Originally posted by IceFire
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)?
I thought Luftwaffe was the German carpet bombing method. I'll just call it German carpet bombing now to minimize confusion, which is probably my own. Anyways.
As we saw in the Cold War, trying to intimidate a powerful country doesn't work. The Cold War was basically a war of intimidation between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Also, remember that the U.S.S.R had no nuclear weapons until 1949, so the threat didn't need to be stated. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USSR rebelled against
of things, and they were put down every time by the American threat of nuking em.
The evidence for the Panzer divisions and the communications is also under fire (no pun intended). The fact is that there has been no evidence found to prove either case. What has been found are refugees and civilians and
of destroyed and/or damaged artwork.
Another thing we have to look at is the fact that the British and Americans were using the carpet bombing method of civilians as one of their MAJOR REASONS to attack Germany. It's quite hypocritical to do that, then carpet bomb German civilians. And army brass should know that not everyone is a Nazi. There was really no point to destroying the city, however you look at it
The fact was at the time, the war was won, there was just all the paperwork left to fill out. The Germans had been pushed out of Africa, Italy was gone (even if they did get their asses kicked by Ethiopians with spears... that's pretty bad), most of their generals had committed suicide, defected, or fled, and there was no way that their industrial base could keep up with Britain AND the US AND the USSR. The only chance Hitler had was if they started fighting against each other, and they very nearly did.
