Dresden Firestorm

[Long in the tooth]

There is a a great deal of angst being brought up here.   My father fought WW2 yet counted his friends among those he fought against.     I scratch my head all the time at the changing alliances of war.   After all, Britain only defeated Napolean with the help of the Prussians.

 

[Long in the tooth]

Germany increased in production until the limitations of fuel and material in 1944.  It maxed out at 2000 tanks and 2000 aircraft per month (split amont different designs), but was restricted by fuel contraints.  Speer had done his job; the command failed to optimize usfulness. 

Was Speer the equal of Beaverbrook or CD Howe?

 

[big bad john]

Was Speer the equal of Beaverbrook or CD Howe?

In short no.  Beaverbrook and Howe did not use slave labour.  Remember that Speer was head of Organization Todt.

 

[Gunner]

http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/gma.htm

German aircraft production certainly increased in 1944 but I believe it was more a reflection of German commitment to the total war economy under Speer.  I've also added the AFV production numbers.  Of note, although aircraft production spooled up significantly, a significant percentage of these plans never made it to airfields or were hampered by severe fuel shortages experienced by Germany with their earlier losses in eastern Europe.

http://www.answers.com/topic/german-armored-fighting-vehicle-production-during-world-war-ii

I am in agreement with you, I doubt that strategic bombing really accomplished much except to shift production from tanks etc to aircraft and FLAK.

As I mentioned, prior to 1944 the allied strategic bombing campaign was a failure and it was only the introduction of the long range fighter aircraft (P51D) that alleviated the German fighter threat against allied bombers.  In 1944/45 the allies were able to establish air supremacy over Germany.

In doing the analysis I think it is important to point out that it is correct that two wrongs don't make a right, however this was war, not an argument in the play ground.  If the Germans and the Japanese had the ability to stike Canada or the US they would have, not withstanding the occassional volley from submarine deck guns or rice paper balloons that took place.  Revenge is a powerful emotion, so is HATE!

If you are fighting an enemy that breaches the Geneva convention, are you therefore authorized to breach the convention because we are at war?  What about if the enemy hasn't signed on to the Geneva convention, does that mean you are allowed to breach the convention because it is war?  Of course not.  Remember that the British started the large scale/directed destruction of German cities first, not the otherway round.

In the end, justifying wrongs by bringing up equally despicable behavior doesn't solve anything.

I agree with you.  War has to be taken in the correct context as to what is inflicted upon each opposing force.  Mitigation of collateral damage is a requirement in warfare but I certainly don't wring my hands together when it occurs.

Regards,

 

[big bad john]

By 1944 Germany's key need that went unfulfilled was fuel.  Your right about aircraft and AFVs not making it to the MLR.  In contrast the Soviets were always able to fuel their vehicles.  In Leningrad and Stalingrad, fully fueled and armed AFVs went right from the production line to the MLR that was sometimes only meters away.  When the Allied Forces captured Germany they found large numbers of unfueled and sometimes unarmed aircraft and AFVs in the factories.

 

[TCBF]

Still and all, I think we must attempt to understand the climate of command these decisions were made in before we label the decisions.  Unrestricted submarine and surface warfare meant the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Germans during WW1 and right up the the signing of the peace treaty in 1921. That was not determined to be a war crime then. Those who drove the allied war effort knew their history, and also knew their responsibility.  Both Germany and Japan were working on nuclear weapons as well, the war had to be won before those devices could be brought to bear.  As for the "It makes us just like them!"  Dept.,  No it doesn't, that is just more PC moral equivalency.

"Sir, the enemy is attacking!"

"For God's sake. don't shoot them Laddie, it will make us just like them!"

The Americans got back only a fraction of their men captured by the North during the Vietnam war, yet have gone out of their way to persecute their own officers who knew that  many were shipped off to the USSR, interrogated for their technical knowedge, then disposed of.  The US did not want to rock the boat politically in their relations with the USSR, or domestically.  Any country capable of doing this to their own soldiers (in other words, all countries) is not going to shed tears over any overexuberence in the application of force to a target list.  NOR SHOULD WE.

Tom

 

[pbi]

The problem with that line of argument, TCBF (and I may have inadvertently contributed to to it...) is that its ultimate form is that we need not apply any restrictions to ourselves that may inhibit our ability to defeat the enemy, since that is the ultimate aim of war. Under that line of thinking, Law of Armed Conflict, Geneva Convention, etc would quickly go out the window. That might be great if you can be sure of a achieving an overwhelming victory that leaves your enemy unable to retaliate, but not so good if (for example...) the enemy holds large numbers of your soldiers as PWs, or has captive populations under his hand. In those situations his ability to exact revenge for what he sees as excesses on our part is much less restricted. To me one of the important functions of things such as LOAC is that they provide, in some small measure, protection for our own captured and wounded against vengeance and retaliation. I am not quite so naive to think that they will be effective against every opponent, but neither do I assume that everybody who opposes us is a witless murdering savage who is just drooling to eat the hearts of   our fallen.

IMHO this argument is a slippery slope.

Cheers

 

[Gunner]

I think my question to you was rhetorical but thanks for the response.

 

[1feral1]

I am not ashamed of the Allied bombing of Dresden, look how many English were killed in the Blitz. As Infanteer says"it was total war", and sadly its the innocent who always seem to pay. Thats just how it was then. We can't re-write history, nor should be.

I look at it this way, in some way the bombing of Dresden assisted in again demoralising the enemy civilian population even more, and may have contributed to ending the war in Europe sooner, which boils down to less Allied casualties, and for my Uncles and their friends who fought in this theatre just 60 short years ago, I am sure it was good news to them that they would no doubt have a better chance of surviving and coming home sooner than later.

War is a four lettered word, I think we can all agree to that.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[big bad john]

I agree with you fully Wes.  Look at Coventry, the East End residential districts in London that were targeted.  Then there is Guernicia (sp?).  Someone once said "history is written by the victors".. We don't have to feel bad about winning.  It is losing that we should worry over.

 

[TCBF]

A very good point, because methinks we are beginning to lose one now.

Tom

 

[pbi]

S Baker stole my thunder. TCBF what war are you referring to?

Cheers.

 

[1feral1]

A very good point, because methinks we are beginning to lose one now.

Tom

Which war is that Tom (as you sit back eating a pizza and watch CNN) ?

Yesterday we gave out some kit some some Diggers deploying to Iraq in a matter of days. Where are you coming from?

 

[TCBF]

Ok, fair points.

1. I don't watch CNN.
2. I seldom eat Pizza, unless the cooks at the Sgt's Mess make it, or my wife and son order it.
3. Wish the lads good luck in Iraq for me.  I was on Op APOLLO and crew commanded the first Coyote into Kandahar Airfield.  Although that whole tour was a bit mild to be called a "war" from my point of view, the legalities may state different.
4.  At the time (Feb 2002), a state of armed conflict was deemed to exist between Al Quida and Canada.
As the UN has made the term "War" obsolete, "state of armed conflict" must suffice.
5. If this state of armed conflict has been repealed, news to me.  hence, we are at "War". It didn't end when we climbed onto a C5B and flew to Diego Garcia.
6. I say we are losing it because we have failed to secure our own borders, yet have have enacted  flawed and draconian legislation which - like so much modern legislation - does nothing to solve the problem and inconveniences everyone except the enemy.  The attack on the WTC was an attack on western civilization. We cannot fight this with one - or both - hands tied behind our backs. 

I look forward to your comments on all of the above, or anything else, for that matter.

Tom

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As the UN has made the term "War" obsolete, "state of armed conflict" must suffice.

When, and how, did they do this?

 

[1feral1]

Sorry for barking a bit there Tom, I misread your comments. My own stupidity. Sorry. Overall we are in agreement.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[TCBF]

Oh, heck, no probs, hope all is well down under.  My job just interfered again.  I have to escort a sound tech out to the AFV ranges Friday to record a LAV 3s 25mm firing.  Hey, somebody's gotta do it.

Tom

 

[TCBF]

"When, and how, did they do this?"

My fact or my flawed opinion?  Hmmmm.. you gots me a wonderin now.  I will get back to you on this after I check it out. 

Tom 

 

[Spr.Earl]

After reading some of the posts and reading   some of the after Action Reports that have been made public.Dresden had no Military value whats so ever.

It was a R.V. for refugee's escapeing the Russian advance.
To day the Action would be considered as a WAR CRIME as the City was not vital Miltary Target.

Yes we Allies commited mnay War Crimes in WWII, but they are not called War Crimes becase we won.

Read about how the U.S. treated German P.O.W.'s,1,000's died of starvation !!

 

[Long in the tooth]

I think you are referring to "other causes", the (alleged) actions by Gen Eisenhower to consider Germans as "Disarmed Enemy Combatants" and not "Prisoners of War".  This is congruent with prisoners at Guantono Bay being labled illegal enemy combatants....
Not enemy assailants, not POWs.