75 years ago today....

Tony EH

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but AFAIK the Nazis did try to hide some of what they were doing, some of the camps and so on. But I'll admit I don't have a lot of details.

The nazis hid everything they were doing, even from other nazis.

There's a reason the likes of Auschwitz, Chelmno, Sobibor, ect, were located in Poland. Because to the average German in the 40's it might as well have been on the moon.

The vast majority of the Endlosung was information that was on a need to know basis and the vast majority of nazi party members knew nothing of it at all, never mind the likes of Mr and Mrs Schmidt in Koln.

The concentration camps in Germany proper were considered prisons by most German civilians and they contented themselves with believing that whoever was in there was in there for a reason. But in the main, most people thought nothing of it. They may have suspected something was amiss here and there and heard some stories. But few people had actual knowledge.

We have this impression that the Germans, whether they were nazis or not, were in lockstep with each other and knew everything that was going on. The reality was very different indeed. We know more about the nazis today than even most party members did in period.

Wibbs

The Allies didn't even have the full picture of what the nazis were at until very near the end and just after the war. When the photos, film and radio reports came in about Belsen it shocked the world.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

The Allies didn't even have the full picture of what the nazis were at until very near the end and just after the war. When the photos, film and radio reports came in about Belsen it shocked the world.

It even shocked the Germans.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Something I’ve often wondered, if the Germans tried to bomb the English into submission and failed to break English fighting spirit, why did the Americans and English think the exact same would work against the Germans?

They concentrated far too long on cities to the point that German war production was actually rising in the last years despite missing vital resources.

It wasn’t until they targeted logistical infrastructure like rail yards that they began to cripple German resistance.

Why couldn’t they have targeted that sooner? Was it the fear that the Soviets would make good use of German transport infrastructure to drive all the way to the Atlantic in the event the Allies went to war?

peasant

The Dresden bombings managed to stick out through history for quite a few interesting reasons even though there were a lot more horrific bombing attacks in Germany (see operation Gomorrah for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II)

The reasons in no particular order:

- Dresden happened very late in the war. They never had been bombed before, they thought they might just get away with it.

- Dresden was bombed only once...over two days, but most other German bomb targets had been hit several times over the years. So the Dresden bombing is very easy to refer to...no one needs to ask "which one?"

- The Nazi propaganda machinery used this "surprise" bombing to the fullest to demonstrate the "perfidity" of the allies. They claimed that there were no military targets in Dresden (despite it being a strategic railway hub), they claimed 125.000 + casualties (the real figure is about the 25 k mark), they pictured it as a deliberate attack on German culture (there was culture in every bombed German town, Dresden was just that bit more known and famous)

- The East German regime kept up those figures and myths in order to further perpetuate the evil image of western (military) society. Always pointing out at great length that the Sowjets had no hand in this, it was just the bad Brits and Yanks (ignoring the fact that Stalin had expressly demanded the bombing of Dresden to stop Hitler from moving troops to the east through that important railway hub)

- With the wrong figures and facts thus being perpetuated into "common knowledge" and into our times, the senseless slaughter of 125000 innocent civilians, this brutal and cynical attack on a target with no military value, the wanton destruction of a cultural icon...etc...bla, bla...has become a standard point of reference for Neo-Nazis and other right leaning Germans of the non thinking / non-critical headline shouting variety ...their favourite point of what-aboutery when trying to diminish some of the abhorrent crimes of the Nazi regime.

So Dresden was horrible, horrific and devastating. But no more so than all the other horrible things that happened in that war.

It needs to be remembered and discussed...but for the right reasons and not the ones above...particularly not the last one

archer22

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Something I’ve often wondered, if the Germans tried to bomb the English into submission and failed to break English fighting spirit, why did the Americans and English think the exact same would work against the Germans?

They concentrated far too long on cities to the point that German war production was actually rising in the last years despite missing vital resources.

It wasn’t until they targeted logistical infrastructure like rail yards that they began to cripple German resistance.

Why couldn’t they have targeted that sooner? Was it the fear that the Soviets would make good use of German transport infrastructure to drive all the way to the Atlantic in the event the Allies went to war?

What crippled German resistance was the losing of access to their oil supplies,especially Romania.
For example in the final months of the war they had 1500 of the superb ME262 jet fighters but only enough fuel to keep a few dozen in the air...and even then a lot of the pilots were seriously undertrained because of lack of fuel available for training flights.
The tanks such as the awesome Tigers were in the same situation.

Tony EH

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Something I’ve often wondered, if the Germans tried to bomb the English into submission and failed to break English fighting spirit, why did the Americans and English think the exact same would work against the Germans?

They concentrated far too long on cities to the point that German war production was actually rising in the last years despite missing vital resources.

It wasn’t until they targeted logistical infrastructure like rail yards that they began to cripple German resistance.

Why couldn’t they have targeted that sooner? Was it the fear that the Soviets would make good use of German transport infrastructure to drive all the way to the Atlantic in the event the Allies went to war?

Bomber Command policy had a lot to do with destroying Germany as an industrial base forever and reducing her status as a/the leading power in the centre of Europe. The allies wanted to obliterate Germany and never again allow her to become a strong nation that could threaten British and especially American hegemony. Although British power was actually on the wane by the time the war had even started and the 20th Century would see the rise of the "American Empire".

However, a strong Russia put the wind up them (especially the yanks) and before the war had ended attitudes had changed toward the Germans. But while bomb tonnage increased to its highest in the last months of the war, what to do with Germany after it ended was altered drastically. Gone was the original Morganthau plan, which was to see Germany reshaped as an agricultural base devoid of factories, and in its stead was placed the Marshall plan which was to see Germany built back up and used as a bulwark against the Soviets. That obviously couldn't be done if Germany had no means of industry.

So, at the end of the day, despite all of the weasel wording the British employed to try and form public opinion about their bombing campaign over Germany, the reality was that it was simply one of wanton spoliation in many respects.

In the end, it was the bombing of oil facilities did the most damage to Germany's ability to prosecute their war. Once the allies, mainly the Americans, switched to hitting those structures, the German armed forces found their aircraft grounded, their tanks grinding to a halt and their trucks unable to transport men to the front.

Jonybgud

Reading this thread I'm sure of one thing, History is doomed to repeat itself regardless of how many people are aware of it.

It should be mandatory to engage your brain before posting on any thread.

archer22

The Morganthau plan was basically a blueprint for Genocide...but then it was not the only one, Churchill's "Operation Vegetarian" was another and only called of when the western allies gained a foothold in France

Jonybgud

Jonybgud wrote: »

Reading this thread I'm sure of one thing, History is doomed to repeat itself regardless of how many people are aware of it.

It should be mandatory to engage your brain before posting on any thread.

Unlikely. Nuclear weapons put paid to any successful mass conventional war. The chance of another war similar to WW1 or 2 died with the advance of technology. Both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts reinforced the end of such a war occurring again.

Fritzbox

Tony EH wrote: »

The point, however, was that the Luftwaffe wasn't in a position to destroy 85% of Warsaw. It didn't have the aircraft in number or type to do such a thing.

I'm sure that is incorrect. The Luftwaffe had more than enough bombers to flatten a large city - it might just take them a little bit longer than it took the RAF in 1945.

jam_mac_jam

Incredibly sad no matter who was at fault that such a beautiful city full of people could be reduced to dust.

Was it wrong, was it a war crime by the allies. Whatever opinion its another tragedy in the thousands that made up the the second world war. Heartbreaking.

archer22

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Incredibly sad no matter who was at fault that such a beautiful city full of people could be reduced to dust.

Was it wrong, was it a war crime by the allies. Whatever opinion its another tragedy in the thousands that made up the the second world war. Heartbreaking.

There is no doubt but that it was a war crime...they knew the city was packed with refugees and they designed their attack to kill as many as possible.

Tony EH

Fritzbox wrote: »

I'm sure that is incorrect. The Luftwaffe had more than enough bombers to flatten a large city - it might just take them a little bit longer than it took the RAF in 1945.

Perhaps, if they bombed around the clock at the expense of everything else in the campaign they might have been able to. But Warsaw fell too quickly for that and honestly, I don't think the Germans were interested in a totally destroyed Warsaw. Not at that point of the war anyway. It served them no real purpose.

But, Heinkels, Dorniers and (although they weren't used in the campaign) Ju88's simply aren't terribly effective at strategic ops. They just weren't designed for that and their bomb loads were geared more for a tactical nature.

archer22

And the death toll figures were likely in the 200,000 to 300,000 given the huge amount of people packed into the city and the prolonged nature and method of the attack.

But of course Allied apologists will try to minimise the casualties as 20,000 even though those who were there at the time cite way higher figures including the POW quoted farther back.

Fritzbox

Tony EH wrote: »

But, Heinkels, Dorniers and (although they weren't used in the campaign) Ju88's simply aren't terribly effective at strategic ops. They just weren't designed for that and their bomb loads were geared more for a tactical nature.

The were effective enough, as seen in the Battle of Britain. All bombers, no matter how many engines or bombs they carry, are rendered ineffective if they are not properly escorted all the way to the target. One of the most important technical developments that helped bombers during the war was the development of fighter aircraft that had the range to accompany the bomber all the way to the target and back again.

Tony EH

archer22 wrote: »

And the death toll figures were likely in the 200,000 to 300,000 given the huge amount of people packed into the city and the prolonged nature and method of the attack.

But of course Allied apologists will try to minimise the casualties as 20,000 even though those who were there at the time cite way higher figures including the POW quoted farther back.

Nobody believes this to be the case any more and figures in the region of 100,000's sound fanciful.

The most likely figure is around 35,000, with 25,000 being the low ebb that was insisted upon by Frederick Taylor. However, I don't believe that that figure takes into account the "missing, presumed dead".

Either way, 25,000 sounds very low when one takes into account the nature of the bombing, the aircraft used, the firestorm and the sheer amount of people that were in city in February 1945.

Tony EH

Fritzbox wrote: »

The were effective enough, as seen in the Battle of Britain. All bombers, no matter how many engines or bombs they carry, are rendered ineffective if they are not properly escorted all the way to the target. One of the most important technical developments that helped bombers during the war was the development of fighter aircraft that had the range to accompany the bomber all the way to the target and back again.

In relative terms, the blitz was a mickey mouse affair because the Kampfgeshwader were so ineffective at strategic operations. It's one of the weakest parts of the Luftwaffe as a whole and their employment as city bombers was fought against by gruppenfuhrers at the time.

Medium bombers just aren't that good at attacking cities, despite the fact that the Germans used them in such a way.

archer22

Tony EH wrote: »

Nobody believes this to be the case any more and figures in the region of 100,000's sound fanciful.

The most likely figure is around 35,000, with 25,000 being the low ebb that was insisted upon by Frederick Taylor. However, I don't believe that that figure takes into account the "missing, presumed dead".

Either way, 25,000 sounds very low when one takes into account the nature of the bombing, the aircraft used, the firestorm and the sheer amount of people that were in city in February 1945.

A somewhat similar but less intense attack on Hamburg killed 40,000. Hamburg wasn't packed with refugees like Dresden.

So how could the attack on Dresden have killed less then.Dresden also unlike Hamburg had only minimal air defences.Also no Luftwaffe fighters to disrupt the attack on Dresden...Dresden unlike Hamburg was totally defenceless.

Tony EH

archer22 wrote: »

A somewhat similar but less intense attack on Hamburg killed 40,000. Hamburg wasn't packed with refugees like Dresden.

So how could the attack on Dresden have killed less then.Dresden also unlike Hamburg had only minimal air defences.Also no Luftwaffe fighters to disrupt the attack on Dresden...Dresden unlike Hamburg was totally defenceless.

Because not all military actions are comparable. Numerous factors can come into play, which alter the outcomes significantly.

In any case, death tolls are bunkum and are always subject to error, deliberate or otherwise. They are basically just numbers that people can believe or not.

saabsaab

In the early part of the war Britain had few ways of inflicting damage on Germany directly. So the only way they believed was to bomb the cities and accurate bombing was not well very well developed. The idea was to damage war production (this included workers and their families) and their will to fight. In fact the damage to the British airforce was often far greater than the damage inflicted on German war production and stiffened the German will to fight on.

Although it must be said that even a little damage and the resources diverted from the war in Russia must have helped the Soviets early in the war.

It has been said that far more damage to the German war effort would have resulted from using Mosquito fast bombers for pinpoint industrial attacks only and abandoning the carpet bombing approach, at that point in the war,

LincolnsBeard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7bPRMoYuzI

William Legrande

There were many other cities that were reduced to ash by Anglo-American boming raids in 1945 when the war was pretty much already over. Magdeburg and Chemnitz are two that come to mind.

archer22

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7bPRMoYuzI

Respect to Mr Greg and disgust to that revolting apologist sitting next to him.

fryup

as the old saying goes...

"what goes around comes around"

Graces7

The years of my early childhood in England. Cities with a landscape of ruined buildings.

ILoveYourVibes

JupiterKid wrote: »

The destruction wreaked upon Japan and Germany was almost total. Most of their main cities pretty much flattened - the images of Tokyo, Berlin and Dresden after carpet bombing are pretty much as shocking as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that felt the full force of the newly invented atomic bomb.

Almost complete destruction of most critical infrastructure in Germany and Japan too. But both countries rose quickly from the ashes of war to become post-war economic giants.

Both countries paid a very heavy price for being the Axis in the Second World War.

Sometimes the world doesn't need a hero. It needs something monstrous.
Maybe its the only thing to justify being evil ..to defeat evil.....to defeat itself

It had to be done.

Lets hope it never happens again.

Respect to Mr Greg and disgust to that revolting apologist sitting next to him.

People lamenting war ....are never revolting. Its always good when people are repulsed by war.

If you don't want to unleash rotting monsters on the world ...nip the first one in the bud.

fash

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Refusing to sell oil to a country engaged in a war of aggression and acts of genocide against your friends has never been a valid casus belli.

Japan at the time was an aggressive power run by a succession of unstable military governments. The only peace possible with it was through superior force, as the Soviets showed when Zhukov sent it packing at Khalkin Gol and as the US later learned when they had to defeat it in detail. Strategic bombing, conventional or nuclear, may not be nice but it was far nicer than an invasion of the Japanese home Islands would have been

The same applies to Dresden. It was a necessary evil forced on the world by the genocidal aggression of Nazi Germany.

No it wasn't- then only targeted Dresden with fire bombs, a civilian target specifically with a type of weapon aimed at killing as many civilians as possible, because they had run out of military targets at that stage, Germany had been defeated ( and its armies routed) - and the allies needed something to do with their planes besides leave them all at home. Bombing Dresden was of zero benefit to the actual war effort - except to avoid having to explain to the allies' populations that there was no need for bombers any more as there was nothing of value left to bomb.

ILoveYourVibes

fash wrote: »

No it wasn't- then only targeted Dresden with fire bombs, a civilian target specifically with a type of weapon aimed at killing as many civilians as possible, because they had run out of military targets at that stage, Germany had been defeated ( and its armies routed) - and the allies needed something to do with their planes besides leave them all at home. Bombing Dresden was of zero benefit to the actual war effort - except to avoid having to explain to the allies' populations that there was no need for bombers any more as there was nothing of value left to bomb.

Not true. It was a major center for Nazi Germany's rail and road network.


Three weeks prior ..the uk had discovered Auschwitz. They finally got it.

The uk understood what would happen to British citizens if Germany won. They were shocked to find Auschwitz. The only thing that could further shock them was the thought it could be them. And it would have been them.

They didn't want to sacrifice any more Allied troops lives. They wanted Germany to surrender instead of fighting to the last.

19,000 Us troops had just been killed in the Battle of the bulge.

“Those who have unlearned how to cry,” lamented Nobel Prize recipient and Prussian dramatist Gerhart Hauptmann, “will learn it afresh on the destruction of Dresden.”

Plus several right wing sources have mis calculated the dead. Most sources say it was around 25, 000.

The city of Dresden itself today claims it was 25,000. Not the 200,000 k claimed by some sources.

The U.S. Army alone had suffered almost 140,000 casualties from December to January 1945 and 27,000 in the week prior to the Dresden bombing alone—the heaviest losses in the Western Allies’ war against Hitler.

I don't take joy in any of the deaths in the war ...on any side. But be careful what you believe.
https://www.history.com/news/dresden-bombing-wwii-allies

Russia lost 27,000,000 both civilian and military.

Ireland lost 5000 volunteers with the Allies.

Deaths by country.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

ILoveYourVibes

JupiterKid wrote: »

Both countries paid a very heavy price for being the Axis in the Second World War.

They didn't really.

Others paid more ...for doing nothing.