Strategic bombing during World War II

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19kilo:
Cant deal with it? Thought so. Germany lost. Thank goodness.
Well, it is plain clear to everybody now that 19kilo cannot contest nor challenge nor perform any kind of argument when specific issues are raised. Maybe this is due to some lack of intelectual capacity that allows him to write nothing more than subjective judgements or, on the other hand, lack of educational or cultural background. However he cannot even google the issues to refer to them.

We can move on.
Last edited by Karl Heidenreich on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Today is the anniversary of the most famous strategic bombing that took place: Hiroshima.

Of all the strategic bombings of WWII this one and Nagasaki are the ones that can be justified due to their result. Strategic bombing only purpose was to render a country uncapable to continue warfare operations by attacking it in depth. Not that the deliberate murder of civilians equate to this aim.

For example the US Army Air Forces in Europe do not proceed in a deliberate attempt to break German morale by burning children and women alive in basements but with the daylight precision bombing try to render German logistics to a colapse. It failed because Germany only surrendered when the main soviet allies were marching over Berlin and Hitler was already dead. Doesn't seem, according to the same Richard G. Davis in his "Bombing of the European Axis Powers - A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive 1939-1945" that it fullfilled it's purpose. Germany remained quite capable of waging war despite this offensive.

This renders the aim of the incendiary bombings over Tokio unto a new light. If the Americans do not share British's desire for genocide in Europe and avoided it and instead dedicated to precision daylight bombing of industrial and military targets instead of defenseless cities, and this type of strategic attacks served no practical purpose there, why the burning of Tokio in the greatest single airborne genocide ever took place? When Germany was evidence enough that the Axis powers will not surrender at the face of terror attacks and the Japanese were by far more fanatical than the nazis ever were, why the US insisted in this reproachable action? There is also the question that the US already knew, by then, that it was capable of delivering nuclear bombs that could change the outcome of the conflict, why to proceed with the Tokio bombings?

Again: at the end only Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever served the purpose of stopping cold an Axis power and finish the war. Four or five million japanese lives were spared by this action as some 500,000 American soldiers live instead of die in the fields of battle of Operations Olimpic and Coronet. In this sole and unique context the death of some couple of hundred thousands in these two cities are justified: because they save a huge amount of lives.

But not a single conventional strategic bombing, nor against Germany nor Japan produced such a result. The only thing that produced was to strenghted the will of those countries to fight back against deliberte criminal attempts to destroy this same will by terror. This was plain evident since Hamburg's one. When this "offensive" failed it was evident that strategic bombing served no purpose and need to be aborted for another kind of aerail campaign, basically tactical air support to the field armies.

Whatsoever, today is the annivesary that reminds us of the hundreds of thousands of inocent lives burnt by the atomic weapons of mass destruction.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by alecsandros »

Today is also a big celebration for the entire Christian world - "Schimbarea la fata" in Romanian, "the Transfiguration", I believe, in English.

I like to make various associations between events. The first nuclear bombing was done on this day, Aug6th, which is the same day when Christ ascended on mount Tabor and revealed His divine nature for only 3 apostles to see. Christ changed face on this day.

The Americans [Truman in fact, not the entire people] also changed face, from the "protectors of democracy" to the "mad scientists experimenting on millions of civillians". The difference is that in the Bible, this episode serves to separate the Man[fallen] from God[supreme], while in history, this same day stands for the differentiation between slogans[good and benevolent nation] and actions[undiscriminating and genocidal].

=========

I still think that all of us on this topic share pretty much the same core knowledge about the allied strategic bombing. What sets us apart is the value that we place on it. For me and Karl, as it seems, random mass air-attacks on civilians, leading to million of deaths, weigh very much on the scales. For me, at least, this is a case of war crime, and the scale makes it genocide.

I think I understand Michael's and Byron's points of view, as well as 19Kilo's.
I can't argue with either one of view on a sentecte-by=sentece basis. I pretty much agree with everything you've written.

Again, it's the way we interpret the facts that [maybe] sets us slightly apart, but I don't think the difference is that big at all.

And I very much agree with Michael's "evil scale" - it's one thing to murder entire villages, as the SS and NKVD have done, and another to carpet-bomb... The effects, in numbers of lives taken, may be comparable, BUT the modus operandi and mechanisms were clearly different...

Hope not to stir things more than they already are...

Cheers,
Alex
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

boreatwork:
REALLY IMPORTANT: READ THIS
You're making the statement to the effect that the Germans were morally superior in respect to bombing because they never targetted civilians at the same scale.

Maybe I must apologise to boreatwork because I never intended to said whats he is reading. I have not and will not intend to say that the nazis were morally superior to the allies. That has never been my point: my point is that the allies were hypocrites because they were no better. By saying that I am not defending the nazis or what they did but attacking the allies for having a conduct in similar terms.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

boreatwork:
My argument is your contention rests entirely on the evidence that the Germans did not launch bombing raids of the same scale. The problem is on it's own this is not sufficient to prove your case because the Germans COULD NOT launch bombing raids of the same scale.

Therefore the fact that they didn't is irrelavent as far as a moral judgement goes. Did they refrain from devastating the allied cities because of the moral issues involved? OR did the Germans refrain from devastating allied cities because because they lacked the resources involved?
Not that I am disputing the fact that the British perfected the art of killing inocent civilians via carpet bombings better than the Germans. Not that I am disputing the technical proficiency in this activity.

However I found that there IS a difference in the doctrines involved here. The British started their Strategic Bombing Campaign in 1939 and then never stopped until the surrendering of the Germans (by territorial occupation of allied armies, not by effect of this particular campaign) as did the Germans.

But the high peak of the German strategic bombing, which was at first directed to military or port instalations, when did not produced the effect that the Germans expected then stopped. The Blitz ended in May 1941. As with Warsaw and Rotterdam it was part of the German blitzkrieg group of tactics and operations: to win a certain battle or campaign. The Blitz was part of the preparation of Sea Lion or, in it's defect, to produce the surrender of Britain. But by May 1941 it was obvious it serve no purpose. Then it was called off (and because a new front was about to be open). And it was not called off because the Germans were in a position that they cannot continue with it. This stopping did not happen in 1943 or 1944 but as early in 1941, which means that if no result was obtained then it served no purpose.

IMPORTANT: I'm not implying it was called off for moral, etical reasons but for practical purposes: it wasn't giving the desired effect.

But the British conitnued with their aerial offensive despite the fact it wasn't giving any results neither. The best example was the Hamburg bombing, which led to nothing more than a destroyed city.

Why was important to bomb Dresden or Chemnitz in early 1945 when Germany was already defeated? Why to bring up a phony story like that the Soviets asked for the attack or that it was a legitimate military target? It is plain evident this is a lie and a smoke screen. Why the bombed areas were so clearly designated and targeted? Because the main intention was to kill as much civilians as possible, even knowing that will not produce a capitulation from the Germans. It was a deliberate murder.

To put this in perspective:

By then the 15th Air Force was producing much better results, specially in Germany's capacity to produce and distribute oil and fuels. Of the aerial directed offensives we have this result despite the fact that:

1. 8th Air Force devoted 13% of it's bombs against civilian targets.

2. Bomber Command did use 51% against civilian targets.

3. 15th Air Force only 4%.

But it was the 15th the one that produced the greater harm to Germany, not the 8th and, of course, not the Bomber Command.

This are the topics we need to refer to...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

will reply shortly
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Byron Angel »

Karl Heidenreich wrote: Why was important to bomb Dresden or Chemnitz in early 1945 when Germany was already defeated? Why to bring up a phony story like that the Soviets asked for the attack or that it was a legitimate military target? It is plain evident this is a lie and a smoke screen.

....... Karl, you and your persistent refusal to accept or even acknowledge the existence of evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived beliefs have exhausted even my bountiful patience.

Have a nice day in your carefully constructed dreamworld. I'm out of here.


B
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

Sorry I wasted alot of time editing this because I like to be clear in my meaning and you posted a second post which, due to the overlap are best responded to together.

Also for that reason you posts are quoted slightly out of order - not to twist your meaning, but to (hopefully) have a logically laid out response.


Karl Heidenreich wrote:boreatwork:
REALLY IMPORTANT: READ THIS
You're making the statement to the effect that the Germans were morally superior in respect to bombing because they never targetted civilians at the same scale.

Maybe I must apologise to boreatwork because I never intended to said whats he is reading. I have not and will not intend to say that the nazis were morally superior to the allies. That has never been my point: my point is that the allies were hypocrites because they were no better. By saying that I am not defending the nazis or what they did but attacking the allies for having a conduct in similar terms.
I fully understood the point you were making that you consider the mass slaughter of German civilians to be a crime comparable to the genocide the Nazis committed.

I just disagree with your opinion.

First let me again clarify I'm not saying that as a people that allies were any more moral than the German people. Not all Germans were not Nazis or shared their beliefs. There were many Germans in the war who conducted themselves with exemplary behavior. I'm also in no way claiming that some aspects of Bomber Command's war weren't morally distastefull.

What I am saying is, as barbaric and as brutal as it was it still had some effect on the war. Hence I disagree with your statements as follows (my bold and underline for emphasis):

But not a single conventional strategic bombing, nor against Germany nor Japan produced such a result. The only thing that produced was to strenghted the will of those countries to fight back against deliberte criminal attempts to destroy this same will by terror. This was plain evident since Hamburg's one. When this "offensive" failed it was evident that strategic bombing served no purposeand need to be aborted for another kind of aerail campaign, basically tactical air support to the field armies.
But the British conitnued with their aerial offensive despite the fact it wasn't giving any results neither. The best example was the Hamburg bombing, which led to nothing more than a destroyed city.
Success or failure like morality is not a black and white issue. It's undeniably true that the bomber raids failed at the expectation that they alone could force Germany out of the war. But it's untrue to say that they accomplished nothing, or served no purpose to the war effort. To use your Hamburg example "no purpose" or "nothing more than a destroyed city" skates over the actual effect the raid did have:

"Operation Gomorrah killed 42,600 people and left 37,000 wounded. Some one million German civilians fled the city. The city's labour force was reduced permanently by ten percent.[6] Approximately 3,000 aircraft were deployed, 9,000 tons of bombs were dropped, and over 250,000 homes and houses were destroyed. No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed, and there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of similar weight would force Germany out of the war. The industrial losses were severe. Hamburg never recovered to full production, only doing so in essential armaments industries (which a maximum effort was made).[7] Figures given by German sources indicate, 183 large factories were destroyed out of 524 in the city, 4,118 smaller factories out of 9,068 were destroyed. Other losses included 580 industrial concerns and armaments works, 299 of which were important enough to be listed by name, were either destroyed or damaged. Local transport systems were completely disrupted and did not return to normal for some time. Dwellings destroyed amounted to 214,350 destroyed out of 414,500."
The Bomber Campaign did materially affect production, it did hamper logistics, force the Germans to devote increased resources to counter it, and ground down the Luftwaffe into impotance. How much better would the Germans have been able to resist the horde of Soviet tanks had even a fraction of the 15,000+ 88mm guns deployed in Flak belts for home defense been available as AT weapons at the front? Or if the limited german munitions production had been able to build artillery shells instead of the vast volumes of Flak shells?

Why was important to bomb Dresden or Chemnitz in early 1945 when Germany was already defeated? Why to bring up a phony story like that the Soviets asked for the attack or that it was a legitimate military target? It is plain evident this is a lie and a smoke screen. Why the bombed areas were so clearly designated and targeted? Because the main intention was to kill as much civilians as possible, even knowing that will not produce a capitulation from the Germans. It was a deliberate murder.
Germany wasn't defeated. She was still resisting. She was still killing allied soldiers and civilians. Did the allies have perfect intelligence about the value of what they were doing at the time? No, Did the people who ordered the attack genuinely believe it would help the war effort? Probably. Do mistakes get made in wartime? Absolutely. Is it hard for people to admit mistakes which cost others their lives? Certainly.

Again I don't claim Dresden is anything the Allies should be proud of, but I don't villify the people responsible to the degree you do because I have the benefit of hindsight which at the time they didn't.


However I found that there IS a difference in the doctrines involved here. The British started their Strategic Bombing Campaign in 1939 and then never stopped until the surrendering of the Germans (by territorial occupation of allied armies, not by effect of this particular campaign) as did the Germans.

But the high peak of the German strategic bombing, which was at first directed to military or port instalations, when did not produced the effect that the Germans expected then stopped.
IIRC correctly you're not a native english speaker so I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that the impression you're giving with your words is not what you're attempting to say.

You state there were differences - you make the vague statement that The British started their Strategic Bombing Campaign in 1939 - then you qualify what the Luftwaffe was bombing "military or port installations" without similarly qualifying what the RAF was bombing.

As worded, it gives the impression that you're implying that the RAF was bombing targets other than strictly military since 1939.



The Blitz ended in May 1941. As with Warsaw and Rotterdam it was part of the German blitzkrieg group of tactics and operations: to win a certain battle or campaign. The Blitz was part of the preparation of Sea Lion or, in it's defect, to produce the surrender of Britain. But by May 1941 it was obvious it serve no purpose. Then it was called off (and because a new front was about to be open). And it was not called off because the Germans were in a position that they cannot continue with it. This stopping did not happen in 1943 or 1944 but as early in 1941, which means that if no result was obtained then it served no purpose.

...

If they had discovered that Strategic Bombing served no purpose then why did they start production and go on to produce over 1000 He-177 heavy strategic bombers?

They stopped the campaign because their Political leadership was irratic and decided to focus on the Soviet Union rather than do something rational like force Britain to come to terms first.

Once stopped circumstances prevented it from ever being restarted. Even in 1942 and 1944 when Hitler wanted to raze British cities in response to growing RAF efforts only a shadow of the 1940 force could be spared from the desperate fighting on the other fronts.
To put this in perspective:

By then the 15th Air Force was producing much better results, specially in Germany's capacity to produce and distribute oil and fuels. Of the aerial directed offensives we have this result despite the fact that:

1. 8th Air Force devoted 13% of it's bombs against civilian targets.

2. Bomber Command did use 51% against civilian targets.

3. 15th Air Force only 4%.

But it was the 15th the one that produced the greater harm to Germany, not the 8th and, of course, not the Bomber Command.
I don't dissagree that the resources spent on the bombing campaign might not have found better use. More long range aircraft sooner would have won the battle of the Atlantic earlier for example. However such judgement is with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, particularly following the success of Hamburg it must have appeared that the mass raids against cities were having more effect than they were.

***IMPORTANT*** - I'm not trying to claim you're trying to justify the Nazi's genocide.

I'm merely saying that the Nazi's Genocide didn't even have the illusion of helping the war effort. Many of their great minds fled the country and worked for the allies. Their factories were starved with labour and yet they sent German citizens to the gas chambers merely because they were Jews. Their campaigns against the Slavs in occupied terrorities consumed resources better used at the front and encouraged the formation of resistance movements that would consume even more resources to counter.

Therefore if you have 2 mass killings - one of which is done in the scincere belief that it will shorten the war and thus reduce your own casualties, and the other is done for the sake of genocide - regardless of the fact they're both horrible acts IMO the former ranks higher on the morality scale than the latter.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Byron:
....... Karl, you and your persistent refusal to accept or even acknowledge the existence of evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived beliefs have exhausted even my bountiful patience.

Have a nice day in your carefully constructed dreamworld. I'm out of here.
Let's put it the other way around: where is the conclusive evidenve that the soviets DID ask to the allies to bomb Dresden?

Where is the evidence that the railway junctions were destroyed and not barely touched?

Where is the evidence that the military instalations and manufacturing plants were also destroyed?

Where is this existing evidence that contradicts my pre concieved beliefs? The only one that has come forward with evidence against my position has been boreatwork and in more broad conceptual way but still not regarding the specifics. Not a single of my afirmations have been challenged yet (not the conceptual ones that boreatwork, Alex and I have been discussing and that are STILL being discussed because that is why a forum is for).
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

Where is this existing evidence that contradicts my pre concieved beliefs?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Byron:
Latest research, making use of records that had been sequestered in East Germany since the end of WW2, puts the Dresden death toll at about 25,000. The figure of 135,000 deaths was a Goebbels propaganda claim that was perpetuated by the East Germans for Cold War political purposes. Dresden was the principal railroad nexus for traffic moving through East Germany to the Eastern Front and, as such, was targeted at the insistence of the Soviets as a preliminary to their Spring 45 offensive into Prussia. It also was home to a respectable number of engineering facilities that specialized in manufacture of high precision military instruments - bomb sights, gun sights, cameras, artillery fuses, etc.
All these information is completely false. The information of the 135,000 victims came from the local police and US Strategic Bomb Survey and not from Goebbles' propaganda machine that, by the contrary, was trying to diminish the impact of the holocaust. The latest researchs are those that gave the 135,000 victims.
As a source you quoted Holocaust At Dresden which in turn was based upon the work THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN by David Irving:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:As with Cromwell in Ireland and Roberts and Kitchener in South Africa, Sir Arthur Harris had broken their walls. But he had not broken their courage.

Quoted:
HOLOCAUST AT DRESDEN
By George Fowler
(from the Barnes Review)

...

In his l963 book THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN David Irving noted that

[...]

In THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN Irving wrote that

Byron Angel wrote:..... Avoided 100% ????? I seem to recall having recommended a book to you that offered a different perspective on several aspects of the Dresden raid that you are clutching onto.

...

Irving wrote his book 40 years ago WITHOUT access to the East German archives.





It has since been brought to my attention by a third party that Irving himself 3 years later publicly conceded a much lower Dresden Death toll:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/ft ... ualties-01


"_The Times_ of London, July 7, 1966, p. 13. Letter to the Editor.

THE DRESDEN RAIDS

From Mr. David Irving

Sir, -- Your newspaper has an enviable reputation for accuracy, and
your readiness to correct the smallest errors from one day to the
next is an inspiration to your readers; but how can a historian
correct a mistake, when once he finds himself to have been wrong? I
ask the indulgence of your columns.

The bombing of Dresden in 1945 has in recent years been adduced by
some people as evidence that conventional bombing can be more
devastating than nuclear attacks, and others have sought to draw
false lessons from this. My own share of the blame for this is
large: in my 1963 book _The Destruction of Dresden_ I stated that
estimates of the casualties in that city varied between 35,000 and
over 200,000.

The higher figures did not seem absurd when the circumstances were
taken into account. I had tried for three years to bring to light
German documents relating to the damage, but the east German
authorities were unable to assist me. Two years ago I procured from
a private east German source what purported to be extracts from the
Police President's report, quoting the final death-roll as "a quarter
of a million"; the other statistics it contained were accurate, but
it is now obvious that the death-roll statistic was falsified,
probably in 1945.

The east German authorities (who had originally declined to provide
me with the documents) have now supplied to me a copy of the 11-page
"final report" written by the area police chief about one month after
the Dresden raids, and there is no doubt as to this document's
authenticity. In short, the report shows that the Dresden casualties
were on much the same scale as in the heaviest Hamburg raids in 1943.
The document's author, the _Hoehere SS- und Polizeifuehrer Elbe_,
was responsible for civil defence measures in Dresden, it should be
noted.

His figures are very much lower than those I quoted. The crucial
passage reads: "Casualties: by 10th March, 1945, 18,375 dead, 2,212
seriously injured, and 13,918 slightly injured had been registered,
with 350,000 homeless and permanently evacuated." The total
death-roll, "primarily women and children," was expected to reach
25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the
dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city
squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".

The general authenticity of the report is established beyond doubt,
because within a very few days of receiving the first, a second
wartime German report was supplied to me, this time from a western
source. It repeats _exactly_ the figures listed in the above report,
upon which it was evidently based.

The second report, a Berlin police summary of "Air Raids on Reich
Territory", dated March 22, 1945, was found, quite by chance,
misfiled among the 25,000 Reich Finance Ministry files currently
being explored at the west German Federal Archives. It was forwarded
to me by one of their archivists, Doctor Boberach.

I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends, and I
feel it is important that in this respect the record should be set
straight.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

DAVID IRVING.

25 Elgin Mansions, W.9."




It's also been brought to my attention that it might be possible that the RAF dropped a higher tonnage of bombs on oil related targets than either the 8th or the 15th:
USAAF 8th &9th AF: 60,813
USAAF 15th AF: 51,858
RAF Bomber Command: 97,914
I'm not sure the original source for these numbers however page 37 of a third document made available to me, concerning RAF statistics makes it seem within the realm of possibility.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varl ... ensive.pdf


This is not presented as justification for Dresden - 25k is still alot of dead people - however a discussion should be conducted with an open mind to the possibility that information exists which might weaken ones own position.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by 19kilo »

You are spitting in the wind. KH does not see evidence that he doesnt agree with.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

19kilo:
You are spitting in the wind. KH does not see evidence that he doesnt agree with.
Shut up you moron! Boreatwork knows that if I am mistaken I reckon it. You don't because you didn't even raise an argument, you are just the sidewalk bully with the brain of a chicken.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

boreatwork:
It has since been brought to my attention by a third party that Irving himself 3 years later publicly conceded a much lower Dresden Death toll:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/ft ... ualties-01


"_The Times_ of London, July 7, 1966, p. 13. Letter to the Editor.

THE DRESDEN RAIDS

From Mr. David Irving
I must admit that this statement from Mr. David Irving himself seals the thing on the casualties for me. If he admits he is wrong then I must admit that I am wrong with the casualty numbers that I brought forward.

I stand corrected in this regard and I thank boreatwork and Byron for bringing up the correct information in this particular and specific point and do apologise to raise up confusion to the rest of forum members.

Then we can continue with the rest of specifics and general issues on the still debatable necesity of killing inocent civilians in order to win WWII when there is evidence on the futility of this course of action and that better options were open as with 15th Air Force shows.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

The total death-roll, "primarily women and children," was expected to reach
25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the
dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city
squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".
It's obvius that of the total death toll we have still to add the 35,000 missing.

25,000 women and children.

Only a few hundred servicemen.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Strategic bombing during World War II

Post by boredatwork »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
The total death-roll, "primarily women and children," was expected to reach
25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the
dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city
squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".
It's obvius that of the total death toll we have still to add the 35,000 missing.

25,000 women and children.

Only a few hundred servicemen.
Irving's leter is ambiguous - he says "a total of 35,000 people were listed as missing" not "listed as still missing, were the 35,000 missing in addition to the 25,000 dead or were the 35,000 the total reported missing, ~10,000 of which were later confirmed still alive?

Given the wikipedia article Jose had quoted earlier it seems that the later is the case.
According to official German report Tagesbefehl (Order of the Day) no. 47 ("TB47") issued on 22 March 1945 the number of dead recovered by that date was 20,204, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt square, and the total number of deaths was expected to be about 25,000. Another report on 3 April put the number of corpses recovered at 22,096. Three municipal and 17 rural cemeteries outside Dresden recorded up to April 30, 1945 a total of at least 21,895 buried bodies of the Dresden raids, including those cremated on the Altmarkt.[81] A further 1,858 bodies of victims were found during the rebuilding of Dresden between the end of the war and 1966. Since 1989, despite the extensive excavation for new buildings, no war-related bodies have been found. The number of people registered with the authorities as missing was 35,000; around 10,000 of those were later found to be alive. Documents found by the Dresden Historian commission in April 2010 prove at least 22,700 dead, of which 20,100 are known by name.
Post Reply