[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well, you can't see the bombing of Dresden as a seperate thing.

It was part of a bombing campaign that in all killed around 600.000 civilians apparently.

Completely senseless since the bombing aided the Nazis. Because of it they could come 'to the rescue' of the people making them more loyal to the regime. Just like the bombing of Coventry only strenghtened the resolve the British.


What's done is done. We can only hope enough people will talk about it so that it may never be forgotten (along with all the other horrors of war), and never be repeated*

*but that point is moot I fear.

[aldo_14]

Total war is a very simple concept - you don't just destroy the enemy's armies, you destroy his ability to supply, train and rebuild those armies.    Kill the workers, as well as the fighters.

Morally repugnant as it may be, it will be the prevalent tactic in warfare for many, many years to come.  We've just not really had a war since WW2 where it's been militarily or politically possible - that's the only reason why we live under the false supposition that modern warfare has somehow changed.

[ionia23]

Beats me, that's a toughie.

1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.

2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".

[Janos]

Originally posted by ionia23
Beats me, that's a toughie.

1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.

2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".

Who held the gun to Bomber Command's head, then?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ionia23
Beats me, that's a toughie.

1. When you sign up for the wrong team, you get what you deserve.

2. No one held a gun to Germany's head and said "carpetbomb London".

re 1 - not all Germans were Nazis - remember Hitler was a totalitarian dictator, not an elected leader.

[Rictor]

ionia: that would imply collective responsibility, and you damn well know thats not true.

the civilian population can't be harmed for the actions of the military. at least not if you want to call yourself civilized...

aldo: I predict that large-scale civilian killings will become less and less aceptable in the future, not more. but then there's the question of whether they can succesfully be covered up, to which I hope the answer is no.

[Flipside]

Re 2 : I agree, that was the tactics at the time, no amount of debate can change that, but was Dresden neccessary?. That's what the debate is about, and the question is quite a simple one when put like that....

This was an exercise designed to destroy the morale of an enemy that was already retreating in dis-array. Dresden played no further significant role in the War, it was not an obstacle to the Allied Troops, it was simply a case of 'Let's see how you like living in terror every night?'. However, it was a morale boosting exercise for troops and Allied civilians.

Was it nice? No. Was it any better than what happened to London, Coventry and many other places? No. We all played dirty then, we still play dirty now.

But was Dresden neccessary? The simple answer imho is 'no, it wasn't, but it sure made the Allied forces feel better at the time.'

[an0n]

Originally posted by Janos
Who held the gun to Bomber Command's head, then?

The Germans. Try to pay attention.

the civilian population can't be harmed for the actions of the military. at least not if you want to call yourself civilized...

Now that's a curious statement, coming from an American.

[Rictor]

excuse me? American?

That made my day man, thanks.

[IceFire]

It was fire-bombed, which was the allied equivalent of the German Luftwaffe.

Just so you have a better lay of the land...fire bombing has nothing to do with the Luftwaffe which is the German Air Force.  The Luftwaffe is a similar organization to the Royal Air Force (RAF), United States Army Air Force (USAAF - which later became the USAF), or the Russian VVS (which I forget what it translates to).

Fire bombing is a particular type of bombing obviously...it uses incendiary bombs which do less direct impact damage but ignite flammables and cause firestorms.  Tokyo was also bombed in a similar way.

The pro points, although a precarious situation to be in, has several merits:

- Stalin had repeatedly pressed Churchill and the Allies for support of the Russian offensive (by opening a true second front in France and through bombing)
- Stalin was a loose canon and the Allies knew it and so they had to try and mitigate any further conflict after the war (Stalin believed that the next great conflict would pit the USSR vs the USA)...it could be argued that Dresden and other actions during the war may potentially have saved lives by reducing tensions and preventing nuclear holocaust when it was most possible)
- Dresden was apparently, although not heavily industrial and therefore not a strategic target in those terms, a center of communications for the German army as well as a main location of Panzer deployments against the Russian army
- Also keep in mind that (rightly or wrongly) the rules of engagement in a total war such as WWII, where the stakes by all the nations involved are huge, are quite different than launching a precision war against an enemy meerly to cripple war ability and press for peace
- Had the bombing of Dresden not taken place, for instance, crucial differences in the way the war went may well have altered history considerably prolonging the war on either front (or may have seen Hilter assassinated and someone better able to fight with the limited resources on hand...potentially even pushing back or halting the Russian advance - in war nothing is certain)
- The Allies had agreed that the war would only end with the total surrender of the Axis powers (another policy that is questionable but likely with good cause in the situation that created it)

These aren't necessarily points that mean the the bombing was morally justified but it could have been militarily or diplomatically justified.  Something you may want to play on is to agree with the opposition on the point that from a removed historical perspective 60 years later...the bombing was a terribly wrong and horrific thing but within the context of the war where people were being randomly killed every day in London by V-1 buzz bombs, armies were advancing from east and west, and any diplomatic advantage to appease the USSR during the war and post war (the Allies NEEDED the USSR I believe to help win the war, otherwise it would have been much longer) and the overall notion of being engaged in a war where you could easily win or loose at a wrong turn, every advantage or possibility needed to be exploited no matter the cost.

Even when it looked like the Allies were winning...I believe that given the right circumstances the war coud easily have dragged on significantly longer had certain factors been in play (some calcuable and some left to random chance).

I've never debated at the provincial level but I've done local tournaments back in my high school days so I'm a bit familiar with how they work.

Whats the specific format (times for speaking, number of speakers, debat style)?

[an0n]

Originally posted by Rictor
excuse me? American?

That made my day man, thanks.

Yeah, I rarely care enough to remember the things you say.

I just assumed from your stupidity that you were American.

[Janos]

Originally posted by an0n
The Germans. Try to pay attention.

I pay attention, but I do not follow the logic of "they did it once, so we must do it now!".

[an0n]

On further consideration, I believe the bombing of Dresden was to prevent WW3.

After WW1, Germany was ****ed and annoyed and that's what led to WW2. They took all Germany's stuff then hung around to rape them some more till everyone was starving. They had to show that screwing with the Allies wasn't an option and by bombing Dresden and other cities they crippled Germany, made their point and made sure Germany wouldn't be a threat for decades to come without having to hang around and police them.

And then there's Stalin. They had to show him they weren't playing around to make the point that if he decided to get smart, Moscow would be turned into a flaming wasteland.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Janos
I pay attention, but I do not follow the logic of "they did it once, so we must do it now!".

"If you punch us, we'll shoot you."

It was a case of Germany having violated an unspoken agreement and the Allies having to show them that it was only similar such agreements that had kept the German public from being wiped from the face of the Earth.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by an0n
Yeah, I rarely care enough to remember the things you say.

I just assumed from your stupidity that you were American.

*clap* *clap*

well played.

slip up for a single moment, and look what happens. try not to let it happen again.

[an0n]

Oh, but for the most part, my quip stands if you're from an American-esque country where the elected leader is also in command of the armed forces.

As was the case in Germany.

If the people elect the leader and the leader attacks someone, the people are responsible.

[pyro-manic]

Was Dresden necessary? No.
Was it effective? Yes.

Dresden didn't have to be razed, but doing so gave the Allies (both military and civilian) a morale boost (by giving them a feeling that the Germans were now paying the price for their actions), and terrified the German population. The death toll was, of course, shocking, but the Second World War was the last "real" war involving competing world powers (i.e. Soviet Empire/Russia, USA, Britain/France/Germany/other European countries), where the outcome would determine the nature (or indeed very existance) of both sides. The winners have total control, and the losers lose everything. With such huge potential losses and gains, each side uses every tactic and strategy they can to gain the upper hand, be it military, material, physical or psychological.

If such a war broke out today, I can guarantee that similar tactics would be used again, ruthlessly and without hesitation. They would perhaps not be accepted to begin with (media coverage would show it at an altogether more personal level), the public would soon have a "Johnny foreigner had it coming" attitude, because they'd be suffering similar attacks themselves.

This is going off-topic a bit, but I sometimes feel we need another proper war to shake things into order. Nothing unites a people like a common enemy they can hate - they soon forget about all the pathetic little things they whine about the rest of the time. I know that's a terrible thing to say, but it's true...

[an0n]

World War 2 was probably the last war worth fighting. Everything else was just politics and nationalism.

Like the Falklands. Who gives a **** about the Falklands? They're worthless lumps of rain-soaked, fog-covered rock. They coulda just bombed the entire region into the sea.


And would I be wrong to say the Germans still thought they were winning the war?

[Rictor]

that is, if the goal is to unify a country or region. if the goal is to spread basic tolerance, if not necessarily unity, to the whole of the world, then a war would only detract from that. you're thinking small. if a people need a common enemy to be united, **** em, they don't deserve unity.


and the attitude that Johnny foreigner had it coming exists to this day, even when the aggressor is suffering no loses. They're foreign, so they're worth less. They're foreign, so they're evil. They're foreign, so they are trying to destroy our wondeful freedom and unity and peace and looooove.

[an0n]

Uh, if you believe your form of government to be the best, then bombing everyone with even a slightly different government should be seen as a good idea.

If not, then you're basically saying you're happy to let them live under a ****ty government, which is the same as saying "They're foriegn, screw 'em".