[Regina]

Ok. Military experienced members don't call it revenge.
There's plenty of data now available to justify all of it in all theatres.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Well said, Boots. Just fess up it was revenge, not some noble cause. certainly lots to take revenge for.

Revenge ... Here are the "Vengeance weapons", specifically named that by the Germans: Vergeltungswaffen


They had no trouble calling it Revenge but then again, they were coming from a somewhat different psychological space, I would suggest.

[Regina]

I rest my case.

[andyt]

Thanks for making my case. Revenge for revenge = revenge. Just admit it. What's the bid deal? The Allies never took revenge for anything?

[Unsound]

I find it interesting that for a certain type of person, even questioning the morality or wisdom of decisions made by the allies are tantamount to spitting on the vets. Glad to see the free society they fought for working so well.

[Jabberwalker]

Nobody is taking away your right to disagree. We may just disagree with your conclusions. Kicking around nonagenarians and bad mouthing dead people is also your right, however pointless the exercise may be.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Nobody is taking away your right to disagree. We may just disagree with your conclusions. Kicking around nonagenarians and bad mouthing dead people is also your right, however pointless the exercise may be.

It's got nothing to do with the airmen - they didn't decide on this mission. It's Britain's as a country to own, just as Germany had to own so much more.

[Unsound]

andyt andyt:

It's got nothing to do with the airmen - they didn't decide on this mission. It's Britain's as a country to own, just as Germany had to own so much more.

That.

[rickc]

andyt andyt:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Nobody is taking away your right to disagree. We may just disagree with your conclusions. Kicking around nonagenarians and bad mouthing dead people is also your right, however pointless the exercise may be.

It's got nothing to do with the airmen - they didn't decide on this mission. It's Britain's as a country to own, just as Germany had to own so much more.

Why is it Britain"s to own? We were all there. The RAF, RCAF, USAAF. We all had a hand in it.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Regina Regina:

Dresden wasn't making cameras and porcelain dolls so why should there be guilt.

Curious little factoid; a good 50% of Germany's industrial capacity was still being used to produce consumer goods until the last half of 1944. I know Dresden was bombed in 1945 but I was blown away when I learned that.

[Regina]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Regina Regina:

Dresden wasn't making cameras and porcelain dolls so why should there be guilt.

Curious little factoid; a good 50% of Germany's industrial capacity was still being used to produce consumer goods until the last half of 1944. I know Dresden was bombed in 1945 but I was blown away when I learned that.

Quite right and no one seems to be able to point out the production levels of steel and armaments at that time but will pontificate the word revenge.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

bootlegga bootlegga:

People can say whatever they want, but fact is that it was a different time.

Back then, people didn't think twice about flattening a city to knock a factory out of production for a couple days. It might seem barbaric by our 'modern' standards, but the fact is that's the way war was waged by both sides.

It was one of the first instances of 'total war', in which every aspect of society was considered a viable target, as opposed to modern conflict where combatants are the only 'moral' target.

Having said that, smashing Dresden probably had little effect on the end of the war and happening that close to the end of the war was the same as kicking someone when they're down. Had it happened in 1943 or 1944, it would just have been another raid, but by doing something that late, it caused a fair bit of controversy.

It's easy to say that it happened "that close to the end of the war" because we know when the war ended. Hindsight is easy, foresight is another thing entirely.
Before the Battle of the Ardennes, the Allies thought the war was pretty much over and they'd be home by Christmas.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

For anyone interested, here's a list of armaments production as well as production of coal, ore and steel.

http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/

An internal RAF memo at the time also says

$1:

“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.”

RAF January 1945

And to top it off, Dresden was a major rail centre from which Germany was sending troops to the Eastern Front, not to mention the factories there as well.

So there definitely was reason to bomb Dresden. The only "controversial" thing about it is the fact that hindsight is being used to condemn the lack of foresight in not seeing the war would be over in about 10 weeks.

[Regina]

[Xort]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

They needn't live up to what spoiled little wankers, (who were never in any danger of anything), passing judgement four generations later . You were not there. The BBC types who did the piece weren't either. How dare you or they impose your morality on those events after removing them totally from their context of a national emergency. You are a nothing but a busybody alien from the future for Harris and his command.

If the act was valid no one would need defend it. That's how you know it was wrong.