Luftwaffe airplanes nor tires for Wehrmacht trucks and they could not fly or drive.